New York Times Reports Israeli American Regime Change Setback

HOLD FOR CHRIS TO APPROVE FOR PUB

When you buy your Acme A#1 regime change package from the Road Runner, step number one is not to drop a bomb on the man you have selected as your new fearless leader. Yet, according to an exclusive story in today's New York Times, that is exactly what happened in an Israeli plan to restore former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

"An Israeli strike designed to free Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from house arrest in Tehran, U.S. officials said, was part of an effort to bring about regime change and put him in power," according to the Times. Around the February start of the war, President Donald Trump was saying it would be best if someone from within Iran took charge of the country. Was this his candidate?

The fly in the ointment was when they bombed Ahmadinejad's home to release him from house arrest. They wounded him. Not good. In fact, not good to the point that his injuries convinced him to back out of the deal. The old Vietnam-era bumper sticker, "Some decisions are best made from 50,000 Feet," may not apply when conducting a clandestine snatch-and-grab from a Tehran home in wartime.

The Mossad refused to comment to the Times on the plan now attributed to them by United States government leakers. And there will be denials across the board on this. Perhaps the Central Intelligence Agency is putting out its version of this tale first. Since spies are paid liars, take what you will from this funhouse spook hall of mirrors.

David Barnea, Mossad’s chief, is one of the chief architects of the regime change plan for this war, according to the Times. It is safe to say he had someone in mind after what he promised: the assassination of key leaders, a few days of bombing, an uprising, and a quick regime change. It sounds like a policy straight out of Evelyn Waugh's 1938 war satire, Scoop, when publisher Lord Copper addresses his new war correspondent:

“The Beast stands by them four square. But they must win quickly. The British public has no interest in a war which drags on indecisively. A few sharp victories, some conspicuous acts of personal bravery on the Patriot side and a colorful entry into the capital. That is the Beast policy for the war.”

If Ahmadinejad were the anointed one, it would seem like a strange choice. As the Times put it, "It turns out that the United States and Israel went into the conflict with a particular and very surprising someone in mind: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president known for his hard-line, anti-Israel and anti-American views." President from 2005-2013, he has spoken publicly about "wiping Israel off the map" and, yes, building nuclear weapons. Take that, great satan.

But let's not forget that our good friend, the current president of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, had a $10 million bounty on his head by the State Department until we did a 180-degree turn. We then brought in a barber, got him a new suit, and a copy of How to Dress for Success. Forgotten are the days when he personally chopped off infidels' heads as part of the "holy war" against us. Ah, the good ole al-Qaeda days. He's our boy now. Principles in modern foreign policy are for losers.

As for Ahmadinejad, "He has not been seen publicly since then, and his current whereabouts and condition are unknown," according to the Times. Surprise, surprise. It adds, "How Mr. Ahmadinejad was recruited to take part remains unknown." Deep mole or new recruit, either way, it is now a no-go.

According to the Times, "the audacious plan, developed by the Israelis and which Mr. Ahmadinejad had been consulted about, quickly went awry, according to the U.S. officials who were briefed on it." Aside from who is throwing whom under the bus for this boondoggle, how does that impact the war? At the start, the United States said it would work with Iranian dissidents even if they were not "moderate." This fiasco doomed the short war theory from the start.

It is reminiscent of the Schlieffen Plan in World War I. It set a strict military timetable for German victory. The timetable failed to meet its deadlines in 1914. To this day, Belgian and Russian historians fight over which army derailed the schedule. But derailed it was, and in 1914, the German general staff went to the Kaiser to tell him the war was lost. The Kaiser decided to soldier on. Fast forward to 1918. Same outcome, four years and millions of funerals later.

The Israeli American timetable for regime change has not materialized. As the winter war inches closer to summer, the question before President Trump now is: Will it be bombs away, walk away, or hold the blockade and see who blinks first?

Join PJ Media VIP today and get 60% off with promo code FIGHT. Join now to support this news site, go ad-free, and comment as you see fit.