MSNBC finally confirms possibly one of the worst kept secrets of the war between Israel and Iran: that the Mossad has recruited, trained, equipped and directed a domestic terror campaign against Iran’s nuclear program using the personnel of the Mujahadeen al-Khalq (MEK):

Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News  the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.”

One aspect of this report, however, is misleading.  The U.S. officials who confirm Mossad involvement in these plots carefully note that the U.S. is not participating.  That, unfortunately is not quite true.  The Bush administration allocated $400-million for this black ops war against Iran.  A good portion of this is suspected of funding Israel’s efforts.  So it is highly likely that we are the paymasters for this effort and our denials ring hollow.

With the help of a high level source inside Israel I have been reporting the Mossad-MEK connection for months, though I had no direct confirmation from U.S. officials, which is what was needed to nail down the allegations.  It’s good to be vindicated. Now I expect the MSM to beat a path to my door asking for interviews and expressing interest in all that information I’ve been reporting for so long. Right.

The blockbuster report also includes an instructive interview with a senior Iranian aide who details the charges and explains in detail how the Mossad trained one of the suspects:

“The relation is very intricate and close,” said Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, speaking of the MEK and Israel.  “They (Israelis) are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information.  And they recruit and also manage logistical support.”

Moreover, he said, the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is training MEK members in Israel on the use of motorcycles and small bombs.  In one case, he said, Mossad agents built a replica of the home of an Iranian nuclear scientist so that the assassins could familiarize themselves with the layout prior to the attack.

…Israel does not have direct access to our society. Mujahedin, being Iranian and being part of Iranian society, they have … a good number of … places to get into the touch with people. So I think they are working hand-to-hand very close.  And we do have very concrete documents.”

There is another element to this that is important which I’ve reported before.  The MSNBC goes into great detail about the MEK’s long-term war against both the Shah, the succeeding Iranian regime, and the U.S.  In the process, they even collaborated with elements of Al Qaeda.  May this sound the death knell for MEK lobbying efforts to remove itself from the Treasury Department’s terror list.  And all the Beltway insiders who accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in return for joining in this effort should not only be ashamed, they should return it as blood money.  That includes people like Howard Dean, Michael Mukasey, John Bolton, Tom Ridge, Louis Freeh, Patrick Kennedy, James Woolsey and others.  In light of today’s report, Ridge may want to rethink this paean to terrorists he offered in a media interview:

“There’s an extraordinary group of bipartisan or even apolitical leaders, military leaders, diplomats, the United States … the United Kingdom, the European Union, even a U.S. District Court in Washington, said that this group that was put on the foreign terrorist organization watch list in 1997 doesn’t deserve to be there,” Ridge said in November on “The Andrea Mitchell Show” on MSNBC TV.

I’m also gratified that the MSNBC reporters get a Saban Center scholar to concede that this program by Israel is state sponsored terror.  He waffles and wavers a bit, but finally concedes that it walks and talks like a duck and it’s pretty much a duck:

Daniel Byman, a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and also a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said that if the accounts of the Israeli-MEK assassinations are accurate, the operation borders on terrorism.

“In theory, states cannot be terrorist, but if they hire locals to do assassinations, that would be state sponsorship,” said Byman, author of the recent book, “A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism.” “You could argue that they took action not to terrorize the public, the purpose of terrorism, but only the nuclear community. An argument could also be made that degrading the program means that you don’t have to take military action and thus, this is a lower level of violence and that really these are military targets, where normally terrorist targets are civilians.”

But ultimately, Byman said, there is a “spectrum of responsibility” and that Israel is ultimately responsible.

Remember that the Saban Center is financed by one of Aipac’s wealthiest supporters, Haim Saban.  In fact, I imagine that the scholar may be having a conversation with his superiors right about now about being “overly candid” in his assessment.

