NATO Needs to Explalin Why Daniel James Wasn't Turned

[Direct link to Daniel James: http://tinyurl.com/ymp956 ] The revelations on Daniel James are not adding up. Consider the following information, and ask yourself:

___ If this was a valid security breach, why didn't the UK and US, through NATO, use James to plant invalid information with Iran?

When you answer that, you'll know what else is going on. We discuss.

Important: More information on Daniel James here -- [ Click ]

* * *

Relationship With Flynt Essay on Iran

US, NATO, and UK are setting the stage to invade Iran, deleting information showing Iran is not a threat, but supportive of US interests in Afghanistan [ Ref ]

The two issues deleted are: Iranian-US discussions over [1] post 9-11 cooperation; and [2] Iranian cooperation with US in Afghanistan.

Problem: The ruse of the alleged-"UK translator spy" [Currently being charged in the UK] comes undone when its shown that the US and Iran were cooperating, along with Syria, on illegal prisoner abuse; and the supposed Iranian espionage in Afghanstian was fabricated, and not fully exploited.

US Commanders at NATO have some explaining to do to Congress.

* * *

James is the translator for the UK Commander in Afghanistan.

Supposedly, James was involved inpassing information. However, NATO, aware of the supposed Iranian intelligence operation, if it were true, would have kept this affair quiet, and secretly turned James into a double agent. MI5 and the US CIA have not credibly handled this ruse.

If the operation were real –- and Iran was engaged in espionage –- the US, NATO, and UK would not reveal this breach. Rather, they would have put James under interrogation, told him to cooperate in sending false information to the Iranians, then –- when the Iranians acted on that false information -- the US would have gone to the UN and world saying, “Look the Iranians are meddling.”

But the US, NATO, and UK didn’t do that. They didn’t use this alleged “known contact” with Iran to feed bad information. Indeed, if Iran were doing something that was inappropriate; it would have made sense for the US, NATO, and UK to jointly agree to remain silent about the affair, keep the Pashtun translator in place, and have someone else outside the system monitor what James was feeding to the Iranians – using the more commonly available FARSI. There are plenty of FARSI translators.

The real prize would have been to prove there was a link between James, Iran, and the errors of Iran’s plans, operations, and other things. The greater value would have been to tell James that he was on probation, that he was going to be monitored, and his role would be to provide bad information to the Iranians. Once the Iranians acted on that bad information – that the US, UK, and NATO could have corroborated with other false intelligence – the real objective could have been achieved:

- Reveal the Iranian involvement
- Disclose the Iranian link
- Show the Iranians were acting on information only provided by James
- Make a fair case that James, the Iranians, and others were actively involved in espionage – as evidenced by the Iranian actions.

None of this happened. The US, UK, and NATO –- if this Iranian espionage were real –- should have kept quiet, planted false information, and force the Iranians to do something that would demonstrate there was something else, much bigger in Iran.

Judgments

The US is in a desperate position on Afghanistan, hoping to lure NATO and other nations into supporting a US effort against Iran. If the US, NATO, and UK were serious about attacking Iran – and this supposed intelligence connection between James and Iran were real – the appropriate way forward would have been to continue planning false information with James, knowing full well he’d supply the Iranians with bad information. This did not happen.

The US has no credible plan to attack Iran.

The US is hoping to make the case to Congress that the lawful NATO involvement in Afghanistan needs to be broadened; and US troop’s buildups will support combat operations in Iran.

The US-UK-NATO Iranian invasion plans are in their infancy. The US is not well managing disinformation effort; nor is it capable of adequately taking advantage of these security breaches because the security breach is not real.

* * *

Notice how quickly people are assuming that Iran is doing this. This is by design.

The issue: Would MI5 working with the CIA, approach someone to discredit them, to blame the Iranians?

___ Who was James led to believe he was talking to?

Answer: Someone from Iran, who was not really associated with Iran, but well connected, permitting NSA, MI5, and others to monitor. Curiously, there are only 5 Pashtun translators – so who would know enough to “not be in Afghanistan” but know Pashtun? It could be anyone in a US contracting facility

___ Did MI5 place the information with James thinking James would want to do something?

Answer: MI5 could have placed the information knowing that James would be alarmed by what he was seeing; MI5 could have placed someone, based on the intelligence operations in Ulster, to be an apparent confident. However, if this conversation were occurring, there would be too many people involved. The question is: Who would know enough about the importance of James and his information; not be available for the Pashtun translations; while at the same time being sufficiently close to discuss, observe, and notice what James was or was not doing – all without being detected.

