The Plot to Attack Iran

How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Iran

Dan Kovalik

• Publisher: Skyhorse
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781510739345
• eBook ISBN: 9781510739352
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

* "Spectacular!" * –Oliver Stone The world has a lot of questions about the current state of affairs between the United States and Iran…

• How has the US undermined democracy in Iran?
  
• Is Iran really trying to develop nuclear weapons?
  
• How has US waged a terror campaign against Iran for years?
  
• How is it that the US and Israel, rather than Iran, are destabilizing the Middle East?
  
• How has Iran helped the US in the war on terror?In The Plot to Attack Iran, critically acclaimed author Dan Kovalik exposes what Americans have known about the Islamic Republic is largely based on propaganda. The 1953 coup that deposed the democratically-elected prime minister for a US-selected shah? Sold to average American citizens as a necessity to protect democracy and guard against communism. In truth, it was America's lust for Iranian oil and power that installed the tyrannical shah. The Iranian hostage crisis that miraculously ended with Ronald Reagan's inauguration as president? Evidence shows that Reagan negotiated with the hostage-takers to hold the hostages until his inauguration.Iran, once known as Persia, is one of the oldest nations on earth. It has a rich history and a unique culture, and is bordered by seven countries, the Caspian Sea, and the Persian Gulf. It is literally the intersection of many countries and many worlds. It has a population of eighty million people and occupies a space nearly the size of Alaska, the largest US state; it is the seventeenth largest country in the world. Over the past century, Iran's greatest resource, and at the same time its greatest curse, has been its oil. For it is oil that has caused the United States and other world powers to systematically attempt to destroy Iran. After a greedy Iranian monarch sold all of Iran's oil and natural gas reserves to a British financier in 1901, the West started just one of its many invasions and exploitations of the country.Using recently declassified documents and memos, as well as first-hand experience of the country, critically-acclaimed author Dan Kovalik will change the way you think about Iran, and especially what you think of US interference there. Learn how the United States vilifies its enemies, and accuses them of unspeakable horror to mask its own terrible crimes. Not only does the illuminating and important The Plot to Attack Iran delve into the current incendiary situation, but it also predicts what could happen next, and what needs to be done before it is too late.

1

TARGET: IRAN

We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.

—US General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO1

THE DRUMS OF WAR ARE BEATING yet again. As they often have for the past thirty-plus years, they are beating in this country for a war with Iran. I have written this book in an attempt to stop such a war—a war which I believe would not only be unjust, illegal, and immoral, but which would be truly devastating for both Iran and the United States, and, indeed, for the entire world.

By many accounts, the United States, and its close ally Israel, have been preparing for a war with Iran for well over a decade now. As veteran journalists such as Seymour Hersh and Jonathan Cook have documented, the Bush Administration was keen on a military attack against Iran in 2005.2 It appears that Bush began concrete preparations for such an attack in 2006. According to Seymour Hersh, by the spring of 2006, the White House had increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.3

Plans were even being made for tactical nuclear weapons strikes against various targets in Iran.

According to such accounts, Israel’s 2006 assault upon Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon was the opening salvo against Iran (Hezbollah being a critical ally of Iran in striking distance of Israel).

However, the strong resistance which Hezbollah put up against Israel’s four-week assault, combined with the equally strong resistance of the Iraqi people after the 2003 invasion—an invasion which Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld promised would end quickly with a modest military force—necessitated a delay in an attack upon Iran. However, the goal for such an attack has never been removed from the table.

Indeed, while many viewed President Obama’s 2015 “nuclear deal” with Iran as a move towards peace with that country, there are good arguments for the proposition that this deal (formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) was always a Trojan Horse. And so, when President Trump stated that this deal was the “worst ever,” he was right, though not in the way he meant—in reality, it was the “worst ever” for Iran, and was always intended to be so.

The general outline of the nuclear deal was that, in return for the lifting of UN sanctions which were ostensibly imposed in response to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, Iran would give up this program. Iran was desperate for the lifting of these sanctions, which severely undermined its economy, and which made further investment in much-needed social programs impossible. For its part, the United States claimed it wanted the deal to end any attempt by Iran to build nuclear weapons, though the United States’ own National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran did not have such intention, and in any case was years away from having nuclear weapons capability.

