Business Insider
Eloise Lee
U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials are offering contrary information about the scale of Israeli-led operations in Iran, such as assassinations and detonations at Iranian missile bases, reports Julie Lévesque at Global Research.
Lévesque points out that articles in two leading news publications, TIME in the United States and The Sunday Times in the U.K., reported opposite stories just days apart.
TIME's sources were "senior Israeli security officials" who told reporter Karl Vick Israel has "scaled back" covert interference in Iran by "ratcheting down by 'dozens of percent' in recent months" the number of attempts to "disable or delay the enemy state's nuclear program."
In contrast, the Sunday Times reporter Uzi Mahnaimi got a hold of "western intelligence sources" who said Israel, in recent months, has "intensified" their "cross-border intelligence missions" in order to uncover "'smoking gun' evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead."
However, it's entirely possible that as assasinations and disruptive missions are cut back, Israel is focusing on amping up its quieter surveillance operations.
But Lévesque points out that intelligence sources providing contradictions in the media could be part of a much bigger picture:
U.S. usage and overview of psychological operations can be found in the Army's 2005 Field Manual 3-05.30 which iterates, "Foreign perceptions of U.S. military capabilities are fundamental to strategic deterrence. The effectiveness of deterrence hinges on U.S. ability to influence the perceptions of others."
When it comes to America's view towards Iran's nuclear activity, "deterrence" has long been the big keyword.
Whether Lévesque is right or not about the possibility of media publications falling victim to "psychological operations", there is a common thread here — the publications' attribution to unnamed sources.
With a lack of accountability, the possibilities for taking advantage of the media — or the media taking advantage of the the public — are endless.
Eloise Lee
Lévesque points out that articles in two leading news publications, TIME in the United States and The Sunday Times in the U.K., reported opposite stories just days apart.
TIME's sources were "senior Israeli security officials" who told reporter Karl Vick Israel has "scaled back" covert interference in Iran by "ratcheting down by 'dozens of percent' in recent months" the number of attempts to "disable or delay the enemy state's nuclear program."
In contrast, the Sunday Times reporter Uzi Mahnaimi got a hold of "western intelligence sources" who said Israel, in recent months, has "intensified" their "cross-border intelligence missions" in order to uncover "'smoking gun' evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead."
However, it's entirely possible that as assasinations and disruptive missions are cut back, Israel is focusing on amping up its quieter surveillance operations.
But Lévesque points out that intelligence sources providing contradictions in the media could be part of a much bigger picture:
These conflicting reports pertaining to the number of secret operations in Iran might be an indication that Israel and the U.S. are bluffing and leaking information as part of a psychological operation (Psy-Op).
When it comes to America's view towards Iran's nuclear activity, "deterrence" has long been the big keyword.
Whether Lévesque is right or not about the possibility of media publications falling victim to "psychological operations", there is a common thread here — the publications' attribution to unnamed sources.
With a lack of accountability, the possibilities for taking advantage of the media — or the media taking advantage of the the public — are endless.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment