Ahmadinejad: 'I was Almost Kidnapped by Bush'
The USG Open Source Center translates an article in Tabnak saying that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is alleging that the US had planned to abduct him when he visited Baghdad in March, but that the plan was foiled. Ahmadinejad is also said to have alleged that Bush sought to attack Iran twice recently, but was forestalled by the opposition of his own officer corps.
Iran's President Discloses US 'Calculated Plan' For His Abduction in Iraq
Tabnak Online
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Document Type: OSC Translated Text
A Tabnak correspondent has reported: During a meeting today with members of the Qom Theological Lecturers Association, our country's president has disclosed that a US plan to abduct him in Iraq and transfer him to the US has failed.
According to one of the lecturers present at the meeting, Dr Ahmadinezhad added: Simultaneous with my visit to Iraq, the Americans intended to carry out a calculated plan to abduct me and transfer me to the US so that they could use the issue of terrorism as an excuse to blackmail the Islamic Republic.
The president continued: Despite this, praise be to God, the changes which were made to my travel schedule spoilt their plan. They were taken by surprise and realized what had happened when I was flying back to Iran. This was whilst we didn't even visit the Green Zone, which is Baghdad's safest area. The interesting point is that Bush, the US president, hasn't even stayed overnight in Iraq.
Elsewhere, the president said: Twice, Bush made a serious decision to attack Iran this year and last year. However, this country failed to take such action due to opposition from its military commanders.
The president said that attacking Iran had become Bush's obsession, and added: He even proposed to his advisors that they attack one or two Iranian cities. However, after the advisors disagreed, he called for Iran's sound barrier to be broken. But, every time Bush's advisors and military commanders stressed that any attack on Iran would create a hell which would be against US interests.
He stressed: God willing, US officials will take this wish to the grave with them.
(Description of Source: Tehran Tabnak Online in Persian -- is a conservative Persian website replacing the banned Baztab. It is believed to be associated with the former IRGC commander and the Expediency Discernment Council Secretary Major General Mohsen Reza'i. URL: http://www.tabnak.ir)
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/19/2008 06:33:00 PM
|
Facebook
17 Comments:
After read Napoleon's Egypt, I can see how even very intelligent leaders can get carried away by hubris. However, I can't see Bush being wacky enough, or dumb enough, for a stunt like this.
"...our country's president has disclosed that a US plan to abduct him in Iraq and transfer him to the US has failed."
This isn't plausible. Assasination, of course, but not abduction.
"Bush sought to attack Iran twice recently, but was forestalled by the opposition of his own officer corps."
Also implausible, if you are talking military officers. Any military officer who would question an idea of the C-in-C, especially his C-in-C, would be picking cotton by the end of the day.
The claim by, or attributed to, Mr Ahamadinejad does not seem credible: kidnapping the President or Head of a state is against international law. This is not to say that the current American administration has not repeatedly flaunted international law and conventions as a matter of principle (one thinks of the policy of "pre-emptive strike", or as some have said "pre-emptive defence", or of violations of the terms of the Geneva Convention).
The news in Persian further states that according to Mr Ahmadinejad, the US had intended to blackmail Iran for the release of him, which perhaps best illustrates the illusion that Mr Ahmadinejad must entertain about the love of Iranians for him. Who knows, perhaps Iranians would have even offered a favour to Mr Bush for keeping Mr Ahmadinejad in America. In my opinion, the two make perfect golf partners. I hope Mr Bush takes note of this remark. BF
I tend to doubt any story about foiled attempts to do this or that, based on 'intelligence', in the War on Terror lie-fest. But this story is amusing because Ahmadinejad couldn't have less credibility than Bush. So it's understandable that he'd be tempted to play the rhetoric game now that the cards are stacked in his favour.
Here is my question,
There are millions of intelligent and rational people in this world, but people like Bush and Ahmadinejad invariably get into powerful leadership positions. How the hell does this happen? These two jokers are like a character from Saturday night live and the decisions and statements they make continue to shock and maze me! Now, I'm not saying that I am especially smart or rational but there are millions of qualified people who would actually make intelligent and rational decisions if they were in the positions to do so. Instead, we get the criminal insane!
Buck,
it is exactly because they are characters out of Saturday night live that these guys win elections ....
actually I get the impression Ahmadinejad's remarks are meant to take the piss out of psychological warfare or whatever else is taking place during present negotiations
... let me translate - "while the US are threatening to attack Iran I actually visited and slept under their very noses in occupied Iraq, if they were not able to do something about that then how do they think I might feel threatened by the thought they might attack Iran, I did not even need to stay in the Green Zone to feel safe, what do they think would happen to them in Iraq if they attacked ..."
