Time: Officials Dispute Mike Pompeo's Claim That Iran Is Collaborating With Al Qaeda
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s claim that Iran and Al Qaeda are collaborating is at best an exaggeration that is not supported by any available information, U.S. intelligence officers and officials with the State and Defense Department tell TIME.
Pompeo made the claim about the terrorist organization during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, at a time when tensions between the U.S. and Iran have risen.
“There is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaeda. Period. Full stop,” he said. “The factual question with respect to Iran’s connections to al Qaeda is very real. They have hosted al Qaeda. They have permitted al-Qaeda to transit their country.”
But U.S. officials say that he dramatically overstated the case.
Read more ....
Update #1: U.S. Intel to Congress: No Evidence al Qaeda Is Helping Iran (Daily Beast)
Update #2: US intelligence officials directly contradict Trump, saying no evidence al-Qaeda cooperating with Iran (The Independent)
WNU Editor: I guess these anonymous intelligence officials do not think that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" is in play here.
6 comments:
If Iran and the Taliban work together, why would it be impossible for Iran and Al Qaeda to cooperate?
Many in US "Intelligence" have their own agenda and its a political one.
US (un)intelligence has a long and sad history of getting it wrong. When sources contradict it is oftentimes a judgment call as to which one we trust. Given their history, if US Intelligence and the Trump Administration are in conflict I will trust team Trump. As such, the conclusion would be that Iran and Al Qaeda are cooperating with each other against America. Perhaps as the saying goes "a broken clock is right twice a day" may be at work here and maybe US (un)intelligence got this one right. As said, in the absence of additional information I will go with what president Trump and Mr. Pompeo are saying.
Nahhh I'm good, thank you. I'll go with actual evidence and not some hearsay by some shadowy agency that is steeped in political and other wars
.a bit of oversight would be good for any functioning democracy. We cannot accept another war without evidence and if the evidence is fabricated we need to find out what's going on too.. someone is playing a game here, but when everyone is lying - Bush, Obama, Trump - then we're all f'ed
Anon (3:20PM),
"I'll go with actual evidence...." what you have described is a perfect description of US (un)intelligence. I would add in a healthy dose of incompetence. In the case of Trump and his team, they don't have this same history. As such, if there is a conflict I would tend to trust their judgment over the so called intelligence community.
With that said evidence would be good in this area as well. We've been burned to many times. Unfortunately the evidence is likely to be either a direct Iranian attack on the US, its interests, or Iran may opt for a false flag operation and blame the US as justification for further aggression. While we would definitely like evidence, it does not seem prudent to sit tight, absorb a crushing blow from Iran, and hope we are still able to respond to the attack from Iran "death to America."
Hopefully we do not have to act right now. Frankly I don't think we are ready to militarily confront a threat of the magnitude posed by Iran. I hope I'm wrong. If a preemptive strike is necessary and given the risks involved and with victory being far from certain, I would like to see the evidence along with the sources and methods used to determine this. Unfortunately if this is provided ahead of time the enemy is tipped off and the window of opportunity for a successful military operation is closed.
It is a very difficult spot!! Given that a military confrontation with Iran right now would almost certainly result in Trump's impeachment and the loss of office for anyone who supported it and the risks to Americans involved in such a conflict (millions if not 10s of millions of our citizens will likely die), he has no incentive to lie about the threat. In fact, quite the opposite would be true. Furthermore US leadership has the tendency to overestimate our abilities, underestimate those of adversaries and potential adversaries, and to in general underestimate threats to our country. Given this tendency, it seems likely that these intelligence operatives are operating from the modus operandi that Us officials have typically operated from.
So, without access to inside information in real time we cannot "know" for certain what is happening. We sometimes have to make our best judgments. In this case, my inclination would be to trust president Trump and his team over "anonymous intelligence officials."
In assessing whether we need to use military action right now we would need to ask, how soon will Iran launch an attack on us, can sanctions be effective in delaying or eliminating the threat, and who does Iran have as allies among other questions. For this matter we still have not seen the evidence of Russian collusion or interference in the US presidential election even though this was used to exacerbate Cold war 2 that we didn't need, can't readily afford, may not be able to win, and even if we do win what do we actually obtain that is of value. "Just trust us" intelligence officials along with their media lackeys tell us. Another bit of bad judgment of their part.
I conclude these intelligence officials are not trustworthy given the track record. As for Trump, the track record is generally positive so I would be inclined to trust his judgment and that of his team but the proverbial jury is still out on this one. Evidence is always good!!
Iran and al-Qaeda working together is really old news - predating Pompeo's remarks. In the region which lives out the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" everyday, this is no surprise.
We don't need evidence we're Murican,s!!
Post a Comment