Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

These neo-cons really give academic eggheads a bad name. Remember the old complaints about liberals in their 'ivory towers?"
These neo-cons really don' know anything about the real world.
Neither do I, but at least I know my limitations.

We are so screwed. Do you think the media will run with this story? This is maybe the most embarrassing revelation so far, and there have been many. I thought the grown-ups were in charge. What a bunch of a-holes.

The cherry on top seems to be that Iran got the U.S. to fund the disinformation campaign.

No, i do not think the media will run with this story.

Or, to put it another way, if the media do run with this story, it will be because some of thsoe fabled GOP adults have urged George Bush to study the example of Lyndon Johnson.

I don't regard this as very likely, so truly uncomfortable questions are just going to have sit there, quitely, in the background....

If this stuff is true, shouldn't Chalabi be in jail? How can he be allowed to spin on Sunday Mornings?
Is the answer that it would just be too embarrassing to put a State of the Union honored guest in jail, and would only give legs to this story?
Or is it that the most powerful clique in this administration doesn't want to admit that they are a bunch of suckers, and are protecting Chalabi from the CIA and State Department, who have yet to find a way to manipulate our empty-headed President?
Where is the outrage?
I got you your outrage, right here!!!

I wonder what Osama Bin Laden thinks about this...

I wonder how pi$$ed Japan is, since they're paying for it.

"I wonder what Osama Bin Laden thinks about this..."
- Posted by Jean-Philippe Stijns at May 26, 2004 03:55 PM

He's probably having some kind thoughts about Iran.

Supposedly there's an FBI investigation on who gave Chalabi sensitive information that he could pass on (I wonder). If vigorously pursued, that could lead to interesting places-- hey, there's always hope.

This is too Machiavellian to believe. It would seem the downside of a such a policy on Iran's part (having a huge American military presence on your border; having an unstable neighbor serving as a training ground for various terrorist groups that might not have your best interests at heart; increasing the power of the Kurds), would far outweigh the upside (getting rid of your "arch enemy" Saddam). If someone can explain to me the realpolitik reason why Iran would want the US to invade Iraq (getting even with Saddam is not a good enough reason), I am open to listening. But, Saddam was, as we now know, effectively contained from a military standpoint, as a result of the sanctions, the no-fly zones, &c. Its a nice spy story, but at this point I just don't by it.

The NYT has issued a sort-of-mea-culpa -- they link to all the articles that were wrong, most of them (especially the worst) by Judith Miller. Miller, of course, was Chalabi's chief journalistic stenographer. Now, the NYT says they won't blame specific reporters. But could the admission of error in this large body of previous reporting be a deck-clearing manouver before they start publishing real reporting on how the WH and neocons (not to mention the NYT) got played by Chalabi/Iran? Perhaps this is too much to hope for from America's Most Turgid Paper, but nevertheless, one can hope.

Just think how much worse it would have been if we didn't have an Administration of adults, grown-ups, professionals, mature veterans of government and international relations, hard-eyed realists who would not be fooled like the silly naive Clintonites.

Remember the spin? Even if W was not the brightest bulb in the circuit, he would be surrouonded by competent advisors?

What a bunch of dupes and assholes! Can November please come sooner?

In answer to:
This is too Machiavellian to believe. It would seem the downside of a such a policy on Iran's part (having a huge American military presence on your border; having an unstable neighbor serving as a training ground for various terrorist groups that might not have your best interests at heart; increasing the power of the Kurds), would far outweigh the upside (getting rid of your "arch enemy" Saddam). If someone can explain to me the realpolitik reason why Iran would want the US to invade Iraq (getting even with Saddam is not a good enough reason), I am open to listening.

I understand your skepticism about things like this working outside of spy novels. The presumed reason from the Iranian point of view: the US will soon leave/get kicked out, and the new government will be less in control than Saddam was, and hence move vulnerable to Iranian influence over the Shia majority, which is concentrated along the border with Iran. In a perfect world (from Iran's viewpoint, of course) some or all of Iraq eventually becomes Iranian.

This last, of course, would give the rest of the world pause, to say the least.

I am willing to at least consider that most scenerios resulting from the US invasion of Iraq leave Iran better off than before, and few if any worse. I don't see a US military presence in Iraq as any more threatening to Iran than the previous situation, and perhaps less so.

And remember, if it works it costs Iran virtually nothing. Remember the price they were willing to pay during the Iran-Iraq war.

Casting is open for the upcoming production of The Tailor of Baghdad.

The screenplay will be prepared under the supervision of John Le Carre.

Pierce Brosnan to play the willingly-befuddled Tony Blair.

The suggestion has been made that Wile E Coyote should play the Too Clever By Half Buffoon-Villain, Prince Richard Perle. However, Danny DeVito would do even better.

Owen "Dude" Wilson will play his usual genial airhead role, as the Idiot President (unfortunately, there has been no great call for Wilson to play his natural role, the lamented J Danforth Quayle III).

Der Governator will be persuaded to come out of retirement to play the fantasteek Old European who saves the day, along with his sidekick, who Looks French.

Haile Berry as the NSA. Jinks comes back!

Several critical roles remain open. In addition to the title role, faces are needed for the Duminence Grise Secty Rumsfeld and for Mr Cheney (who could, however, be simply written out of the script into an Undisclosed Location).

Perhaps Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen could play the Bush daughters?

Ideas welcome!

(we'll need to keep the plot clean, with no pictures of Abu Gahreb, if we want members of the current Administration to be allowed into the theaters)

For a bit on the FBI investigation, along with lots of other really tasty stuff on how badly Chalabi played the White House and what intelligence pros think of all this, see

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal0522,0,4141685.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

The Guardian has run a number of stories on the Chalabi/Iran connection (a UK paper, of course, rather than the US, where the skulduggery actually took place).

There is, however, this

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040523-123439-5834r.htm

and Time magazine's May 31 issue reported on the FBI probe, too. So I think we can comfortably assume that the press is going to tug at this thread to see if it ravels. Why? Well, because the tide has turned. The press hasn't gotten better. Bush is behind in the polls, so his ability to damage journalists is limited. The prison torture story has undermined the "because Saddam was a brutal guy" rationale for war, and the already nullified illicit weapon excuse has gone from being just simply wrong to wrong in a way that makes a great story. Spies, dupes in high places, a great intelligence caper, Iran, Iraq -- what more could an editor ask in an election year.

Google "chalabi iran" for lots more.

"This is too Machiavellian to believe. It would seem the downside of a such a policy on Iran's part (having a huge American military presence on your border; having an unstable neighbor serving as a training ground for various terrorist groups that might not have your best interests at heart; increasing the power of the Kurds), would far outweigh the upside (getting rid of your "arch enemy" Saddam).

I'm prone to agree. But I don't see why Iran would not want a terrorist state as a neighbor. After all, Iran, unlike Iraq is a big sponsor of terrorism. And of course, having the shiite majority hold sway over the country creates a very strong regional ally.

