Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

cpwill · Jan 1, 2018

MSgt said:
I understand this completely. You are certainly not alone. But this is because you have been conditioned and are unwittingly holding on to the same prejudice that Americans have experienced since 1979. Iran has and continues to be a favored scapegoat, but the general opinions of Iran are not justified by the facts. Just step back and actually consider this......[snip]....

And, again, none of your read on history in any way defends the OPs claim that Iran has not worked with AQ, which it has. For people who have actually worked this problem set in the IC, this assessmenta rates up there with "Putin is in charge of Russia" and "Afghanistan is not very stable."

MSgt · Jan 1, 2018

cpwill said:
I...know what I'm talking about.

You were conditioned and your MOS in military Intel has nothing to do with it. Because Iran is supposed to be the enemy, the Intel is exploited to fit the narrative. This occurs even at the CIA level where they actually analyze the Intel and scrub it. This is exactly how we exaggerated the Soviet Union's activity around the world during the Cold War.

cpwill said:
Those attacks traced back to Iran...

To this day, there is no empirical evidence that Iran had anything to do with the Beirut bombing. Don't mistake the U.S. Supreme Court's civil ruling for actual guilt.

cpwill said:
...Iran continues to provide aid to militant groups throughout the region...

And why shouldn't they? It's their ****ing region, not ours. The U.S. and Sunni leaders have done far more damage to the region than Iran can ever do. Chastising Iran for its geopolitics is simply a part of the exaggerated scapegoating. And all of this has everything to do with the false narrative of Iran.

cpwill said:
...Iran had no desire to be next on the list...

Also false and disingenuous. Iran was never on any list and Iran and the U.S. knew it. Attacking Iran was always impractical and nobody that mattered had any real interest in doing so.

Supporting insurgent elements came only after Zarqawi began slaughtering Shi'i. Besides, al-Zarqawi saturated suicide bombings and IEDs throughout Shi'a militia territories, which also accounts for American casualties. Remember Fallujah? That was not Iran. In other words, U.S. troops were largely caught between what was developing as a civil war. Simply blaming Iran is disingenuous, especially since it was Iran who offered us assistance and then instructed the Iraqi Shi'i in the south to move out of our way.

And Iran did not suspend it's nuclear program. In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had not disclosed sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities, for which Ahmadinejad began arguing about it's "peaceful" intentions.

cpwill said:
.... Iran delivered him to the border...

Also false and disingenuous. After released from prison in Jordan in 1999, he fled to Pakistan. His then fled across the border to Afghanistan where he met Osama Bin Laden. He happened to be in Iran during 9/11 and then crossed back to Afghanistan to fight Americans. He was wounded fled back across to Iran. In 2002 he turned up in Baghdad supposedly still nursing wounds. He was later reported to be in Syria training jihadists. Sometime after this he turned up in northeastern Iraq and on the other side of the Iranian border where he planned sleeper cells in Baghdad and claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks in Turkey, Morocco, and Jordan. After the U.S. invasion he turned up in Iraq where he targeted Shi'i mosques, civilians, and Americans. His intercepted letter to Osama Bin Laden reported his absolute hatred for the Sunni/Shi'a ulema, the Shi'i, and Americans.

- But, you would have people believe that Shi'a Iran "delivered" Zarqawi? He was also in Syria and Pakistan, two countries that have historically pushed the Sunni agenda. But only Iran, which is in philosophical opposition to the Sunni and their Islamist groups, is supposed to be Zarqawi's partner in crime?

- You would have people believe that, after Iran supported the Northern Alliance against the Sunni Taliban and Sunni Al-Qaeda for years, Shi'a Iran now hung out with Sunni Zarqawi, who rubbed shoulders with Sunni Osama Bin Laden?

This is exactly what I mean about making the Intel fit the narrative. Because he was in Iran, you immediately assume that Iran's government all of a sudden became Sunni handlers despite the complete lack of hard facts and the complete avoidance of the history. Zarqawi's mere presence in Iran is supposed to mean that he and the Shi'a ulema planned to slaughter Americans and members of the Shi'a ulema in Iraq? This is nonsense.

cpwill said:
This is like arguing that, because it was the CIA and SOCOM that took the lead in targeting AQSL, the US has never done so.

Only if you wish Iran to have a hard connection to Hezbollah splinter groups, which there was none in regards to 1983. You can trace Kermit Roosevelt to the CIA, to Dulles, and to Eisenhower. You can not trace the Islamic Jihad organization, to Hezbollah, and then to Iran. No historian can because the path is broken. You ignore the part where Iran's ulema immediately condemned the act and outlawed suicide attacks in Shi'a Islam. This is about the time that Sunni Islamists began adopting suicide attacks as a tactic.

Now, Iran's funding of groups in Syria is a different story. But like I stated, it's their ****ing region and once again we see a theme of protecting Shi'i.

cpwill · Jan 1, 2018

MSgt said:
You were conditioned and your MOS in military Intel has nothing to do with it. Because Iran is supposed to be the enemy, the Intel is exploited to fit the narrative. This occurs even at the CIA level where they actually analyze the Intel and scrub it. This is exactly how we exaggerated the Soviet Union's activity around the world during the Cold War.

To this day, there is no empirical evidence that Iran had anything to do with the Beirut bombing. Don't mistake the U.S. Supreme Court's civil ruling for actual guilt.

And why shouldn't they? It's their ****ing region, not ours. The U.S. and Sunni leaders have done far more damage to the region than Iran can ever do. Chastising Iran for its geopolitics is simply a part of the exaggerated scapegoating. And all of this has everything to do with the false narrative of Iran.

Also false and disingenuous. Iran was never on any list and Iran and the U.S. knew it. Attacking Iran was always impractical and nobody that mattered had any real interest in doing so.

Supporting insurgent elements came only after Zarqawi began slaughtering Shi'i. Besides, al-Zarqawi saturated suicide bombings and IEDs throughout Shi'a militia territories, which also accounts for American casualties. Remember Fallujah? That was not Iran. In other words, U.S. troops were largely caught between what was developing as a civil war. Simply blaming Iran is disingenuous, especially since it was Iran who offered us assistance and then instructed the Iraqi Shi'i in the south to move out of our way.

And Iran did not suspend it's nuclear program. In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had not disclosed sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities, for which Ahmadinejad began arguing about it's "peaceful" intentions.

Also false and disingenuous. After released from prison in Jordan in 1999, he fled to Pakistan. His then fled across the border to Afghanistan where he met Osama Bin Laden. He happened to be in Iran during 9/11 and then crossed back to Afghanistan to fight Americans. He was wounded fled back across to Iran. In 2002 he turned up in Baghdad supposedly still nursing wounds. He was later reported to be in Syria training jihadists. Sometime after this he turned up in northeastern Iraq and on the other side of the Iranian border where he planned sleeper cells in Baghdad and claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks in Turkey, Morocco, and Jordan. After the U.S. invasion he turned up in Iraq where he targeted Shi'i mosques, civilians, and Americans. His intercepted letter to Osama Bin Laden reported his absolute hatred for the Sunni/Shi'a ulema, the Shi'i, and Americans.

- But, you would have people believe that Shi'a Iran "delivered" Zarqawi? He was also in Syria and Pakistan, two countries that have historically pushed the Sunni agenda. But only Iran, which is in philosophical opposition to the Sunni and their Islamist groups, is supposed to be Zarqawi's partner in crime?

