Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Blog
Oct 26

Written by: Diana West
Friday, October 26, 2012 6:41 AM 

Frank Gaffney neatly recaps a slew of breaking reports by Catherine Herridge, Aaron Klein and Clare Lopez concerning what might have drawn the late Amb. Christopher Stevens to Benghazi on September 10 and 11. The diferent strands of this developing story indicate that Stevens may have been there to oversee or inspect an ongoing covert CIA operation to supply weapons and men to the jihadist-dominated "rebels" fighting Syria's Assad. Stevens' last meeting, after all, was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Turkey, of course, with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is a leading supporter of the "rebels" fighting to ovethrow Assad.

Gaffney writes:

Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.

What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison.

But there may be a deeper, more secret layer of dirt to unearth. Last night on the John Batchelor Show, Larry Johnson introduced a possible new player into this most dangerous game: Iran. With the sacking and destruction  of both the US compound and "secret annex" or base for CIA operations in Benghazi, he asked, who stands to benefit? If the US was covertly supplying anti-Assad forces from Benghazi, and Iran is an ally of Assad, the answer is Iran, not to mention Assad.

At his website No Quarter, Johnson writes:

Iran, who supports Syria’s Assad, has a very effective intelligence organization. Once they learned that Libya was supplying fighters in Syria, do you think there is any chance that they (the Iranians) would want to shutdown that operation? Iran and Libya do have a history. Iran, for example, is believed to have paid Libya to carry out the bombing of Pan Am 103. Iran still has intel operators on the ground in Libya.

Here are some interesting questions.

1. Did Iran infiltrate the fighters being trained by the United States and, in the process, gather intel that they subsequently used to target both the “Consulate” and the CIA Annex?

2. Did Iran prepare a cover for action and plant information on Facebook and other social media sites claiming credit for the attack in the name of Ansar Al Sharia?

This much is certain–the attack on 9-11 was pre-planned and pre-ordained. The results? The U.S. mission and intelligence operation in Benghazi was destroyed in total. A logical question to ask–whose interest was served? While we cannot rule out a Sunni-jihadi strike, there is a plausible case to be made that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards pulled off an absolutely brilliant strike and kicked our American ass.

To be sure, the notion of Iranian involvement introduces a discernible strategic rationale for the attack. It also gives us something else to think about. If the Obama administration is considering this possibility as well, does a potential Iranian role in Benghazi in any way account for the selection of Thomas Pickering, an Iranian apologist,  to conduct the State Department's official Benghazi investigation?   

Then again, you would think Iran would prefer Obama to Romney in the election. Would Iran launch a covert, pre-election strike that, any way you cut it, shakes Obama's standing?

Then again, a friend notes, perhaps we focus too much on our own electoral politics when issues like a weapons pipeline to Syria and AQ consolidating power in Libya matter much more to them.

Tags:
Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West