Despite the beating drums of war on its news pages from David Sanger and others, the Times published an intelligent, pragmatic outline of a possible agreement between Iran and the U.S., written by two senior diplomats of past Republican administrations, Tom Pickering and Bill Luers.  Here’s the heart of it:

 …The United States would agree to full recognition and respect for the Islamic Republic, and Iran would agree to regional cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both sides would agree to address the full range of bilateral disputes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council could accept an Iranian civil nuclear program in return for Iran’s agreeing to grant inspectors full access to that program to assure that Iran did not build a nuclear weapon. Once international agencies had full access to Iran’s nuclear program, there could be a progressive reduction of the Security Council’s sanctions that are now in effect. Iran would agree to cease making threats against Israel, and the United States would agree to support efforts toward achieving a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It would be important to make arrangements for Israel’s security; the exact shape of those measures would have to be worked out in the negotiations. An agreement in which there would be full access to Iran’s nuclear program, with a monitored limitation of 5 percent enrichment, would offer Israel additional reasons for confidence in the deal.

Both sides would agree to cooperate in reducing the influence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in combating drug trafficking; and in keeping open the routes through which energy flows to the world from the Persian Gulf. Both sides would agree that while wide differences between the two nations remained, those differences must be resolved peacefully.

I’m not sure the 5% enrichment limitation is acceptable since it will hardly allow Iran to develop a civilian nuclear program.  But possibly no enrichment beyond 20% might work.  Also, the U.S. will have to promise to bring Israel into the NPT and to lobby intensively for a Middle East nuclear free zone.  Only the U.S. can compel Israel to do this.  Otherwise, it won’t happen.  Those are big stumbling blocks.

What the proposal doesn’t mention, and which could be a critical long-term component in any resolution, is solving the Israel-Palestine issue.  Even if the U.S. and Iran agree to a settlement between themselves, a festering Israel-Palestine conflict will maintain a high level of tension in the region.

The op-ed uses the example of Nixon and Mao’s rapprochement as a parallel to the current situation between Iran and the U.S.  But the former diplomats note this important distinction between the two eras and situations:

The China analogy for American-Iranian relations falls short in some areas. The most important is that Mao was ready for an American approach, while Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is not. Instead, he is convinced that the United States will not work with Iran until his regime is gone.

For Iran’s leadership, the notion that the United States is bent on overthrowing its rulers is rooted in historical experience: the United States did overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, supported the Shah afterward, supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran in the 1980s, and now backs increasing efforts to weaken and isolate Iran.

Reducing the malign influence of this legacy on the thinking of Ayatollah Khamenei will be essential to achieving any deal. Simply “keeping the door open to diplomacy” will not be sufficient. So the Iranian leader must be approached directly, but discreetly, by someone he trusts who conveys assurances from President Obama that covert operations and public pressure have been demonstrably reduced. The interlocutor might be a leader from a country in the region, enlisted when the American president felt the time was right.

Ayatollah Khamenei will have to be convinced by actions, not just messages. Just as Nixon halted covert action in Tibet before approaching China, a similar signal will be needed with Iran.

There is no guarantee that diplomacy will succeed. But that is also true of war. And only diplomacy can offer Iran’s current rulers a stake in building a secure future without a nuclear bomb. Only diplomacy can achieve America’s major objectives while avoiding the mistakes committed in Iraq or Vietnam.

After so much blather and delusional thinking from so many U.S. (I especially “like” Niall Ferguson’s call for a new “Six Day War” against Iran which would involve “creative destruction,” which is turn is reminiscent of that other infamously delusional phrase crafted by Condi Rice during the 2006 Lebanon war, which she called the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”), and particularly Israeli politicians and analysts, it’s finally welcome to hear clear thinking and realism.  Though I am afraid that the conflict has gone beyond such pragmatic approaches.  I fear that both sides are on the road to war and nothing can stop it.  Though I hope I’m wrong.

Another issue that complicates the Pickering-Luers proposal is that the U.S. would essentially have to turn its back on Israeli hysteria about Iran.  It would have to drop its participation in the Israeli covert ops campaign against Iran.  It would have to firmly tell Israel the war scenario has come to the end of the road.  We will also have to demand that Israel join NPT and that it confront world pressure for a nuclear free Middle East.  Israel wouldn’t have to necessarily accede to this immediately.  But it will not be able to dawdle forever as it has regarding solving the Palestine issue.  I just don’t see Obama having either the will or the muscle to pull this off.  If it were Nixon and Kissinger–maybe.  Or Clinton–maybe.  But Obama? He doesn’t have it in him.  Again, may I be proven wrong.

