Leaked Iranian letter warned US that Syrian rebels have chemical weapons

According to leaked diplomatic correspondence, Iran has been warning Washington since July 2012 that Sunni rebel fighters have acquired chemical weapons, and called on the US to send “an immediate and serious warning” to rebel groups not to use them.

Leaked Iranian letter warned US that Syrian rebels have chemical weapons

Well this provides an angle I haven't seen before.

I am personally shocked that Iran even sends these types of communications to the White House.

I would love to learn more about this and have this correlated with the story of rebels gassing the women and children they abducted....

"We are still finding people who were killed in their homes, and bodies left in bushes," said Sheikh Mohammed Reda Hatem, an Alawite religious leader in Latakia. "Until now 150 Alawites from the villages have been kidnapped. There are women and children among them. We have lost all contact with them."

Syrian rebels accused of sectarian murders

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rosinitiate

I am personally shocked that Iran even sends these types of communications to the White House.

To answer my own question:

Mr. Zarif first revealed that Iran had sent direct warnings to the US via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran in an interview published Sept. 1 by Aseman weekly in Tehran. The Swiss have handled US interests in Iran throughout the 34-year US-Iran estrangement, and have been a conduit for such messages in the past.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


And of course the Turkish government found 2.2kg of Sarin in the apartment of known Syrian rebels back in May. But those are inconvenient facts.

jtma508
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

But those are inconvenient facts.

That may very well be but as these leaks continue to roll out one after another, it's important to put them together to get the entire panoramic.

Like Iran sending a message to the US that Sunni rebels have chemical weapons. Then a village gets attacked and 150+ women and children go missing. Months later a gas attack occurs killing thousands. The video depicting the horros go viral and then seen by family members of a village that lost their loved ones, only to see their loved ones dead from the apparent gas attack.

To me that tells one hell of a story.....much better then the Obama adminastation has yet to lay out for us.

Since Iran backs the Syrian gov't, it's in their best interest to stop the rebels in their tracks. If they managed to get the US to do this, even better. They don't waste any resources fighting the rebels.


Of course, the flip argument is that the Iranians sent the information to the US, knowing that Assad had the chemicals, with the hope that, when the chemicals were used, the US would think it was the rebels and stop aiding them and help Assad end the conflict.

Either way could be the truth

Crakeur

Of course, the flip argument is that the Iranians sent the information to the US, knowing that Assad had the chemicals, with the hope that, when the chemicals were used, the US would think it was the rebels and stop aiding them and help Assad end the conflict.

Either way could be the truth

I would argue that either way could be the truth if the US wasn't already fully involved in the insrugency in Syria. If we were just honest observers then sure.

But I get what you are saying, a reverse false flag but never so Syria could use them themselves....again that would just be silly. To what end? What purpose would it serve Assad to use chemical weapons on his own people on the very DAY UN chemical inspectors arrive?

Kind of reminds me how the US had massive drill on 9/11/01 where hijackers crash planes into buildings, and then wouldn't you know it, terrorists fly planes into buildings. Talk about some serious f'n foresight eh?

reply to post by Rosinitiate


you're trying to use rational thinking when discussing politics and the middle east. that never works.

reply to post by Crakeur


Yes, yes, silly me. *blush*

If Iran wanted to help stage a false flag, why use CW? Why not use something just as atrocious without crossing the red line that is sure to gain a strike against Syria?

And why tell washington? They're not listening to Iran.

Iran would be better off telling anyone else besides Washington.

if it was a measure to get them to stop helping rebels, hell... I think I could think of a better idea than to actually use the chemical weapons after pointing out chemicals weapons. That's the kind of thing a 7 year old tries to pull on his 4 year old brother.

Not saying it's impossible... but I would think the last thing they'd want to do is start pulling stunts as weak as the US.