Of course, it seems that Iran would need to be wary of the increasing aggressiveness of U.S. military action. After all, they could be next, perhaps. But this assumes that Iranians believed the invasion would go well for the Americans. It seemed obvious to me that occupying iraq would be a major pain in the ass for America. Perhaps the Iranians knew something of the difficulties America would face in that effort. In my opinion, the U.S. experience in iraq has made us less, not more likely to invade another country.

And, Iran, of course, might have been concerned that we would invade them unless we were otherwise engaged. After all, unlike iraq, Iran was pursuing a nuclear program and had ties to terrorists. When it was included in the axis of evil with Iraq, the Iranians had a strong interest in making iraq the focus of U.S. attention...

The domestic implications of the iraq war on Iran are also interesting. It helps the hardline elements in "official" control of the government who would prefer a radicalized middle east and who wouldn't mind the increased anti-Americanism that would result from a U.S. occupation. The reformers (who likely have allies in the intelligence bureaucracy), meanwhile, were probably enthusiastic about the possibliity that they would develop new allies among the newly freed shiites of southern iraq who, it appears, may be the driving force in the new Iraqi government.

It seems to me that Iran had lots of real politik reasons for wanting Saddam out. In fact, it is probably the ONLY country that had a very strong interest in ousting the regime of Saddam hussein in the manner of the U.S. invasion. The evidence suggesting that Iran might have been behind some of the misleading intelligence, then, it seems to me, needs to be taken very seriously. (and even if Iranian espionage did not contribute to the decision to invade, we need to consider how it may have enhanced Iran's geopolitical position).

Brucie,

It is awfully Machiavellian. But is it possible the Iranians succeeded beyond their fondest hopes? Maybe all they were really after was continued pressure on Saddam, to keep him from rebuilding his army, and directing US attention away from Iran.

Very clever set up and execution - if true - what is sad is how easy it was to play the neo-cons. How do you spin it away? What defense is their to offer?

It is a great underlying theme that I think has legs because it is so easy and uncomplicated. Your average American can probably understand it.

The Iran-Iraq War continued for several years of stalemate because Khomeini insisted on Saddam's ouster as a condition for settlement. It seems that at least some elements among the hard-liners would wish to continue the policies of the former Supreme Leader. Also, the scenario of the U.S. getting bogged down in Iraq was highly likely, which would clearly be inviting for the Iranians in diminishing the threat of U.S. military action against them. And since the Shiites of Iraq would inevitably have to be allied with the U.S. for the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, this would give the Iranians some leverage over U.S. behavior, if the U.S. succeeded, and a good position for them if, as seems likely, the U.S. fails. All this seems like high-stakes poker, but then it's the Middle East, after all. Maybe the temptation of playing that Texas boy for an easy mark was just too much.

I tend to agree with Bracie, but let's think through the logic. Suppose the US had succeeded in installing a puppet democratic regime of the kind presently being contemplated. The ties between Iran and the Iraqi Shia's seem to be close -- Sistani himself is Iranian -- and the Great War is almost 20 years in the past -- so presumably the hurt from that conflict has softened, especially as its instigator is in the evidently not so gentle hands of American interrogators. There is no way Iran cannot be the major player in southern Iraq. So from that scenario, the plot makes sense.

Let's take the other leg of the stool. Most competent analysts (including those from Bush '41) did not think that the post-war occupation would be a cake-walk. They were obviouisly right. The Iranians know more about Iraq than we or they do, and so could come to the same conclusion. What strains belief is that they would know in advance that the Bush administration would be foolish enough to only send in 150,000 troops. That strains belief. Even the American people are finding it hard to digest the stupidity of the present administration. A realpolitik founded on the assumption of such utter stupidity would be almost certain to fail.

What's the balance of judgment? I think, not proven.

Knut: "What strains belief is that they would know in advance that the Bush administration would be foolish enough to only send in 150,000 troops."

What if they had an agent who was not only listened to, but talked to, by the senior U.S. political leadership? ...who passed on information about that leadership's obsession with some kind of new-fangled shock-and-awe war-on-the-cheap? What if the Iranian leadership observed, up close, that sort of unconventional war, right next door in Afghanistan?

If Iranian Intel was intelligent, then they would know that the US couldn't simultaneously maintain the "peace" in Iraq, throw troops at afghanistan and realistically be a threat to Iran.

The enmity between Iraq and Iran was real. The Shi'ites are the majority sect in Iraq. The Sunni are the minority. The Shi'ites got dumped on during Saddam's reign. The Sunnis got the goodies in jobs, prestige, etc. etc. So the Shi'ites in Iraq have no problem allying themselves to the Iranians. The Shi'ite Muslim clerics in the good old days had a greater allegiance to their particular region and themselves than they did to any central government, and I daresay that the region may devolve in that direction again. Nontheless, I doubt that Iraqis would welcome Iranian overlords with loud cries of joy, anymore than they welcomed the US.

The area now called Iraq has been part of Iran (Persia), part of the Caliphate, independent, bigger, smaller, and so forth over the course of history. It makes sense that regional attachments would be stronger than national allegiances.

It seems to me that the Bush administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq, and would accept any bullshit reason for doing so. Look at the vigour with which they defended the Niger uranium evidence, for instance. So whatever Chalabi's affiliations were, he got an audience because he was saying what they wanted to hear, and if they hadn't heard it from him, they would have found someone else prepared to say it.

I think this latest information about Chalabi is actually an attempt to deflect some of the blame from the administration.

Actually I think the Iranian plot theory is less unlikely than it might appear. Sure Iran now has the US on its border, but that was already the case when the 'Axis of evil' speech was given. Bush had in effect announced his decision to declare war on Iran in the near future, so having him wear himself down in Iraq first does not seem such a bad plan.

The other factor to take into account here is timing. It looks as if Iran was running Chalabai and his INC as a front organization since the start. When the Iranians started this operation the plan was probably to ensure that the US did not resume its earlier funding and support of Saddam and possibly get the US to come to some sort of compromise with Iran as a bulwark against Iraq.

Iran would definitely prefer Chalabai to run Iran rather than Saddam, much less likely a fellow Shiite would invade again. This might also explain why Chalabai would betray the Sunni plot of '96, Iran probably didn't want to settle for a mere military coup.

I suspect it will come out that the infamous Niger yellowcake documents were originally forged by Iranian intelligence in the mid 90s. The documents were exposed as forgeries because the names on the documents were years out of date. I suspect Iran gave them to Chalabai to use in the mid 90s, possibly to use to get US backing for the '95 plot. For some reason they were not used or not needed and so they were kept in storage. Then when they needed to quickly gin up some fake WMD evidence they pull them out, do a sloppy fix up of the dates and hope they work.

This theory would explain the big mystery of the documents which are very, very good fakes with some really big clangers. At the time they surfaced it was beleived that they were created by MI6 or CIA, possibly MOSSAD. Iran was not suspected because they did not seem to serve Iran's interests - at that time. There were plenty of times when they would have done. Chalabai might have had to resort to the clumsy forgery because Iran was not going to give him more.