In a somewhat related development, Efraim Halevy, the former Mossad chief touts a Pax Israelitus which envisions toppling the Syrian regime, icing Iran out, replacing Assad with a compliant, pro-western (i.e. pro-Israel) puppet.  Of course, he only says some of those things.  But he means all of them.  Halevy has a grand vision that foresees a new Syria cutting Iran’s arms lifeline leading to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.  This is turn will somehow force Iran to end its nuclear program and even topple the Ayatollahs.

Though I usually find Halevy eminently pragmatic, here he’s drunk the typical Israeli Koolaid, which usually involves elaborate fantasies of skullduggery and manipulation that turns the world from hostile to friendly to Israeli interests.  Returning to the Pickering-Luers thesis, there is only one way to create a stable Middle East.  That is negotiations among equals and with full consideration of the interests of all parties.

What Halevy is proposing is more of the same contrived realpolitik which has meant rivers of blood running for decades.  It’s also part of a neocon vision of western intervention to make the Middle East safe for Israel and our interests.  Other pro-Israel sources who’ve been touting this path are Michael Weiss in the pages of Foreign Policy and the Aipac affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  They spin a fantasy of hitching our wagon to the star of the Free Syrian Army, which, once it comes to power, will cast out Iran, make nice with Israel and turn off the spigot to Hezbollah.

Instead, all parties including Israel, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and others need to sit and figure out how to give each party something of what they want to satisfy its most critical needs.  For Syria, that will mean a new government that is independent and not dominated by the U.S., the west or Israel.  One hopes such an independent Syria will pursue a course that favors neither Iran nor Israel unduly, but approaches each for what it can offer Syria.

This sort of new Syrian government would focus on improving its domestic economy and improving people’s lives rather than dabbling in regional power politics as it does now with Iran and Lebanon.  In turn, this would mean Israel would have to reign in its own impulse to dabble in the double game of spycraft and covert war against its neighbors.  Territorial disputes would be resolved by Israel returning the Golan and Shebaa Farms to their rightful owners.  In turn, Syria and Lebanon would recognize Israel and normalize relations.  This of course would help sideline or defang Hezbollah.

But none of this can happen through Halevy’s machinations.  It can only happen by negotiations in good faith, something Israel clearly isn’t prepared to do (yet).

This past week, Penn students held a three day conference on the BDS movement. The conference had been preceded by coverage from the local Jewish community pro-Israel newspaper and the Penn student newspaper which was not only antagonistic and unbalanced, but specifically, a professor penned an op Ed accusing BDS supporters of being “kapos.”

Not surprisingly, the BDS event organizers were a tad sensitive about who would be reporting from these media outlets. They ultimately decided to refuse access to the event for the Exponent’s reporter and a far-right pro-Israel filmmaker. Personally, I think they made a mistake. I would’ve negotiated with the Exponent for an op ed by a Penn faculty member who supported BDS in return for allowing a hostile reporter to have access. If the newspaper refused, then let them slam BDS while you point out how unfair they were in refusing to allow you to present your point of view in the newspaper.

It should e noted that The Exponent’s former editor, Jonathan Tobin, now graces the editorial masthead at Commentary. So the Exponent is certainly no exemplar of diversity on the question of coverage related to Israel or BDS.

Jane Eisner, the Forward’s managing editor decided to pile on, writing an editorial criticizing the decision to bar the reporter, as an infringement on free speech. This is wrong for all sorts of reasons. One, because the pro-Israel media has a monopoly on access to the mainstream community through it’s media outlets. That means that they present their slanted version of BDS to their readers without allowing the BDS movement to portray itself in their pages. If anyone is repressing free speech and the diversity of debate it is the Exponent and Forward.