- You would have people believe that, after Iran supported the Northern Alliance against the Sunni Taliban and Sunni Al-Qaeda for years, Shi'a Iran now hung out with Sunni Zarqawi, who rubbed shoulders with Sunni Osama Bin Laden?

This is exactly what I mean about making the Intel fit the narrative. Because he was in Iran, you immediately assume that Iran's government all of a sudden became Sunni handlers despite the complete lack of hard facts and the complete avoidance of the history. Zarqawi's mere presence in Iran is supposed to mean that he and the Shi'a ulema planned to slaughter Americans and members of the Shi'a ulema in Iraq? This is nonsense.

Only if you wish Iran to have a hard connection to Hezbollah splinter groups, which there was none in regards to 1983. You can trace Kermit Roosevelt to the CIA, to Dulles, and to Eisenhower. You can not trace the Islamic Jihad organization, to Hezbollah, and then to Iran. No historian can because the path is broken. You ignore the part where Iran's ulema immediately condemned the act and outlawed suicide attacks in Shi'a Islam. This is about the time that Sunni Islamists began adopting suicide attacks as a tactic.

Now, Iran's funding of groups in Syria is a different story. But like I stated, it's their ****ing region and once again we see a theme of protecting Shi'i.

Sure, man. Every data point that you don't like is just Proof How Good The Conspiracy (by CIA, DIA, and NSA collectors against their own analysts) is. Everyone from General McChrystal to E5 HET guys are in on it, and not a single one of them has ever talked, ever. Because That's How Good They Are. That guy really did get out as a Captain-First-Class, and III MEF really is in Florida. And if you don't believe it, well, you were just lied to by the entire Marine Corps, all in a giant plot against you :roll:

MSgt · Jan 2, 2018

cpwill said:
Sure, man. Every data point that you don't like is just Proof How Good The Conspiracy (by CIA, DIA, and NSA collectors against their own analysts) is. Everyone from General McChrystal to E5 HET guys are in on it, and not a single one of them has ever talked, ever. Because That's How Good They Are. That guy really did get out as a Captain-First-Class, and III MEF really is in Florida. And if you don't believe it, well, you were just lied to by the entire Marine Corps, all in a giant plot against you :roll:

Data points exist for every single country on the planet. Analysis means detailing and putting those data points together and seeing a factual picture that makes sense to the data. If you are going to boast an enlisted Intel MOS, you should try to transcend the basics of it. And even most officers do not. They collect local intel and pass on bits. And bits do not make a coherent picture.

What you argue makes absolutely no sense at all to the history; and the actual general Intel analyses out of the CIA or NSA is local in nature and does not hold Iran up as some regional wolf that threatens us. It also does not compliment the political trash of Washington that you have been conditioned to. You are clinging to innuendos, exaggerations, and misconceptions that do not pan out.

- First, the entire region is almost completely made up of the Sunni. Iran holds no sway upon what makes up around 90% of Islam.

- Second, this is Iran's region, not ours. It will do what it feels is in its best interests; and expecting Iran to behave like a good boy, ignore dying Shi'i, so that we can have fun in the desert is foolish. It is also the first step towards seeing everything that Iran does as an attack on us. This is why any bit of data that the CIA collects is seen as "proof" of the traditional narrative. Funny how all the Intel factoids about Sunni governments just get shrugged off among the population, huh? Even with al-Qaeda, IS, Boko Haram, and so many others, we still need Iran to fit that false narrative so that we can remain friends with Sunni governments, huh?

- Third, you would contradict the history of Iran's support for Massoud and the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (while we and those Sunni governments did ****), our attempt to work with Iran by establishing a supply line to Massoud in 2000, Iran's offer to help train new Afghan soldiers after 9/11, and Iran's actual help with Iraq's southern population during the Iraq invasion...just to cling to the big bad wolf narrative.

- Fourth, you would deny the very real Sunni threat upon the U.S., which has come from under every Arab government since the 1980s, just to cling to the narrative that it is really Iran who threatens us. And if you wish to spotlight the Beirut bombing again, in which there is no evidence that the Iranian government was involved, I will simply move to the attack on the USS Liberty, in which the Israeli government was absolutely involved. Oh, but...IRAN...huh?

This narrative exists because we lost our ally in Iran (Shah), maintain allies among the Arab governments, maintain support for Israel, and both Arab and Israeli governments have great interests invested in our continued ignorance. Anybody who unconditionally supports Israel automatically hates Iran. And for some reason, people would rather hate Iran than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Can you guess why at all? This is what the educated call "shutting down."

The Lurker · Jan 2, 2018

cpwill said:
Sure, man. Every data point that you don't like is just Proof How Good The Conspiracy (by CIA, DIA, and NSA collectors against their own analysts) is. Everyone from General McChrystal to E5 HET guys are in on it, and not a single one of them has ever talked, ever. Because That's How Good They Are. That guy really did get out as a Captain-First-Class, and III MEF really is in Florida. And if you don't believe it, well, you were just lied to by the entire Marine Corps, all in a giant plot against you :roll:

That's the Deep State for you. And hey, the former intel vets did talk in the end and say that Iran was not the top terror sponsor.

cpwill · Jan 3, 2018

MSgt said:
Data points exist for every single country on the planet. Analysis means detailing and putting those data points together and seeing a factual picture that makes sense to the data. If you are going to boast an enlisted Intel MOS, you should try to transcend the basics of it. And even most officers do not. They collect local intel and pass on bits. And bits do not make a coherent picture.

Sure. Not all analysts are equal. I was number one in my RS and RO profile for multiple years in a row, handpicked to be the briefer for two MEF CG's, and had multiple relevant Masters' Degrees.

What you argue makes absolutely no sense at all to the history

No, it clashes with the picture you want to believe of Iran. Sadly, that picture is naively generous, and glosses over / outright ignores major disconfirming data points.

the actual general Intel analyses out of the CIA or NSA is local in nature and does not hold Iran up as some regional wolf that threatens us

See, and, I don't want to come off as an arrogant ass, here, but this, too, only demonstrates that you haven't actually read it. Only local, and not regional in nature? Have you ever read the WIRe? SIGINT Perspectives? I can think of half a dozen such pieces offhand, out of both agencies. Ditto DIA/CENTCOM.

Cmon, man. That's like someone telling you that because an M240 is 7.62, an M4 must be also. It's balderdash on it's face. I mean - who do you think the priority targets are for Title 50 Agencies, beholden to the NIPF? Tactical guys?

It also does not compliment the political trash of Washington that you have been conditioned to

I count it as a career high note and a career goal that I have never, and do not intend to ever work in the NCR.

You are clinging to innuendos, exaggerations, and misconceptions that do not pan out.

Not at all. That's why I'm able to cite relevant open-source data backing my claims, whereas you are reduced to bringing up the 1953 counter-coup and 79 Revolution.

First, the entire region is almost completely made up of the Sunni. Iran holds no sway upon what makes up around 90% of Islam.

Fascinating. Have you checked with Hamas on this? How about the Taliban?

Second, this is Iran's region, not ours. It will do what it feels is in its best interests; and expecting Iran to behave like a good boy, ignore dying Shi'i, so that we can have fun in the desert is foolish.

Sure. And what it feels is in it's best interest is draining the superpower (us) most involved in the region by enabling groups that do us harm. Including AQ. It's smart, and it's worked well for them.

