Podcast Show #5

The Boiling Frogs Presents Joe Trento

BFP Podcast Logo

Joe Trento discusses our history with Iran-from the Mossadeq Era to the recent twitter campaign, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s foreign policy strategy and objectives in the region, and he talks about Israel, Saudi Arabia’s backing of Pakistan’s pursuit of the nuclear bomb & AQ Khan, the terrible state of US Media, the prospect of ‘real change,’ and more.

Joe Trento has spent more than 40 years as an investigative journalist, working with both print and broadcast outlets and writing extensively. Before joining the National Security News Service in 1991, Trento worked for CNN's Special Assignment Unit, The Wilmington News Journal, and prominent journalist Jack Anderson. Trento has received numerous reporting awards and is the author of seven books, including America and The Islamic Bomb, Unsafe At Any Altitude, Prelude To Terror, The Secret History of the CIA, Widows, Prescription for Disaster: From the Glory of Apollo to the Betrayal of the Shuttle, and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration*For further reading visit Joe Trento’s site: http://dcbureau.org/

Here is our guest Joe Trento unplugged!


FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. Really excellent show Sibel! One comment about your mentioning how the military industrial complex and the oil companies make out financially with all these plots going on. Let's not forget the financiers who are behind all of this – since as it creates more and more debt, they are more and more successful and in control.

    Thanks for this show – it was very informative and clear.


  2. Eric Pottenger says:


    in the show, Joe mentions something about the CIA infiltrating the Khomeini camp, before the revolution. I would like to know (from Joe or anyone else that knows) where more detailed information of this sort can be found.

  3. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Dennis: Thank you. I truly enjoyed having Trento as a guest. He will be back soon. I will interview his partner Dave Armstrong upon my return. We'll cover the latest on Tinner/Griffin cases and more.

    Eric: We'll have a follow up on these; hopefully soon. I can tell you this much: during our Cold War period, for a long period, Khomeini was treated as a great and effective ally against Communism. He received great hospitality and protection in France (the so-called exile period)…Also, our little brother, UK, was the BEST when it came to nurturing Islamic figures in Middle East…
    By the way, these facts are commonly known in Iran. They are far more perceptive and informed than people here give them credit for…

  4. Kingfisher says:


    Check out: Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam by Robert Dreyfuss.

    See also: Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States by Trita Parsi.

  5. Kingfisher says:

    How is your Uncle Napoleon doing these days?

    "Also, our little brother, UK, was the BEST when it came to nurturing Islamic figures in Middle East…"

    The real puppet-masters.*

    *At least according to the LaRouche crowd, who publish some interesting stuff.

  6. The LaRouche kids peddle their wares for food and a roof, think of them as a less dangerous incarnation of scientology.

    I'm willing to bet you've never spoken to any of them, yet consider the five people with a religio-political stranglehold on the mind of a bunch of hungry nobodies and a printing press a crowd.

    In fact, it is almost exactly like staging a revolution.

  7. Kingfisher says:


    Yes, I could care less for their movement. It is a pseudo-cult, and frankly they all have an awful body odor – like a Phish concert but without nitrous tanks and glow sticks.

    I've talked to my share of 'Rouchers before; the majority are just trying to sell you on something or recruit you, but once in awhile I've been able to engage some in good conversation.

    Their Executive Intelligence Review publications and books, I think differently of, however. They publish some interesting articles with a historical and strategic perspective not found elsewhere.

    EIR is actually taken more seriously by South Asian security and foreign policy types than it is in the US. I've looked back at older issues from the 90's, and they were remarkable prescient on some things, like commodities and derivitives.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Your best interview to date!!! Thank you!

  9. Hi Sibel,

    Here's a suggestion. Are you teaming up with Cindy Sheehan to help expose all of this?

  10. Kingfisher says:

    "Here's a suggestion. Are you teaming up with Cindy Sheehan to help expose all of this?"

    And what would Cindy Sheehan do?