During the US sponsored Coup against Venezuela, Chavez was kidnapped, and the CIA has planned and committed many assassinations of heads-of-state and other world leaders. Given the facts of redition, torture, intentional use of poisonous munitions (DU), and other war crimes, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possible US behavior to kidnap or disappear anyone. One must either confront the facts and admit the USA is a criminal Empire, or ignore reality and thereby become an ally of the criminals and their crinimal Empire. I see no possible middle ground. And with votes by Congress to continue to fund the Iraqi Holocaust and allow telecoms retro-active immunity for violating the 4th ammendment, we can see why those voting in faovor are rightly judged allied with the criminals and promoters of the criminal US Empire.
Westgard comments: "...I can't see Bush being wacky enough, or dumb enough, for a stunt like this."
OK, we mostly seem to agree that Team W attempting this seems less likely than, oh... the Isrealis mounting a false-flag assassination, using suicide Sunnis perhaps.
The point Prof Cole is setting up, using this escalation of Iranian rhetoric (causus belli on the table, a la 'he tried to kill my daddy...') is how such a story plays in the 'hearts and minds' game.
Consider; Iran has been subjected to the diplomatic equivalent of assault (ie an imminent credible threat of battery) since the "mission accomplished" moment, when it seemed that doing 'heckuva job in Iraq, Tommy' left us free for new adventures, in Syria, N. Korea, or Iran. Imminent threat from Iran nukes was the subject of many Nightline shows in late 2003-4.
During Isreal's last invasion of S. Lebanon, 'speak-softly' Cheney went on record advocating the transfer of depleted Uranium bunker buster bombs to Isreal, for use against Iran.
With ever-expanding US initiated shooting wars bracketing Iran, and Isreal being resuppied with cluster bombs for retalliation against Hez missiles provided by Iran, Cheney's public threat to enable a strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities was credible. There are more examples and suspicions; that we are enabling infiltration from Iraq, to conduct an active terror-insurgency inside Iran.
There are suspicions that Aghani warlords are pushing bumper crops of cheap heroin into Iran. The UN says Iran has millions of opium users that are converting to heroin. (Drugs were pushed on Russian troops, including cocaine from the Americas, during the last Afghan war. Google:CIA, drugs, Soviets, Afghanistan. But I digress... )
Regarding the Iranian tale that this near-assassination was blocked by US officers, that plot line is taken from our own headlines; last year's 'put the crazies back in the box', and the forced resignation of CENTCOM chief Fallon just two months ago. US service chiefs should be nervous about opening a third major front. Wall Street is.
Let me return to Westgard's reasonable opinion that even Team W wouldn't be so silly. The common defense that "I'd never be so stupid as to commit this crime" ( Irv Libby's claim in the case of outting CIA's Plame to get Wilson) is often not convincing to juries and judges. Irv was judged to be just that silly and conspiratorial, and had to fall back on a presidential pardon.
The US gov't has been actively complicit in many assassination plots in my lifetime, and Iran has many enemies in Iraq that could man a bomb, or shoot a missile, with the right intel. The stuff West Wing plots were made of.
I'm not saying anyone should lend easy credence to anything that claims to be hot inside inside intel, or go looking for conspiracies behind the headlines. In the real world, all the details don't come together to make a 48 min teledrama. I'm just saying that Ahmadinejad's story 'reads' very differently on Jazeera, in Europe, or among the Shiites of Afghanistan or Lebanon.
Just the buz around the question "Would America really do that?" is a measure of US international credibility, especially in CENTCOM's area of operation.
Look at it another way; the stock market is down, and oil spot-price is up. Quds insiders maybe just needed a market payday?
OOTW (ootwah), Operations Other Than War, can cut both ways,. What goes round, comes round. We who are lobbying for hits on Iran's economy are living in a glass house ourselves.
@ BF
Manuel Noriega of Panama.
Bomb Iran? What’s to Stop Us?
This time it will be largely the Air Force’s show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details.
Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:
“We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House.”
Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and bluster?
You say you missed Olmert’s account of what Bush has undertaken to do? So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges for including the quote in his article of June 8, “The Iran Trap.”
Obama didn't miss it. He delivered his own salvo sanctioning the attack on Iran that evening, at the AIPAC.
We didn't miss the accout of that. We just pretended we did.
I believe that there has been enough push back from the American military that Isreal will now take the point position on attacking Iran and the US will back them.
