SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was adamant--just hours after it happened--that the explosions on two Norwegian and Japanese oil tankers were the responsibility of Iran. Iran did this, he said, and Iran would have to pay the price. The United States government offered no evidence for this claim, apart from a grainy video that showed little that seemed conclusive. Pompeo took no questions.
It is important to know that the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in Tehran at that time. Abe, who has been trying to maintain the Iran nuclear deal, made no belligerent comments, nor did he storm out of the country. The head of the Japanese shipping company said that there was no evidence that this event had been conducted by Iran. In fact, he disputed the claim that a limpet mine had been attached to his ship. He said that "flying objects" had struck the ship.
The Norwegian shipping company did not make any kind of statement about the events either, certainly not anything that blamed Iran for the incident. The Norwegian government remained silent as well--no threats of any kind from Oslo. The shipping company said an investigation would be conducted in due course.
The crew from both the vessels had been rescued by U.S. and Iranian boats and taken to safety.
Chief of Staff of Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri said that his military will not try to close the Strait of Hormuz by deceit. If they want to close the strait, he said, it will be an open military operation. He fully denies that Iran hit those two tankers.
No U.S. ship was assaulted. These incidents took place in international waters--in the Strait of Hormuz, off the coasts of Iran and Oman. Not on U.S. territory, nor on a U.S. military base or on U.S. government property. Yet, it was the U.S. government that made the claims and made the threats. This has become an ugly habit.
It has also become impossible for the region, where there remains an electric sense of foreboding. Will Trump be mad enough to launch missiles? Will the United States of America want to open wider the doors of hell in West Asia, doors that the United States opened wide with its illegal war on Iraq?
Iran Mission Center
In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit--the Iran Mission Center--to focus attention on the U.S. plans against Iran. The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas--North Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.
Brennan's successor--Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State)--continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian diaspora.
It bothered the hawks in Washington--as one official told me--that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country. Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy of his National Security Adviser John Bolton.
To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.
It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile--a man of a certain age, for instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.
What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known--ironically--as "Ayatollah Mike."
D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family. These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.
D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki--who had been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.
Saudi Arabia's War
D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups--and Kaplan himself--promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.
Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran--Kaplan said--that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya, which means prudence and not--as Kaplan and others argue--deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with that group--since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.
It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments--which it admits--would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi--a man with close links to the Saudi monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.
These men--Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi--are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.
Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.
This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
While Democratic senators, corporate talking heads, former national security officials, and Twitter pundits issued dire proclamations about the "dangerous precendent" President Donald Trump set on Wednesday by revoking former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance for obviously vindictive and political reasons, critics of America's far-too-powerful intelligence apparatus were quick to express how little sympathy they feel for Brennan, given his utterly horrendous track record of defending torture and masterminding the Obama administration's deadly drone program.
"John Brennan is being punished by not being able to find out who got droned yesterday, I hope he's ok," joked Splinter's Libby Watson.
But while well-established critics of the American national security state refused to shed a single tear for Brennan--or, for that matter, any of the other former intelligence officials on Trump's so-called enemies list--the very fact that Trump has such a list and is using the power of the presidency to punish the individuals on it sparked alarm among journalists and civil libertarians.
"Trump's action is unconstitutional because he's punishing political speech, and unethical because he is lying to cover it up."
--Norm Eisen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
"The First Amendment does not permit the president to revoke security clearances to punish his critics," Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, argued in a statement on Wednesday, referring to the fact that the officials on Trump's list have frequently denounced the president on television.
"Brennan's record is full of grave missteps, and we have been unsparing in our criticism of his defense of the CIA torture program and his role in unlawful lethal strikes abroad," Wizner added. "But Trump's revocation of Brennan's clearance, and his threats to revoke the clearances of other former officials for the sole reason that they have criticized his conduct and policies, amount to unconstitutional retaliation. They are also part of a broader pattern of seeking to silence or marginalize critics, which includes forcing staff to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements."
