Op-Ed: Benghazi Leads to Iran, Not Al Qaeda
Mark LangfanThe writer, who specializes in security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at www.marklangfan.com.
Obama's all-out attempt to stone-wall the Benghazi truth may hide skeletons much worse than Obama's arming al Qaeda, it may hide Obama's protecting Iran.
Republican Congressman Frank Wolf reported on Breitbart last Thursday:
“We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns? . . . Are they in a warehouse somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria,. . . Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis? . . . Nobody knows, so I think there are so many questions from the failure to respond to where the guns went.”
Why is Obama doing everything in the world to cover-up the truth in Benghazi? Why is Obama administering lie detector exams every few days to all the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi?
Is it to cover-up the fact that Obama was running guns to the Syrian rebels? Why do that? Both the then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then-CIA Director Petraeus were openly advocating arming the Syrian rebels.
Is it such a big deal that the United States was secretly arming enemies of Iran's puppet Assad through our NATO-ally, Turkey? No it isn't.
Is the the fact that some of the US weapons may have accidentally fallen into al Qaeda's hands that terrible? No. Not at all.
The reason Obama doesn't want the truth of the Benghazi-to-Syrian Rebels gun-running operation to come out is that all of a sudden the "al Qaeda attacked Benghazi" narrative doesn't make any sense. For, why on earth would al Qaeda attack a gun-running operation to the Syria rebels when the Syria rebels themselves are al Qaeda? Al Qaeda wouldn't be attacking their own al Qaeda weapons pipeline.
So, Obama's real fear is not that he ran guns to al Qaeda, but that if this were known, al Qaeda would be removed as the possible suspect in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three Americans.
That is the real problem, because if al Qaeda is removed as a possible suspect because it was benefitting from the gun-running, who's left as a suspect? Who would want an American weapons pipeline to the Syrian rebels shut down? Once al Qaeda is removed from contention, and that question is posed, there is only one answer: the Hizbullah/Iranian axis.
This may be why Obama is doing everything in the universe to shut the Benghazi investigation down. Because the truth of the Benghazi gun-running operation immediately leads to the likely conclusion that Iran, and only Iran, had the motive to attack our Benghazi consulate and murder Ambassador Stevens.
In that case, Obama's "unprecedented" lie detector exams tazing CIA Benghazi operatives into silence is really an attempt to protect Iran from being exposed as the likely murderer of an American Ambassador and 3 of his valiant protectors.
And that begs an even bigger questions.
Why would Obama protect Iran from being exposed as a possible suspect?
If Benghazi was a live CIA operation center, then Obama had to have known when it was being attacked that it was a live CIA operation center. Why, then, did Obama fail to take any particular interest in its immediate defense? In fact, if it was a live CIA operation, extraordinary measures should have been taken in its defense.
Is Benghazi another Watergate?