More

Zion's Corner Blogs


Op-Ed: "The MOIS Station Chief" in the White House

It seems Obama is ignoring the alleged betrayal of US and Israel by Turkey. What can explain that?
Published: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:14 AM


Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The headlines were shrill: "Turkey's unprecedented act of betrayal against Israel."  But something is wrong and certainly inconsistent, with stories in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article published on October 10, 2013 on "Turkey's Spymaster Plots Own Course on Syria" and the October 16, 2013 David Ignatius-WashPost piece "Turkey blows Israel's cover for Iranian spy Ring."

For, whenever spies, especially Obama’s so-called "U.S. Officials'" purposefully leak something, there's a reason, or a plan behind Obama's leak.  What exactly is Obama's plan in leaking the "Turkey betrays Israel" story?

The key here is that Obama, and only Obama, could have approved such an incendiary "leak."  And, Obama's plan has one goal: to help him consummate his Iranian nuclear bargain.

As a preface, was Erdogan the “right-hand man” of his Islamo-Fascist mentor Necmettin Erbakan who invaded Cyprus in 1974?  Yes, he was.

Did Hakan Fidan use TIKA for 10 years as an intelligence cut-out to create thousands of live Turkish sleeper-cells throughout the world to form his current MIT networks? Absolutely.

So, neither Erdogan nor Fidan are innocent bystanders.

Nevertheless, is Erdogan so stupid as to allow Iran to gain absolute territorial contiguity from Iran, through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and thus, allow Iran to run its own uninterrupted oil-gas pipeline from Iran to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea which will evade, and bankrupt, Turkey's competing parallel Nabucco east-west pipeline to Europe?  No.

And do Erdogan and Fidan want this Nabucco-independent topologically contiguous Iranian-controlled east-west gas/oil pipeline to the Med to also have an Iranian nuclear-umbrella for protection?  Absolutely not.

So, whatever Erdogan's strategy, if Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state, Turkey's dream of a renewed empire morphs into a nightmare of Iran's nuclear empire (with Iran occupying Saudi Arabia's Shiite-majority oil-rich eastern provinces as well).  Erdogan can't possibly want Iranian nukes.

So let's get to the substance of why the Obama story is, at its core, very wrong.  The gist of the story is: Fidan, Turkey's spymaster, is allegedly an Iranian stooge, aka "the MOIS Station Chief in Ankara," (MOIS are initials of Iran's spy agency Ministry Of Information and Security). And Turkey aka Fidan supposedly burned an Israeli nuclear spy network that ran into Iran.

But, if Fidan is an Iranian stooge, why is he leading the Turkish charge to supply the Syrian rebels whose sole purpose is to liquidate Assad, Iran's key ally in the entire area?

And, why is Erdogan calling Assad, Iran's lynchpin weapons supply connection to Hezbollah, a "terrorist"?

It would seem that at least from the beginning of 2011 (when the Syrian rebellion began with Turkey's help) to now, Turkey and Fidan were strategic enemies of Iran.

And there is another recent historical problem with the Obama story.  As of the middle of 2009, Turkey was already clearly to some degree “in bed” with the Syrians and Iranians. In October 2009, Turkey signed the civil/defense cooperation treaty with Syria, and by extension, with Iran.  In May 2010, the Turkish harmony with Iran and Obama was in evidence when Turkey signed the Turkish-Brazilian-Iranian Nuclear Deal.

So, Israel was on notice, in mid-2009, that Turkey, to some degree, was  compromised territory as far as intelligence is concerned.  Key to the real history is that the Turkish-Iranian and Erdogan-Obama romances both ended about January 2011, when Turkey helped the nascent Syrian rebel forces to defend themselves against Assad's massacres.

An additional vital fact, is that at the same time, Sec of State Hilary Clinton, CIA Head Petraeus, and Sec of Def Leon E. Panetta were all for arming the Syrian rebels, but Obama (and Valerie Jarrett) overruled them.  So, in 2011, Turkey's arming Syrian Rebels was really a policy strongly advocated by the very heart of America's military-intelligence, diplomatic establishment.

Now, let's focus on the "leaked" story itself.  Who exactly are these "leakers"?  The WSJ four times, (four times!) cites "current and former U.S. officials."  Ignatius also repeatedly writes that his sources are "U.S. officials."  These are current "US officials" who are risking prosecution if they are leaking without explicit permission. So, "U.S. officials" aren't going to leak this kind of story if they weren't specifically tasked to spill the exact narrative they spilled.  And, there is no way any current US officials were ordered to "leak" super-secret Middle-East/Iranian nuclear details without Barack Obama personally ordering such a leak.

To put a finer edge to this last point, a report was just issued which declared that President Obama has waged a "war on leaks."  The report stated, Obama's efforts to control leaks was the "most aggressive since Nixon."  Obama is actively pursuing 8 different felony leak prosecutions under a 1917 law where, otherwise, since 1917 only 3 other felony prosecutions were sought by all the US presidents since 1917 combined.

So, how is the super-secret "Turkey betrays Israel" story getting leaked to multiple sources without the direct and absolute approval of Obama himself?  It isn't.

That leaves two remaining questions:  Why did Obama spill the alleged Turkey ‘leak’ now? And, Is the leak true?

As to the timing question, why would Obama go out of his way to pour hydrochloric acid into the Israeli-Turkish wound he supposedly "worked so hard" to heal?  The  answer is Obama doesn't really want the Israelis and Turks to harmonize just when Obama is about to seal his Iranian nuke deal. The last thing Obama wants is for the Israelis and Turks to realize that they are absolute allies, and they have perfect joint reason and supreme strategic interest to liquidate Assad, and undercut Obama with Iran's nuke talks.