It is also the first step towards seeing everything that Iran does as an attack on us.

Nope. Even their support of the Taliban isn't all about that, but also about supporting the Taliban as they fight ISIS-K (Russia does the same). The Shia Land Bridge, pumping money and energy into supporting the PMF, sending Hezbollah into Syria in a big way - none of that is intended as an attack on us; we are an obstacle to regional dominance and an actor about whom they hold deeply paranoid beliefs, making us an enemy.

Funny how all the Intel factoids about Sunni governments just get shrugged off among the population, huh?

:shrug: I couldn't speak to "the population". I know that Jordan, for example, has no version of Hezbollah, and has never hosted AQSL in order to allow them to avoid US targeting.

cpwill · Jan 3, 2018

MSgt said:
Even with al-Qaeda, IS, Boko Haram, and so many others, we still need Iran to fit that false narrative so that we can remain friends with Sunni governments, huh?

Hm. Nigeria isn't a Sunni government (traditionally the Presidency flip-flops from a Southern Christian to a Northern Muslim, and typically the VP is from the other side. Buhari is Muslim, but also very old, and has only been in office for a couple of years. Before that, Jonathan Goodboy (Christian) was in charge for his term and then some, as he had replaced the Muslim President when that guy died in office), nor Iraq/Syria (where the IS established the Caliphate, and where the Shia rule in Baghdad and Damascus). AQ took residence under the Taliban, after fleeing Sudan...

...so I guess you are 1 out of 3, there?

Third, you would contradict the history of Iran's support for Massoud and the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda

Nope. Iran isn't stupid enough to think that they can't support someone now simply because they worked against them in the past. Heck, I wouldn't be astonished if Atta Noor and Dostum were trying to reopen those old lines, given Noor's quasi-dismissal and current conflict with Ghani.

you would deny the very real Sunni threat upon the U.S., which has come from under every Arab government since the 1980s, just to cling to the narrative that it is really Iran who threatens us

:lol: the critique here in this thread is that Iran has supported the very real Sunni threat actors who have killed thousands of Americans on US soil. Making something the centerpiece of an argument =/= ignoring it.

You seem to have this weird, zero-sum idea in your head where, if Sunni are bad, therefore Shia have to be good (or visa versa, the position you project onto me). Pakistan is a two-faced whore, with American blood on its hands, as assuredly as Iran. Jordan is a pretty stable, solid ally - but Qatar? They play every side. Ditto Oman - hell, it's Omani policy. UAE has been solid recently, but also has domestic issues. The Saudi Government - especially the new Crown Prince, who, if he pulls this grand project of his off, will deserve to rank with Lee Kuan Yew - has been pretty good about working with us to clear out VEO elements who also pose a threat to them (this includes AQ and ISIS), but is willing to turn a blind eye to those elements who pose a problem for Iran.

I will simply move to the attack on the USS Liberty, in which the Israeli government was absolutely involved. Oh, but...IRAN...huh?

You can always trust those who insist Iran is the Good Guy to eventually come back to Mean Ole Israel. Are they the ones responsible for the the CIA, NSA, DIA, CENTCOM, and DOD Conspiracy To Produce False Intelligence To Convince CPWILL Iran Is A Bad Actor?

Anybody who unconditionally supports Israel automatically hates Iran. And for some reason, people would rather hate Iran than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Can you guess why at all?

Because people like to think in simple narratives of White Hats and Black Hats - like your attempts to juxtapose Shia and Sunni levels of goodness/badness and suggest a negative correlation between the two. Reality is more difficult, and involves imperfect actors.

cpwill · Jan 3, 2018

The Lurker said:
That's the Deep State for you. And hey, the former intel vets did talk in the end and say that Iran was not the top terror sponsor.

Daggum right, man. Doggone Deep State, turning the frogs gay and stealing our manly essences with chem trails.

MSgt · Jan 4, 2018

cpwill said:
Sure. Not all analysts are equal. I was number one in my RS and RO profile for multiple years in a row, handpicked to be the briefer for two MEF CG's, and had multiple relevant Masters' Degrees.

And this is why you shut down. I'm not sure what you think all this is supposed to mean, but I don't want to argue with you over this. Look...

- I was the LCC chief at MARFORCOM (2004-2007), where I managed the DMS (Defense Message System), ensured the proper dissemination of SIPR & NIPR Flash messages between Pentagon & lower MEF commands, the CIA, and NATO forces.

- My last team in Afgahnistan (2011-2012) consisted of five Intel Lieutenants and one Sergeant.

You know what this amounts too? Really nothing. Reports, full of data points and individual event factoids, were received and sent off. Nothing really in the world of analysis unless it meant assuming local possible threats. But PowerPoints get built upon these reports, which include false conclusions, and they often ignore the reality of the history.

My point here is that military members often begin to believe that their very small experience defines the whole and means something greater than it does. In uniform, we are merely tools who serve each other. This is true for Grunts, Intel, Comms, and Supply. Your career, which was almost entirely based on merely passing on information from other sources, does not amount to much in the big picture.

cpwill said:
No, it clashes with the picture you want to believe of Iran. Sadly, that picture is naively generous, and glosses over / outright ignores major disconfirming data points.

It clashes with the truth. Historians of the Middle East and American Foreign Policy have access to the same de-classified material, records, and history. Just about all of the perspective on Iran is based on a grudge and "data points" are used to reinforce that perspective. Your world perspective is largely defined by bias and you have been conditioned to believe that select data points enlightens you. You may as well declare that since the data point states that the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, then the Saudi government ordered 9/11. Of course, you know better. Some, because you are smart enough, but mostly because the U.S. government has not built upon a false narrative for decades that pushes the American population towards recognizing the Sunni issues. Somewhere between a data point and the big picture you shut down and veer towards the false narrative of Iran.

As far as glossing over, you are the one who continues to believe that there is a connection between Iran and the Beirut Bombing, despite the absolute absence of hard facts and evidence. I'm not glossing over anything. The actual facts DO NOT fit the narrative that Iran is the big bad wolf that threatens the region. The facts actually contradict that narrative. If Iran simply disappeared right now, what would we have left in the MENA? Pretty much everything that is wrong in the MENA.

MSgt · Jan 4, 2018

cpwill said:
...so I guess you are 1 out of 3, there?

And this is exactly what I meant about your basic "data points" and you shutting down. Instead of replying to what I stated, you veered off in search of "data points" to create a false argument. Boko Haram, Baathists, Taliban, IS, and Al-Qaeda all follow the Sunni theme of Islam for practical, religious, and political reasons. This alone places the Iranian government in direct philosophical and religious opposition and it is not the Iranian government that is slaughtering the MENA population for their beliefs.

cpwill said:
Nope. Iran isn't stupid enough to think that they can't support someone now simply because they worked against them in the past.

Again, this avoids the history. The hierarchy of the Iranian ulema, which is the government, are in direct opposition of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's philosophical and religious intentions. They will not betray their religious thought. We are talking about a government where even Khomeini approved of secret talks with the U.S. in 1979-80, but absolutely refused to deal with Saudi Arabia, on the grounds of its Sunniism. They opposed the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, based on their Sunniism. They were willing to ally with the U.S. against the Taliban, based on their Suniism. In the mean time, the Saudi government, despite continuing to fund extremest Sunni madrasas all over the world, pushes the idea of the Iranian narrative because it suits their needs. Israel pushes the idea of the Iranian narrative because it suits their local needs. And we, despite knowing this knowledge continue to push the Iranian narrative because Conservatives blindly support Israel no matter what and our politicians know it.

cpwill said:
:lol: the critique here in this thread is that Iran has supported the very real Sunni threat actors who have killed thousands of Americans on US soil.