The point is that even though Chalabai was working for Iran he was also playing his own game and he would double cross anyone. Chalabai was probably paid to go so far, then when he saw his chance he took it.

The obvious candidate for playing Ronald Dumsfeld is... Christopher Walken. I would pay a substantial sum (for a relatively comfortable working class guy) just to hear Christopher Walken recite the text of 'Rumsfeld Orders Breakfast At Denny's' by Frank Gannon.

http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/?030609sh_shouts

Intelligence coup! Ooooh!
Embarrassing too!
Ooooh! Ooooh!

--------------------------

02 November 2003

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ...

Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA? Neil Mackay investigates

THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause...

http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

--------------------------

Serving Two Flags Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration
By STEPHEN GREEN

Since 9-11, a small group of "neo-conservatives" in the Administration have effectively gutted--they would say reformed--traditional American foreign and security policy. Notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions of international law....all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.

Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons' past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration's new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region--Iran and Syria.

Have the neo-conservatives--many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President--had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?

A review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them strongly suggests the answer...

http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html

--------------------------

War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

Emad Mekay

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 [2004](IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East...

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

--------------------------

Middle Eastern spy "fantasies" are so much fun. Have you guys seen this?

--------------------------

"Great" timing? Check!

Flak Jackets? Check!

Yellow Walls? Check.

Dark Baseboards! Check..

Orange Jumpsuit? Check...

------------

"It's the same chair !!!! OMFG !!"

http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000233.html

--------------------------

The Iranians had a lot to gain, I agree, and they also had to suspect that Chalabi was bound to double-cross them. It's his pattern. But I think they can work with that.

Given that Shi'ism is one axis on which Iranians and lots of Iraqis move together, ethnicity is an axis on which they move apart; Persians and Arabs don't necessarily mix well. So I don't believe that dominance over southern Iraq would have been the goal.

Rather, I think they saw an opportunity to create a long-term destabilizing dynamic in Iraq with US forces right smack in the middle of the mess. They get a weaker Iraq, a weaker US focused away from them and bogged down and diplomatically isolated, and they can benefit (like the other oil producers) from sustained higher oil prices. Lucky them-- at least a trifecta.

Plus, it gives them more flexibility with respect to Israel, because they don't need the Israeli threat in Saddam's rear anymore.

Call me nuts, but I don't really see any downside for the Iranians except the slim possibility of Rumsfeld trying to play at Alexander the Great and the slimmer chance of his succeeding at it.

Well, that would explain why they killed off Al-Hakim and are backing Al-Sadr now.

As we debate whether or not "run(ning) one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history" was truly in Iran's interests, it's best to remember that Iran, like any other country, is unable to define its interests with unfailing accuracy, let alone act upon them with absolute precision. It's a philosophical impossibility given that a fairly large number of human beings are involved.

That said, though, it appears that they were significantly better at it than the Bush administration...

We will never know the truth about 9-11 or the Iraq debacle. Chalabi won't be arrested but he is a walking dead man. Iran wantd him dead, Israel wants him dead, the US wants him dead. I'm sure there is an Israeli connection in all of this, 9-11 and Iraq. The neo-cons were being worked by both the Iranians through Chalabi and Israel.

Yeah, I don't see where the Likudists would think there's a downside here either. Saddam is eliminated, the US is now deep in the regional tarpit so it has a much more direct stake, and it's fighting people who can be sold as the same enemy.

Those neocons-- how can supposedly canny adults be so naive? That seed-of-democracy stuff can only be described as pablum, or maybe lime for birds. Ditto the stuff Chalabi was peddling.

"...how can supposedly canny adults be so naive?"

That's rich.

So's this:

-------------------------

August 27, 2001 (B)

An agent at the FBI headquarters' Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) tells the FBI Minnesota office supervisor that the supervisor is getting people “spun up” over Moussaoui. The supervisor replies that he is trying to get people at FBI headquarters “spun up” because he is trying to make sure that Moussaoui does “not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center.” He later alleges the headquarters agent replies, “[T]hat's not going to happen. We don't know he's a terrorist. You don't have enough to show he is a terrorist. You have a guy interested in this type of aircraft—that is it.” [Senate Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02] Three weeks earlier, Dave Frasca, the head of the RFU unit, had received Ken Williams' memo expressing concern about terrorists training in US flight schools (see July 10, 2001) and he also knew all about the Moussaoui case, but he apparently wasn't “spun up” enough to connect the two cases. [Time, 5/27/02] Neither he nor anyone else at FBI headquarters who saw Williams's memo informed anyone at the FBI Minnesota office about it before 9/11. [Time 5/21/02]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a082701spunup

-------------

August 28, 2001 (D)

A previously mentioned unnamed RFU agent (see August 27, 2001 (B)) edits the Minnesota FBI's request for a FISA search warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's possessions. Minnesota is trying to prove that Moussaoui is connected to al-Qaeda through a rebel group in Chechnya, but the RFU agent removes information connecting the Chechnya rebels to al-Qaeda. Not surprisingly, the FBI Deputy General Counsel who receives the edited request decides on this day that there isn't enough connection to al-Qaeda to allow an application for a search warrant through FISA, so FISA is never even asked. [Senate Intelligence Committee 10/17/02] According to a later memo written by Minneapolis FBI legal officer Coleen Rowley (see an edited version of the memo here: Time, 5/21/02), FBI headquarters is to blame for not getting the FISA warrant because of this rewrite of the request. She says “I feel that certain facts … have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons.” She asks, “Why would an FBI agent deliberately sabotage a case?” The superiors acted so strangely that some agents in the Minneapolis office openly joked that these higher-ups “had to be spies or moles … working for Osama bin Laden.” Failing to approve the warrant through FISA, FBI headquarters also refuses to contact the Justice Department to try and get a search warrant through ordinary means. Rowley and others are unable to search Moussaoui's computer until after the 9/11 attacks. Rowley later notes that the headquarters agents who blocked the Minnesota FBI were promoted after 9/11 (see December 4, 2002). [Sydney Morning Herald, 5/28/02, Time, 5/21/02] FTW

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a082801fisa

-------------------------

This Made Ashcroft Gag

Translator keeps blowing 9-11 whistle on FBI; U.S. Keeps shutting her up

May 25th, 2004 12:00 PM

Details of a Florida drug case may well shed light on the claims of an FBI translator who says the agency covered up evidence warning of the 9-11 attack.

Sibel Edmonds, the translator, said in an interview Monday with the Voice that the Florida case illustrates the issues and evidence she has been trying to make public for two years. Edmonds claimed to have translated testimony in criminal and counter-intelligence cases involving different FBI field offices, going back into the late 1990s. Much of this involved tracking money, she said.

Among the Farsi translators working for the FBI, she said, it was common knowledge that a longtime, highly regarded FBI "asset" placed in Afghanistan told the agency in April 2001 that he had information from his contacts there that bin Laden was planning a major attack, involving the use of planes, in one or another of big American cities—Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York among them. The agents who took down the information from the spy wrote up reports and sent them to their superiors. That was the last the agents heard of the matter.