But even more important is the fact that the Israel Lobby routinely restricts media access to reporters it doesn’t like at events they host. Aipac provided press credentials to The Guardian’s Chris McGreal to cover it’s 2007 national conference. When McGreal arrived to pick up his credentials and registration packet, he was not only denied access, but Josh Block, Aipac’s then PR capo di tutti, had the reporter frog-marched out of the hall escorted by security guards. I reported this story in my blog at the time and in the Guardian’s Comment is Free. But The Forward never took up the matter. Somehow, when the BDS movement stifles the press it’s newsworthy, but when Josh Block and Aipac do it they get a pass.

Further, if Jane Eisner wants to talk about freedom of speech in the media, she should look in the mirror. I, for example am blackballed from appearing there. How do I know? Let’s just say a little birdie told me. My crime? Criticizing The Forward’s decision to take Republican Jewish Coalition ads in 2008 which accused Barack Obama of being racist. You see some journalists can be very thin skinned about criticism. Which is ironic because those same editors refuse to allow activists to be equally thin-skinned about critical coverage.

Mao, who himself didn’t brook much dissent, said “let a thousand flowers bloom.”. Why can’t we in the Jewish community do at least as well?

Coming soon to a synagogue or embassy near you...the IRG bogeyman (AFP/Getty)

ABC News today publishes a leaked (from whom?) memo drafted by Israeli intelligence sources warning of terror threats against Israeli government sites in this country and American Jewish communal facilities from the dreaded “Iran menace.”  If you heard this story on the TV news it would sound persuasive, until you began to examine the assumptions behind it.  It begins by declaring the alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador as a given.  This passage quotes a federal official mouthing the Israeli line:

“The thwarted assassination plot of a Saudi official in Washington, D.C., a couple of months ago was an important data point,” added the official, “in that it showed at least parts of the Iranian establishment were aware of the intended event and were not concerned about inevitable collateral damage to U.S. citizens had they carried out an assassination plot on American soil.”

“That was an eye opener, showing that they did not care about any collateral damage,” the federal official said.

Note the vagueness of “parts of the Iranian establishment were aware of the…event.”  This doesn’t even place direct blame for the alleged plot on Iranian leaders themselves.  It only says they were aware of it and didn’t object.  What’s also ironic about this is that I haven’t seen any U.S. expression of concern for those Iranians murdered as “collateral damage” from Mossad and MEK terror attacks inside Iran. Perhaps when we do then we can expect Iranians to care about collateral damage to citizens in this country from acts of terror no one has even been able to prove were planned.

So from a single alleged planned act of terror, Israel and U.S. intelligence operatives have spun a narrative of ongoing threat from the Iranians.  They could strike anywhere at any time.  They’re out there, out to get us: New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago.  Wherever there are Jews there is danger.  We have to be vigilant.  Because they hate us.  They all hate us.  We have to put the threat of terror in the front of our minds.  We have to become paranoid, as paranoid as the Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials are postulated this nightmare scenario:

Israeli facilities in North America — and around the world — are on high alert, according to an internal security document obtained by ABC News that predicted the threat from Iran against Jewish targets will increase.

“We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase … on both our guarded sites and ‘soft’ sites,” stated a letter circulated by the head of security for the Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States. Guarded sites refers to government facilities like embassies and consulates, while ‘soft sites’ means Jewish synagogues, and schools, as well as community centers like the one hit by a terrorist bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.

The head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, told an audience at a closed forum in Tel Aviv recently that Iran is trying to hit Israeli targets…

Local and regional law enforcement and intelligence officials in U.S. and Canadian cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Toronto have been monitoring the situation closely for several weeks, and have stepped up patrols at Israeli government locations and Jewish cultural and religious institutions. They have issued awareness bulletins reminding officers to stay vigilant.

Federal officials in those cities told ABC News that they have also increased their efforts to watch for any threat stream pointing to an imminent attack on either Israeli facilities, Jewish cultural or religious institutions or other “soft targets.”