?!.....This false declaration stems from a Netanyahu speech in which he declared that Iran is responsible for killing thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was and is an exaggeration. Exaggeration the declaration to "American soil" not only contradicts facts, but is a straight lie. Do you see how you are largely basing your perspective on a designed narrative? For a while, just months ago, there were Conservatives who gravitated towards the "data point" that Iran was sailing a fleet of war ships to the Gulf of Mexico.

cpwill said:
You can always trust those who insist Iran is the Good Guy to eventually come back to Mean Ole Israel.

I never stated that Iran is a "good guy." Iran is as "good" as we are. The difference is that the European West, Sunni governments, and America have done far more damage to the MENA than Iran can ever even imagine doing under Islamism. Yet, you would paint them as the "bad" guy in their own region even as the House of Saud creates the very terrorist monsters that threaten us and their own governments. As for Israel...

- It was five Sunni governments that attacked Israel in 1948.
- It was the Arab League that created the PLO.
- It was Egypt and Syria that attacked Israel in 1973, in which other Arab nations eventually piled on.
- It is Saudi Arabia that funds extremist Sunni madrasas that push the Palestinian agenda.

But Israel needs Iran to be that enemy because of Hezbollah, an organization that was fully organized only in 1985, which, coincidentally, coincided with the beginning of the Iran-Contra Affair where we were working with Iran to help move Hezbollah to release hostages. Israel encourages the U.S. to keep clinging to that false Iranian narrative because it unites a sense of "defense," despite Israel being surrounded by Sunni enemies who only behave because we pay them to. And the funny thing is that even with Saudi Arabia's funding of extremism, which manifests into terrorist attacks upon the U.S. with Israel as an excuse (9/11 comes to mind), you still prefer Iran, with its local Hezbollah proxy and more defensive nature against Israel, to be the actual threat.

History and analysis matters, not arbitrary "data points" that help us create a narrative we desire.

cpwill said:
Are they the ones responsible for the the CIA, NSA, DIA, CENTCOM, and DOD Conspiracy To Produce False Intelligence To Convince CPWILL Iran Is A Bad Actor?

This is disingenuous and I am going to call it too a lie. Don't pretend to be able to name drop to me. There is not a single report that you have ever read that states that, despite the reality and truth smacking you directly in the face every single day across the region, that it is secretly Iran that is masterminding it all. It's just a very, very, stupid thing to state and you go too far. You are wrong, especially when you start exaggerating yourself into just lying.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2018

MSgt said:
And this is why you shut down. I'm not sure what you think all this is supposed to mean, but I don't want to argue with you over this. Look...

- I was the LCC chief at MARFORCOM (2004-2007), where I managed the DMS (Defense Message System), ensured the proper dissemination of SIPR & NIPR Flash messages between Pentagon & lower MEF commands, the CIA, and NATO forces.

Well that would explain why you thought them locally focused.

My last team in Afgahnistan (2011-2012) consisted of five Intel Lieutenants and one Sergeant.

Neat. And if I were to insist to you that the Taliban did not consider us an enemy in Afghanistan, your response would be.....

...likely about online with my response to you, when you claim the same about Iran.

You know what this amounts too? Really nothing. Reports, full of data points and individual event factoids, were received and sent off. Nothing really in the world of analysis unless it meant assuming local possible threats.

Yup. Especially with flash messages. My world was heavy on analysis, both in incorporating others in the interagency, and in developing our own. When you say that the CIA, NSA, DIA, et. al. don't collect against Iran as a regional threat, I find that laughable for the same reason that someone's insistence that there have never been Marines sent to Afghanistan would be laughable to you - because you've been there, seen that.

So, if you still have a TS//SCI and access to JWICS, go hop on the WIRe. Hop on the Pulse. Hop on the Source. Or, if you don't want to read papers, but instead want:

PowerPoints get built upon these reports

then go to CENTCOM, or the CJCS Portal.

You will see that A) these entities absolutely cover down on Iran at a regional level B) they are absolutely a threat and C) they absolutely enable other enemies of ours - including Sunni enemies.

Your career, which was almost entirely based on merely passing on information from other sources, does not amount to much in the big picture.

Meh. I'd say I've been lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time to see some interesting things; and while I've worked at the Tactical Level, I've done Operational and Strategic level work as well (even predominantly, really, as I wasn't able get back to a Victor unit after my first :-/).

However, I know enough to know what the IC thought of this particular issue, and the OP is incorrect, and the CIA is right.

It clashes with the truth

It does not. It clashes with what you want Iran to be, instead of what they are.

Historians of the Middle East and American Foreign Policy have access to the same de-classified material, records, and history.

:lol: Historians and FP writers are as caught by their biases and wishes as much as anyone else who hasn't been trained to identify and mitigate them.

However, between the two of us, I'm the one able to actually cite those declassified materials, records, and history..... and you're the one reduced to ignoring them, or claiming that they are all part of some grand conspiracy, or claiming that they are all the result of mental conditioning :roll:

You may as well declare that since the data point states that the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, then the Saudi government ordered 9/11.

If we had material demonstrating that they had done so, then I would probably argue that, as that would be what the evidence pointed to. Just so with Iran; we have the evidence, ergo, the conclusions follow from that, rather than what would be more convenient.

you are the one who continues to believe that there is a connection between Iran and the Beirut Bombing, despite the absolute absence of hard facts and evidence

They lost that battle in court already, man. I've linked you the evidence before (and you ignored it). Their guilt (and they are guilty) of being behind the 1983 Beiruit bombing, however, has no relevance to whether or not they chose to lend aid to AQ in 2001/2002.

If Iran simply disappeared right now, what would we have left in the MENA?

The Taliban would lose a backer (though a small one), and AQSL would lose a protective cover, as well as a regional enabler. The Huthi would lose their major backer. Hezbollah would be able to exist as an independent entity, as it is pretty much self funding. The shia militias in Iraq currently running to take over that country would lose a major backer, the KRG would lose a partial opponent. Saudi Arabia would become more willing to target Sunni VEOs abroad, we'd have less of a threat in Bahrain, Assad would lose a major backer...

MSgt · Jan 4, 2018

This needed to be addresses separately...

cpwill said:
Not at all. That's why I'm able to cite relevant open-source data backing my claims, whereas you are reduced to bringing up the 1953 counter-coup and 79 Revolution.

I have presented you far more than just a passing reference to the 1953 and 179 events, for which you have avoided in order to cling to the false narrative. You are being disingenuous and the posts are here for all to read. Your open-sourced data holds exaggerations, opinionated commentary, and avoids context. For example…

cpwill said:
Fascinating. Have you checked with Hamas on this? How about the Taliban?

1) The Hamas issue is geopolitical in nature and is not about the U.S. Iran’s selective support for Hamas against Israel also coincides with Iran’s support for Syria’s Assad against Sunni groups like Hamas. Welcome to Middle Eastern geopolitical confusion, especially in regards to Israel, in which all governments politically exploit. This in no way means that Iran seeks to sponsor Sunni extremist groups throughout, who, by the way, expressly hate the Shi'a as heretics.