So, whether or not the leak is true, Obama's clear sole tactical goal of his leak was to destroy Israeli-Turkish cooperation on Iran and Syria.

The extreme nature of the leak can only mean Obama is willing to engage in desperate means to pre-empt any possible Israeli-Turkish cooperation. It leads one to conclude that either Obama is very close to an Iranian deal, and/or Assad is close to falling, while Obama needs Iran's enemies to be as divided and as disarrayed as possible so as to nullify the sanctions and fund Iran with tens of billions of Iranian impounded cash.

As for the deeper question: Is it true? -  The possible answer lies in the most incredible paragraph in Ignatius' story:

"Though U.S. officials regarded exposure of the Israeli network as an unfortunate intelligence loss, they didn’t protest directly to Turkish officials. Instead, Turkish-American relations continued warming last year to the point that Erdogan was among Obama’s key confidants. This practice of separating intelligence issues from broader policymaking is said to be a long-standing U.S. approach."

Really?  Turkey betrays US vital intelligence secrets on Iran to Iran on perhaps the greatest military threat the world has ever seen, and the US "didn't protest directly to Turkish officials."  Is it really a "longstanding approach" to allow "allies" to betray the United States' most sensitive nuclear secrets to America's greatest modern-day enemy while US is "separating" the betrayal from "broader policymaking”?

The US executive no-reaction policy to the alleged Turkish betrayal wasn't decided by an amorphous, bureaucratic, governmental "long-standing approach" as Obama's narrative would have one believe.  The no-reaction to Turkey's betrayal policy was an Obama decision.

Imagine if Turkey had instead burned an American spy network into Israel to the Israelis.  Would there have been the same placid "long-standing approach" applied to the Turks' betrayal?  It is Obama's attempt to recast his decision not to react to the alleged betrayal as a "long-standing approach" upon which Obama's entire narrative starts to fail.

Obama's "long-standing policy" narrative's weak-spot then gets even more strained.  The WSJ story reports that both Israeli and US intelligence secrets were betrayed by Turkey to Iran.  The WSJ story stated, "Fidan raised concerns three years ago [2010], senior U.S. officials say, when he rattled Turkey's allies by allegedly passing to Iran sensitive intelligence collected by the U.S. and Israel."

So, not only do United States intelligence and President Obama purposefully and knowingly ignore the alleged fact that Fidan was actively leaking highly sensitive U.S. intelligence  (in addition to the Israeli) secrets on Iran to Iran, but then Ignatius reported that "U.S. officials" told him "Turkish-American relations continued warming last year to the point that Erdogan was among Obama's key confidants."

So, by Turkey's betraying the U.S. to Iran, Obama "warmed" up to Turkey, and Erdogan became "Obama's key confidant"?

There can be only two rational explanations for Obama's actively ignoring Turkey's alleged betrayal of the US, as well as Israeli, nuclear intelligence secrets on Iran.  The first is that Turkey's betrayal of the US and Israel nuclear secrets to Iran presented no problem for Obama.  Obama secretly wanted them to help Iran anyway.

And the corollary to this first reason is that Obama only became enraged with Erdogan and Turkey when they stopped spilling secrets to Iran, and became hostile to Iran and started helping the Syrian rebels overthrow Iran's stooge, Assad. The irony here is Fidan is at the same time being accused in the WJS of helping arm Syria's, and hence, Iran's enemies (supported, in general, by Clinton, Petraeus, and Panetta), and then in the Ignatius story, Turkey and Fidan stand accused of being allies of Iran. Which is it?

The second, more likely, reason Obama "didn’t protest directly to Turkish officials" over the sensitive leaks of Israeli spies in Iran is because Obama actually knew the Turks didn't "burn" the Israeli spies, since Obama (or Valerie Jarrett) had actually burned them himself.  Obama likely plotted a perfect "false flag" operation to burn the Israeli spies, and divert blame by mildly accusing Turkey.

Also, in 2010, the last thing Obama would do is directly attack Turkey for his own outing of Israel's Iran nuclear network.  It would only have forced the Turks, in 2010, to do a counter-intelligence dig-in, and get to the real source of the intelligence leaks when they were still friendly with Iran.  That was the last thing Obama wanted in 2010.

In conclusion, Obama has been Iran's man in the White House from Day One of his presidency.  From the moment Obama took office there has been a non-stop torrent of pro-Iran, pro-Assad, anti-Saudi, pro-Hezbollah, anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim brotherhood, anti-Mubarak/Sisi Obama foreign policy moves that have led to Iran being, today, on the threshold of becoming a nuclear-weapons' state.

For five years, Obama and his Iranian-born, Farsi-speaking side-kick, Valerie Jarrett, have pushed every American foreign policy decision lever towards turning Iran into the one-nuclear-weapons' superpower of the Middle East.

What is extremely vital is that President Obama's legacy will see the birth of Iran as a full-fledged unstoppable nuclear-weapons state.  Unlike North Korea, Iran will have 60% of the world's oil reserves' supply within its nuclear grasp.  A nuclear-armed-Islamist-Khomaneist-Persian-terrorist Iran will be unstoppable, and funded with the infinite billions of oil wealth of the Persian Gulf.

Either Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey join forces soon, and form a unified alliance to stop Obama's Iranian nuclear express train, or Iran will soon have a robust arsenal of nuclear weapons.


For more information, please visit www.marklangfan.com