January 12, 2012
Why Did Hillary Deny Our Involvement In the Latest Nuke Scientist Assassination?
Yesterday, the fifth Iranian nuclear scientist in two years was assassinated.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wasted no time hustling to a microphone.
“I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Clinton said at a Wednesday news conference.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton was on Fox radio's John Gibson Show in the 1:00 hour this afternoon. I'm not a big fan of Bolton but he raised a good point: what is the effect of the Sec of State's categorical denial? It points the finger of blame definitively elsewhere (like to one of our allies). It also makes us look afraid. Bolton's remarks to the Washington Post:
“Hillary [Clinton] said we had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Traditionally, we say, ‘We don’t comment on alleged intelligence activities.’ Why go out of your way to say ‘Not us’? It’s because they are afraid of retaliation. But when she goes out of her way [to deny U.S. involvement], it reflects fear.”
With the Secretary of State's emphatic statement, we narrow the list of potential perpetrators and make ourselves look weak. Wouldn't it have been far smarter for the Obama administration to have simply been silent on the point?
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wasted no time hustling to a microphone.
“I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Clinton said at a Wednesday news conference."
Kind of fast to know for sure. Assuming we still do "wet work" is the SecState informed? Would she have access to such info?
I suppose that after her "eight years in the White House", shehas figured things out.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at January 12, 2012 10:10 PMThe Mossad has a lot of "asets"in Iran.
It could have been them-ya think?
With the Secretary of State's emphatic statement, we narrow the list of potential perpetrators and make ourselves look weak. Wouldn't it have been far smarter for the Obama administration to have simply been silent on the point?
Isn't Israel OK with that? Isn't part of their security strategy to leave no doubt that they will do what's necessary without admitting anything?
And then there's the other theory and probably true:
Ali Ansari, a professor at the Institute for Iranian Studies at Scotland's University of St. Andrews, said more information is needed about the victims to help determine who's perpetrating the attacks. Some have speculated that the victims were members of the opposition movement and could have been targeted by internal forces," Ansari said. "But if it is true that Israel is behind it, Iran should make a formal complaint to the U.N. so they can get an answer from Israel," Ansari said. "Because if they really think some other country is killing their nuclear experts, why are they not giving them more protection?"
Recommended reading...
www.juancole.com/2012/01/a-murder-in-tehran.html
If you put this all together, you can come to a speculation. The circumstantial evidence would point to a member of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK or People’s Jihadis) terrorist organization. The MEK is known to have been involved in espionage on the Iranian nuclear program, and it wants to overthrow the current government in favor of a Marxist-Islamic regime, working with Israeli intelligence...Anyway, the scientists so far killed have not been proven in a court of law to have done anything wrong at all, and so they have been murdered in cold blood for political purposes, which is the definition of terrorism. Western leaders who accuse Iran of being the world’s major purveyor of terrorism (a stupid allegation) would have to, if they were honest and consistent, speak out against these grisly murders in Iran (which also killed innocent bystanders).
How "conservatives" think denying involvement in murder and terrorism "ourselves look weak" truly boggles the mind.
Posted by: Russ at January 13, 2012 8:57 AM"Isn't Israel OK with that? Isn't part of their security strategy to leave no doubt that they will do what's necessary without admitting anything?"
Yes, in part. At the same time, wouldn't it be more supportive of an ally not to so quickly say, "Hey, it wasn't us!", thereby focusing more attention/blame on the ally?
Israel has to own what they do.they are not the 51st state.
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 13, 2012 7:18 PMHere's my question for Sec. Clinton:
If the United States played no role in the systematic elimination of scientists who are helping Iran develop nuclear weapons . . . WHY NOT?
Posted by: brassband at January 13, 2012 10:12 PM