\u201c2 true things:\n1. John Brennan \u2260 hero. We @ACLU unsparingly criticize his defense of CIA torture & his role in unlawful lethal strikes abroad.\n2. The First Amendment doesn't allow Trump to revoke Brennan's security clearance to punish political criticism.\nhttps://t.co/91Tav2tWEQ\u201d— Hina Shamsi (@Hina Shamsi) 1534384808
The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald--who has been similarly unsparing in his assessment of Brennan's record and dismissive of those who reflexively "revere anyone who occupies high positions in the U.S. national security state"--echoed the ACLU in a series of tweets on Wednesday, noting that while Brennan is a "war criminal" and a "pathological liar," it is nonetheless "dangerous to allow a president to impose punishments for criticisms."
Medhi Hasan, Greenwald's colleague at The Intercept, captured the absurdity of Trump's standard for who should and shouldn't have access to classified information by noting that the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, still has a security clearance--a fact that clearly shows Trump's decision to revoke Brennan's clearance was based on a petty grudge, not any reasonable "national security" concerns.
\u201cI'm no fan of John Brennan but the idea that the former director of the CIA no longer has security clearance but Jared Kushner - Jared Kushner! - does is just... laughable.\u201d— Mehdi Hasan (@Mehdi Hasan) 1534383851
As the New York Timesreported on Wednesday, the White House's statement announcing that Brennan's security clearance has been revoked was dated July 26--an indication that the decision to punish Brennan was actually made weeks ago, fueling speculation that the Trump administration timed the announcement to control the news cycle and distract from other controversies, such as former White House official Omarosa Manigault Newman's insistence that Trump is in a state of "mental decline" and that she has a tape of the president using the n-word.
Intended as a distraction or not, former White House ethics chief and chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) chair Norm Eisen argued in a tweet on Wednesday that Trump's revocation of Brennan's security clearance was a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
"Trump's action is unconstitutional because he's punishing political speech, and unethical because he is lying to cover it up," Eisen concluded.
A movement without memory is adrift. And a movement that picks the wrong heroes is lost.
Two milestones should serve as reminders to self-styled members of the Resistance. One marks a turning point in the life of an ill-chosen hero. The other is a reminder that true heroism calls for self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-sacrifice.
We'll get to those milestones. But first there's the matter of torture.
Donald Trump has nominated Gina Haspel to run the Central Intelligence Agency. Haspel, a career intelligence operative, led torture operations and ran a CIA "black site" in Thailand which was used to interrogate suspected Al Quaeda members after 9/11. She also signed the order to destroy the videotaped evidence of the agency's illegal acts, which itself appears to have been illegal.
Haspel was apparently present for the torture of a detainee named Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, (It was incorrectly reported that she was also present for the torture of Abu Zubaydah, a more famous prisoner.) There have even been calls for Haspel's arrest.
As CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou wrote in a Washington Post op-ed:
"The message this sends to the CIA workforce is simple: Engage in war crimes, in crimes against humanity, and you'll get promoted. Don't worry about the law. Don't worry about ethics. Don't worry about morality or the fact that torture doesn't even work. Go ahead and do it anyway. We'll cover for you. And you can destroy the evidence, too."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, notes that Haspel "was involved in one of the darkest chapters in American history' and has called on the CIA to declassify documents regarding her role in overseeing torture.
And yet, in their understandable zeal to remove Donald Trump from the presidency, some liberals and Democrats are treating Haspel's moral peers like heroes. Consider this tweet from Samantha Power, Barack Obama's U.N. Ambassador, which reads: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
Power was reacting to a tweet from Brennan, a former CIA Director, which addressed Trump after the brutal mistreatment and firing of FBI Associate Director Andrew McCabe, a day or two before he was due to retire with a pension. Brennan wrote:
When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you.
Brennan's anger toward Trump may be welcome, but it should also raise questions about the proper role of the intelligence community in political affairs. (On a more positive note, Rep. Mark Pocan has offered to hire McCabe so that he can collect his pension -- and it may work.)
Brennan's tweet was widely praised by some liberals, presumably including many who were appalled by Haspel's nomination. But Brennan, who replaced Haspel as head of the CIA's clandestine division, defended the CIA's use of torture in 2013. He agreed that some agents had gone too far, but disagreed with the Senate Intelligence Committee's conclusion, backed by other experts, that torture had not yielded "useful" information.
