Hey, I'm Scott.
Welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
American hero Gareth Porter is back on the line.
U.S. Treasury claim of Iran-Al Qaeda secret deal is discredited.
You don't say.
Gareth Porter, welcome back.
Thanks a lot, Scott.
It's great to have you here.
Now, come on, you're telling me that I'm an al-Zawahiri, whoever's basement he's hiding in, and the Ayatollah Khomeini are not bosom buddies?
That's what I'm suggesting, strangely enough, yeah.
Well, I'm shocked and surprised because usually I just read whatever the weekly standard says and believe that.
Sure.
Well, that's a logical thing to do, isn't it?
I mean, as Americans, as good Americans.
I don't have any examples of them getting anything else wrong, so...
Anyway, I'm sorry.
I'm not that funny.
I should lay off.
Go ahead and tell us about the bogus claims and the facts that prove that it ain't right.
Yeah, I mean, this was something that, in fact, I have to say that people like Paul Pillar recognized immediately when the story first was put out by the Treasury Department last July, at the end of last July, that they were unmasking, revealing this secret deal, so-called secret deal, between Iran and al-Qaeda that would allow al-Qaeda operatives to move around between Iran and neighboring countries and other countries throughout the region, moving people, money, maybe some other stuff as well, but at least people and money were the key things that were said to be allowed by Iran in support of al-Qaeda's operations outside of Iran.
That's the name of the story that the Treasury Department put out on July 28, 2011.
Now, you know, Paul Pillar, to his credit, attacked that at the time, and when I contacted him about this story, he called my attention to his article, and it was in the National Interest, and I tried to get it online, and for some reason I could not get any articles from the National Interest when I was working on this story.
They're simply not available online, so I didn't cite that.
But Pillar did immediately recognize that this did not make any sense and did attack it at the time.
And now, you know, I've gotten him, as well as two other former intelligence officials who preferred not to be named for reasons which would, you know, be understandable to people within the Beltway, because they're still engaged in activities that make it necessary for them to get along with people who are messing with our minds, I think it's fair to say.
So the other two intelligence, former intelligence officials said basically the same thing.
One of them went so far as to say this doesn't pass the BS test and was quite vociferous about the subject that the Treasury Department's propaganda here is really part of a broader pattern, which he has noticed over time, in which the people who are connected with counterterrorism activities, counterterrorism programs in the U.S. government are very distinct, a distinct sub-population in the sense that, unlike people in the legitimate intelligence community people, the counterterrorism types inevitably oversell, overhype their ideas, their output with regard to anything that has to do with alleged terrorism, and inevitably he compared them with used car salesmen who inevitably oversell their products.
And in this case, he made it clear that he regards this as nothing more than propaganda.
So I mean, the problem with the initial story from the Treasury Department is that there was essentially nothing to back it up.
There was absolutely nothing that any of these former intelligence officials said they were aware of, and they were certainly people who would know if there was something in the background here that would lend any kind of support to this notion of a secret deal between Iran and al-Qaeda.
They said there's absolutely nothing that was circulating over the last several years that would support the idea, and indeed, on the contrary, all the information available, including, of course, the latest documentation from the bin Laden stash in Abbottabad, in the compound in Abbottabad, clearly puts the lie to the notion that they were getting along at all, let alone that they were collaborating on al-Qaeda operations throughout the region.
All right, now, okay, before this Treasury Department thing came out last July, we had heard for a long time basically a bunch of glittering generalities from the Frank Gaffneys of the world, you know, the lowest of the neocons saying things like...
Yeah, the bottom feeders, if you will.
Yeah, yeah.
There are al-Qaeda guys in Iran, full stop, you know, but yeah, they are in prison, and yeah, the Iranians tried to bargain and trade them for some Mujahideen-y communist, terrorist, cultist, assassin types that they wanted, and the Americans refused to go along with that deal or even pursue it at all, as you reported and broke the story in the American Prospect back years ago in your article, Burnt Offering, the great Iranian peace offer, and it wasn't just they wanted to trade al-Qaeda for MEK, it was a bunch of other stuff too, but anyway, so that was basically all the accusation ever was, was, you know, like, there was uranium in Iraq, yeah, but it was under IAEA seal, and it was open and declared, and it just hadn't been shipped out, but it wasn't being used, and it doesn't count, you know, that kind of thing, but so what was specific?