    Does she have any insight into Central Asian geopolitics, nuclear proliferation, counterintelligence, or national security law?

  11. Maybe not as much as Sibel does. Bit she DOES have a large momentum of people behind her. Which could be tied into the overall effort to expose what's being done. We're all on the same side :).

  12. Kingfisher says:


    She also has a large number of people who DON'T like her, and who don't like the Code Pink types behind her. Is that an unfair generalization? Yes, but that is irrelevant. Cindy Sheehan is an incredibly polarizing figure.

    Look, the antiwar movement in our country is a joke. That's not to say the cause isn't just, or that large amounts of the country don’t sympathize with it; just that it is not taken seriously and is woefully ineffective for the amount of shrieking it does. Scott Ritter wrote a book (more of a pamphlet really) called Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Anti-War Movement that explains why the antiwar movement is ineffective and how it improve it. If the movement were to follow his advice today, they would become more effective by several orders of magnitude; instead it wallows around as a sub-culture for the self-important to flock their myriad of causes and theories.

    Let me offer some insight into Joe Sixpack the Rush Limbaugh listeners mind; they are not necessarily for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, in as much as they are against what they perceive to be the wimpy and counter-cultural antiwar crowd. The traveling circus of the Cindy Sheehan crowd only reinforces this.

    That said, your comment that we are on the same side made me pause. I don't know what that means, I don't know what side that is; Sibel and the themes of her story mean so many different things to different people. I am at a loss here.


  13. Turkey, Armenia agree to establish diplomatic ties
    By Susan Fraser The Associated Press
    08/31/2009 12:55:09 PM PDT
    ANKARA, Turkey – Armenia and Turkey agreed Monday to establish diplomatic relations, overcoming a seemingly intractable rift that dates to the early 20th century and was marked by massacres of Armenians under Ottoman rule.

    Sibel's testimony re: Turkey, the upcoming interview with Peter Lance, and Joseph Trento's clear historical link to middle east geopolitics offer clear direction for Sibel to gain wider attention. The Armenian press is covering her. Get her posts in Europe, and force U.S. policymakers to address our concerns. Israel stands to benefit from a continued divide between Armenia and Turkey. Let's expose their complicity in this process. Heroin manufacturing was linked to Russian/Israeli Mafiya in Turkey. Perhaps more exposure in this direction will gain a larger readership.
    @kingfisher. You seem knowledgeable. I have a close friend in the World Federalists who is a retired economist. We agree on many things, including both having read John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Are they a reliable organization to link with Sibel?


  14. @KF

    Keeping in mind we still have the right to say our opinion (and also Sibel's Rule of Being Nice to Each other here), I'll post a few thoughts. Hopefully this will clarify my previous posts.

    Re: the anti-war movement, I think it's unfair to imply that they're the only ones who are unorganzied and only care about the fame and glory. We all know that every group is a microcosm of the world. The range goes from the "progressive" to the "necon". I haven't read Ridder's book. But based on seeing many of his interviews, to me he's guilty of falling into that narcissim trap.

    All activists know that if you only go to the progressive U.S. media, in many cases they only want "name" people (ex., Cindy Sheehan, Ralph Nader, Michael Dyson). When was the last time you heard a progresisve interview with someone who ISN'T a "name"? In that sense, progressive media is guilty of the same stuff that the MSM does (and I've worked in both. So I speak from experience). The producers want "names" on-air. The prod. assistants/bookers many times go with the same old names. Why?:
    (a) To them it saves time.
    (b) It stops the boss who's screaming where the **** is the guest?
    (c) Then maybe they can go home early.

    While Sheehan may not be an expert on intl. terrorism and nuclear black market secrets, you really should be fair and give her credit for standing up for her convictions. Yes, both the neocons (and many progressives who were jealous of her getting the attention) roasted her alive. So it's no surprise that she took a break from her activism. And then fortunately came back.