Edmonds said she had heard the details of the Afghan asset story in an unclassified meeting at the Capitol, but she cannot talk about the specifics because of a Justice Department gag order that classifies as secret what she has to say.

She said, however, that "there are a lot of activities in the U.S. A lot of money . . . and these activities involve money laundering, drugs, a support network for terrorism . . . people in high places . . . [people] in the political arena..."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0421/mondo1.php

Marcus writes: "The suggestion has been made that Wile E Coyote should play the Too Clever By Half Buffoon-Villain, Prince Richard Perle. However, Danny DeVito would do even better."

Even better would be the Kathy Kinney, Drew Carey's garish sister from the Drew Carey Show.

Look at a map, folks. Afghanistan is on one side of Iran, and Iraq is on the other side.

With Afghanistan firmly in the grip of the U.S. -- which was the situation before the invasion of Iraq, and could be again if the U.S. were sufficiently ruthless -- why would Iran risk establishing the U.S. permanently across the other major border? You might argue that the Ayatollahs expected a quagmire to happen in Iraq, but there was always the possibility that the U.S. would emerge triumphant. Why would the Ayatollahs want to risk it? They would be insane to risk putting themselves in an American military vise, thereby being squeezed from two directions.

So no, I don't think the "Iran conned the U.S. into Iraq" theory holds water. I agree with a previous poster, that the neocons were looking for an excuse, any excuse, to destroy Iraq.

So what about the vise. What's America going to do now, invade Iran? Sure, Iran is on the path to developing nukeuler weapons, supporting terrorists, and on and on, but what is America going to do about it? By the time enough Americans have been drafted and trained to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia will be in who knows what political state.

The Persian Gulf is going to end up in flames, oil is going to be priced in euros or something other than the dollar, and the dollar will be trash, inflated away by US government efforts to pay for endless war. Iran and US enemies very well might destroy America without firing a shot.

Bush keeps sealing his fate as one of the worst American presidents.

Yes, Iran is between Afghanistan and Iraq. But maps do have their limitations. Churchill, relying on them, famously called Italy the "soft underbelly" of the Axis-- so close to the heart of Greater Germany. But there was the small matter of terrain. The Allies landed in Italy nearly a year before D-Day. By V-E Day, their advance had reached the foothills of the Alps. If I remember correctly, this campaign tied down eight German divisions, as against a hundred or so on the eastern front and dozens on the western.

I don't know and don't want to claim that the Iranians (whatever factions were involved in running Chalabi) *wanted* the US to invade Iraq. But I do think they would have seen disorder there as more beneficial to them than Saddam, and an invasion of Iraq preferable to getting bombed or invaded themselves.

What the US administration seemed interested in doing in Iraq must have seemed exploitable, especially once their desire for war was clear. The Iranians would have known that the terrain and the people would present difficulties. No one could know the ultimate outcome, of course. But they're in a far better position to influence events there than we are.

As for Iran itself, it's very mountainous and has about 60 million or so people. Even taking and holding only the oil region would be a whole order of magnitude different than what's going on in Iraq now, and trying it would force a complete reassessment of international relations all around. It's a different kettle of fish altogether.

If you want to do the conspiracy route, why not go did up the October Surprise deal with Bush Sr. paying off the Iranians not to release the embassy hostages until after the election? So the Iranians are blackmailing Bush Jr. to get him to invade Iraq?
It makes more sense than what really happened, but that doesn't mean it's true. People do stupid things without some vast, right wing conspiracy. Think of your relatives. Well, some of my relatives, anyway.

Phil and Altoid, remember that we're talking from Iran's point of view a year before the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. is much more sober now, but it wasn't in 2001 and 2002. Do you remember how arrogant and overbearing the Bushies were back then? How was Iran to know that Rumsfeld would make such a hash of the coming war? The answer is that the Iranians had to make a worst-case assumption, that the U.S. would succeed in establishing an iron vise around their country. As I said before, the Ayatollahs would have been insane to risk it.

Remember, Iran's rugged terrain didn't stop Saddam from invading in the 1980's. The U.S. is vastly stronger than Saddam was, and could easily devastate Iran even if the war were ultimately unsuccessful. With the ability to invade from two directions simultaneously, and with glorious victories over Iraq and Afghanistan under his belt, who could have prevented Bush from trying?

Remember what General Wesley Clark observed, that there was serious planning in the Pentagon for invading no fewer than seven countries in the Middle East? I'm sure Iran was painfully aware of that possibility.

So my question remains, why would the Ayatollahs have wanted to risk doomsday by luring the U.S. into Iraq?

The eagle trap.

Iranian involvement could also help explain the puzzle about Saddam Hussein’s suicidal behaviour on WMD before the war in failing to cooperate 100% with Hans Blix. Iranian intelligence could have been spinning a tale to him about his own imaginary WMD programmes, and nuclear threats from Iran if their vacuity was revealed. Not strong, but worth exploring.

They learned it from the Kuawaitis, did they not?
The Kuwaitis, after all, hired PR firms to persuade the US to fight Iraq for them, pretty damn effectively as it turned out.
And of course Israel has been playing a variant of this game for many years now.

To sum up, the reason that some in Iran may well have seen a US invasion of a neighboring rival while it didn't occur to our wise leaders, is that the two groups had very different assessments of US capacity and staying power. It was, after all, a minority view (among those qualified to judge) that a small-scale occupying force would be adequate. It was a minority view that US troops would be welcomed with flowers by most Iraqis. Iranian planners had reason to believe that the US would be badly surprised, that the occupation would be difficult, that the US might lack the will to stay. Recall that Iraqi Shiites were fairly quiet in the early months of the occupation - perhaps an invitation for the US to leave, or to look to other parts of Iraq while arrangements were made in the south.

There is also Iran's own political divide to consider. A big win for fundamentalists in Iraq (I am assuming that the intelligence services in question are loyal to the mullahs) would give them quite a bit of leverage at home. Worth a gamble, perhaps.

(Crossing a line some French wag drew long ago ;-)

To "sum it up" ANOTHER way:

----------------

"The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?": February 28, 2002

"Enron is a scandal so enormous that it's hard to wrap your mind around it. Not just a single financial disaster, it's actually a jigsaw of interlocking scandals, each outrageous in its own right.

There's Enron the Wall St. con game, where company bookkeepers used sleight of hand to turn four years of steady losses into stunning profits. There's Enron the reverse Robin Hood, which stole from its own employees even as its executives were hauling millions of dollars out the backdoor. There's Enron's Ken Lay the Kingmaker, who used the corporation's fraudulent wealth to broker elections and skew public policy to his liking. And then there are the Enron coverups..."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525

----------------

The neo-con "war" on "terror"...

----------------

(BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION: Updated 5/27/03)

As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with oil." He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on 11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

Speaking to British MPs, Prime Minister Tony Blair was just as explicit: "Let me deal with the conspiracy theory idea that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever if oil were the issue that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam...." (London Times 1/15/03)....

