Chas Freeman Questions the CW Re Iran's Response

In fact, others have also questioned the accepted belief that the Iranian response to the latest Israeli provocation will simply be a repetition of their April response, on steroids. Chas Freeman, in an interview with Larry Johnson today, presents his argument against that assumption. I’ve prepared a transcript of the 18:00 - 25:00 section.

The transcript begins with a question being asked of a Pentagon spokesman, Pat Ryder, by a wild eyed Zionist trying to get Ryder to say that the US is committed to attacking Iran if Iran attacks Israel. Interestingly, Ryder deftly deflects. He simply says that the US is committed to defend Israel, but he refuses to say that the US will attack Iran directly. To me, this argues that the US may actually have been taken by surprise by Netanyahu’s targeted assassinations that totally undercut US efforts to get some sort of deal in place in Palestine. That also argues that the US is aware that Netanyahu is trying to get the US into a major war, and are pushing back against that. The problem, as always, is domestic politics for the US.

So here we go. By the way, the entire interview is quite fascinating—highly recommended:

Amb Chas Freeman: The RIGHT way to Negotiate - Ukraine Russia War Israeli Hamas War, Iran, China

LJ: Let's shift to what's going on with Israel and Iran--and Gary, let's play the Pat Ryder commentary at the at the Pentagon from the other day please.

Q: "But isn't it important at this critical time in history that you send a very clear signal to Iran that if they attack, launch a major attack on Israel, and or its proxies, US military will attack Iran? Don't you need to send a clear signal about what Iran, if they do it, if they cross it, you will attack them?"

A: "I think we are sending an extremely clear signal, which is that we are going to support the defense of Israel--as evidenced by the capabilities that, one, we already retain in the region, and two, the additional capabilities that we're flowing into the CENTCOM and EUCOM areas."

Now I haven't seen Top Gun 2. My understanding is the script involves the US military attacking Iran--you know, flying jets into Iran. So, Mr Ambassador, tell me what you think.

CF: First of all, there's just a quote of a Chinese military adage. Since success in war depends on surprise and surprise usually depends on deception, there's a Chinese military adage that says: No repetition of a winning move. Iran has already been provoked with an Israeli attack on its Embassy in Damascus into an exchange of missiles with Israel--which [Iran] deliberately told us in advance was not intended to kill anybody. They sent slow, obsolete drones on a six-hour flight from Iran to Israel and cruise missiles following them to make it make sure that the Israelis and we and the Jordanians--whose airspace they had to cross-- would be able to defend against them. They then sent some hypersonic [sic] missiles to very precise targets in Israel, including the swimming pool at the officer club in an air base in the Negev.

So, Freeman is saying that that Iranian response in April was a winning move. He doesn’t believe they’ll simply repeat that winning move.

The assumption is they're going to repeat that, but with gusto. I doubt that very much. I think Israel crossed a red line. Israel has been in the habit of assassinating Iranians for quite a while, and now it assassinated a Sunni leader, Hamas, Haniyeh, during the [Iranian] presidential inauguration, when he was a state guest in a state guest house in Teheran. You can't get more insulting than that. That is an affront to Iranian honor and they will retaliate, as they have said, but I suspect, I fear, that their retaliation is going to be counter assassination. They're not going to do again what they did on April 1. So they're going to respond to the July 31st provocation by Israel, but they will do it in a way that befuddles us because they don't want a war with us. And I don't think the answer [for the US] to a provocation by Israel--an incredible provocation, both a simultaneous assassination in Teheran and one in South Beirut--I don't think [our] answer to that [should be] to reaffirm our intention to defend Israel no matter what it does. That is exactly the policy which has brought us to a point where we have no credibility in the world. We are overextended. We are facing the danger of a wider war--not only in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe and Ukraine but also in the Taiwan Strait--because we've forgotten how to talk to people. We've forgotten how to reason with them. We've forgotten how to send messages. The only message we know how to send is moving naval vessels or Air Force planes around, and that is not an effective way to conduct foreign policy.

Next, Freeman is asked what he thinks Netanyahu and the Israelis thought they were going to achieve with the assassination of Haniyeh in Teheran.

In the case of Mr Netanyahu, trying to do what he's been trying to do for decades, namely, to get the US into a war with Iran. I don't know who that press guy [above] was, asking the question, but he's basically serving Mr Netanyahu's effort to produce a wider war, because there are people in Israel--and apparently they include the Prime Minister--who want an apocalypse. They think Israel would benefit from it. I don't believe so, and I think Mr Netanyahu has made a number of mistakes. I know that his own military, his own intelligence services, and many people in Israel want him out. And today I saw an oped in Haaretz--that's the great liberal Israeli newspaper--by Ehud Barak, former prime minister, former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Israel, basically calling for a coup to get rid of Netanyahu because he has led his country into the abyss. He has no way out.

That last statement mirrors a claim that Scott Ritter made this morning. Ritter maintains that the Israeli military is painfully aware that Netanyahu has led Israel into a war that they never planned for and has turned into a disaster. Israel, said Ritter, has never planned for a war that would last almost a year. Here’s an excerpt of an article that quotes Barak:

Former Israel PM Ehud Barak calls for Netanyahu’s ‘immediate removal’ for causing ‘enormous damage’

Writing in Israeli daily Haaretz, Barak slams Netanyahu over conduct of Israel-Hamas war, criticising lack of clear 'day after' plan. ‘Nobody believes a word Netanyahu says,' he adds.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has called for the immediate removal of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister as his “government is causing grave harm to Israel’s strategic standing” and leading the Israel-Hamas war with “no end point”. …

“This is causing enormous damage. Netanyahu’s premiership must be terminated before the consequences of his flaws become irreversible,” Barak wrote. …

The internet continues to buzz with rumors of the next big Iranian and/or Hezbollah missile strike. If those of like mind with Freeman are correct, that may never come. Or not on the expected timetable. In the meantime, Iran will be pleased with the results so far, in economic and trade disruption to Israel and its enablers. We shall see how this turns out.

BTW, Ritter also made a number of interesting comments in the same interview that are worth repeated. First, he stated that Iran’s nuclear facilities are so deeply buried under mountains that only nuclear missiles could reach them—something only Zionists would contemplate. Pat Ryder’s response (above) seems to be a clear indication that the US has not desire to have any part of such an undertaking. Second, Ritter maintained both that Russian personnel are probably embedded in the Iranian air defenses and that Iranian electronic warfare technicians are embedded with Hezbollah and may have disabled the Israeli Iron Dome system the other night. Finally, Ritter maintained that if Israel did use nukes the resulting war would not end until a Muslim Bomb took out Israel. He speculated that Pakistan could do that. FWIW.

Finally, I’m embedding a Youtube video of Doug Macgregor discussing a wide spectrum of Russia related topics, mostly inside the war stuff. It’s a very lively and provocative discussion. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but it’s very worthwhile. It may be an older video, but it’s still worthwhile.