At the same time, as learned the hard way by Libya, which had given up its nuclear ambitions to placate the West only to be invaded shortly thereafter, and as proven by North Korea whose nukes brought Trump to the bargaining table, the only way a weaker state can protect itself against the United States is to have a nuclear deterrent. Indeed, as Israel’s leading military historian, Martin Van Creveld, has opined, Iran would be insane if it were not trying to develop nuclear weapons. Thus, according to Creveld:

Even if the Iranians are working on a bomb, Israel may not be their real concern. Iran is now surrounded by American forces on all sides—in the Central Asian republics to the north, Afghanistan to the east, the Gulf to the south and Iraq to the West … Wherever U.S. forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.4

Iran, not so much crazy, but desperate for the end of sanctions, agreed to give up its nuclear ambitions, even those related to pressing energy concerns.

The United States, however, was motivated to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions for the precise purpose of leaving Iran vulnerable to attack, just as Creveld explained it would be without a nuclear deterrent. But there was another way in which the nuclear deal would set Iran up for invasion, one which is not so apparent.

As geopolitical researcher Tony Cartalucci explains, the bad faith of the United States in signing the nuclear deal is evidenced by its actions in engaging in proxy wars against Iran—in Syria, Lebanon, and in Iran itself through terrorist groups—even as it was signing on the dotted line.5 Cartalucci writes that, “[a]ccording to years of US policy papers, dismantling Iran’s allies in Syria and Lebanon were crucial prerequisites toward eventually undermining and overthrowing the government and political order in Iran itself.”

But there is even further proof of the United States’ duplicity beyond this—the words of a key policy paper written years before the United States entered into the nuclear deal. As Cartalucci relates,

Beyond US policymakers openly conspiring to weaken or altogether dismantle Iran’s regional allies before setting upon Iran directly, years before the JCPOA was signed, US policymakers pledged to propose then intentionally betray a “superb offer” to help portray Iran rather than the United States as both an irrational threat to global security and a nation bent on acquiring nuclear weapons for the “wrong reasons.”

The 2009 Brookings Institution report “Which Path to Persia?” explicitly described this ploy, stating:

… any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.6 (emphasis in original)

Cartalucci further relates that “shortly before US President Barack Obama ended his second term in office, preparations were already underway to backtrack on the Iran deal. With US President Donald Trump now presiding over US foreign policy, the US is preparing to either entirely withdraw from the deal or rewrite its conditions in such a fashion that Iran will be unable to accept it.”

In other words, Trump’s current threats to undo the nuclear deal—threats which many properly view as a prelude to war—can be seen as a continuation of Obama’s plans against Iran, just as Obama’s plans were a continuation of Bush’s. Indeed, while few in this country are willing to admit it, there is an undeniable continuity in the foreign policy practices of US presidents, whether they be Republicans or Democrats.

Quite possibly, this is because there are greater forces at work than our elected officials, such as the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of back in the 1950s, which defines our nation’s international trajectory. And, as we shall see, the United States’ treachery against Iran can indeed be traced as far back as the Eisenhower Administration.

As I learned while in Iran, the current Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was always against negotiating with Obama over the nuclear deal, believing that the United States is not a reliable bargaining partner. Of course, the Ayatollah had good reason to doubt the United States’ sincerity in bargaining, given that its track record has been pretty bad, even hearkening back in colonial times when European settlers in the New World made deals with the Native Americans which they then turned around and reneged on even before the ink on the deal was dry.

And, in the classic US tradition of projecting our own worst characteristics upon others, the settlers added insult to injury by referring to those who do not keep their word as “Indian givers,”7 when in fact they should be called “Settler givers” or “White givers.” This type of projection is also seen in the United States’ current accusations against others, such as Iran itself, as being state sponsors of terrorism when, as we shall shortly see, it is the United States which is the greatest sponsor of terror in the world.

Of course, a more apt example of such “Settler giving” was Obama’s dealings with Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, prevailing upon Gaddafi to give up Libya’s nuclear ambitions and seemingly welcoming Gaddafi back into the community of nations, only to invade his country, topple his government, and aid and abet Gaddafi’s brutal murder a short time thereafter.

