Rules of Deception by Christopher Reich
|
List Price: Our Price: $0.24 You Save: $24.71 (99%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Rules of Deception
Book Review: Good read
Summary: 4 Stars
Rules of Deception is not the best book I've read but it certainly one of the best. It really keeps you guessing. Even though it is fiction it's content is based on the very real continuing threat of Iran and nuclear weapons. It gives great insight on just how technologically advanced our country can be.
As usual, Amazon made it very worth the price which was probably at least $10 cheaper than I could get it in a bookstore shipping included.
Book Review: Rules of Deception and Stealing Trinity
Summary: 4 Stars
I loved this fast paced spy thriller. Geopolitical stakes are sky high and today's technology is awesome. On the other hand, I just read a fantastic espionage thriller, "Stealing Trinity" by Ward Larsen, a World War Two spy story based on the Manhattan Project. Lower tech,as judged by today's standard, but unbelievable for that era. Both exhilerating reads.Book Review: Superb Consipracy Theory
Summary: 4 Stars
CIA and Government corruption. I thought it was a laugh in the face of 9/11. He twisted it and turned it to fit his needs.Page turner, very exciting and close to home conspiracy theory. I enjoyed the ups and downs, and pleasing violence scenes. My only issue was the big words I could not understand...Book Review: Good Read
Summary: 4 Stars
Good espionage novel with some interesting plot twists. One of the best books I read all summer.
Book Review: By Way of Deception
Summary: 3 Stars
I will first comment on the book's entertainment value and then on some aspects of the plot bearing on a serious, imminent national-security issue. If revelation of plot details will cause you distress, do not read any further.
I liked Reich's debut novel, `Numbered Account', and since then have enjoyed every one of his books. The present title is easily the most memorable. In its genre I think it far surpasses anything that, say, Ludlum ever did. There are some good unexpected plot twists. I found the characters and dialogue to be for the most part plausible and engaging. Note the impressive array of authors willing to be quoted by name on the dust jacket - unusual for a book of this nature.
I just have one problem. In the book, one of the evil conspiracies (there are several) has to do with provoking Israel to attack Iran in order to destroy its nuclear capabilities. Now it just so happens that, in reality, an actual conspiracy may be underway this very minute to accomplish that very same end - an attack on Iran -- in the not too distant future. The problem is that while Reich makes ingenious use of the very real tensions with Iran in the real world, readers not familiar with the Middle East may come away confused about what is happening between Iran, Israel, and the United States. As a novelist Reich is of course free to a certain extent to distort history or current events in order to entertain us. The problem is that entertainment does not always bring enlightenment, though sometimes does bring its opposite. Notwithstanding that the book is obvious fiction, and not intended as political commentary, many readers may wind up misled concerning the very serious issue of attacking Iran. Right here, right now, any confusion about the reasoning behind such an attack, or who exactly is pushing for it, is not a good thing. Let me explain.
In the book the two major conspirators are the head of CIA operations, Lafever, and the head of the intelligence arm of the Pentagon, Austen. They are operating against each other. Austen is an extreme Christian Zionist, a believer in `end times' whose goal is to cause `Armageddon' to occur, by fixing things so that Israel attacks Iran and Iran then reacts by launching a nuclear attack on Israel, to which the US will respond by destroying the entire Middle East (well, except for Jerusalem). The character of Austen was clearly inspired by the real-life individual William G. "Jerry" Boykin, a retired Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Pentagon, a born-again Christian who has cast the "war on terror" in apocalyptic terms. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin)
How will Israel be induced to attack Iran? By (1) the US covertly providing Iran with the materials for production of enriched uranium required to build nuclear weapons; (2) making sure the Israelis find out; (3) arranging for the destruction of an EL-AL plane as it lands in Zurich, to give Israel the immediate provocation it would need to launch the attack; (4) providing Iran with cruise missiles capable of long-range delivery of their brand-new warheads, to be used to counter-attack Israel; and finally (5) keeping Israel ignorant of the fact that Iran could actually counter-attack.