Ugly isn't it.
I especially like it when NON-IRANIANS who know next to nothing about Iran (worse, they are full of USA imperialist propaganda) are adding their two cents about Ahmadinejad, comparing him to Bush.
Ahmadinejad was elected, while Bush was selected. Enough said.
Why do we put people like Bush and Ahamadinejad in such powerful positions? Because in spite of our differences, be they ethnic or religious, people of the world will always have one thing that binds us together: we're just. not. that. bright.
People comparing President Dr. Ahmadinejad to the nefarious tyrant pretending to be a "president" bush - do not know what they are talking about.
Bush has an approval rating in the 20%s in the US --- President Ahmadinejad's favorable/approval rating within Iran is in the 70% ... go look at some of the recent polls (done by US polling companies ). Infact, amongst the working class Iranians his approval rating hits the high 70%s, and at times in the 80%s .
You guys who want to be anti-Bush and anti-Iran at the same time are playing into the hands of the neo-cons. They know Bush is finished, what they are more interested in is finishing of Iran, they don't care about rehabilitating Bush.
The neo-cons will gladly make nice with the liberal - imperialists of the Democratic Party, Obama's groupies etc., so long as their dream of destroying Iran comes true.
The neo-cons will gladly make nice with the liberal - imperialists of the Democratic Party, Obama's groupies etc., so long as their dream of destroying Iran comes true.
Don't forget that the Neocons got their start in the Democratic Party. Pat Moynihan coined the term "benign neglect".
Now with Obama they're coming home to roost. They'll drop the Republicans like a hot penny when they've sucked all the life they can from it.
Just like they'll drop the USA after they've bankrupted us.
So what does the QTLA, Qom Theological Lecturers Association, do when it is not conducting auditions of stand-up comedians and providing fodder for blog-crazed foreigners? The name suggests that there must be a graver side to their proceedings.
Perhaps what is really going on here is only this: no audience can be guaranteed to listen with patient politeness to George XLIII Bush any longer unless at Fort Bennin’ or the Coast Guard Academy or some other fastness of the violence profession. The fact that the Yalie lad does not propose to orate about Mil. Sci. in particular is immaterial; the question is only where it is possible to let him spout off in front of a live public on any topic with no fear of indecorous heckling or worse.
M. Ahmadí-Nezhád must, as I conjecture, now be descending into the same condition of obsolescence, except that he takes his refuge (bast) amongst the Theo. Sci. folks rather than the devotees of Mars and Bellona.
(As usual, the East somehow contrives to wind up looking more-spiritual-than-thou, even in this unedifying clown competition. How do they do it? "Life is unfair"!!)
But God knows best. Happy longest days.
Reading the above Comments, I realise that I may have, if not actually have, unintentionally offended some Iranian friends. I unreservedly apologise for that. Having discharged myself of this duty, I should like to urge my Iranian friends to acquaint themselves with what in some quarters called "sarcasm", or "dry humour". I have noticed that some of my Iranian friends are inclined to take some remarks, not meant to be offensive in any way, at face value and are thus offended. Certainly, I had not intended to diminish the status of Mr Ahmadinejad as the elected President of Iran. In this connection, I consider the assertion that Mr Bush were not elected but selected, as nothing but a worthless slogan, much as I wish to wake up tomorrow and realise that it is January 21, 2009. Please do not take my word, but consult an expert on American Constitution.
May I take this opportunity and make one request from my dear Iranian friends? Please do not be so liberal in attaching tags on others, of being for instance in thrall to neo-conservatives. Please present your arguments and avoid placing people in little boxes. I certainly have no sympathy for the neo-conservative ideology in general and for neo-conservatives in particular. I also have no intention of "playing in the hands of neo-cons".
One of the above contributors has countered my argument by referring to the case of General Manuel Noriega of Panama. This is a false counter example. Mr Noriega was not the official President of Panama, but the so-called "Chief Executive Officer" for a short period in 1989. Moreover, he had been an official employee of CIA for almost 30 years. Aside from these fundamental facts, which cannot be brushed aside, Mr Noriega was captured inside Panama after the US invasion of Panama. He was, for this very reason, officially a Prisoner of War in the custody of the US occupying force. None of the above applies to Mr Ahmadinejad. Incidentally, I believe that the US administration would have committed the most foolish act imaginable to kidnap Mr Ahmadinejad, as that would open the gates of hell for the US interests the world over: every Jack and Jill would then be given a legal licence to kidnap an American official, from the President downwards, over the entire globe. BF
Post a Comment
<< Home