Shahram Amiri is an Iranian nuclear scientist who disappeared in Saudi Arabia in June of last year while undertaking the Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca. He surfaces a year later in the "Iranian Interests" section of the Pakistani Embassy in the United States claiming he had been kidnapped by the CIA and subjected to substantial pressure to provide information on Iran's nuclear program.
The US State Department says he was in the USA of his own free will. He allegedly had defected from Iran and provided information in return for a few million bucks. The kidnap story is just a cover so he can go home to his family.
Two stories, opposite versions, which do you believe? Who is lying?
After 1954 (and 1980-88), Iran has no reason to love or trust America. America has no love for Iran of course since they threw out the Shah and are now building a nuclear bomb. America does not like any country in the Middle east that it cannot control and Persia has been a problem since the days of the Great Game.
Would the CIA kidnap an Iranian nuclear scientist and take him to the USA and try to turn him with psychological pressure and loads of money? If they did and it didn't work, would they actually let him "escape" and then fabricate a cover story, hoping to get him killed on his return home? Would an Iranian nuclear scientist defect to the USA and leave his family behind in Iran to the tender mercies of the Revolutionary Guard?
Would the Iranians treat a returned nuclear scientist defector as a hero simply in order to embarrass the USA?
How do you explain the three videos on YouTube with two different story lines?
My sympathies are entirely with the Iranians. But I could be wrong. The CIA and the State Department could be telling the truth. Like the Irishman who walked past a pub - Hey, it could happen.
If you put your brain next to a pile of hay, the flames would be seen for miles. I was reading your post to Joe and Beau, and proudly stated: "dis man haz brains dah size of a Buick" and that's the best compliment I have ever given another person.
ReplyDeleteOkay. First thing I would think about is the possibility that after "being kidnapped by the CIA", how did he manage to escape and show up in a US friendly Embassy? If he explains to me how that happened and I might just not think his story is convenient excuse to help him return to Iran with as little trouble as possible. I would think that if he had been kidnapped by the CIA, he would never be heard from again.
ReplyDeleteI have no sympathies for the Iranians nor the CIA. I think both would and do what they feel is necessary for their own agendas.
I definitely think Iranian leadership are being boneheads by pushing the nuclear thing when they could be using the stupid amounts of money they are pouring into nukes to improve the lives of their citizens. I think the US is stupid for allowing Iran to even play this game. If we are going to continue to re-draw the line in the sand, we just continue to prove how impotent we are when confronting the proliferation of nukes in countries who are not even close to being our friends. Nuclear weapons are the worst idea the war mongers have ever come up with. Nobody wins. Everyone loses.
But you are right. No better example exists to prove your previous post about facts and how they interpreted and then distributed to the targeted audiences.
Ah, yup!
ReplyDeleteI'm not even going to try to unravel that one. You, and Dana, and MRMacrum are all spot on. I can't add anything, except a Shakespearian, "a pox on both their houses." Or all their houses.
So why didn't we have you as Premier of Saskatchewan a few years back? (OK, I know; you wouldn't stoop that low!)
Dana, thanks but it is my head that is the size of Buick. When I shake it, my brain rattles like a dry pea in a gourd.
ReplyDeleteMRMacrum, I agree about the "escape", unless he is more use to them alive. I meant I am leaning towards believing the Iranians as they have lied to us less than the State Dept and CIA. As you say, both will play with the facts to suit their agendas.
As to better spending money on improving live for citizens, that argument could be made for any number of countries since the first caveman whacked a second with a rock. The trillions America spends on arms would buy pretty decent health care and education for the whole country.
Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? They have as much right as anyone else. America's role in deciding who has them is totally self appointed.
And I'd feel safer if America (and that European colony on the western edge of the Middle East) didn't have nucs either as my guess as to who pulls the nuclear trigger first isn't Iran.
Isn't it fun?