Was there anything actually of substance to discredit in the Treasury Department thing, or they were basically just, again, kind of pointing to the presence of some of these captives in the country?
They were doing, Scott, they're doing nothing more than spinning the fact that the Iranians dealt with this guy Yassin al-Suri, no doubt about it.
I mean, the Iranians dealt with him because he was the one that al-Qaeda designated to talk to the Iranians, to deal with the Iranians on getting back the al-Qaeda people that had been detained and put under house arrest in Iran, and they were getting tired of those people not being released.
You know, of course, you know better than I do that the U.S. media covered statements from the neocons in the Bush administration back in 2003 and 2004 and 2005, suggesting very slyly that Iran was in fact, you know, allowing the al-Qaeda operatives to wheel and deal while they were supposedly in custody, but we know now that that was not the case.
And this is all they got, though.
This is all they got is the contact with this one guy.
Well, I mean, you know, I can't prove that absolutely, but all the circumstantial evidence completely supports the idea that they've got nothing more than that, that all they have is the fact that the Iranian authorities did in fact deal with directly with Yasser al-Suri, and they've spun that into an idea that the Iranians were supporting al-Qaeda, which of course is completely, you know, contrary to virtually every piece of information that has ever come out that was not being spun by the right.
Yeah.
Yeah, spun by the right.
In other words, lies that the war party tells.
All right, but now, okay, so what all was learned in the new bin Laden documents?
Yeah, before we get to the bin Laden documents, I just want to mention one other aspect of this problem, which is that, of course, there are al-Qaeda people that run around in Iran, go through Iran without getting caught.
I mean, you know, that's gasp, gasp, you know, shocked, shock and surprise.
I mean, how could there not be al-Qaeda people who pass through Iran when they pass through every other country in the world, including the United States and Germany and other allies of the United States?
Indeed, of course, we know that the Hamburg cell was instrumental in the 9-11 plot.
Yeah, that was the pilots, most of them.
Exactly.
So the idea that there were and still have been, you know, al-Qaeda people in Iran who did not get caught is part of it.
The thing that has been spun over and over again by the neocons and their allies, and it simply doesn't make any sense.
All right, well, we'll have to hold it right here.
We'll be right back with Gareth Porter, IPSnews.net, Antiwar.com/Porter.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's Antiwar Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Gareth Porter about all this bogus nonsense about Iran's alliance with al-Qaeda, which is nothing more than a neocon talking point about why we ought to have a war with Iran.
It doesn't really exist in time or space, does it, Gareth?
No, I mean, this is clearly nothing more than a way of increasing the pressure on Iran.
I mean, this was done, as I point out in my story, the timing of it at the end of July of last year coincides with the shift in policy by the Obama administration from diplomatic engagement to pressure.
I mean, it was a very decided shift.
They leaked word of it to the media, and there's no doubt that this was something that particularly Hillary Clinton and her ilk in the administration were eager to get out.
Well, you know, I don't know what the latest poll numbers are on it, but as I'm sure you know, people believe Iran has nukes, are making nukes at least, will have them very soon, just because they kind of hear that all the freaking time.
And this is sort of like that, where, well, you know, I think even Jon Stewart on The Daily Show said, yeah, you know, Iran was more in bed with al-Qaeda than Iraq ever was.
Maybe we should have bombed them.
And, you know, it's just, it's a meme that gets out like one of those pictures, one of those JPEGs on Facebook or whatever that just gets spread around where, you know, they're in bed with al-Qaeda, they're in bed with Hezbollah, like Wolf Blitzer was saying, and Phil Giraldi was debunking on the show the other day, that there are Hezbollah sleeper terrorist cells all over our country, ready for the signal, you know, which I think, didn't they use that same one back in the Cold War?
They're looking across the border in Mexico, no doubt about it.
Right, yeah, yeah.
But that's what it is, right?
It's just, it's not the big lie.
It's just 10,000 little lies and the flow never stops.
Well, this one is a big lie.
And I think the problem is that except for Paul Pillar in a place like National Interest, you know, there was really nothing in the news media that was responding to it.
And therefore, it sinks in.
And, you know, it gets repeated, of course, by the Weekly Standard and all the chorus of the right who pick up on these talking points.
And therefore, people, you're right, people like Jon Stewart, who doesn't always get it, let's put it that way, you know, are under the impression that that must be that must be correct.
Yeah, you know, what we need is, and they had this for a little while that veteran intelligence professionals for sanity.