So because some mid-level Israeli security operative spins a tale of dread, every American Jew must start looking under his bed for hidden Iranian agents out to get him (or her). If you parse this carefully, there is absolutely no proven threat mentioned, no chatter in the terror networks, no identifiable enemy operatives. Just a load of paranoia from a bunch of spooks telling us the Iranian bogeymen are out there, somewhere, waiting, just waiting. For what?

So you want proof that there’s a threat? Here it is:

“In the past few weeks, there has been an escalation in threats against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world,” one regional document noted. “Open source has reported many demonstrations against Israel are expected to be concentrated on Israeli embassies and consulates. Such demonstrations have occurred internationally as well as domestically. These demonstrations could potentially turn violent at local synagogues, restaurants, the Israeli Embassy and other Israeli sites. … Law enforcement should be vigilant when making periodic checks at all Jewish facilities.

So get this: the “threat” is from protesters at Israeli embassies and consulates.  Why?  How?  Doesn’t say.  Are there Iranian agents who’ve infiltrated these protests?  And what protests?  I haven’t heard of any to speak of.  Are Iranians demonstrating at Israeli embassies over threats against Iran?  Hadn’t heard of that.  But the end result here is Israel is setting the stage for its own attack on Iran leading to such protests by Iranians and others who oppose violence, and these protesters will be seen as potential terrorist saboteurs out to get Israelis or any American Jew they can find.

What the hell will the Israelis do with all the American Jews who will be out there on the picket lines?  Perhaps we’ll be double agents betraying our people and nation by siding with the enemy.  It would suit the absurdist ultranationalist narrative represented by Netanyahu and the Israeli war party.  I’ve got news for them.  They can attempt to insinuate their own fears into American society and use us for their own interests in ginning up hate against Iran.  But I’m not buying it.  I’m not going to be party to the epidemic of war fever they’re trying to inject into the body politic.  I’m going to stay calm and rational.  If they want to cry wolf, let them.  The rest of us will be here to point out the hysteria and unfounded claims of Bibi’s hawkmeisters.

There’s another delightful (in a twisted sort of way) irony in the following:

…The Israeli bulletin warned that Israel’s own passports might be used by terrorists intent on carrying out a plot.

Now isn’t that cute.  Israeli caused a massive international scandal by cloning passports of its own citizens for use by the Dubai assassins who murdered Mahmoud al-Mabouh.  The Mossad violated the sovereignty of its own allies in the process.  Now they have the chutzpah to tell us that they accuse Iran of planning to do the same thing.  As if there’s no justice in that, and the whole world should be shocked, I say shocked that Iran might do to Israelis what Israel itself did to them by putting them in harm’s way.

Here’s the final coup de grâce of this charade:

…We operate according to the information that Iran and Hezbollah are working hard and with great intensity to release a ‘quality’ attack against Israeli/Jewish sites around the world.

Don’t you just love the use of that word “quality?”  It made me want to throw up.  Of course Iran may be “working hard” to attack Israel and its interests.  If enemy leaders and generals threatened your country virtually every day with violent attack, you’d plan the same thing as a response to an attack.  Aside from the purported Saudi assassination plot, Iran has shown no willingness to engage in any act of terror against Israeli or Jewish interests.  And I predict they likely will not do so until and unless Israel attacks.  But I invite Israeli intelligence officials to offer real evidence, instead of rumor-and fear-mongering.

David Ignatius published an alarming story in today’s Washington Post, in which he quotes Leon Panetta predicting an Israeli attack on Iran in “April, May or June.”  Buried deeper within the article is an even more chilling passage:

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.

In the context of the article, which portrays an Israeli first strike against Iran, we can only explain this statement as announcing to Iran that if it counter-strikes against Israel that the U.S. will join in the war against it.  That would help explain why the U.S. is amassing a massive amount of firepower in the Gulf including perhaps a record three carrier task forces preparing for God knows what mischief.