    Which is why both Sheehan and Sibel are smart to have their own podcasts, sites and blogs to get their message out. They're not at the mercy of the MSM anymore. They also know that if enough of the intl. press picks up what they're saying, eventually it "officially" becomes news. And then much of the MSM has to report it.

    So again, I think that Sheehan and her supporters are on the same side as Sibel (in the sense of wanting to see the right thing done. And war criminals and others investigated and prosecuted like they should be).

    Hope this clarifies.

  15. Hi Sibel –
    Instead of the Stones and Velvet Underground, I listened to Joe Trento last nite – so nice to know a different perspective about the CIA and Iran in the late 70's, early 80's. Also nice to hear your unique perspective as one who witnessed these events firsthand. I firmly believe that the crown jewel of treachery in the U.S. last century was old man Bush and the so-called October surprise (which only slightly edges out his involvement with the Kennedy assassination and pales compared to this century's crown jewel of treachery by his son on 9/11). Would like to hear about Mr. Trento's thoughts on the SS Poet, the ship that supposedly carried the spare parts to Iran and then was disappeared, along with its 30 man crew. In any event, I do dig this newly discovered place where the non-pods and non-poisoned earth folks may dwell. thanx

  16. Eric Pottenger says:


    are we at the point where we're reaching out to Joe Sixpack? and we're gonna pass on Cindy Sheehan because of her style? her friends? or because she, herself, isn't a brain about counterintelligence, nuclear secrets or central asia? just what are we protecting here? just who are we protecting ourselves from?

    as for the people that don't hold Cindy Sheehan in high regard, just what is the offense for which she is guilty? is it as a poor strategist for broadening the peace movement? probably not. mostly not. I would say it's (mostly) because the media basically built cindy sheehan for the mid-term elections, and afterward they brushed her aside, told her to stop whining–effectively marginalized her. yet the wars continue….

    who's to blame for cindy's reputation?

    perhaps your point about a better anti-war strategy (a la scott ritter) is valid. I haven't read the book, but I'm certain there is room for improvement. there has to be. yet I don't think that's the point with regard to "T"s suggestion. could Sibel Edmonds benefit from more people coming into contact with HER points-of-view, including using Cindy Sheehan's high(er)-profile activities/projects? I think so. just so long as Sibel is able to maintain the integrity of her voice, her intelligence, her information. that's truly what matters for tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow.

    and, hey, thanks for the reading suggestions.

  17. Sibel, I haven't listened to the show yet, but I will. I did, however want to mention something I heard about a year and half ago.
    I attended a conference, in which one of the speakers was Stephen Kinzer, who wrote the great book, "All the Shah's Men". I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know about what happened in 1953.

    Here was Kinzer's point. In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected Prime Minister. He was very popular with the people. For the most part, Iran had good relations with all it's neighbors.
    However, Mossadegh nationlized the oil, and upset the British, who wanted to overthrow him, and with Kermit Roosevelt, and the CIA's help, they did. Here's the point!

    What was one of the Bush's reasons to invade Iraq? To bring "democracy" to the area. If the US and the CIA hadn't overthrown Mossadegh, it's quite possible that even today, a thriving democracy could still be there right in the middle of the hot area that exists today, and in fact, may could have been a check on Saddam Hussien as well. I realize I'm speculating here, but it's possible that this situation could still be in existence.

    Frankly, if this doesn't show how screwed up this US foreign policy really is, I frankly don't know what would show this. In 1953, Roosevelt, and the CIA paid off the mullah's for their support in the overthrow, only to have them bite back in the rear, and helping to get rid of the Shah. You can't make this stuff up Sibel.

  18. Metemneurosis says:
  19. @ jcarb,

    It, Mossadegh's overthrow, is rather ironic from that aspect, isn't it?