But when the when one of these stories that you did such a great job on Gareth was the bogus plot for Iran to get some guy's cousin to who was a used car salesman to hire the Zetas drug cartel in Mexico, which happened to be a DEA outfit, which was working with the FBI to come up with this bogus plot to kill the Saudi ambassador, which it that ran in the news for just a little while.
And the reason it disappeared so quick compared to what we might have expected was because not just your great reporting, but especially it was because these former CIA officers were being quoted in the media pretty quickly saying we don't believe this.
And now they didn't all get a lot of attention or whatever.
But I counted six of them in one week, former CIA counterterrorism officers like Phil Giraldi, and former analysts, like Flint Leverett and others, and there was six of them in a week.
And what we need is to have at least that six and maybe find you know, Larry Johnson again, or whoever some of these guys and have them put out a press release every time, just as fast as they can say we don't believe it.
Well, it's funny you should mention that because I've just been talking with some friends about the necessity to have a project that does something very similar to that that responds, you know, in real time, when it's really necessary to hit hard and fast.
And you know how it is.
I mean, hell, your your writing reflects this.
If someone says former CIA officer says that's pregnant with all this meaning that he must have talked to his friends at the CIA who told him that they know for a fact, right?
That's what that means when a former CIA officer says something, or if a former CIA officer says he doesn't believe it.
That's like the gospel to TV news people, you know?
Yeah, yeah.
Wow, that's so authoritative.
It's like coming down from the mountain or something.
Yeah, yeah, I think that's that's exactly right.
I mean, it's the way the system works.
And one has to one has to swing with that you have to have sources that will will have that kind of credibility or you're not going to be taken seriously.
And of course, you may not be taken seriously anyway, but nevertheless, right?
Well, the thing is, you know, the lies are so thin and the ability to round up, you know, Gerald E. Scheuer and Leverett and whatever on a moment's notice shouldn't be that hard.
You know, right?
No, I mean, it can be done.
And I think that needs to be much more disciplined approach to responding to news.
Well, they do have or they did have the veteran intelligence professionals for Santee, maybe that could be picked back up and revamped.
Well, I mean, I think that that's a very useful organization useful outfit, but they weren't poised to do the kind of thing you're talking about, which is quick response.
I mean, I think they were, you know, in a crisis, they would mobilize and try to come up with a statement, but but they weren't.
They weren't prepared for I mean, they weren't expecting to do the kind of thing that you're suggesting, which I think needs to be done.
Yeah, well, there you go.
Me too.
It really did work on that ambassador.
It's not that the TV ever said, you know what, we were wrong about that.
But they did shut up about it, at least.
Well, I think they shut up about it because, you know, the administration felt that they had succeeded in getting their point across.
And that's all they were interested in doing, basically.
I mean, nothing's going to happen on this case.
I'm quite convinced that, you know, I mean, it's going to be settled out of court very quietly.
And then there'll be a small squib in the New York Times that, that there was a settlement.
And that's the last we'll hear of it.
But the damage has been done.
And that's exactly the point of the entire exercise, it was part of a much larger scheme of, you know, raising the cost to Iran of resisting.
And that's exactly what it did.
Yeah, all right.
I gotta ask you this.
This headline just came in news.antiwar.com, at least 55 killed in Damascus bombings, apparently a suicide attack on intelligence headquarters 372 others wounded.
That's our side did the suicide bombing attack.
What is going to happen in Syria, Gary?
The side that is against our adversary in Syria, and it does raise, of course, the most serious questions about where we're headed here.
I mean, if we are, in fact, continuing to ally ourselves with those people who, including Turkey, who are interested in destabilizing the regime in Syria, it does involve de facto, you know, alignment with if not alliance with people who are at the very least jihadist, inclined, if not al Qaeda stalwarts in Syria.
So, well, there was at least one credible report that said, hey, you know, it's kind of quiet around here in Iraq, a lot of the guys have left to go to Syria to fight.
Well, some of them have, but of course, we also know that al Qaeda is still very active in in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq is still there, and still doing damage.
So, you know, certainly not all of them have left.
Well, so, are they dithering on Syria?
Are they still not committed either way?
I mean, we do have reports, including from Giraldi, that, yeah, we're, you know, the American covert forces, I guess CIA and or JSOC are working to help arm these guys.