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

----------------

...is WORSE than a crime--it's a mistake.

----------------

("The View from Hubbert's Peak": May 25, 2004 )

"...M. King Hubbert was a celebrated oil geologist who in 1956 correctly prophesized that U.S. petroleum production would peak in the early 1970s, then irreversibly decline. In 1974 he likewise predicted that world oil fields would achieve their maximum output in 2000; a figure later revised by his acolytes to somewhere between 2006 and 2010.

If the curve of global oil production is indeed near the point of descent, as these experts believe, it has epochal implications for the world economy. More expensive oil will undercut China's energy-intensive boom, return OECD countries to the bad old days of stagflation, and accelerate the environmentally destructive exploitation of low-grade oil tars and shales.

Most of all, it will devastate the economies of oil-importing third-world countries. Poor farmers will be unable to purchase petroleum-based artificial fertilizers just as poor urban-dwellers will be unable to afford bus fares. (Already, rising oil prices have brought chronic blackouts to cities throughout the globe's southern hemisphere.)

The only certain beneficiaries of this coming economic chaos will be the big five oil corporations and their corrupt partners: the Nigerian generals, Saudi princes, Russian kleptocrats, and their ilk. Crude oil truly will become black gold.

The rising value of an increasingly scarce resource is a form of monopoly rent, and a future permanent crude-oil regime of $50 per barrel (or higher) would transfer at least $1 trillion per decade from consumers to oil producers. In plain English, this would be the greatest robbery by a rentier elite in world history. Someday, Enron may seem like the equivalent of a liquor store hold-up by comparison.

The oilmen in the White House, of course, have the best view of the lush terrain on the far side of Hubbert's peak. No wonder, then, that a map of the 'war against terrorism' corresponds with such uncanny accuracy to the geography of oil fields and proposed pipelines. From Kazakhstan to Ecuador, American combat boots are sticky with oil..."

http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/

----------------

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/05/our_politics_mu.html

Carbo, let me give it another try, and I'm handicapped by going from memory.

To the extent that it mattered, Iran was in the crosshairs very early-- Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. The question then would be, what would the Bush admin plan to do, what capabilities did it have, and what were its patterns?

In thinking about this, Iranians had to bear in mind that their country was far and away the biggest and toughest nut among the three, that its earlier humiliation of the US was ended by the inauguration of a Republican president, and that Republicans like to attack only small places they're sure they can beat easily. Add to this Bush's backing away from the Chinese very early in the administration-- something I think foreign governments saw as far more important than Americans did; it said that Bush folds when pushed hard.

Afghanistan: The US had successfully invaded and partly occupied Afghanistan, but much could be learned from that operation. There was the reluctance to use US troops, the decision to rely instead on local surrogates (Northern Alliance), and on an ally no one could seriously trust (Pakistan) to do the most crucial task of all around the Tora Bora region. Remember, that was all being discussed at the time. It showed a desire to do things on the cheap in human terms (American humans, that is), and a lack of real resources for the job, like Pushtun speakers. There was also the contrast in operations between sophisticated elite forces and ham-handed Army that seriously alienated the locals.

But they can see Bush wants more action. And by the way, I had an adult student, a smart guy who I like, who from 9/12 on wanted nothing except to see things go boom. He mentioned Iraq on 9/12 or 13. He was totally unsatisfied with occupying Afghanistan. He had lots of company-- the Iranians had to know that there'd be strong support for something more.

So, if you were them, taking all this in, what would you do? Remember, it wasn't as if Bush and company were just sitting there in the park minding their own business. They were obviously on a bear hunt.

You couldn't do much to misdirect Bush to North Korea, and they were clearly resisting that bait anyway, whoever was laying it down. You could send them to Syria, but it's a really small place that *could* be successfully occupied with the forces at Bush's disposal. (Remember that the total available forces were no secret-- everybody and his brother was calculating how many divisions could be moved in-theater when.)

That leaves Iraq. Iraq is a very tough place with very tough people. Most are armed. The US has little staying power and little tolerance for long-lasting problems. Saddam had to be a wild card because they'd never know whether he'd back down, try to duke it out and live for a thousand years as an Arab hero, or do what he actually did, namely the old Ali rope-a-dope-- take the blow and set things up to come back in ways the Americans didn't anticipate.

There was a risk of total American triumph, I agree, and not completely negligible. But they would surely have judged it to be the least likely outcome.

Also, we should remember they're playing a much longer game than we are. They live there, as the Vietnamese said about the French and the Americans. The Turks, who were from next door, couldn't run a seamless occupation, and the British left after twenty or so years.

Personally, I think everybody else in world politics had Bush's number when he caved in to the Chinese. Nobody ever took him seriously as a conqueror. What they all have to fear is the vicious lashing-out that can come unpredictably. He's capable of that.

So that's my thinking. I doubt you'll be convinced, but thought I might lay it out since you ask.

Chalabi caught passing secrets to the Iranians in 04 does not necessitate that Chalabi has been an Iranian agent all along. Chalabi admits selling the US a load of goods designed to get the US to overthrow Saddam. That much is clear. That Chalabi was doing so as an Iranian agent is probably a stretch.

Altoid-
Points that do not fit:
Iraq was on the table EARLY in 2001. Iraq was on the Neocon dance card back in the 90s.
Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan puts them on two Iranian borders.

Saddam persecution of Shias created a refugee problem for Iran and an unstable border. Certainly the Iranians were wiling to support a Saddam ouster in favor of majority rule.

Independent Iraq-Kurdistan creates border complications for Iran-Kurdistan. Since the US had backed an independent Iraq-Kurdistan, removal of Saddam could only be favorable to Shia control of Kurdistan.

Chalabi may have been caught passing info to the Iranians to ingratiate himself to them or at least signal Iran that he would be open for business with them. Chalabi is the agent for Chalabi. After getting kicked out of his lucrative deal in Jordan, Chalabi found another sugar daddy to fund his ambitions. In the Bay of Goats, Chalabi was acting as more of a Kurdish agent than an Iranian agent. The disinformation campaign by Chalabi had a much greater benefit to Chalabi than to the Iranians. Chalabi has seen American support erode so now he is turning to Iranians.

The American hope was that someone like Chalabi a Shia AND a secular businessman (although a crooked one) would be palatable enough to the Shia, that he could establish as leader of Iraq. Unfortunately for the US, Chalabi never had enough popular Iraqi support for the US to install him as their puppet. If Chalabi were truly an Iranian agent and Iran's guy in Iraq, Chalabi, would already have consolidated power in Shia-Iraq.

Okay, call me slow, but I didn't "get" Chalabi until I saw an older Newsweek article the other day about the "oil-for-food" program and the shadowy memo that purports to show payoffs from Saddam to the UN and all the rest of the folks that the right loves to hate (Putin, deVillepain, and so on)...and that this memo comes from (duh!) Chalabi's folks. The administration now says Chalabi is "impeding" the investigation into this supposed scandal by refusing to turn over documents, but I think it more likely that there _are_ no documents. I think Chalabi, seeing his chances at power threatened by the legitimacy of the UN, ginned up a scandal to de-legitimize this rival to his plans.