    Unfortunately, I think the sad truth is that a stable "thriving democracy" (or stable thriving anything) is the last thing the US, UK or the oil companies ever want(ed) anywhere in the mid-east… unless they were in control of it (via debt, threat and/or diplomacy, ie. shared risk/mutual benefit/common goals). In "their" eyes, the risk of any M-E oil-producing country (much less one as large as Iran, centrally located geographically with access to the Caspian Basin and an ocean) outside "our" control becoming stable and united behind their leader(s) (democratic, elected or not) and at peace with their neighbors such that they could in time grow strong enough to influence other M-E countries and/or become a "driving force for democracy", stability, unification or anything else in the region (God forbid they obtain the economic strength or technical capacity to build a modern navy and/or launch satellites and/or nukes), far outweighs any potential benefit from a "friendly and democratic" nation, region or capitalist market trading partner.

    In "their" eyes, were that to ever happen, "we" could/would be completely screwed because then they, the 'locals', would control the oil and could not only manipulate the price or choose to stop the flow (ie. like Russia shuts off the gas to Europe every winter), but, to crash US currency by selling oil in something other than US dollars (like Iraq tried to do).

    It is not only corporate profit/debt that's kept "us" from instituting policy to break our "addiction" (electric cars, alternative energy, etc), but, the fact that the strength of the US currency (hence our economy and domination of the global economy) relies on maintainig the status quo, ie. mid-east oil sold ONLY for US dollars, thereby creating artificial demand for US dollars around the world in all the non-oil producing countries (or any country) that needs to buy and import oil… like practically everybody. Welcome to the age of the petro-dollar. Bottom line, I believe the very idea a stable middle-east represents a very real and present strategic threat, in their eyes, worth taking (pre-emptive) action to prevent.

    In any case…

    I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "…it's possible this situation could still be in existence". Can you be more specific about which situation you were referring to?


  20. I was referring to the possibility that Iran could still be a "democracy".

  21. Edit_Mommies says:

    I agree Iran is real repercussion.

  22. I think it is pretty clear that at least the younger generation in Iran believes in democracy, whether within the bounds of a religious revolution or some secular future alternative. Personally I believe that the core of that belief and desire probably comes handed down from their parents and grandparents who still remember… and still believe. They who lived through the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's in Iran.

    That said, there are elements and organizations within and without the US government who also believe and actively support the goal of a free and democratic Iran.

    It is easy to forget in the face of what gets discussed here that the US Congress and alphabet agencies do not constitute the entire government and, in fact, the vast majority of our government is still made up of people like you and me. Many if not most of whom are very good people who want to do the right thing.

    Whether one believes the majority of senators and representatives are bought and paid for or not, the vast majority of government employees are not in congress or under the control of some corporate lobbyist or PAC, nor even agents of one intelligence agency or another. And, at the end of the day, the federal government is only the federal government. I live in a commonwealth with its own constitution… and government.

  23. Wow! Henry Kissinger must be the most hated guy on earth! Seriously, don't even talk about Kissinger with Kurds unless you like ballistics, and most of this hatred is a result of the Algiers Accord. So if you know about Barzani's revolution, which began in 1961, then you understand what Algiers really meant for Kurds in Iraq.

    Brzezinski probably runs a close second and to hear Trento talk about him, and how . . . I don't know, sort of flippantly Brzezinski disregarded the possible ramifications of his baiting of the Soviets, really makes me think that the guy is not as smart as the US establishment tries to make him out to be. This guy is lionized when he should really be shot at dawn . . . along with Kissinger.

    I'm sorry to hear about your father, Sibel. I suppose that the best thing to come of it is the fact that you now have the ability to look past the BS. You have a clearer vision than most. It has also given you the capacity for empathy.

    Unfortunately, the Americans have not acquired these skills. They support a regime of torture, as we have seen with everything that's happened since September 11. Maybe the only thing that would fix the problem is if torture were as routinely applied to the US civil population as it is in Iran or Turkey. . . or elsewhere.

