Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
The "paid assassinations" stuff sounds very exciting in a Robert Ludlum sort of way, but I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.
- That there was a "special relationship" between Saddam and the CIA since the late 1950s, as can be read - for example - in Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power, and then here, here, here etc.

Alliances last while both parties perceive them to be in their interests. There is no reason for them to last any longer or to be based on anything else.
No doubt, but no answer to my question, which was if you would use the same analogy about "no lasting friendships in diplomacy, only lasting interests" - for the relationship between the US and the KSA?

Certainly allies lie to each other. So do non-allies. It's part of diplomacy, and it's expected. The alliances still endure if they are in the perceived interests of both parties.
Again, I asked a very specific question: would you like to say that all the US "special friendships", are lies?

Explanations like yours make me wonder about your standpoint regarding another, very similar, though more recent affair: how would you describe Emir of Kuwait's decision to introduce constitutional monarchy in his country, after this was liberated - by a US-led coalition (pure accident, of course) - in 1991? An absolute monarch woke up one Friday morning and said, "Ah, I feel like introducing a parliament today"? Or "could it be" the US played a role in that affair (too)? Perhaps you would also kindly explain what kind of influence is required in order to impose such a decision upon an absolute ruler of any country? A "little bit or influence", or perhaps some "dictate" after all?

Who knew, believed, or suspected what and when they knew, believed, or suspected it are generally matters of speculation, and allegations not supported by credible citations don't really mean very much.
Please, don't twist my words. I did not say "believed" or "suspected": Saddam's visit to the Saudi King in September 1980 and the topics discussed during that meeting have been widely reported, back then and several times ever since. Only somebody who never heard about this would come to the idea to explain this for "believed" or "suspected".

The US has some influence. It varies according to where, when, and with whom dealings are taking place. <snip>... Influence is not control.
The quantity might varry (in terms of manner in which the "influence" was exercised, particularly finances and people involved), but the quality not. Successive US administrations have exercised strong influence, and were often directly involved, upon/in almost every important development in the Middle East ever since the WWII. The US has not only "some" influence, and discussing "influence" in relation to "control" is actually pointless, at best a lame excuse: the US influence is usually crucial for the developments at hand, regardless if these are related to provision of support that saved the rule of al-Sauds or establishment of Israel in spite of Arab resistance in the 1940s; Op Ajax in Iran of 1953 and several coup attempts in Iraq and Syria of the 1960s; forcing the British, French and the Israelis to abandon their aggression on Egypt in 1956, etc., etc., etc.

The US involvement in all these and plenty of other events was no "accident", not based on "some" influence and even less so "only" on some sort of "(innocent) commercial interest" but on a complex system of "special relationships" between the US establishment and various local "factors" (persons, groups, organisations etc.) - and it definitely shaped the Middle East as we know it today. Again; I'm not "blaming" the USA: any other power in the same position would do exactly the same. But, this does not mean the USA are "not doing it".

For all these reasons, it's next to pointless in insisting the US have no influence upon Mubarak (or the Egyptian military) in recent developments in Egypt.

They have and this is a matter of fact. I might have a problem in properly summarizing this process; I definitely left out plenty of other examples; and it would surely take me awfully long to provide "appropriate" citations (particularly those you might like and/or accept) for everything I said above. But this is not making my conclusion less truth.

Some see it differently, some do not. In both cases memories may be colored by self-interest. I find it perfectly plausible that Saddam told people he had US approval, but the idea that someone of his experience could orchestrate a meeting in which a diplomat could say nothing of significance and then assign significance to anything she said is outside credibility. If Saddam believed the US would tolerate an invasion, it would not have been a consequence of anything April Glaspie said during that meeting.

You might perhaps argue that Saddam misinterpreted American statements and believed he had "permission" to invade Kuwait. That can't be proven one way or another. Claiming that he actually was given permission is, as previously stated, a load of bollocks.
I am not supposing (like you do), and I do not argue about misinterpretations: I am telling you what the Iraqis that played a role in this affair told me.

BTW, don't you think it's at least "weird" you complain that I "know, believe or suspect" in one instance only to do exactly the same a moment later?

It's not just the USA, it's practically everybody, certainly everybody in the neighborhood. Nobody, anywhere, believes that the Iranian nuclear program is not weapons-oriented....
We can now also enter discussions about the Iranian nuclear program, and I'd then probably surprise you with my assessment that they not only have several (disassembled) nukes but also with evidence of their doctrine for such weapons. However, this is not the point.

The point is that you do the same like successive US administrations and prefer to ignore the fact that the Iranians a) attempted to cooperate with the US in recent times, b) have offered negotiations on several opportunities, yet did not receive any kind of serious, dependable answers in return (only threats and conditions - all issued via the media), and c) that their standpoint is that unless somebody starts to treat them as an equal partner they are not ready to any kind of concessions.

Obviously, you are - exactly like the US administration - free to continue ignoring the Iranian standpoints. But at least you could inform yourself about the recent history of US-Iranian relations in a better fashion - in order to obtain a complete picture: insisting on anti-Iranian paroles doesn't make you right, nor can you expect that such standpoints are likely to result in any kind of change of standpoints on the other side.

The figures require citation; $400 million seems unlikely to me.
I see now: there is a "deficit of information" after all... here you are:

- George W Bush 'raised $400 million for action against Iran'
- CIA has Distributed 400 Million Dollars Inside Iran to Evoke a Revolution

BTW, related projects are not only going on since 2007, but at least since 2003, and they include even provision of support to organisations labelled as "terrorist" in the USA (i.e. listed as such by the FBI):
- U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq
- U.S. Funding Armed Groups to Overthrow Iranian Government: Author
- Scandal over US-supported Sunni insurgents in Iran
- U.S. Support for the Iranian Opposition...

Perhaps you can help me a little bit further: I am yet to find a report that any of related operations were closed, or funding ceased.

Still, when you choose confrontation, you make enemies.
But how did the Iranians "chose confrontation" when they cooperated with the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, in 2001-2004 period?

It's really not that difficult to engineer a situation that allows you to get all wounded and resentful and proclaim "see, we can't trust them".
I'm sorry, but this is no answer to my question. I asked what was the logic of the Bush admin turning its policy towards an actually "friendly" IRI admin for 180°, at the spot, in around 2003-2004? How comes that the Iranians should have "engineered a situation" in that case: do their decision makers sit in the White House, Capitol or Pentagon?

Thank you for your offer to Explain Everything; omniscience must be terribly reassuring... <snip>... I also get the feeling that my own statements are being deliberately misinterpreted.
This comes from the same person that declared me for a "conspiracy theorist", that can't answer even 50% of my questions but says I offered to "explain everything" - and then just a sentence or two before explaining it's your statements that are "deliberately misinterpreted"?

Interesting, no doubt.