I can’t say clearly enough that what the U.S. has signaled in Ignatius’ report is that if Iran is attacked, it may not strike back against its attacker.  If it does, the U.S. will rain down hellfire and damnation on it.  This is frightening beyond measure.  I’ve never known the U.S. to lay down such a principle which virtually assures our joining in a war against Iran.  Israeli policymakers will be delighted to read these words.  Hawks like Bibi, Barak and Bogie Yaalon (from whom, more later) will be sharpening their spears and pruning hooks, not to mention their Jericho IIs and U.S.-supplied bunker busters.

Of course, there’s always a chance that Panetta is bluffing, using psy ops to spook the Iranians into believing they will face two implacable foes in war if they don’t abandon their nuclear ambitions.  If we are bluffing, I’m afraid it won’t work.  Iran’s leaders are hardened, seasoned veterans of a 1979 Revolution and eight year war with Iraq in which they lost 1-million citizens.  They are inured to suffering of the sort we can inflict on them.

All of this means that Iran’s leaders are liable to shrug all this off as the price of doing business in a nuclear-weaponized world.  So what happens when Iran stands tall against such threats and says: “Is that all you’ve got?”  At that point, we’ve got nothing left but war.  And we’ve talked ourselves halfway into war through the belligerency of our rhetoric and threats.

Ignatius regurgitates more Israeli propaganda already disseminated in the New York Times that predicts Iran will mount at best a faint reply to an Israeli “surgical attack” on its nuclear facilities.  At most a few Hezbollah missiles and 500 Israeli deaths (to quote an infamous Barak prediction).  All the while ignoring the hundreds of Iranian missiles that could attack Israel and likely would if Israel attacked.  The idea that Israelis believe they have the right to launch a first strike against Iran, while Iran has either no right or no will to reply is so far-fetched as to be almost delusional given the nature of Iran, its leaders, and its military.

Here’s some more Israeli delusion:

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire.

I can’t tell if this is certifiably delusional or merely a typically Israeli macho bluff.  But whatever it is it’s incredibly dangerous if any policymakers takes this remotely seriously.

Bronner quotes another typically narcissistic Israeli interpretation of the security threats it faces:

General Kochavi [IDF Aman intelligence chief] also estimated that Israel faced 200,000 missiles and rockets aimed at it from its enemies.

For the life of me, I don’t know where he gets such figures.  Hezbollah may have somewhere in the range of 10,000-20,000.  Gaza militants may have several thousand.  Iran has perhaps in the hundreds of missiles capable of reaching Israel.  That’s it.  Is he including Turkey’s missile capabilities in that number?  Even if so, would Turkey have 150,000 missiles in its inventory?  I doubt it.  In addition, including Turkey in that count means the IDF has now declared the former as a formal military enemy, when I hadn’t heard of any outright hostilities between the two that would justify such an evaluation.

Former IDF chief of staff Moshe Yaalon marches to war against Iran ( Ariel Jerozolimski)

Even more strange is Kochavi’s neglecting to mention the 200-400 Israeli nukes pointing at those same enemies along with a massive missile inventory of Jericho and other missile types capable of sending them anywhere in the Middle East.  Isn’t it convenient whenever Israel wishes the world to shed tears on its behalf, it omits the offensive threat that it poses to its neighbors.

Annually, the Herzliya conference features the creme de la creme of Israel’s political-military-intelligence echelons boasting about Israel’s achievements on the world stage.  It’s Israel’s version of Davos minus any discussion of issues having even a faintly progressive aspect.  That means leaving out social and economic justice, peace, environment, civil rights, etc.

Israeli minister Bogie Yaalon, one of Israel’s leading hawks on the question of Iran war, dropped a bombshell into the political debate by claiming, during his conference presentation, that the Iranian missile base destroyed by a massive explosion several weeks ago was testing a new intercontinental missile prototype with a 6,000 mile range.  For those who are geographically-challenged, that’s long enough to hit the U.S.

Yaalon and his faithful scribe, Ethan “Eytan” Bronner, made sure American readers understood the “threat” this personified:

The Israeli, Moshe Yaalon, a deputy prime minister and minister for strategic affairs, said the blast at a missile base of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps hit a system “getting ready to produce a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers.”