    There's no excuse for the American people's ignorance of what the government does around the world. Isn't democracy dependent on an populace that pays attention to these things? And I don't mean a lack of education, I mean ignorance. You can find ignorance at all levels of education.

    But if the people don't want to know, if they want to remain ignorant, then don't let them cry when the rest of the world gets fed up with them. These people can read, they have all kinds of information widely available to them, but they'd rather entertain themselves with a lot of stupid, trivial nonsense or place their trust in so-called "experts" who don't really know any more than the average person anyway. I really don't have any sympathy for self-imposed ignorance.

    Reliance on the worthless media or on "experts" like Brzezinski, or corporate-funded think-tanks is incredible. These organizations or people should be constantly criticized, constantly questioned, constantly having to prove their positions in order to keep them in line. But I guess this is an example of the lack of self-criticism by Americans that was discussed in the interview.

    The problem is that The System doesn't have to be the way it is. It can be different.

  24. You know, it's ironic… I've only learned to speak three or four languages and visited or lived and worked in a handful of foreign countries over the years, some vehemently anti-American, others not so much. Some prosperous, some not. And, even in the countries that publically shout down America the loudest, and publically enjoy making ridiculous generalizations and insults about Americans, at the end of the day, when the cameras were turned off and the microphone unplugged, every last human being I ever spoke with said that they would like to live in the United States. Huh… go figure.

  25. @Mizgin,

    I agree, the arrogance of "experts" like Brzezinski and corporate-funded think-tanks knows no bounds. Especially the whole remake the Middle East part.

    So I take it that you will be peeved when you see a free and Independent Kurdistan, carved from out of several nations, within your lifetime?


  26. So I take it that you will be peeved when you see a free and Independent Kurdistan, carved from out of several nations, within your lifetime?

    KF, that's probably not going to happen in my life time. An independent Kurdistan is not the goal of the KRG, nor is it the goal of the DTP or PKK. And it hasn't been the goal of PKK for at least 10 years.

    I know that Americans have the tendency to believe that Kurds in Turkey would willingly submit themselves to the rule of the two Southern Kurdish parties, but that is never going to happen. There is virtually no support for them in Turkey. Besides, we have our own parliamentarians in the TBMM.

    You should pay less attention to the Turkish propaganda that is continually filtered through American think tanks and the Turkish lobby.

  27. Kingfisher says:


    Umm it’s the think tanks, neocons, and the Israel lobby that is pushing for such a Balkanization of the Middle East. I know you think those three are tied into the Turkish lobby, and sometimes they are; but it is far from a monolithic bloc. This is the era of the devolution of the nation state; Iraq was the neocons shove.

  28. I wish I could know who it is who tells the world that the end goal is break up any possible attempt at opposition in the name of 'liberation'.

  29. mcthorogood says:

    Before listening to this podcast, I listened to Democracy Now!, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Republican Party. People associated with the radical evangelical right don't accept responsibility for the way the world is today, it's all part of God's plan.

    As Joe Trento mentioned, one way to get people to accept responsibility would be to re-institute the military draft.

  30. There was a point earlier in the development of this site where this could be correctly interjected, but I decided against it –

    Danger is an important part of a natural life, lessons are learned from it and natural selection takes place by it.

    If it is not present in a people's life, they will look for new things to be afraid of.

    They will vote in leaders they do not need.

    They will think up new things to be protected from.

    The survival instinct turns against itself.

    We are a soft people traumatized by the loss of next to no one.

  31. This by far is the best interview. So much info was discussed, and mentioned, that I had to listen 3 times to absorb it all.
    Thanks Sibel for this show. I was shaking my head throughout the whole show. No wonder nothing was done to Iran during the bombings during the 80's. Just goes to show you that the big shot politicos don't give a damn about the people, and frankly, never have.

  32. Joe Trento is very knowledgeable, but I think he’s a little off with his reliance on “government incompetence” versus willful complicity in this interview and in his new article on 9/11.

Speak Your Mind