I've read several news stories talking about the CIA's attempts at negotiations with the Israeli government, parallel with the US State Department's incredibly brazen charades, lies, coverups, and stonewalling. I've heard a couple times that the CIA has been actually attempting to move things back toward the status quo.

Now I see they've trotted out Obama's CIA director to go on CBS Sunday Morning to talk about Israel's terror attacks on Lebanon and directly call it terrorism. That's got to be coordinated with the current agency, and comes across as very intentional signaling. Matthew Miller is basically acting like nothing happened, while the CIA is publicly calling Israel a terrorist state.

My question is why? What are their incentives here? Are these stories just PR bullshit by the CIA? What does the CIA stand to lose in an all-out regional war, that makes them willing to go around the President and apparently make the only real efforts to negotiate?

    • SerLava [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      We already know there are “realist” factions within the CIA and the Deep State who think the empire has over-stretched itself, so this is not at all surprising.

      That makes a lot of sense. Supplying Ukraine is a strain on US war production, but doable. Ignite one or two more wars, and we actually have to start letting "allies" fall