In any case, because the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, wanted the deal so badly to be able to make good on massive social spending he had promised Iranians, Khamenei told him to go ahead with talks. In the end, Khamenei, in his substantial wisdom, was correct in his misgivings. But given the potential tragic consequences of being proven right, there is little for Khamenei to gloat about.

2

THE WEST’S NOT-SO-CREATIVE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for the inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. … We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

—Michael Ledeen, US Neo-Con1

UNLIKE MANY IN THIS COUNTRY, I simply do not view Iran as a menace—neither to its neighbors, nor as a threat to us in any way. To the contrary, I see Iran as a country which is itself under existential threat and with much to fear, and Iran surely sees itself as a country under attack from all sides. One need only look at a map to see why this is so.

Iran, known as Persia until WWII, is a country about the size of Alaska, and with about eighty million people. It borders many nations, nearly all of which it views to be hostile. It is bordered by Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, the Caspian Sea to the north, and the Persian Gulf to the south, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman lying just across the Persian Gulf.

And, unlike most of its neighbors which have changed their identity and borders numerous times—or, more to the point, have had their borders changed for them—Iran has, despite being invaded on many occasions, remained a single, unified nation since 2500 BCE. As a consequence, Iran is “one of the more socially cohesive societies in the Middle East.”2

For his part, writer Stephen Kinzer explains:

Many countries in the Middle East are artificial creations. European colonialists drew their national borders in the nineteenth or twentieth century, often with little regard for local history and tradition, and their leaders have had to concoct outlandish myths in order to give citizens a sense of nationhood. Just the opposite is true of Iran. This is one of the world’s oldest nations, heir to a tradition that reaches back thousands of years, to periods when great conquerors extended their rule across continents, poets and artists created works of exquisite beauty, and one of the world’s extraordinary religious traditions took root and flowered.3

Sadly, Iran’s ancient and proud history is often forgotten, or intentionally disregarded by the great powers, which have seen Iran only for its geo-political importance and its greatest resource—oil. During the Cold War, for example, when Iran bordered the southern part of the Soviet Union, it was viewed, especially by US foreign policy leaders, as a key chess piece in the struggle between the United States and the USSR.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the consequent weakening of Russia as a world power, the United States has been committed to maintaining a unipolar world in which it is the one superpower. This doctrine was best expressed by President George H.W. Bush in his January 29, 1991, State of the Union Address in which he famously announced the construction of a “New World Order” which would be led by the United States—a nation he and other US presidents (e.g., Obama in his parting words to Trump) described as “indispensable.” Bush stated, “The United States bears a major share of leadership in this effort. Among the nations of the world, only the United States of America has both the moral standing and the means to back it up. We’re the only nation on this Earth that could assemble the forces of peace. This is the burden of leadership and the strength that has made America the beacon of freedom in a searching world.”4

As author and political commentator Stephen Gowans explains,

The implication of Bush’s New World Order was that the planet would be divided between nations destined to be dominated and one nation, the United States, which would dominate. Only the United States would have the right to independence, and the Pentagon, CIA, and US state and treasury departments would exercise leadership over the affairs of other countries. The expression of Bush’s declaration of US world leadership can be seen in the words of a Pentagon spokesman, Rear Admiral John Kirby, who, in 2015, declared that the United States retains the “right,” the “responsibility,” and “the resources” to intervene in any country unilaterally to achieve US foreign policy goals.5

The announcement of this “New World Order,” combined with the United States’ first invasion of Iraq in 1990-1991, changed Iran’s perception of its security in its region of the world and its relationship with Israel, which had been largely cooperative up to that point, despite the rhetoric of both countries against the other.6 In short, Iran decided t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Target: Iran
• 2 The West’s Not-So-Creative Destruction of the Middle East
• 3 The United States and United Kingdom Destroy Iranian Democracy
• 4 Installing a King in the Name of Democracy
• 5 The CIA and the SAVAK
• 6 Jimmy Carter and the Human Rights Double Standard
• 7 The Shah’s Reign Begins to Crumble
• 8 US Foreign Policy and the Rise of the Ayatollah
• 9 A Tale of Two Revolutions—Iran and Nicaragua
• 10 The Iran-Iraq War—Playing Both Sides Against Each Other
• 11 The United States, Iran, and the Taliban
• 12 The United States, Saudi Arabia, and the War on Yemen
• 13 Avoiding a War with Iran
• Conclusion
• Notes