7 thoughts on “Mark Perry speaks about allegations of Israeli spies posing as CIA agents

  1. Ian Arbuckle

    Who believes this good cop bad cop scenario. “A conspiracy theory that America works closely with Israel”? As if calling it a conspiracy theory will make it a ridiculous interpretation of what is obvious. Why does anyone need to theorize on the facts. The US uses its UNSC veto to protect its rogue attack dog at every instant from any crime, and feeds the terrorist hound on juicy bones worth between 3 to 6 billion dollars a year, when you factor in all the military aid. This patsy mouthpeace of the Washington beltway wants me to believe that although sometimes the Zionist dogs get out of control, it’s not that serious and it’s not worth doing much about it, but on the other hand if Iran where to retaliate; ya, it might just provoke WWIII, but hey, no biggy, right… who is this shmuck? Let the dogs do the provocation and then the US comes in for the heavy lifting. If that is not a reciprocal conspiricy, what is? And what kind of journalism is Al Jazeera up to when they don’t call out what is such an obvious US propaganda plant.

    Pathetic in every respect.

  2. Paul Woodward

    I have worked with Mark Perry for several years. I can assure you he is not a U.S. propaganda plant. But then again, I guess some visitors to this site might somehow imagine that I have some hidden connections with the U.S. government. To the conspiratorial mind, all things seem possible.

  3. Ian Arbuckle

    No Paul I can well imagine that he is reporting accurately what he was given to report by “insiders” as he claims and that they were more or less independently collaborated by other “sources” it is not too difficult to create a web from a few well placed strands. If he’s not a plant then he has been duped. Mark Perry might just be hungry enough for a story and notoriety or naive enough, to believe that a state that has laws against material support of terrorism continues to send billions of dollars, and provide cover in the UNSC to another state engaged in terrorism and using its name against its stated interests. But yes, president Bush was furious, bla bla… and would have been a conspirator in subverting US law in supporting the terrorist state of Israel…….. Slightly more serious in the mix of things than lying about oral sex under oath, is it not?

    To any mind, conspiratorial or not, this is exactly what he wrote. So when is a crime, not a crime in America pray tell and what is a conspiracy. Don’t tell me people are not in jail for far less.

    So to believe the US is funding terrorism in Iran or elsewhere directly or through Israel is to have a conspiratorial mind, is it? Should believe what we are told here, that America’s CIA or other alphabet soup of agencies would never do such a thing? Please, forgive my broad smile, deep sigh. (So you worked with Perry, did you?)

  4. Paul Woodward

    The important idea to grasp is that when it comes to Iran (and most other things), U.S. and Israeli interests do not perfectly overlap. American politicians might work hard to perpetuate the fiction that there is no light separating the two countries and two governments, but most people in Washington and Tel Aviv know this is a fiction.

    This story is not really about fabricated indignation that Israelis would act in ways that Americans would never dream of — clearly the CIA is not above assassination and torture when offered some kind of tenuous legal cover. It’s about the fact that there is not a monolithic U.S.-Israeli view of Iran. The differences are real and significant.

  5. Colm O' Toole

    Paul has mentioned before that he worked with the Conflicts Forum, which Mark Perry was involved with. Personally from what I’ve read on Mark Perry he seems like a very respected journalist. He has had essays included in Project Censored before and was very close with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation through the ’90’s at a time when siding openly with Palestinian leaders could hurt your reputation in Washington.

    On the quote Ian mentioned from the video where Perry said “there is a general conspiracy theory that we work very closely with Israel, are willing to forgive, are ready to defer to Israel” I think Mark Perry should have made it clearer that he was remarking in the context of the Iran assassination campaign.

    Obviously Perry is not calling people who talk about the general Israel-US relationship, a conspiracy theory, but just within this context and the the context of his article in Foreign Policy.

  6. Ian Arbuckle

    Common, What Perry is reporting are crimes of international terrorism committed by Israel under the cover of the CIA, the complicity of non-action by the US executive in response and we have to take only Perry’s word that the US was not in fact complicit but made it clear that they were angry.

    And although all that happened several years ago, we have to accept that the recent assassinations of Iranian scientists, maybe purely Israeli in origin and is contrary to “policy” of the US who prefer dialogue.

    If I was the CIA and wanted to get this type of spin to “the good cop bad cop”, “we don’t always see things the same as Israel”, I certainly would get it out through a journalist who does not usually work for FOX news. Even if this was Wolf Blitzer at CNN you would know immediately where it was coming from.

    In the context of these assassinations I personally feel that this is a labored attempt to establish “credible deniablity” as they call it. But if true, what it points to is far worse.

Comments are closed.