Apparently unbeknownst to the Pentagon, Lafever and the CIA are aware of the conspiracy. Lafever acts to stop it, but only up to a point. He sends someone to kill the chief conspirators, but plans to allow the Israeli airliner to be shot down, to ensure that the Pentagon looks bad once they are `caught in the act' by the CIA, who will then win their political battle for the President's favor.
So there are two groups of bad guys and they are both agents of the United States. In the plot of `Rules of Deception', although Austen and Lafever are clearly intended to be seen for what they are - evil rogues - at least it cannot be said that America is failing to make its power felt around the world.
Israel on the other hand, as portrayed in the `Rules of Deception', is just caught in the middle, a passive agent, hardly any sort of conspirator, but rather the victim of conspirators. There are several scenes depicting meetings among the major Israeli actors including the prime minister and the head of Mossad, as they discuss how to deal with the discovery that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons. I.e., whether and how to attack Iran. The author's depiction of these discussions clearly intends to be sympathetic, and it is noteworthy that there are no such scenes portraying the counterpart Iranian discussions or the American ones either, for that matter. Ironically, some of the Israeli dialogue is embarrassingly stupid, e.g., with the head of Mossad having to ask his subordinate what `dual-use goods' means (p. 152).
Iran also is portrayed as a victim, in part, insofar as it is manipulated by the American conspirators. However, Reich wants to have it both ways. He has the Israelis present their view that Iran is led by a madman who wishes to destroy Israel: "The president of Iran is a believer in the apocalyptic end times as stated in the Koran. He sees it as his personal mission to hasten the return of the twelfth Imam, known as the Mahdi.... It's written that his return will be preceded by a confrontation between the forces of good and evil that will see a period of prolonged warfare.... First, though, he has to destroy Israel." (p. 153) Ironically, just like Austen the Pentagon conspirator, the president of Iran - Ahmadinejad (unnamed in the book) - is apparently a crazy apocalypticist.
It seems that Reich is strongly sympathetic to this claim, pushed in the real world by Israel and its U.S. supporters, which seeks to justify an attack by the notion that, should Iran ever come to possess nuclear weapons, it would use them to - quoting Ahmadinejad -- "wipe Israel off the map". While much of the background plot in `Rules of Deception' is outlandish, here is one element which intersects with reality. To be sure, if Israel ever does attack Iran, it will not be because it was tricked into doing so by rogue elements within the United States. Rather the opposite. It will be because Israel refuses to tolerate Iranian possession of nuclear weapons, and because it succeeded in pressuring the United States into supporting an attack, via the argument that Iran is not a `rational actor'.
It is indisputable that Israel will not tolerate any Middle Eastern nation having nuclear weapons -- aside from itself of course, for which it is willing to make an exception. But here is one thing that is very much in dispute: are the Iranian leaders really crazy apocalypticists, and did Ahmadinejad really say he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map"? No to both, in my opinion, although I cannot justify it here. On the former, read Scott Ritter's `Target Iran' and decide for yourself. Ritter states: `Iran's threats to Israel today are purely rhetorical. Iran poses no direct threat to Israeli security that warrants any form of preemptive military action, especially when it comes to Iran's nuclear program'. (p. 207) On what Ahmadinejad did or did not say about `wipe Israel off the map', google away and be happy.
It is also indisputable that Israel has been pressuring the United States to attack Iran or else help Israel do so. See Ritter again, chapter one, `A Crisis Made in Israel'.
The sad fact is that, as I am writing this 30 days before the presidential election, an attack against Iran is a real possibility. Israel has been clamoring for it, and the Israeli lobby, in the widest sense of that term, has been actively promoting it within the U.S. government and media. The timing right now may be critical, because with Obama poised to win the election, the Israelis must feel that they will lose the opportunity unless they act soon. It is certain that no such attack can occur without the collusion and foreknowledge of the United States. But is the current Bush regime willing to go along? So far, the answer seems to be No. The grownups in the administration seem to recognize that, given the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's non-negligible military strength, and the certainty that oil prices would soar unimaginably higher, an attack on Iran would be a monumental folly. And now with the financial-system meltdown underway, it seems impossible to imagine any scenario where the United States accedes to Israel's wishes to attack Iran. Let us pray that this analysis is correct.