2) The Taliban connection has always been blown out of proportion and is mostly garbage. Thomas Joscelyn, the author of the article in your link, assumes too much. He too, has taken a "data point" and thrown it against he false narrative by concluding that Iran has simply supported the Taliban since 2001. This is not true at all. But this too would be geopolitical in nature, lacks context, and is not about the U.S.

- First, Khairkhwa’s supposed contact with “Iranians” is entirely based on his own reporting after being captured in Pakistan; and it implies that Iran’s government is whole. It is not. For example, most of the Shi’a ulema inside Iran do not agree with how much power Khamenei has over their democracy and most argue against Khomeini’s “government of the jurists.” Another example, President Khatami had to dispatch Army Generals to a border Revolutionary Guard unit to stop them from firing artillery upon U.S. troops in 2003. Another example, the Revolutionary Guard is often at odds with the Iranian government and holds an allegiance to Khomeini’s vision and the more radical of the Shi’a ulema. So when it comes to Khairkhwa's contact with "Iranians," one must consider the context and what that even meant. For this author (Joscelyn), it simply means that Iran gets to fit the narrative by focusing only on that "data point."

- Second, support for Shi’i militia in Iraq against Sunni terrorism (Zarqawi) and later actual support for the Taliban organization in 2012 have everything to do with Iran covering its bases for stability. Even earlier contact with Khairkhwa would have coincided with the U.S./Iranian plan to open a supply line to Massoud against the Taliban before he was assassinated. This is called covering bases. Iran doesn't trust the U.S., and the U.S. doesn't trust Iran. This is largely based on a grudge that has been exploited by both government's officials. In the reality, the Shia in Iraq simply offer stability in the west; and the Taliban now simply offer stability against IS, and whoever else, in the east. One might consider where we would be with Afghanistan right now had Rice and Bush not denied Iran the ability to help in 2001 (as was the CIA plan since early 2000).

*Seeing “data points” in terms of blacks and whites is exactly why you can’t see past the false narrative.

Fearandloathing · Jan 4, 2018

MSgt said:
The article is correct and this thread is full of ignorance, which is based entirely on the bad diplomatic habits of our government, which has created great misinformation and shaped a false viewpoint among the population.

I have to agree.

It seems it's content is not welcome by a certain demographic. I have to say I have NO background on this story (and don't want one) but you posts have citations while your opponents don't or offer silly ****.

My country is amid measures trying to restore diplomatic relations with Iran, as we fired them six years ago. I sincerely doubt Trudeau and his band of politically correct ministers would have any interest in restoring relations if Iran were a hot bed of terrorism

cpwill · Jan 4, 2018

MSgt said:
And this is exactly what I meant about your basic "data points" and you shutting down. Instead of replying to what I stated, you veered off in search of "data points" to create a false argument.

You were factually wrong. That is not anyone's fault but your own.

Boko Haram, Baathists, Taliban, IS, and Al-Qaeda all follow the Sunni theme of Islam for practical, religious, and political reasons. This alone places the Iranian government in direct philosophical and religious opposition

Not necessarily. Their primary opponent among the VEO's is ISIS. They are willing to support others (the Taliban, for example) to fight ISIS. Nation-state wise, they have three major opponents: the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and are willing to support a variety of Sunni and Shia actors in order to make life difficult for them. As I already showed you with linked evidence, which you carefully deleted from your reply so you wouldn't have to deal with it.

The simple "Shia v Sunni" narrative doesn't match reality on the ground, and Iran is a very sophisticated Realpolitik player; they are fine with enabling someone who will be the enemy tomorrow in order to defeat the enemy today.

and it is not the Iranian government that is slaughtering the MENA population for their beliefs.

That's ironic. Has someone told the protesters on Iranians streets, or the people trying to take cover in Syrian cities that? They'd probably like to hear your rose-colored view of the people oppressing/abusing/slaughtering them.

Again, this avoids the history. The hierarchy of the Iranian ulema, which is the government, are in direct opposition of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's philosophical and religious intentions. They will not betray their religious thought.

That's an interesting assumption. Given that the evidence directly contradicts your attempts to apply it, how do you think it should be modified?

Perhaps you should take more than a one-dimensional approach?

They opposed the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, based on their Sunniism. They were willing to ally with the U.S. against the Taliban, based on their Suniism.

Iran has supported the [url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/whats-between-the-taliban-and-iran/]Taliban for years. Simplistic (and self defeating, for Iran. Why would they not do something smart, especially if it hobbled their enemies) "no-they-wouldn't-do-that-because-Sunni" claims notwithstanding.

According to the DoD report to Congress:

... Iran’s support for the Taliban was part of its “grand strategy” to challenge “US influence.” Although there was “historic enmity” between the two sides, the Pentagon said, support for the Taliban “complements Iran’s strategy of backing many groups to maximize its influence while also undermining US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) objectives by fomenting violence.”...

Gosh, that's interesting. That sounds exactly like what cpwill described. Almost as if he knew what he was talking about. Well, maybe this is just because the DOD is a bunch of war-hungry-mongers, eager to provoke conflict. They are probably part of the same conspiracy as the CIA. Surely the State Department:

Iran has arranged arms shipments to select Taliban members, including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives. In 2012, the Iranians shipped a large number of weapons to Kandahar, Afghanistan, aiming to increase its influence in this key province.... the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force (IRGC-QF) “trained Taliban elements on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets...

.

Gee, that's so weird. That also sounds just like what cpwill is saying. This is crazy pants!!! Don't the Iranians know that the Taliban are Sunni (well, if you read Ahmed Rashid, he points out they are a sort of interesting mixture of Wahhabism and Neo-Deobandism, which makes sense, given the geography), and they aren't allowed to use Sunni as proxy actors because Ulema??!??

Even the Treasury Department thinks that your claim that Iran will refuse to use Sunni actors as proxies because they are Sunni does not override the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2018

MSgt said:
cpwilll said:

the critique here in this thread is that Iran has supported the very real Sunni threat actors who have killed thousands of Americans on US soil.

Click to expand...

?!.....This false declaration stems from a Netanyahu speech in which he declared that Iran is responsible for killing thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

:raises eyebrow: No, I am referring to Iran's support of the very real Sunni threat actors who killed thousands of Americans in Washington DC and New York.

If you want to argue over whether or not Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shia groups (in Iraq), which [were] killing our troops (according to CENTCOM, at least 500 that we know of between 2005 and 2011, well, I'll let you argue with the CJCS at the time over that. Those Qods Force Senior Officers we caught in Iraq working with Shia militants targeting US Troops notwithstanding. :roll:

Do you see how you are largely basing your perspective on a designed narrative?

I am basing my perspective on having dealt with this problem professionally for years.

For a while, just months ago, there were Conservatives who gravitated towards the "data point" that Iran was sailing a fleet of war ships to the Gulf of Mexico.

If so, they were being stupid. The Iranian naval threat isn't a Blue Water fleet, but a swarm of small vessels.

you would paint them as the "bad" guy in their own region even as the House of Saud creates the very terrorist monsters that threaten us and their own governments

See, that's the point I'm making. The problems in Saudi Arabia are irrelevant to the question of whether or not Iran views us as an enemy and responds correspondingly. The two are not inversely correlated.

This is disingenuous and I am going to call it too a lie. Don't pretend to be able to name drop to me. There is not a single report that you have ever read that states that

Yeah?