I mean, WHO wants to be that?

reply to post by Rosinitiate


I like your thinking , something very fishy here, something that goes way deep and has a lot of implications.
Can as you are obviously doing, we connect all the dots, if so here are some more pieces to the puzzle.
For your interest :- www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Wow, it makes sense that Iran would warn the US if they had information about chemical weapons. I mean, considering how they were used against them during their war with Iraq, it just makes sense that they would be against their use. It's a heckuva claim by the Iranians and, if true, could throw the US position into a tailspin.

Can't wait to hear more about this, but doubt we ever will. This story will most likely get buried and forgotten.

Forgot to add: Since the US backed Iraq and turned the other cheek on Iraq's use of chemical weapons, I'm sure Iran will hold the US accountable. Especially if it's proven that the rebels are responsible for the August 21st attack.

Pinkorchid
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

I like your thinking , something very fishy here, something that goes way deep and has a lot of implications.
Can as you are obviously doing, we connect all the dots, if so here are some more pieces to the puzzle.
For your interest :- www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 10-9-2013 by Pinkorchid because: ahhh

I jut commented on that thread. Sure it's possible but much research would be needed. Not sure specifically how it would tie specifically to the gassing but worth looking into.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


It would tie it in by showing that some elements of the current Government were not acting in the best interests of the U.S. and therefor possibly creating other false flag event such as the Syrian gassing as a pretext to embroil the U.S into another armed conflict , which as most are aware would totally destabilize the U.S.

Pinkorchid
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

It would tie it in by showing that some elements of the current Government were not acting in the best interests of the U.S.

Well that's just a given.

If the general population had the faintest idea how decisions were really made in the bowels of power......, # I've been studying it for 10 years and i still barely grasped it.

Rule 1 - follow the money
Rule 2 - Qui bono?


Oh and another thing, because of the Russian-Syrian agreement re: Chemical weapons going to international community. There are simply those who clearly were using it as a pretext and will not be happy if they miss their opportunity. These folks will do nothing to see this move forward. I'd even be willing to go out on a limb here and say: watch out for any new false flag, like a chemical or conventional attack somewhere in Israel. But specifically in Israel.

It's odd, how ready everyone here is ready to declare "false flag", at the mere whiff of Taboon, when their battlecry during Enduring Freedom was "GWB lies, no WMDs, etc". Well, why didn't the USA simply "plant" weapons in Iraq in order to quell the criticism?

It's sort of hypocritical too, here we are, Syria. They DO HAVE chem stockpiles, but the critics now have moved the goalposts, the rogue nations especially w/treaty obligation....chem stocks are now "ok" and we should sit back and chill.

VulcanScienceAcademy
It's odd, how ready everyone here is ready to declare "false flag", at the mere whiff of Taboon, when their battlecry during Enduring Freedom was "GWB lies, no WMDs, etc". Well, why didn't the USA simply "plant" weapons in Iraq in order to quell the criticism?

It's sort of hypocritical too, here we are, Syria. They DO HAVE chem stockpiles, but the critics now have moved the goalposts, the rogue nations especially w/treaty obligation....chem stocks are now "ok" and we should sit back and chill.

Iraq was a lie, there were no WMD. Syria could very well be a lie as well (not enough evidence) unless you have proof the government used WMD...

Countries that have WMD, should not have any right to tell other nations not to have them. Using them is another story...but bullets are WMD as well aren't they? Missiles? Etc...

VulcanScienceAcademy
It's odd, how ready everyone here is ready to declare "false flag", at the mere whiff of Taboon, when their battlecry during Enduring Freedom was "GWB lies, no WMDs, etc". Well, why didn't the USA simply "plant" weapons in Iraq in order to quell the criticism?

It's pretty well understood that anything Saddam had was destroyed or immediately removed after Clinton sent in cruise missiles. But Saddam also had nuclear reactors, we know this because the very man who saw to his demise, then Sec. Def. Rumsfeld was the very same person who sold him the reactors. Oh the irony, pretty sure an epic was written on something similar. Never trust gifts from your enemies, something something, Trojan Horse.