“That’s the Great Satan,” he said, invoking a name Iran has used for the United States. “It was aimed at America, not at us.”

Mr. Yaalon was trying to make the point that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat not only to Israel but to other nations, creating “a nightmare for the free world.” He said that it was a concern to Arab states as well as to the United States and Israel.

You can say something on Bronner’s behalf: at least he includes this passage, which in effect reveals that some U.S. officials believe Yaalon is a liar (though they use language far more diplomatic than that):

American officials said they believed that Mr. Yaalon’s assertions were at best premature, and at worst badly exaggerated.

Though one Iranian-American expert on Iran’s military programs does deride Yaalon’s claims.  It should be pointed out that this source, USC engineering professor Muhammad Sahimi (Wikipedia article), is by no means a friend of the Iranian regime:

This is total nonsense. Iran has said many, many times that it is not developing, and has no interest in developing an intercontinental missile. This is another bit of lies and propaganda by Yaalon to present Iran as a worldwide threat…

My high-level Israeli source also called Yaalon’s claims “exaggerated” and said they were “probably meant to frighten the American public.”

Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson

The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice have been investigating allegations of ties between Sheldon Adelson’s Macau casino and Chinese organized crime rings and prostitution for the past year. ABC News reports a former Sands Casino executive has charged that the Asian business operation relied on the Chinese triads which organized junkets for “high roller” gamblers and prostitution to service their “other” needs. It reports that on the same day Adelson arrived for a major business meeting at the Chinese enclave 100 prostitutes were arrested within the hotel. The charges are being investigated under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which governs crimes like corporate bribery.

Newt Gingrich, not one to observe the highest standards of ” family values” himself with his three wives and history of philandering, might want to explore whether this represents the highest standards of moral values for a Republican presidential candidate. And if it doesn’t trouble Newt, it might trouble some Republican primary voters. They might want to spend a moment thinking how many acts of prostitution or bribery contributed to the $10-million (the largest private gifts ever-given in U.S. campaign history) Adelson has funneled into Gingrich’s campaign, with the likelihood of tens of millions more should his fair-haired goy proceed farther in the primary process.

To see how Adelson has gamed another political system as a model for what he’ll do here in the States, we have to look no farther than his pimping for Bibi Netanyahu over the past decade or more.  It is far cheaper to buy the Israeli political system than America’s.  All Adelson needed to do was bankroll a new, free newspaper, Yisrael HaYom, to the tune of $40-million annually.  The paper was Bibi’s alter ego.  Just imagine the Washington Times with infinite resources, free, and distributed nationally.  That’s what the Israeli paper’s role is inside Israel.  Bibi himself credits it with creating a permanent rightist majority in Israeli politics.  The result is the worst political and media system money can buy.  Is that what we want here in America?

I don’t begrudge Adelson’s his constitution-given right to influence the electoral process with his contributions (though I do begrudge the absurd ruling of the Supreme Court which turned Presidential elections into Las Vegas casino-style politics). Nor do I begrudge Gingrich the right to accept gifts from donors. After all, “money is the mother’s milk of politics” to quote California’s Big Daddy Jess Unruh. But my problem is with WHO he’s taking the money from and how much he’s taking.

If Supreme Court justices, Congress members, and the U.S. voter don’t all understand the perniciousness of a presidential candidate running a successful candidacy through the support of a single fabulously wealthy, and arguably corrupt individual, then they will get the leader they deserve and the country’s stature in the world will decline even faster than it would under otherwise natural processes.

The Newt-Adelson relationship reminds me more and more of Citizen Kane, in which Charles Foster Kane runs for governor on the strength of his fabulous riches, only to be derailed by exposure of his moral failings. The difference for Newt is that his money man has infinitely deep pockets and Americans have shown themselves willing to overlook Newt’s moral peccadilloes (so far).