___ Was James led to believe that this person was from Iran?

Answer: We don’t know –- NATO and the US could assert that someone was from the Moon, and this would be reported as fact. Right now, we have nobody from Iran. Indeed, if this were espionage, it would have made more sense to permit the “Iranian agent” to return to Iran; and attempt to turn James saying, “We know you are talking to them, if you do not cooperate we’re going to prosecute you; we want you to plant false information.” They didn’t do that. Based on this alone, we know that the operation was staged – had this been a real espionage problem, and the UK and US knew about it, they would have kept this quiet, turned James into a double agent, and fed Iran wrong information.

___ Why is there so much emphasis on Iran “meddling”, when there’s no emphasis on Indian meddling in Afghanistan?

___ What information was passed?

Answer: It was fabricated, alarming, and something that MI5, NSA, and CIA would have known about. The larger question, if this transaction were true, is: Why didn’t the NATO commanders use this to provide disinformation to the Iranians?

___ What was the source of the information?

Answer: The information, if it was fabricated, could have been from anyone. The fact that James wasn’t turned, suggests that the operation wasn’t well planned; but linked with a poorly designed disinformation effort in one of the DC planning cells. It would not be surprising if Cheney’s daughter was linked with this botched effort. Notice also the other non-sense floating around about Syria – not adding up.

___ Could the information, and the “Iranian” have been planted?

Answer: Even if the information wasn’t planted, the larger issue is – why not turn James, and feed the Iranians bad information.

___ What was the source of the information that James supposedly had?

Answer: If we focus solely on the field, the US may have planted some information with the Taliban, knowing full well the UK-NATO commander would get the information.

___ How did UK know that James received the information that was supposedly sensitive?

Answer: If you know when the information was sent – because you sent it – you would know two things: [1] The reason for the information being placed; and [2] Why James wasn’t turned to feed more bad information to the Iranians.

* * *

If you map the supposed parties involved, you’ll see that Iran wouldn’t necessarily be inclined to be involved. Consider, the many points in the communication line, limited language skills; but the higher chance that James transmissions/communications in FARSI to alleged Iranians [after translation from Pashtun] would have been easy to monitor:

___ Relying on a Farsi-translator, NATO and MI5 would know whether James tipping off the Iranians that the information was bogus?

Many Players:

1. Sender of the original information
2. Receipt of the information
3. Translation
4. Interface with external

1        2          3         4

0 - - -  0  - - - - 0 - - - - 0

Judgments

There was no reason for Iran to approach [ 3 ] when it had the opportunity to approach [1] and [ 2 ]

For Iran to have been involved, there would have been too many transactions; Iran would have, if they were involved, approached the transmission point. Once they knew James was receiving information, they would have directly discussed the issues with those who were sending the information. The Taliban and Iran are not in an alliance. Iran remains concerned about the Afghan stability.

___ Why wasn’t the person who was supposedly connected to Iran not spotted earlier?

Answer James wasn’t sufficiently connected to Iran for him to openly do this. The more appropriate route, if this were really happening, would be for James to have indirectly provided information about the source, not providing actual information. This is information the Iranians would not have had to get from James. This makes no sense.

___ Who had the “alleged Iranian” under surveillance?

Answer: The question would be -- why would this type of contact occur without someone interfering with it. MI5 and NSA would have known about the approach, and should have done something to prevent it. Most likely, the reverse is true -- NSA knew full well of the planted information; and was aware that the transaction was occurring as staged.

___ Why was someone “connected with Iran” permitted to get close to a General Officer’s close associate, someone who was rare, unique, and novel?

Answer: This makes no sense, and appears to have been the fatal flaw with the MI5 plan.

___ What was the nature of the information?

Answer: It was something that may or may not be real.

___ Who was sending the information?

Answer: The issue is –- why bother approaching a high profile translator, when there were easier options. This sounds more like a plan to discredit the Iranians, and blame the NATO setbacks on Iran. Iran would know better than to provoke NATO. Most likely this is a ruse to expand combat operations from the Eastern Border, and get NATO leaders to support a US-UK-led back attack on Iran, which is otherwise not warranted.

___ Why would Iran need to talk to someone, when they could have easily have contacted the original person who supposedly sent the information?

Answer: Indeed, the nature of the information doesn’t seem to be something that would warrant [1] NATO/NSA awareness of the information; yet [2] There were insufficient translators to monitor. Someone would have to monitor what James was getting; then monitor who he was talking to – all this would have to happen quickly, without warning him, but others would have to be involved. This involves too many variables that the Iranians wouldn’t risk doing given the NATO linkage. The Iranian delay in responding appears to be linked with their lack of information on what was happening; who was involved; or whether the person that supposedly was from Iran was really from Iran.