Tell me more about what I've read, guy-with-SIPR-access who thought that the CIA and NSA didn't do regional analysis or reporting on Iran, but only local issues.

, despite the reality and truth smacking you directly in the face every single day across the region, that it is secretly Iran that is masterminding it all

I've never claimed Iran is masterminding everything that occurs in the Middle East. You were the one who suggested there is a grand conspiracy inside the CIA to convince intel analysts that Iran is a bad actor. Cmon, man.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2018

MSgt said:
...

Re-reading the thread, I see that I smashed by approach to you with my approach to Deep State Guy, and was needlessly flippant in my tone. You deserve an apology for me being rude, and you have it.

MSgt · Jan 4, 2018

cpwill said:
You were factually wrong.

Nothing I stated had anything to do with your reply of correction, therefore there was no "fact" for you to correct. You are being dishonest again.

cpwill said:
...As I already showed you with linked evidence, which you carefully deleted from your reply so you wouldn't have to deal with it.

I addressed your links in detail in a separate post because you seem to want hinge your argument around those two. I trashed one of them for what it was largely worth. You are being dishonest again. It is you who have cast aside the inconvenience of the history I have presented, for favor of shallow "data points" that contradict the big picture.

cpwill said:
Has someone told the protesters on Iranians streets, or the people trying to take cover in Syrian cities that?

Iranian protesters in Iran have nothing to do with you, the United States, or what I declared. People dead in a Syrian Civil War, in which many international players are involved, have nothing to do with what I declared. And should Iran not be involved with something going on in their own backyard? You are being dishonest again.

cpwill said:
Given that the evidence directly contradicts your attempts to apply it...

It is a fact and the scholarly evidence is very clear on this.

cpwill said:
Perhaps you should take more than a one-dimensional approach?

Your Iranian narrative is the one-dimensional approach.

cpwill said:
Iran has supported the [url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/whats-between-the-taliban-and-iran/]Taliban for years.

This declares exactly what I have already stated, which is that Iran's contact with the Taliban is entirely geopolitical. Aren't we leaving? Your second link is merely a repeat of the link I trashed earlier. You are being dishonest again.

cpwill said:
According to the DoD report to Congress:
That sounds exactly like what cpwill described.

It is not what cpwill has tried to describe at all. The DOD report merely illustrates more of the same widely-understood Iranian policy since the early 1980s. Every single Foreign Policy historian and expert will agree on this. Seeking to compete with the U.S.' influence by trying to create a pan-Islamic unity in their own region goes back to Khomeini. Even Iranians discovered early that this idea was absurd. But it is not a policy of attack upon the U.S., which is exactly the false narrative that cpwill has argued. Your second link from the State Department is also just a repeated link. And you present it without understanding context. Iran's later developed relationship with Taliban leaderships is entirely about the knowledge that the U.S. is not staying forever, has not managed to bring stability, and now Iran is stuck dealing with what is going to come next. Again, easily avoided had the U.S. accepted Iran's help in 2001, as it did in 2000.

Do you see how context works? Context is exactly how you get from a "data point" to a proper assessment and conclusion. THIS is analysis and this is what our Intel community lacks, especially when in uniform. Intel must be measured against and applied towards the context of history.

cpwill said:
Well, maybe this is just because the DOD is a bunch of war-hungry-mongers, eager to provoke conflict. They are probably part of the same conspiracy as the CIA.

It's about habit. It's about a promotion of an enemy for its politics and the convenience of exploiting issues in order to arrive at a place that has little or nothing to do with the issues being exploited. We fought an entire Cold War, based on an ideology in which our national institutions wrapped "data points" around. We fought through Vietnam by pushing intel pieces together to make a picture that did not match the history and we avoided context. We invaded Iraq based on "data points" that contradicted what our intel services knew and even our military knew (General Zinni) since at least 1999. And we have been doing this with Iran since the Hostage Crisis, while avoiding the inconvenient truths about the Sunni dictatorships we were supporting.

This is a very distorted, unfortunate, confusing, and twisted up history. And the reality of it escapes you because you cling to the BS of an average military guy who was always taught that Iran is the big bad wolf and you seek factoids from isolated events to reinforce that narrative.

MSgt · Jan 4, 2018

cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow: No, I am referring to Iran's support of the very real Sunni threat actors who killed thousands of Americans in Washington DC and New York.

So, an after-the-fact collaboration with the Revolutionary Guard? As I stated, the Revolutionary Guard are frequently at odds with their government; and maintain great autonomy by politically supporting the more conservative of the Shi'a ulema. There is a long history of the Revolutionary Guard sabotaging the political efforts of all of Iran's presidents (except, I believe, Ahmenadejad). CONTEXT matters.

cpwill said:
If you want to argue over whether or not....

There is nothing to argue. Militias and all of these organizations eventually often take on their own agendas. This is why there are so many splinter groups. But, again, CONTEXT matters. Supporting the Shi'a began because of Zarqawi's assaults on Shi'a Mosques and Shi'i. Over time, of course Americans are going to be targeted. I'm still failing to see the big bad wolf of it all. No Americans in Iraq, no Americans killed. Welcome to war in another person's region.

cpwill said:
I am basing my perspective on having dealt with this problem professionally for years.

I know you are. It may be time to move forward. I held the same perspective one time. Then, matters stopped making sense. I began to read peer reviewed books, study the region's history and American Foreign Policy, and ****ing learned to grow past the BS.

cpwill said:
See, that's the point I'm making. The problems in Saudi Arabia are irrelevant to the question of whether or not Iran views us as an enemy and responds correspondingly. The two are not inversely correlated.

Since when has this been your point!? You have consistently held to the false narrative of Iran, which contradicts the historical truths that it is, in fact, the Sunni governments and their fanatical offspings, who are the threat throughout the region and to the Unites States. Iran's reactions are just that - reactions. They view us as an enemy for the same reason we view them as an enemy. It is based on a grudge and is politically convenient. I find it very odd that you can't see the transition since 9/11 in regards to Iran. Iran went from actively fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to fifteen years later looking to the Taliban to bring stability in their east. Iran went from offering to help with Afghanistan to being labeled a member of the "Axis of Evil," simply because it does not like Israel. And how many Arab countries actually invaded Israel? Iran went from supporting the U.S. invasion in Iraq, to arming Shi'a militias against Zarqawi, to fifteen years later looking towards Iraqi Shi'i to bring stability in their west.

cpwill said:
Yeah? Tell me more about what I've read, guy-with-SIPR-access who thought that the CIA and NSA didn't do regional analysis or reporting on Iran, but only local issues.

Well, the CIA and NSA does do regional analyses. It's largely themed around preconceptions, lacks historical context, and scrubbed to fit a political agenda. The best Intel consists of only "data points" or event reporting. For a depth in analysis, look for historians and policy experts to apply that to the context. For example, Itel will tell you that Hitler just invaded Poland. A historian will tell you why so that you can gain perspective and deal.

cpwill said:
I've never claimed Iran is masterminding everything that occurs in the Middle East.

That is exactly a piece of the traditional Iranian narrative. As I have stated, Iran gets blamed even by the media for local events like the Oklahoma bombing. Israel seeks to toss Iran into the spotlight when ever a Palestinian throws a rock. After 9/11, Bush flies out Saudi royals (rightfully so) and tosses Iran into the Axis of Evil. In the mean time, anything that Iran actually does do gets exaggerated into some grand aggressive regional plan that is not only inconceivable and impractical, but is irrational. It's BS.