Brennan also attacked the democratic principle of transparency. "I think there's been more than enough transparency that's happened over the last couple days," he said of the Intelligence Committee's report. "I think it's over the top."
A year later, the CIA's inspector general confirmed that the agency had spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee itself. The CIA then attempted to elide its own guilt in the matter, drawing Feinstein's ire.
But even when taken at face value, the inspector general's report showed that the CIA acted in defiance of the principle that intelligence and law enforcement agencies should be subject to democratic, civilian oversight. And who was the CIA's director when it spied on that "over the top" Senate committee?
John Brennan.
Among Democrats, James Comey has gone from hero to villain and back so many times that it's hard to keep track. He was a hero to Democrats when Obama appointed him to lead the FBI in 2013, because he had blocked George W. Bush's attempt to get then-Attorney General James Ashcroft to reauthorize a domestic spying program while he was in a hospital intensive care unit.
The American Civil Liberties Union wasn't quite as fond of Comey. "As the second-highest ranked Justice Department official under John Ashcroft, Comey approved some of the worst abuses committed by the Bush administration," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said at the time. "Specifically, the publicly available evidence indicates Comey signed off on enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture, including waterboarding."
Comey became a villain to Democrats when, as FBI Director, he spoke publicly about the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email servers shortly before the election. But he became a hero again when he defied Trump over the Russia investigation, an act that led to his firing.
Comey continues to be lionized by many Democrats, despite his decidedly mixed record. He's been playing to them, too, in social media and elsewhere. (After Comey quoted from Martin Luther King, Jr's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," writer Ben Schwartz tweeted: "Oh look, FBI agents are still reading Dr. King's mail." Schwartz was referring to the FBI's infamous, years-long campaign of spying on and harassing Dr. King.)
Trump's attack on Comey's character have made his upcoming book a bestseller. That, too, is a sign of liberal enthusiasm.
Then there's Mueller himself. Fawning comments like this one, comparing Mueller to Thomas Jefferson, are commonplace on social media. That comment drew responses like this one:
"Amen: Father guide Mueller & his team in the (right) direction."
And this one:
"...the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants." -A Hamilton
"Perimeter defense may not matter if the enemy is inside the gates." -R Mueller, III
Then there's this poem, which was accompanied by a video clip of Dr. King:
Mueller is coming Lady Justice is coming with him.
I Salute the Men and Women of the FBI! I Salute the Men and Women of Muellers Team.
I Salute all those People Defending America! IC, CIA, NSA, Police, Firemen, Teachers, Drs and Nurses.
I Salute You! For America!
These commenters may not know that Mueller was criticized for supporting the rush to war in Iraq by stating, incorrectly, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He was challenged in 2003 by whistleblowing special agent Colleen Rowley for implying a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and for reportedly allowing the FBI to state incorrectly that there were 5,000 Al Qaeda terrorists in the US.
(Rowley, who has since left the FBI, wrote an essay in June 2017 entitled "No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes.")
The FBI's moves against peaceful protestors did not die with Dr. King. After filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the ACLU revealed that the FBI spied on anti-Iraq war protestors, including Quakers and student groups, during George W. Bush's presidency.
Documents obtained by DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy showed that the FBI misused a counter-terrorism program known as "Operation Tripwire" to spy on peaceful Occupy protestors, in concert with private-sector informants.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund obtained documents showing that the FBI was coordinating nationwide efforts against the Occupy movement as early as August 2011, before the occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York City.
The FBI Director who oversaw all of these these covert programs was Robert Mueller.
Then there's James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, who's also being celebrated for his attacks on Trump. Since retiring in January, Clapper has taken the lead in alleging that Russia aided Trump - a right-wing president - get elected. He has also used these allegations to stigmatize and demonize the Left.
But before he made his outlandish claims against progressive groups and publications, Clapper was known for something else. As law professor Jonathan Turley writes, Clapper lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2013 when he denied that the government was collecting data on "millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans."
