Posted on 08/09/2026 4:58:55 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Mossad Director Roman Gofman decided to remove two of the agency’s most senior officials from their posts over a plan to replace Iran’s regime that was never carried out as intended, N12 reported on Thursday.
The officials are the head of the Mossad’s Intelligence Directorate, who entered the position in December, and the head of the agency’s Iran division. Neither official was named in the report.
Security officials told N12 that neither official had developed a good working relationship with Gofman from the outset and that their tenures would end by mutual agreement.
Both could remain in the Mossad in other positions, the officials said, describing the changes as part of a broader reorganization of the intelligence agency.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
Time to work on another problem.
The Kurds riding all the way to Tehran seems like a reach.
Even with massive air cover.
What crazy stuff is happening somewhere else in the world. Bombing ragheads is just “the distraction”.
That three time President Trump, boy howdy, he’s a wild one!
Delta 21, out.
“… over a plan to replace Iran’s regime that was never carried out as intended…”
Seems like a good reason to fire subordinates.
LMAO. What a thing to get fired over. As if that plan could have possibly succeeded.
“What a thing to get fired over.”
I spent 33 years in the corporate world. I was involved in, or adjacent to, a lot of firings. I’s hard to recall a single case where the reason given for a dismissal was the actual reason. Many times, it was due to a personality conflict, or the boss simply wanted “his” man in the job. If I had input and it was the boss just wanted his man, I argued to move the person to another position. In the case presented here, I’m guessing these guys were being demoted so that the boss could put his people in their spots. In which case, keeping them but demoting them could have some bad downstream effects. What the boss here is doing is allowing them to leave on their own so as not to affect their future employment. This is something I only witnessed while at the American subsidiary of an Israeli firm. They almost never “fired” another Israeli. They usually forced them to leave of their own accord by, among other things, moving them to the worst office in the building. That’s the equivalent of having tile walls and your own urinal.
Office politics.
Interesting take. Thanks.
No national security threat to us or our allies necessitated this move which ultimately led to a war: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
That war was at behest of US and Euro oligarchs, a political elite in the US that wants to maintain influence in Europe through security policy, and NATO a typical government bureaucracy that is always looking for a reason to grow and crisis to manage.
—Ukraine has not made us any wealthier. It has COST us money with no real ROI.
—Ukraine has not made us safer. It has made the world more dangerous may it be escalation in Ukraine, a nuclear standoff, proxy conflicts as in Iran today.
—Ukraine has not increased my liberty. My Constitutional rights have not changed to the positive or negative because of this conflict.
***Ukraine is a war that was SOLD to the American public but it was intended for the rich (global corporations and financial institutions - so your big MSM will be on board) and in particular the Euro's stand more to benefit or lose (Ukraine will be tied to the EU). It was sold to the average American with emotional pleas (the brutal Russian), slogans (sovereignty), and old outdated cliche (Cold War imagery) but it is entirely at the EXPENSE to the average American citizen (with exception of maybe 2%, i.e. the war industry).
Iran on the other hand is a direct threat to us and has been KILLING AMERICANS. If you want, I can provide you with some names of people I know that likely were killed by EIDs in Iraq that were made with components from Iran. They have been killing American since 1979 when they took 53 Americans hostage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
They Ayatollah Khomeini spelled out what his Islamic Revolution was about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Iranian_Revolution
No one really isolates or crystallizes the basic ideas of what Iran and the “west” are on a collision course.
—A major tenet is to rid all the Middle East of ANY Western influence.
—Apostasy is punished with death.
—Shia Islam and the Sharia need to be spread through the world.
The very Ideological foundation of Iran today would mean: the US has to leave Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Israel, even Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Nigeria. It would mean the end of the petro backed US dollar. The US dollar is not based on gold and people complain about that, what they don't realize is that it is the worlds reserve currency MOSTLY because it's backed by oil. You may as well call it the “Petrodollar.” I do not think most people are aware of how much of our influence and wealth is tied to this: about $150 - $180 billion, every year (year after year). I don't think people quite understand what it means when the US (huge oil producer - 22%), has Saudi Arabia (10.6), Kuwait (2.6), UAE (4.1), Qatar (1.8), Iraq (4.2), Bahrain (negligible), Syria (negligible now), Venezuela now (1), Libya (partially, 1.3), Canada (5.9), Mexico (1.8) under our thumb: >55.3% (not far Asia) of the WORLDS oil production: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-production-by-country/ We have incredible leverage since this accounts for most of the the worlds traded oil. Much of the oil is not traded! In the background you only have the US (~70%) and Russia (~30%), those two essentially control the supply of available energy which keep this entire planet moving (planes, ships, trains, trucks, buses, barges, cars) and even electrically powered or warm in some cases.
Basically, our petro based interests and involvement started when Hoover was Secretary of State, before becoming President, in the 1920s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco
Disengaging from that area is out of the question. It is not even a 1% feasible option. We are economically and politically invested too deep. It would be disastrous for our economy at home.
But how do you combine that with Iran that sees themselves from Khomeini's doctrinal perspective the righteous hegemon in that area area which wants to boot all Western (let's call it what it really is, we won't say it in our PC newspeak, “infidel”) influence out?
Even in their most recent demands, the idea of us being required to leave is echoed: https://time.com/article/2026/08/10/iran-us-strait-of-hormuz-conditions-trump-negotiations/ (what do you think bullet #3 is?)
The collision course was set in 1979.
EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, has had to deal with this regime since then.
Carter failed and we should have backed the Shah. Reagan did what he could, but he was hamstrung by a Cold War where like today, but times 10, the Soviets and Warsaw Pact would have backed Iran had we done anything (proxy conflicts and Iran aligned themselves with Russia economically when the world started sanctioning them post 1979).
The Golden but lost opportunity: From a timing perspective, it was Mr. Peace Dividend, let's cut the military Clinton, that had the best window of opportunity. China wasn't a near peer yet and would have backed down, Russia was out of the picture, and Iran was still licking their wounds from a brutal 8 year war with Iraq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Clinton was probably in the best position of ANY President since 1979 to deal with Iran and all he did was pursue the status quo, which was a failing containment strategy even in those years.
(necessary) Let's re-frame this entire conversation: Are you OK with a nuclear armed Iran that is developing ever longer range missiles?
From 2024, before this conflict: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explainer-how-close-is-iran-having-nuclear-weapons-2024-04-18/
If the answer is “no,” what comes next is obvious.
(nice to achieve) Get Iran out of Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Nigeria. You can't EVER have peace in Israel and Lebanon if you have Iran pumping 200 million dollars worth of aid to Hezbollah year after year (2024), not included the provided training, intel, and all but instigating a fight. Lets again be blunt, behind Hezbollah is Iran. Behind the Houti’s is Iran. In Yemen they can't built a car tire, let alone GPS guided missiles that can reach from Yemen to Israel, or target moving ships out of line of sight at sea (Iran and North Korea are backing them). Behind many of the Shia militia's in Iraq causing trouble is Iran.
Iran is a major antagonist in the Middle East and increasingly North Africa.
(new and added by Iran) Hormuz: over rated media spectacle. Some ships ARE getting through. A buried pipelines will eventually make this a lesser issue (the issue has a running clock). Greater availability of US, Venezuelan and other sources not going through Hormuz make this a story, but not as large as the MSM hyped it to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.