MIDLIFE CRISIS-19, Sunday, October 15, 2023 – U.S. Plausible Deniability Does Not Compute.
Sometimes overstating your position is the tell. Despite the claim that warnings were essentially benign, that they did not present a threat, because they were “routine,” U.S. officials appear to go on to contradict themselves.
The warning.
“The CIA issued warnings about a potential escalation of Hamas attacks on Israel days ahead of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, say reports.
“Two reports warned of the looming coordinated attacks, said The New York Times. The first, dated September 28, indicated a heightened risk of violence and the possibility of rocket strikes by Hamas into Israel spanning multiple days. The second report, dated October 5, issued two days before Hamas carried out its attack, warned of an increased probability of violence from the militant group” (1.).
***
The misdirection, and dilution of facts.
“The warnings did not reach the desk of President Joe Biden or senior White House officials, according to CNN. The CIA did not consider the reports to have particular significance to policymakers. It has raised concerns about the communication process within the US intelligence community and its prioritization of threats.
“Some sources suggest that the military friction between Israel and Hamas was not unusual, describing the reports as routine. The conflict has been characterized by a history of on-and-off violence, with occasional cease-fires. However, any escalation in the Israel-Gaza region carries significant implications.
“The New York Times reported that several US officials, who spoke anonymously, described the reports as similar to other intelligence reports about the possibility of Palestinian violence that were written throughout the year” (1.).
***
Next, the contradiction.
“US intelligence agencies have been focused on other international threats, primarily from China, Russia, and Iran, The New York Times reports. This strategic shift in priorities may have contributed to the lack of attention given to the intelligence on Hamas” (1.).
***
Regarding the warning, if you have a, “heightened risk of violence and the possibility of rocket strikes,” and, “an increased probability of violence from the militant group [Hamas],” then the plausible response is to be alert, responsive, prepared for, “violence,” including “rocket strikes” (1.).
Regarding the misdirection, how does the CIA not consider, “the reports to have particular significance to policymakers,” unless they withheld the information (1.)? What matters is, who is responsive to a legitimate threat? If that is policymakers, there is your breakdown, blame the CIA for either withholding the information from policymakers, or playing it down when presenting the intelligence.
Regarding the contradiction, if, “US intelligence agencies had been focused on [what is alleged to be] other international threats, primarily from China, Russia, and Iran,” Iran being a State-sponsor of terror – including providing material support to Hamas – how can focusing on Iran be categorized as a “strategic shift in priorities,” and away from Hamas? A threat from Hamas can be considered “routine,” but not the lack of responsiveness. Again, responsiveness is our breakdown. Why was the CIA not responsive?
If the downrange risk of Iran, is proxy-terror events by organizations like Hamas, including Hamas, then a focus on Iran is synonymous with a focus on Hamas. It is not logical to claim a, “lack of attention given to the intelligence on Hamas,” it is a contradiction, irresponsible, and plausibly an instance of complicity. Iran and Hamas are instrumentally conjoined, that we know.
***
So what is some of the history between Iran and Hamas? Could we possibly separate Hamas from Iran? What does the [political] science say? We need to trust the [political] science, right?
“Deputy national security adviser Jon Finer reiterated Monday that the United States believes Iran is ‘broadly complicit’ in Hamas attacks in Israel, but said the US does not have ‘direct information’ linking these attacks to Iran at this time” (2.).
“’What we can be quite clear about is that Iran is broadly complicit in these attacks for having supporting Hamas going back decades,’ Finer said during an appearance on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America,’ pointing to weapons, training and other financial support.
“He continued, ‘What we don’t have is direct information that shows Iranian involvement in ordering or planning of the attacks that took place over the last couple of days. It’s something that we’re going to keep looking at closely’” (2.).
And with those statements, the U.S. can lean on plausible deniability. It is the, “Where is the evidence?” defense regarding attempting to disassociate Hamas from Iran. Asking, where is the evidence, where is the direct information, is a type of wordcraft introduced in order to distract from what Israel, and the U.S., already know, but by simply asking the question, the plausibility of doubt becomes a talking point.
The background reporting continued.
“Israel says Iran supports Hamas to the tune of some $100 million dollars a year. The US State Department in 2021 said that the group receives funding, weapons, and training from Iran, as well as some funds that are raised in Gulf Arab countries” (2.).
***
In summary, that makes for a trifold of misdirection, that the threat was minimized to, “routine,” that U.S. intelligence was somehow focused on Iran and not one of their proxies, Hamas, and that the attempt to disassociate Iran from Hamas somehow creates enough distance to claim, no “direct information” specifically links Iran to these attacks.
Yet, Iran’s broad complicity is already established. The “direct information” regarding these specific events is not required, like setting a ball in motion, then ignoring and not taking responsibility for where the ball ends up. Enter, the attempt at establishing a basis for plausible deniability. In a court of law, sure, but we are assessing the lack of a response to the warnings, the responsiveness to risks, we are not prosecuting those involved in these events in a court at that point. These are preemptive intelligence activities where the discretion lies in weighing the probability of, “violence,” and or, “rocket strikes,” the evidence was already present thus producing the information from which reports were produced.
As noted, it was already reported that there was, “a heightened risk of violence and the possibility of rocket strikes by Hamas into Israel spanning multiple days,” and, “two days before Hamas carried out its attack, warned of an increased probability of violence from the militant group” (1.). We do not know the details of the intelligence, what led to those conclusions, but we are past that at this point. The shortcoming was suppression and or a lack of responsiveness to the intelligence.
At least we can all rest assured that regarding a world on the verge of a raging global and biblical conflict, this is something on which this Administration is “going to keep looking at closely.”
As Americans, we are fed these types of dismissive Clinton-speak lines with impunity, because although the U.S. government possesses troves of global data and intelligence on which they can sit, stifle, and ultimately spin, we are caused to be unwitting.
Though unwitting, we can still compute, and the CIA is part of that calculous.
***
U.S. Plausible deniability does not compute.
- Matfucius
1.) https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-intel-looming-hamas-attacks-100405386.html
2.) https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/middleeast/hamas-iran-israel-attack-analysis-intl/index.html
COMMENTS