"Even in a city with a notoriously fluid notion of truth," writes Turley, "Clapper's false testimony was a standout."
And yet, Clapper's report on Russian spying - a report which inexplicably placed much of the blame for the election of a right-wing president on left-wing websites - was treated as gospel by many Democrats and liberals.
We promised two milestones. Here's the first. On March 12, the five-year statute of limitations ran out on Clapper's Senate lie. He can no longer be prosecuted for perjury. That's good news for Clapper, but bad news for the rule of law.
Donald Trump is both corrupt and unstable. I share the hope Mueller succeeds in bringing him to justice, although a President Pence could conceivably do more legislative damage than Trump has done thus far. Trump's escalating war of words against Mueller, even as his lawyer argues that Mueller's investigation should be shut down, is deeply worrisome.
"Choosing the wrong heroes only makes it easier to be misled into another war, or more torture, or another campaign of illegal spying."
But the Democrats who idealize figures like Mueller, Clapper, Brennan, and the others are sacrificing the long-term needs of justice - the "moral arc of the universe" that Dr. King talked about - for short-term expediency.
Some of the people currently being lionized, like Comey, probably acted according to their own moral lights. But theirs aren't necessarily the morals this country needs. It's possible to hope they succeed without turning them into heroes.
Choosing the wrong heroes only makes it easier to be misled into another war, or more torture, or another campaign of illegal spying.
In fact, it's already happening. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was asked if he was urging Senate Democrats to oppose Haspel's nomination or that of Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo. Pompeo signaled his openness to resuming torture operations and has described agents who conducted torture as "patriots."
"At this point, I am not," Schumer replied.
Sen. Feinstein also seems to be equivocating on the Haspel nomination. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that the White House is using intelligence channels, rather than the State Department, to communicate with North Korea.
We tell the stories of heroes so that we can remember. But when we choose the wrong heroes, we forget.
Here's the other milestone we mentioned: March 16, 2018 marked the 50th anniversary of the massacre of Vietnamese civilians by US troops in the village of My Lai.
As America waged war in Vietnam, the FBI was engaged in a massive, covert program of spying on antiwar individuals and groups. A Senate panel led by Sen. Frank Church found that the FBI broke the law repeatedly while carrying out this program, which became known as COINTELPRO. From the panel's report:
"The (FBI's) techniques ... ranged from the trivial (mailing reprints of Reader's Digest articles to college administrators) to the degrading (sending anonymous poison-pen letters intended to break up marriages) and the dangerous ..."
In Vietnam, the CIA was leading the Phoenix program, which engaged in kidnapping, torture, and murder. CIA Director William Colby told a Congressional subcommittee that the program killed 20,587 people.
But when the My Lai massacre was underway, someone resisted. Hugh Thompson, Jr. was piloting an observation helicopter. He and his crew saw dead bodies around the village, but had encountered no hostile fire and had seen no sign of Viet Cong combatants.
To commemorate the anniversary of his actions, Jon Wiener wrote about Thompson for the Los Angeles Times. "They were not combatants," Thompson told Wiener years later. "They were old women, old men, children, kids, babies." So Thompson did something extraordinary. Wiener writes:
"Thompson told the American troops that, if they opened fire on the Vietnamese civilians in the bunker, he and his crew would open fire on them."
Thompson reported the massacre, and later testified about it on Capitol Hill.
According to the book "Four Hours in My Lai," Thompson was bitterly attacked by members of Congress like Rep. Mendel Rivers (D-SC). Thompson told 60 Minutes that he "received death threats over the phone...Dead animals on your porch, mutilated animals on your porch some mornings when you get up."
It took years for Thompson to be recognized for his actions, but he and his crew received the Soldier's Medal for bravery in 1998, thirty years after the massacre.
"Self-trust is the essence of heroism," said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Hugh Thompson, Jr. died in 2006. In My Lai and afterwards, he trusted his own sense of right and wrong. He faced down the entire military and political might of the US government because he knew it was the right thing to do.
A movement is defined by its heroes. The Resistance can find better heroes than the ones some of its members have chosen - and it should. It can start with Hugh Thompson, Jr.