Of course, all the Gulf, Saudi allies, Qatar and all them are helping to funnel weapons and, and then there's the Fatlala ship from Libya, sending weapons up there to fight.
But then again, they could just start carpet bombing the place.
They're not doing that.
It doesn't look like it looks like they're kind of holding back in a way.
I don't know what the hell they're doing.
What the hell are they doing?
They are holding back there.
There's no there's no desire to actually have a US war in Syria.
I can I can assure you that.
Well, they just want to but have a proxy war and have a civil war there.
They do want a proxy war.
And I have no doubt that the national security state of the United States is actively involved in pushing that forward.
Now, you know, I mean, that's, that's, and I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
Now, you know, I mean, that's, that's a momentum that was created that is only going to stop if the White House has some political reason to do so.
And I don't think that that is the case at this point.
So I think, you know, we have that momentum still going on at the same time, a decision against direct US involvement in war.
So I mean, that's, it's, it's a dangerous situation.
I think it's, it's primarily dangerous, because the United States is not playing the role of is not supporting those people who want to make peace.
And that's, I mean, the the only everybody who I respect, who is who is following this closely, who's been there, believes profoundly, that the only answer for the situation in Syria is maximum effort at trying to make peace to try to bring the two sides together, without supporting one against the other, to try to work out a settlement that reduces frictions, reduces the violence, and avoids a complete chaos that that we're heading towards, which we are very close to.
Well, and did they say that the latter is the more likely result?
Because it seems to me like this is the kind of thing where I forgot exactly the phrase you use something about it's already rolling downhill or something like that.
It's already started.
It can't stop now.
But then again, it's going to take them a long time to get rid of Assad.
He already took arms a couple of months ago where he's already winning this thing.
And then so and then after he falls, then what it's going to be even worse.
It's going to be like Iraq.
Yes, if if he were to be overthrown, if if he were to be forced out, you know, nobody really has any idea of what what replaces that or what follows that.
And I just saw a tweet this morning, which I thought was quite apropos.
And that is, you know, we we saw heard a lot about the the Lebanization of Iraq.
Now we're seeing the Iraqization of Syria.
And I think there's something to that.
Isn't there anybody?
I mean, Gates came out against the Libya thing.
You know, publicly saying there's no such thing as a no fly zone, okay, and that kind of thing.
Is there no one in DC who's grown up enough to say, Hey, guys, we learned a real bad lesson about getting involved in things like this.
This is too much like Iraq and too little like Libya.
There are there are definitely people who are grown up enough to understand that.
But there is a serious dearth of people who may know but who are willing to say so publicly to go public.
And this is the way it always is.
I mean, that was the case with the Iraq War.
Yeah, it was the case in Afghanistan.
There were people who knew better.
But, you know, the politics of the situation was such that they didn't speak up.
And, you know, we know what the consequences were.
And I don't mean to say Libya was easy or that it's over yet, by a long shot, either.
I just, you know, they seem to think it was a success.
It seems like in their own minds, geez, they, they can't think back just a few years to Iraq.
Think of how Iraq was in 2006.
And so yeah, 3000 bodies a month, there's no drills in the head.
There's no reckoning.
There's no there's no accountability whatsoever, politically, or intellectually, or morally for what happened in Iraq.
And that's, that's a very serious indication of just how badly this system has has veered in the direction of being completely out of control.
Yeah, you know, I'd do like a whole Iraq week and do history and current stuff and just cover the hell out of that because it makes me mad that people want to forget that ever happened.
That ain't fair.
You can't just go kill hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of 1000s of people and create a bunch of war widows and orphans and refugees and poisonous society and turn it upside down and destroy all their ethnic and religious minorities and put the Iranians friends and the Dawa party in power and they just pretend like nothing ever happened because oops, that it's not fair.
Yeah, we do need we need to precisely the kind of reckoning that you're suggesting.
Absolutely.
We need more of that.
Well, I need a bigger radio show.
So it matters if I ever do a week on it.
But you're right.
We don't have anything going on about that at this point.
Oh, don't worry.
Rachel Maddow will take care of it for us, man.
She's all right.
Anyway, we got to go.
Thanks so much.
I kept you over time already.
Gareth Porter.
You're the best man.
Thank you, Scott.
Glad to be on.
Everybody.
That's the great Gareth Porter.
Interpress service is IPS news.net.
And we keep all of his archives what he writes for them and for anybody else at original.antiwar.com/Porter.