Though the Iranian/Al-Qaeda connection of late is interesting. Nonsensical, since part of Zawahiri's Al-Qaeda philosophy is to also oppose the Shi'a (by which Zarqawi celebrated), but interesting. It immediately screams Revolutionary Guard faction, much like the idiots who thought they could launch artillery at the U.S. in 2003 who had to be stopped by Khatami who rushed a General to their position.

The Lurker · Jan 5, 2018

cpwill said:
Re-reading the thread, I see that I smashed by approach to you with my approach to Deep State Guy, and was needlessly flippant in my tone. You deserve an apology for me being rude, and you have it.

It's The Lurker. And you shouldn't just trust what your government and mainstream media tell you.

Edit: Especially a mainstream media that pushes the "Russia-gate" stuff.

The Lurker · Jan 5, 2018

MSgt said:
Though the Iranian/Al-Qaeda connection of late is interesting. Nonsensical, since part of Zawahiri's Al-Qaeda philosophy is to also oppose the Shi'a (by which Zarqawi celebrated), but interesting. It immediately screams Revolutionary Guard faction, much like the idiots who thought they could launch artillery at the U.S. in 2003 who had to be stopped by Khatami who rushed a General to their position.

That was already debunked. There is no Iranian/Al-Qaeda connection. Look here:

Translated Doc Debunks Narrative of Al Qaeda-Iran ‘Alliance’ | The American Conservative

MSgt · Jan 5, 2018

The Lurker said:
That was already debunked. There is no Iranian/Al-Qaeda connection. Look here:

Translated Doc Debunks Narrative of Al Qaeda-Iran ‘Alliance’ | The American Conservative

This makes MUCH more sense. My head was spinning about for a bit. Thanks for this...

For many years, major U.S. institutions ranging from the Pentagon to the 9/11 Commission have been pushing the line that Iran secretly cooperated with Al Qaeda both before and after the 9/11 terror attacks. But the evidence for those claims remained...always highly questionable. The mainstream media claimed to have its “smoking gun”—a CIA document written by an unidentified Al Qaeda official...

The Associated Press reported...
The Wall Street Journal said
NBC News wrote...
Former Obama National Security Council spokesman Ned Price,The Atlantic, went even further, asserting...

But none of those media reports were based on any careful reading of the document’s contents...doesn’t support the media narrative of new evidence of Iran-Al Qaeda cooperation, either before or after 9/11, at all.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I have been trying to argue and what the point of this thread was. The Washington, Pentagon, and media-driven narrative about Iran, which goes back decades, has always been false. It is just like what the documents reveal about our Cold War conduct, Vietnam War legitimization, and even the the 2003 Iraq invasion. Themes of an enemy always push our leaders and media to look for "smoking guns" or "data points" to fit the theme, thereby fulfilling the "we knew it!" scenario.

1) Iran's focus on Israel is geopolitical and Iranians didnt even care about Israel until the Lebanese Civil. War when Shi'i were killed and Khomeini politicized it.

2) Iran's focus on supporting Massoud against the Taliban for years, then agreeing to assist the CIA by establishing an Iranian-secure supply route to Massoud in 2000, contradicts the whole idea that Iran simply turned around to support the Taliban and Al-Qaeda after 9/11. There is also the fact that Tehran's candlelight vigil represented the region's largest crowd of sympathizers after 9/11. We got no such response from any Arab "ally." But any contact with the Taliban, since, would be about Afghanistan, a bordering unstable country, and would be geopolitical. Even the U.S. understood that it had to be Massoud to take control of Afghanistan, because he understood that the country could only be ruled through local autocracies. Since we all know Pakistan is going to exploit Afghanistan for its own India purposes So who does Iran have to work with after we leave?

3) Iran's "meddling" in Iraq, a country they border and offered publicly to help, after Zarqawi began slaughtering Shi'a did result in troop deaths. Sucks, but that is war and Iran did not travel across the region or into our territory to simply kill Americans. Again, it's the Shi'i in Iraq, the largest population, that was always going to be the base of future stability. We know it, which is why the government leans heavily toward the Shi'i, and Iran has always known it. And with IS rising up to exploit the instability between Iraq and Syria, who did Iran have to work with after we "left?"

The Iranian narrative goes back to the Hostage Crisis. And just about every single President has doubled down on the idea that Iran is the regional tyrant who waits in the shadows to pounce upon Israel and Arab governments. The big joke here is that...

- Israel had experienced multiple invasions by Arab governments.
- It was Iraq that invaded Iran and then Kuwait.
- It is from these Arab countries that international terrorist organizations were/are born.
- Israel has attacked into Lebanon and Egypt.
- The U.S. is guilty of constant meddling across the region (to include Iran) throughout the Cold War and celebrating dictatorships.
- The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

It seems to me that one does not really need a focused education on these matters to see the very obvious. The only one that presents itself as not being the great threat to the region's stability is Iran. Yet, one American President after another, one Israeli President after another, one Arab government after another, and every single Sunni extremist group chooses to spotlight Iran's geopolitical activities as "proof" or "evidence" of an Iranian hand that spreads across the region and is secretly behind anything that we can scapegoat it for.

MSgt · Jan 5, 2018

cpwill said:
Re-reading the thread, I see that I smashed by approach to you with my approach to Deep State Guy, and was needlessly flippant in my tone. You deserve an apology for me being rude, and you have it.

Well, damn. I don't know what your argument is now and what responses and replies mattered to our discussion. You started making argument out of every sentence. Allow me to try to narrow down...

- You declared that the original post piece was wrong, despite the very real history that declares it true. There is not a single peer-reviewed Middle East historian or American Foreign Policy historian that has branded Iran as the grand terrorist sponsor and regional terror that our government, Israel, and Arab governments constantly seek to present.

- Your "evidence" seems to be based on insisting that Iran and Al-Qaeda collaborated before 9/11 and after, using a source that was inaccurate in its claims. This too would contradict the known history. I can see a Taliban contact much later, based on a neighboring border, but not with Al-Qaeda.

- Then you used the fact that because Iranian-supplied militias did kill Americans (the numbers are widely assumed from 500 to over 1000) in Iraq, it is evidence that Iran is the actual bad guy that the false traditional narrative has criminally insisted upon for decades, which is in opposition to the accurate original post piece, the actual trend of evidence, and the historical trend.

- In reply to my statement that it is not Iran who slaughters across the MENA, you used the dead in Syria and some dead protesters in Tehran as evidence that Iran does slaughter across the region, thereby alluding to that false narrative.

- In reply to my statement that "even with al-Qaeda, IS, Boko Haram, and so many others, we still need Iran to fit that false narrative so that we can remain friends with Sunni governments," you obtusely declare my fact wrong by mentioning a government or two and some individuals who are not Sunni.

- Then you declare that

- Then you accuse me of using "conspiracy" tactics to avoid the reality, despite the reality clearly not being about a conspiracy, rather a very long tradition of making "data points" and events fit a designed narrative until we get to the point that we stop questioning.