I mean, this guy has done it all, hasn't he? He fed Iraqi exiles coached in WMD stories to both American and European intelligence, making this tale look multisourced and real. He convinced eager and gullible neocons that he had broad support in Iraq. He got the US to finance his rag-tag bunch of exiles, then got them flown into Bagdad to celebrate it's "liberation" in front of willing camera crews as we pulled the statues down. He got himself appointed to the governing council, then convinced the CPA that _every_ former Baathist was not to be trusted. And apparently, somewhere along the line, he began playing both sides with the Iranians.

Not bad for a convicted con-man. You've got to admire his "Catch me if you can" chutzpa, I guess-He suckered the neocons and fleeced America into financing a war we didn't need, his war, with our own blood and money. And Ann Coulter _still_ loves him.

Amazing. I hope the press keeps its recently-rediscovered spine and sense of skepticism as this story evolves- my guess is that Chalabi, the con-man-who-would-be-king, is not going to go away quietly.

Chalabi's ties to Iran have been known for about 20 years. The CIA did not just find out he was an Iranian agent. I think he's simply outlived his usefulness, and now was the time chosen to neutralize him.

I see that clueless Brad and his clueless friends are setting to hop on the "get Iran" bandwagon since they no longer have the stomach to rattle sabres against Iraq.

Get a load of this bozos:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2004/052504.html

Bush Sr.'s Iraq-Iran Secrets

By Robert Parry
May 25, 2004

...
Israeli Interests

As Chalabi’s operation fed anti-Saddam propaganda into the U.S. decision-making machinery, Bush also should have been alert to the Israeli role in opening doors for Chalabi in Washington. One intelligence source told me that Israel’s Likud government had quietly promoted Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress with Washington’s influential neoconservatives. That would help explain why the neoconservatives, who share an ideological alliance with the conservative Likud, would embrace and defend Chalabi even as the CIA and the State Department denounced him as a con man.

The idea of Israel promoting an Iranian agent also is not far-fetched if one understands the history. The elder Bush could tell his son about the long-standing strategic ties that have existed between Israel and Iran, both before and after the Islamic revolution of 1979. It was Menachem Begin’s Likud Party that rebuilt the covert intelligence relationship in 1980. Since then, it has been maintained through thick and thin, despite Iran’s public anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Israeli governments have long made a high priority out of forging alliances with countries like Iran on the periphery of the Arab world to divert Arab antipathy that otherwise could be concentrated on Israel. Plus, Israel and Iran had an important enemy in common: Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Both Israel and Iran had a lot to gain by convincing the United States to remove their hated adversary.

The elder George Bush also understands the rise of the neocons, a movement that took shape in the late 1970s and helped the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980. Many of the neocons were disaffected Democrats who favored a harder line against the Soviet Union (which many conservatives argued was then in the ascendancy) and in support of Israel (at a time when U.S. diplomats were pushing Israel toward a land for peace swap with the Palestinians).

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neoconservatives have replaced their anti-Soviet hard-line with demands for confronting other emerging U.S. adversaries, such as China, while still pushing for U.S. policies in the Middle East that parallel those of Israel’s Likud. Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War and his decision not to eliminate Saddam Hussein, the elder Bush has been on the outs with the neocons, who see him as someone with overly close ties to the Arab oil states, especially Saudi Arabia.

So, the neoconservatives, who now hold key positions in the White House and the Pentagon, might well have been receptive to the information that Chalabi’s INC was selling since it served an anti-Saddam cause favored by them and by Israel. It’s less clear whether the younger Bush was deceived by the manufactured evidence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction or simply saw his own political agenda served by it.

Either way, it’s obvious that the younger George Bush lacks his father’s detailed understanding of how these complex relationships fit together. Before becoming President, George W. Bush’s only direct contact with the troubled region came in 1998 on a trip highlighted by a helicopter flight with Israel’s Ariel Sharon over the Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza. Recalling the scene later, Bush remarked, “Looked real bad down there. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation.” [See Ron Suskind’s Price of Loyalty.]

Severed Ties

By contrast, the elder Bush has a deep reservoir of knowledge about the Middle East and the interlocking relationships. He served as CIA director in 1976 at a time when Israeli intelligence had close ties to the Shah’s secret services in Iran. With the Islamic revolution in 1979, those ties were severed, but were quickly repaired.

Though the government of radical Islamic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was denouncing both the U.S. and Israel (Big Satan and Little Satan), Iran also needed access to U.S. military equipment to keep the Shah’s American-supplied army and air force functioning. Even during the U.S.-Iranian crisis over the holding of 52 U.S. hostages in 1980, Menachem Begin’s Likud government arranged shipments of tires for Iranian air force jets.

Israel took the risk of offending President Jimmy Carter over the tire sale because Israel viewed its relationship with Iran as a national security priority. Israeli concern about the regional balance of power also deepened when Iraq attacked Iran in September 1980 ({allegedly with the encouragement of the Carter administration}). Israel had a strong stake in preventing an Iraqi victory in the oil-rich border area because it could have made the ambitious Saddam Hussein a dominant force. [For details, see Robert Parry's Trick or Treason.]

The Begin government also believed that President Carter was overly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and was conspiring to force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. “Begin was being set up for diplomatic slaughter by the master butchers in Washington,” wrote senior Israeli intelligence official David Kimche in The Last Option.

“They had, moreover, the apparent blessing of the two presidents, Carter and [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat, for this bizarre and clumsy attempt at collusion designed to force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Kimche continued. “This plan – prepared behind Israel’s back and without her knowledge – must rank as a unique attempt in United States’s diplomatic history of short-changing a friend and ally by deceit and manipulation.”

Begin’s Likud government particularly dreaded the prospect of a second Carter term. “Unbeknownst to the Israeli negotiators, the Egyptians held an ace up their sleeves, and they were waiting to play it,” Kimche wrote. “The card was President Carter’s tacit agreement that after the American presidential elections in November 1980, when Carter expected to be re-elected for a second term, he would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby.”

Bush Allegations

Another Israeli intelligence officer, Ari Ben-Menashe, said these combined pressures on Begin led the Likud leader to throw in his lot with the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 by helping to arrange meetings between Iranian leaders and senior Republicans. Ben-Menashe has asserted that George H.W. Bush personally participated in a key meeting in October 1980 in Paris, a claim that Bush denied at two press conferences in 1992 but was never questioned about in a formal government investigation.

Since then, additional evidence has emerged linking the senior Bush to the clandestine Republican contacts with Iran during the 1980 campaign. Chicago Tribune reporter John Maclean said he was informed by a well-placed Republican Party source in mid-October 1980 that Bush was heading to Paris for a meeting with Iranians about the hostage crisis.

David Andelman, a former New York Times correspondent who was assisting French intelligence chief Alexandre deMarenches on his memoirs, said deMarenches described arranging meetings between Republicans and Iranians in Paris but insisted that be left out of the book for fear it would hurt his friend, George H.W. Bush.