Thanks to Paul Mutter for suggesting to the editors of Foreign Policy in Focus that they invite me to submit a piece on Iran.  An Alternative to War With Iran was published earlier today.  It argues that western policy toward Iran has only an appearance of a diplomatic track.  Both the diplomatic and military track must perforce end with failure.  That if Iran is pushed to the brink it will attain nuclear weapons capacity, and there is little that can be done to stop it short of regime change and tens of thousands of boots on the ground.

Containment is the only remaining viable approach, though it too isn’t the optimal one.  But given the current dysfunction in U.S. policy with rabid Republicans braying for Iranian scalps, it appears containment may be the best we can hope for.

CloudFlare: I’m using a security/cache service called CloudFlare which ocassionally may block access to this site for some of you who are legitimate readers.  If you are ever blocked from accessing this site and see a security error message, I apologize in advance, and urge you to e-mail me your IP address and I will add it to the whitelist.

The NYPD has gotten itself wound up in knots over all the lies it’s told about its involvement in the anti-Muslim film, Third Jihad. The film was produced by the Clarion Fund, an offshoot of the pro-settler group, Aish HaTorah.

When Arab police officers complained to a Village Voice columnist a few years back after they sat through a screening of the film, the police department denied any connection to it. The Brennan Center for Justice filed a Freedom of Information request which revealed that the film was in fact shown to 1,300 police officers (a significant percentage of those involved in anti-terror assignments).  Now the police flacks claim that while it may’ve been shown to officers, this wasn’t an officially sanctioned program.

Although Commissioner Kelly appeared in the film, his flacks said the film’s producer’s used stock interview footage and didn’t interview him themselves. When the film’s producer presented evidence of the date and time of e actual interview, the flacks all of a sudden recovered from their amnesia and recalled that not only had their been an interview but the flack had recommended the Commissioner participate. Which of course sets things up nicely so Kelly can now say: what a stupid thing for me to have agreed to do. What was my flack-flunkey thinking?

Getting the drift of how these liars operate? Just like Bernie Kerik before him, I think New York may be starting to get tired of the elastic nature of truth at NYPD headquarters and tired of Kelly’s patron, Mayor Bloomberg. The latter, by the way, is outraged that the film was shown to NYPD officers and doesn’t know who did it, but promises to find out. When he finds out it was Kelly himself, what’s he gonna do? Fire him?

The police claim they don’t know who gave them the film, but that they had nothing to do with it. Rather, it was foisted on them by a conveniently unnamed “Homeland Security contractor.” Though this appears another highly dubious claim, it does focus attention on the web of contractors with pro-Israel anti-terror credentials who are riding the gravy train of lucrative contracts which offer them opportunities to train federal, state and local police and military forces in the ways of anti-jihad.

Among these are Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and Aubrey Chernick’s NC4. Gaffney’s general counsel at the Center is the infamous Kahanist, David “Beychok” Yerushalmi, who in the past has bragged about the numerous briefings he’s given to police forces, Homeland Security and other agencies.  No doubt, he’s inculcating in them his own high level of anti-Muslim paranoia.  Chernick, one of the wealthiest and most generous funders of Muslim bashing (David Horowitz, Pam Geller, Robert Spencer are major recipients of his largess), owns NC4, which provides anti-terror  and threat awareness training (likely with a dose of “indoctrination”) for its clients.

It’s no accident that Frank Gaffney joined the advisory board of the Clarion Fund in 2010, just before they released their third film, yet another Islamophobic diatribe directed this time against a Muslim country, Iranium. The two organizations are a match made in anti-jihadi heaven. In some sense, the success of the Obsession and Third Jihad films inspired the anti-Sharia movement, which Gaffney and Yerushalmi have milked for funding and political notoriety.

One aspect of the Times coverage that disappointed was its omission of the name of the donor who, in an elaborate obfuscation, donated $17-million to distribute another Clarion film, Obsession, to 28-million voters in swing states during the last election.  He was right-wing pro-Israel Republican Barre Seid, a major donor to David Horowitz and other far-right pro-Israel groups.  Seid tried to disguise the gift by making it through a Koch-affiliated third-party donor-advised fund which allowed him to plausibly (if you’re terribly gullible) deny any connection to Clarion Fund or the film.