* Wilson's policy was to "make the world safe for democracy," and so we made events fit the theme (despite Germany being more democratic than the French).
* Truman's policy was to "contain" communism in Europe, despite the Soviets remaining steadfast.
* Eisenhower's policy extended "containment" into the Middle East with Egypt and Iran, and anything the Soviets did was seen as proof of the necessity for the policy.
* The "Domino Effect" pushed Intel to strengthen the theory and maintain an argument against war protesters over Vietnam.
* Bush's "War on Terror" used factoids and exaggeration to insist on Saddam Hussein's WMD status, despite our own Intel and military knowing better.

And then there's the good 'ole Iranian narrative that came into existence in 1979, in which you insist that the CIA and others are on the up-and-up. The same CIA that refused to acknowledge that Al-Qaeda was a threat until 2000, withheld information from the FBI; and despite FBI's John O'Neill insistence that a international terrorist threat was coming (he was killed in one of the towers). Always, instead, it's the "evils" of the Iranian mullahs, the "hostage takers," the "terrorists" makers, the "secret" Beirut bombers, the "secret collaborations" with Hussein in 1991, the probable Oklahoma "bombers" in 1993, the "secret collaborations" with Al-Qaeda in 2001 and beyond, the "killers" of Americans in Iraq in 2005, the "aggressiveness" in Syria... It just never ends. It's not conspiracy. Its just bad habit and Intel on every level becomes guilty of it.

**** But then you claim to have never stated that Iran is masterminding everything that occurs in the Middle East. Which means that you are not holding to the false traditional narrative after all. So, I have no idea what you are arguing at this point and why you started out by trying to contradict the OP piece.

The Lurker · Jan 5, 2018

MSgt said:
This makes MUCH more sense. My head was spinning about for a bit. Thanks for this...

I'm glad that I could help you.

cpwill · Apr 23, 2018

MSgt said:
So, an after-the-fact collaboration with the Revolutionary Guard? As I stated, the Revolutionary Guard are frequently at odds with their government; and maintain great autonomy by politically supporting the more conservative of the Shi'a ulema. There is a long history of the Revolutionary Guard sabotaging the political efforts of all of Iran's presidents (except, I believe, Ahmenadejad). CONTEXT matters.

Context does matter. For example, the IRGC is the more trusted branch of the military, and responds pretty much directly to the Supreme Leader, who is the actual guy in charge, not Iran's Presidents. So, what you are arguing above is something along the lines of "Well, the US government didn't do something, the CIA, acting under the orders of the President did it.

There is nothing to argue... of course Americans are going to be targeted. I'm still failing to see the big bad wolf of it all.

No, there is no "of course Iran is going to kill Americans". Saying "of course they are going to do it" doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions.

I am basing my perspective on having dealt with this problem professionally for years.

Click to expand...

I know you are. It may be time to move forward. I held the same perspective one time. Then, matters stopped making sense. I began to read peer reviewed books, study the region's history and American Foreign Policy...

Academia is often useful, and has an ideological bent same as anyone else - I read them and take them into account, just as I do other sources of information.

You have consistently held to the false narrative of Iran, which contradicts the historical truths that it is, in fact, the Sunni governments and their fanatical offspings, who are the threat throughout the region and to the Unites States.

now who is pushing a flat, cheap narrative? The region is a bit more complicated and complex than that

Iran's reactions are just that - reactions.

Oh, sure. They're not responsible for their actions, because you wish to excuse them. Others are responsible for their actions because you don't wish to excuse them.

Their actions and reactions are well-thought-out, and deliberate. These aren't idiots or children.

They view us as an enemy for the same reason we view them as an enemy.

Nah. For example, I'd say we live in approximately zero fear that Iranian culture is going to take over the US and cause us to lose our religion.

Iran went from actively fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to fifteen years later looking to the Taliban to bring stability in their east.

I am glad to see you say so, since that means you accept that the OP is factually incorrect, and that Shia Iran is willing to help Sunni extremists for hard-nosed Realist reasons of their own

.

Well, the CIA and NSA does do regional analyses. It's largely themed around preconceptions, lacks historical context, and scrubbed to fit a political agenda.

:shrug: I would have to ask how you came to that conclusion. I've gone back and forth with CIA analysts a bit, and even where we disagreed, I always found them pretty well-sourced and well-educated in their topics.

The best Intel consists of only "data points" or event reporting.

... No, the best intelligence analysis relies on multi-source and multi-int inputs (to include those open sources you mention), and places that in context. It includes source analysis, gap analysis, and alternative analysis. Intelligence Community Directive 203, if you'd like to read up

.

Though the Iranian/Al-Qaeda connection of late is interesting. Nonsensical, since part of Zawahiri's Al-Qaeda philosophy is to also oppose the Shi'a (by which Zarqawi celebrated), but interesting

Actually, if you will go read the competing narratives, you will note that how to approach the Shia is a major source of contention between AQI/ISIS (who have traditionally seen them as the Near Enemy) and al-Qa'ida Senior Leadership (who see them more as mistaken brothers). AQSL has always said that converting the Shia is the long-term goal, after you have driven western powers out of Muslim lands (a term which includes, among other things, Spain) and established Islamic governance; ISIS has said that defeating/driving back/wiping out the Shia is the short term goal. You will notice, for example, that AQI/ISIS attack the Shia in Iraq and Iran..... but AQ does not.

NonoBadDog · Apr 23, 2018

cpwill said:
Context does matter. For example, the IRGC is the more trusted branch of the military, and responds pretty much directly to the Supreme Leader, who is the actual guy in charge, not Iran's Presidents. So, what you are arguing above is something along the lines of "Well, the US government didn't do something, the CIA, acting under the orders of the President did it.

No, there is no "of course Iran is going to kill Americans". Saying "of course they are going to do it" doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions.

Academia is often useful, and has an ideological bent same as anyone else - I read them and take them into account, just as I do other sources of information.

now who is pushing a flat, cheap narrative? The region is a bit more complicated and complex than that

Oh, sure. They're not responsible for their actions, because you wish to excuse them. Others are responsible for their actions because you don't wish to excuse them.

Their actions and reactions are well-thought-out, and deliberate. These aren't idiots or children.

Nah. For example, I'd say we live in approximately zero fear that Iranian culture is going to take over the US and cause us to lose our religion.

I am glad to see you say so, since that means you accept that the OP is factually incorrect, and that Shia Iran is willing to help Sunni extremists for hard-nosed Realist reasons of their own .

:shrug: I would have to ask how you came to that conclusion. I've gone back and forth with CIA analysts a bit, and even where we disagreed, I always found them pretty well-sourced and well-educated in their topics.

... No, the best intelligence analysis relies on multi-source and multi-int inputs (to include those open sources you mention), and places that in context. It includes source analysis, gap analysis, and alternative analysis. Intelligence Community Directive 203, if you'd like to read up .

Actually, if you will go read the competing narratives, you will note that how to approach the Shia is a major source of contention between AQI/ISIS (who have traditionally seen them as the Near Enemy) and al-Qa'ida Senior Leadership (who see them more as mistaken brothers). AQSL has always said that converting the Shia is the long-term goal, after you have driven western powers out of Muslim lands (a term which includes, among other things, Spain) and established Islamic governance; ISIS has said that defeating/driving back/wiping out the Shia is the short term goal. You will notice, for example, that AQI/ISIS attack the Shia in Iraq and Iran..... but AQ does not.

Good to see you. It's been awhile.

Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

Active member

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

How long is now?

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

Active member

Active member

Read Some Books

Read Some Books

Active member

Hates Kittens