After checking its intelligence files at the request of the U.S. Congress, the Russian government submitted an extraordinary report in January 1993 that identified the senior George Bush as one of several Republicans who negotiated with the Iranians in Paris during the 1980 campaign. The congressional task force that had requested the Russian report as part of its “October Surprise” investigation never made the report public or even disclosed that it existed.

I discovered the Russian document in a storage box left behind by the task force, which – by the time the Russian report arrived – had already decided to “debunk” the allegations of a Republican-Iranian hostage deal. The task force cleared Bush without ever questioning him. [For more on the Russian report, see Consortiumnews.com’s “{October Surprise X-Files}.”]

Later in 1993, former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who followed Begin to power in Israel, became another voice endorsing the allegations of a Republican-Iranian “October Surprise” deal in 1980. When asked whether there had been a Republican “October Surprise” operation, Shamir responded, “Of course, it was.” The 52 American hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, just as Ronald Reagan was beginning his inaugural address.

Though the allegations of a Republican-Iranian deal have remained in doubt, investigations into the controversy confirmed that Israel did resume military shipments to Iran in 1981 with the knowledge of Reagan-Bush officials who permitted the secret deliveries to go forward. By the mid-1980s, the Reagan-Bush administration was playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, funneling financial and some military support to Iraq while also selling missiles to Iran, both through third countries, such as Israel, and directly from U.S. stockpiles.

Some of that intrigue was exposed during the Iran-Contra and Iraqgate scandals, but the senior Bush succeeded in curtailing the investigations, leaving many questions unanswered. [For more details, see Robert Parry’s Trick or Treason.]

Rise of the Neoconservatives

The election of President Reagan and Vice President Bush in 1980 also coincided with the emergence of a political movement known as neoconservatism. Many neoconservatives had been liberals or even leftists but broke with the Democratic Party in the 1970s to favor a more aggressive policy toward the Soviet Union. The neoconservatives also wanted a more staunchly pro-Israeli position in the Middle East.

The Reagan-Bush administration rewarded the neoconservatives for their support in the 1980 campaign with their first taste of executive power, giving them credentials that would prove crucial more than two decades later in their ability to push through the Iraq War.

Elliot Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz became assistant secretaries of state in the Reagan-Bush administration. Abrams now handles Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, and Wolfowitz was an architect of the Iraq policy as deputy secretary of defense. One of Wolfowitz’s proteges from the Reagan-Bush era, I. Lewis Libby Jr., is now Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff and a leading hawk on Iraq. Another Iraq policy architect, Richard Perle, was an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan. Perle’s former counsel, Douglas Feith, is now under secretary of defense for policy where he strongly promoted the invasion of Iraq.

Military officers, such as retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, have blamed the Bush administration’s neoconservatives for many of the mistakes in judgment that have led to the deaths of almost 800 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Zinni, who was Bush’s Middle East envoy, said the overly optimistic assumptions about the invasion’s aftermath amounted to “at minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence, and corruption,” according to his book, written with Tom Clancy, entitled Battle Ready.

In an interview with CBS News’s “60 Minutes” on May 23, Zinni also questioned the administration’s insistence on staying the course in Iraq. “The course is headed over Niagara Falls,” Zinni said.

Chalabi’s Disinformation?

Many of the overly optimistic assumptions behind the war, as well as much of the supposed evidence of Iraqi WMD stockpiles, came from Chalabi and his associates. After the invasion, U.S. forces discovered that much of the information was bogus.

Initially, many observers suspected that Chalabi had promoted the false information either to make money or to get the U.S. to install him in power in Iraq. But the new allegations suggest that Chalabi also may have been a stalking horse for Iranian leaders seeking to get the United States to do what Iran couldn’t do: remove Saddam Hussein from power.

On May 21, Chalabi’s Baghdad home was raided by U.S.-backed Iraqi police as part of an investigation into suspicions that INC officials had passed sensitive intelligence about U.S. troop positions to Iran. A warrant also was issued for the arrest of Aras Habib, Chalabi’s top intelligence adviser, on a variety of charges. Appearing on U.S. news programs, Chalabi has denied the “smear” and blamed CIA Director George Tenet for spreading the allegations.

Investigative journalist Knut Royce of Newsday reported on May 22 that “the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.”

Royce quoted an intelligence source as saying “Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein.” The source also said the program, which was supported by $340,000 a month from the Defense Department, passed on classified U.S. documents to Iran. The DIA’s findings were based on a review of thousands of internal documents, Royce reported.

Patrick Lang, former director of the DIA’s Middle East branch, said he learned from his associates that Chalabi’s supplying of evidence about Iraq’s WMD was essentially an Iranian intelligence scam, “one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history,” according to Royce’s article. [Newsday, May 22, 2004]

As recently as four months ago, Chalabi was so well regarded by the Bush administration that he was given a spot of honor at Bush’s State of the Union speech, behind First Lady Laura Bush.

New Embarrassment

The prospect that the U.S. was lured into a disastrous war in Iraq as part of an intelligence scheme hatched in Tehran would be another humiliation for the Bush administration. The image of the United States paying millions of dollars to Chalabi’s operation to buy bogus information from Iranian intelligence follows on the heels of the international opprobrium over the photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

But the alleged Iranian intelligence trap could only have been sprung because key Bush advisers were inclined to believe the bogus information in the first place, since it fit their own agendas. In addition, Bush lacked the sophistication and the knowledge to bring adequate skepticism to what he was hearing, assuming that he wanted to. Though his father has that depth of understanding, the younger Bush says he hasn’t sought out his father’s counsel on Iraq. Nor is advice from his father’s top confidants welcome.

When the elder Bush’s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft weighed in on Aug. 15, 2002, with a Wall Street Journal opinion piece warning against an invasion of Iraq, the younger Bush’s NSC adviser Condoleezza Rice reportedly gave Scowcroft a tongue-lashing. He subsequently stayed out of the debate. “Neither Scowcroft nor Bush senior wanted to injure the son’s self-confidence,” wrote Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack.

When questioned about getting his father’s advice, the younger George Bush sounds almost petulant. “I can’t remember a moment where I said to myself, maybe he can help me make the decision,” Bush told Woodward.

Bush said he couldn’t remember any specifics about conversations he may have had with his father about the conflict. “I’m not trying to be evasive,” Bush said. “I don’t remember. I could ask him and see if he remembers something. But how do you ask a person, What does it feel like to send somebody in and them lose life? Remember, I’ve already done so, for starters, in Afghanistan. …

“You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.”

Though Bush’s biological father may not have that grander authority, the senior Bush would have the details about who did what to whom in the Middle East during the 12 years of Republican rule from 1981 to 1993. Very little of that information can be found in the history books or even in the classified government files, since much of what was done, if recorded, could have opened the participants to scandal or criminal prosecution. Some of the secret transactions involved illegal arms sales, while other acts may have undercut President Carter’s hostage negotiations in 1980, behavior that could be construed as close to treason.

