You are here

Ex-CIA analyst Paul Pillar: US-Iran animosity unnecessary

Broadcast Monday, June 9th, 10-11:00 a.m. Central (1500 GMT) on, archived here. Note: subscribers can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of and go to the “Private Blog” to get early access to the shows.

Today’s guest Dr. Paul Pillar says the US needs to re-think its real interests in the Middle East. Specifically, he says, the US and Iran have many common interests and few conflicting ones. So what are we really fighting about? And why are the neocons so troubled by the thaw between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Toward the end of the show we discuss the “war on terror” (we agree the alleged terror threat is greatly exaggerated) and 9/11 (which Dr. Pillar apparently still believes was an actual al-Qaeda attack by hijacked jetliners!)

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. At the CIA he served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units at the CIA covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. Professor Pillar also served in the National Intelligence Council as one of the original members of its Analytic Group. He has been Executive Assistant to CIA’s Deputy Director for Intelligence and Executive Assistant to Director of Central Intelligence William Webster. He has also headed the Assessments and Information Group of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, and from 1997 to 1999 was deputy chief of the center.

6 Thoughts to “Ex-CIA analyst Paul Pillar: US-Iran animosity unnecessary”

  1. That was the smoothest truther-shooing I've heard yet. Kinda remembered a caller years ago that thought truthers needed 'parables.' Kinda agreed…but they're just 'thought experiments' in story form, aren't they? Could start developing parables with those first? …Ahem:

    If, rather than falling straight down at a smoothly increasing rate, three Manhattan towers had, *instead*, lifted off and traveled to Mars, would you still have 'supported' us into the Intergalactic War on Little Green Men (The IWoLG!)?
    Then, a dozen years later, by way of Limited Hangout, admitted only that the Little-Green-Men threat was greatly exaggerated?

    Hmmm… Or, maybe…

    If, instead of telescoping symmetrically down on or about their foundation with smooth downward acceleration and striking symmetry, three Manhattan towers had, *rather*, …well… …*multiplied* … would you have at least gotten *that* incredibly lucrative damned construction patent *then*?
    Or would you have, rather, supported us into the Interstellar War on Tribbles (IWoT?)? Later admitting to 'exaggerations' of that threat as well?

    Now to try to fit the thought-experiment into a suitable story…

    12 The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

    4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

    5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

    7 Then Nathan said to David, "So like, if, instead of dropping through the path of greatest resistance, with smooth acceleration, symmetrically about it's footprint, three Manhattan towers had, *rather*, began pointing, laughing and insulting your manhood, would you also have 'supported' us –er– Uriah the Hittite into the Universal War on Angst (UWoA?)? Wherein we –er– Uriah is sicked on anyone who makes him feel socially uncomfortable? Or say one tower, rather than falling straight down, treated the others like members of it's harem and sent their husbands to that wall over there? What would you have said then?"

    Probably not quite there yet, I suppose… But I s'pect that's only because the GWoT-Sucker aint capable of shame.

    I have a hunch Michael Collins Piper's take on 911 might end up bringing us toward something like a reconciliation with the people who'd refer us back to the 911 Commission report; especially with the deemphasis on forensics. Which may have become a trap for how intricate it's become.

  2. Guess they're paying trolls by the word over in Tel Aviv these days.

  3. Anonymous

    I think your guest was what I call a "limited hang out" tell you some truths, but not all.

  4. So limited I'm not sure it qualifies as a hang-out.

  5. Anonymous

    Pilar is a Chomsky. Gives out some information that's useful but then throws in garbage along with it. It's a classic strategy used by apologists. I have no respect for this guy (or Chomsky). He is a sack of crap! Disgusting really.

    You need a litmus test for your guests. At the start of each interview they need to answer a few false-flag questions.

    1. Do you think 9-11 was a false-flag op?
    2. How many steel buildings collapsed on 9-11?
    3. How many steel buildings collapsed due to fire before 9-11?
    4. Who tried to sink the USS Liberty and kill its crew?
    ….you get the idea

    Maybe they'll squirm too much and decide not to talk to you so have a backup guest available!

  6. At least Pillar talks a certain amount of sense on Iran, which is more than you can say about most of the "experts." If he came out for 9/11 truth on my show it would blow up his career and reputation and his views on Iran would be even more marginalized than they already are. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." – Upton Sinclair

Leave a Comment