___ Why would Iran approach a high level person, and not the source of the information?

Answer: Once Iran “knew” that this person was the object of the information, there would be no reason to go after a high profile target. It would make more sense to go after the source of the information; and reconstruct the details from scratch. This many years into the US-NATO involvement in Afghanistan, and nothing has happened; yet, out of the Blue a night club owner can get contacted by the Iranians. Too fast; rather, the question becomes – why didn’t NATO prevent this from happening; or to what extent was NATO involved in this ruse.

Judgments

1. Iran had no involvement.
2. The information was fabricated, and planted.
3. The external source of the information was linked with MI5 and the US with the aim to discredit the Iranians.
4. James was picked by MI5 and the US because of his financial background in the Brighton club, and the asset transfer to the Iranians. These issues are not relevant.
5. The information created would have been produced in another location; Iran would have had the ability to discuss the information, intercept it, and talk to a low profile person.
6. NATO is using this as an excuse to build up troops in NATO on the pretext that the threat is Iran.
7. NATO is using this as the first step to blame the 9-11, Afghanistan setbacks, and Taliban success in Afghanistan on the Iranians; and avoid holding the US National Security Council responsible for the reckless planning, distraction with Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Summary

We judge the NATO forces have staged this security leak. If it were true and Iran was involved, then NATO would have been best to keep quiet about the issues, turn James, and plant incorrect information with Iran.

NATO support for combat operations is waning. There are multiple rules to salvage the “axis of Evil” theory, including the invalid-incredible Hariri assassination; the Syrian destabilization efforts; and the false Iranian involvement in Iraqi polling issues.

We judge NATO commanders fear European civilians are pushing hard to remove NATO Troops; and that the way forward is to mesh the US forces in Iraq with the NATO forces in Afghanistan, distract attention from the illegal warfare issues; and build momentum and support for military action against Iran.

NATO commanders have yet to explain why the supposed espionage, if it were true, was not kept quiet, and why James was not turned. This failure, if it is was it appears to be, would undermine the US-UK claim that the Iranians are a threat. The way forward would have been to plant false information with James, but this was not done.

The speed of public acceptance of the “Iranian involvement” combined with the failure of the apparent espionage failure, suggests this is an operation designed to move beyond the failure of Iraq, mobilize world attention on a false Iranian threat, and get Europeans to support NATO expansion despite illegal warfare and reckless handling of the Afghanistan operation.

We judge the entire line of evidence, charges, and other details related to the James affair to be a fabrication, unreliable, and warranting immediate attention by the Senate Intelligence Committee, European Council, and Security Council to find out:

___ Why isn’t this adding up?

___ If Iran were doing something that it should not, why did the US, NATO, and UK not plant false information that the Iranians would act on?

___ What concern do NATO commanders have that Europeans are withdrawing support for what appear to be incompetent combat operations?

___ Why is NATO hoping to blame Iran for failed NATO planning?

___ Does NATO believe that this story – which does not add up – would mobilize the world to forget about illegal US combat operations in Iraq, and move to attack targets in Iran?

___ What was the plan of the US, NATO, and UK commanders when the questions surfaced: Why didn’t James get turned; and if Iran were doing something awful, why not plant bad information to prompt the Iranians to show their cards?

___ If there are inadequate Pashtun translators, why not monitor the FARSI communications between James and his supposed Iranian-contact, to determine whether the effort to plant information with the Iranians had been compromised?

___ Why the speed to disclose something that could have been quietly handled?

___ Why should anyone believe that the Iranians are doing something at this level of the Staff, yet nobody around the NATO commander was aware of the risks?

___ To what extent is this an effort by the US to discredit the UK commander and convince the NATO alliance that the command in Afghanistan should shift back to the US?

___ How does the failure of the US-NATO commanders to exploit this so-called espionage issue undermine confidence in NATO plans to expand, transform, or lawfully increase its umbrella?

___ To what extent, despite the botched NATO opreations in AFghanistn, is the apparent fabricated spy story an effort to shore up NATO's flagging credibilty, expand operations, and discredit NATO Staff who are against NATO expansion?

___ Are NATO Staffers complicit with this ruse security breach to silence critics about NATO expansion, and shift frocus from failed combat operations in Iran and Afghanistan to a fabrciated "common enemy" which has nothing to do with 9-11 or nuclear weapons?