The full stories reside only in the minds of the principal players. The senior Bush is one who could fill his son in on the facts.

I find it revealing that the good Prof would stoop to discussing cospiratizoid theories on his blog. Bush bashing is taking on an interesting new aspect.

On substance, let's try to get into the Iranian leadership's mind. I guess it would have to go like this: 'We are running a country whose population doesn't like us and would like to end our regime. America doesn't like us and would like to topple us, too. It recently seized a neighboring country. Best thing for us would probably be to induce it to invade another neigboring country. They will have a chance to show their stunning military superiority, plant an army across our second border, set up broadcasts to our people from that neighboring country, let their agents pass from that country to ours, and increase surveillance of our activities. It's a winner!'

"It is awfully Machiavellian. " Posted by Bernard Yomtov

The reason M is still read, and for the last 500 years, is that he got realpolitic, the way the world works, right. Too bad he hasn't been blogging all these years with endless examples of exiles wrecking one empire or another.

Just because its Machiavellian doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Let's tweak the scenario to make it more realistic. We need to deemphasize the role of Chalabi, the certainty of the war, and the time frame during which this all played out.

It is very plausible to think Iran would run covert ops in Iraq. Not just recently, not just at the time of the Bush Administration.

Let's say Iran starts a covert op shortly after the end of the first Gulf War, maybe 1992-93-ish, intent on persuading Washington or even the EU that Saddam is looking for WMD, hoping to cut any supplies Saddam might procure, hoping to produce Western polices that contain Saddam with greater urgency than previously, hoping to keep containment an active program for the long term.

Tehran does not know the younger Bush will get elected and bring in the neo-cons, or that Osama will inadvertantly bring Washington's troops to its doorstep by the end of 2001. Rather, this is a case of a policy that succeeded too well, with many unintended consequences. Chalabi eventually facilitates some of the Iranian slight of hand, but he is not central to the story.

It's too much to postulate than Iran knew how it would all play out and played it cards so perfectly. That is not the intelligence business, here or there.

Bakho, I'm not saying that the Iranians *always* wanted the US to invade Iraq, just that from about early 2002 an invasion of Iraq might well have been the least worst alternative for them. Chalabi has always been only for Chalabi, and anyone who dealt with him had to know that. But the concurrence of interests obviously had made him useful at points over a long period, and that would include '02.

I agree, there were key admin people who had a long record of gunning for Iraq, and everybody remembers Rumsfeld's instructions in his staff meeting right on or after 9/11-- "hit SH hard," use the event as an excuse to go after Iraq. Doesn't that make it even less likely that the Iranians would try to plant dissuasive evidence, and more likely that they would do what they appear to have done? They-- or Chalabi, or both-- didn't invent the US invasion, but helped to grease the skids in crucial ways.

Given the range of US capabilities, the way the admin had used US forces in Afghanistan, the fact that there already were US air bases surrounding Iran anyway (Georgia, etc), and given some Iranian influence within Iraq, I'm unconvinced that they would have so deeply feared being surrounded by US ground troops. That view presupposes a US military coming out of its Iraq experience stronger, bigger, more capable, better coordinated, better equipped, and ready to tackle either extended mountain warfare or invasion of densely-populated areas like southwestern Iran. And to maintain that posture for many years. I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but I don't think that's been the history of any major US force commitment in the 20th century.

I'm surprised that insinuating propaganda cover stories is so easy, although I shouldn't be.

The high councils of Bush's government are not influenced by Iranian Zarathustrians (even if Ahriman can be seen there in the mix), or Shi'ia, but Zionists.

This alleged scenario, if perhaps true enough on a superficial level, misdirects attention, in my opinion, with a limited hangout disclosure of some of the operational details. However, as the piece above from Robert Parry's consortiumnews.com explains, the Iranian connection IS (historically, covertly) the Israeli connection, just poorly understood and deliberately understated.

Israel was very much involved with hyping their assessment of Iraq's WMD situation, as high level Israeli intel personnel have admitted their critical role. Chalabi's disinformation along these same lines may have had an Iranian component, but operationally, an Israeli/Zionist hand behind that, however convenient it is now to point to the half-way point in the chain of deception.

As the small chorus of voices is raised and joined with those pointing at the Israelis and their amen corner here in the US as causing this debacle, a diversionary cover story swiftly arises, with enough sensationalism to fully engage those lacking critical thinking skills. Masterful, and deeply troubling.

I'm surprised that insinuating propaganda cover stories is so easy, although I shouldn't be.

The high councils of Bush's government are not influenced by Iranian Zarathustrians (even if Ahriman can be seen there in the mix), or Shi'ia, but Zionists.

This alleged scenario, if perhaps true enough on a superficial level, misdirects attention, in my opinion, with a limited hangout disclosure of some of the operational details. However, as the piece above from Robert Parry's consortiumnews.com explains, the Iranian connection IS (historically, covertly) the Israeli connection, just poorly understood and deliberately understated.

Israel was very much involved with hyping their assessment of Iraq's WMD situation, as high level Israeli intel personnel have admitted their critical role. Chalabi's disinformation along these same lines may have had an Iranian component, but operationally, an Israeli/Zionist hand behind that, however convenient it is now to point to the half-way point in the chain of deception.

As the small chorus of voices is raised and joined with those pointing at the Israelis and their amen corner here in the US as causing this debacle, a diversionary cover story swiftly arises, with enough sensationalism to fully engage those lacking critical thinking skills. Masterful, and deeply troubling.

It's funny how the anti-Bush/anti-neocon/anti-war people spin this as hard as they can, even when the facts aren't out.

If it's true, then the anti-war people were working against anti-American Iran's wishes, which is hilarious.

With Saddam in jail, everyone wins except for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Iraq didn't lower its flag after 911. Neither did Iran or North Korea.

It's funny how the anti-Bush/anti-neocon/anti-war people spin this as hard as they can, even when the facts aren't out.

If it's true, then the anti-war people were working against anti-American Iran's wishes, which is hilarious.

With Saddam in jail, everyone wins except for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Iraq didn't lower its flags after 911. Neither did Iran or North Korea, I believe. But Iran did cooperate complete completely with regime change in Afghanistan.

"Iraq is a very tough place with very tough people."

Which explains its total victory over Iran back in 1984?

Remember the first rule of a con, you can not con an honest man. People are conned because they think they are above the rules and that sure applies to this admin.

In the annals of successful intelligence ops against the US, the entire Wen Ho Lee affair.

The Chinese nuclear program had a real problem with a brain drain to the US.

The solution, finger some innocent guy, whet the appetite of a racist security officer (Trulok), and lo and behold, Chinese nuclear physicists who study in the US now go back home, because they don't want to be put in a hole for years at a stretch.

"Which explains its total victory over Iran back in 1984?"

No, it explains Iran's total victory over Iraq in 1984. And of course our people are finding it all cakes and ale there as we speak.

Hello:

speaking about intelligence; how much stupid, incompetent military astuteness on how this military will "fly" in the future.

Reported on www.lunaville.org

that national guardsman are left to sleep in unprotected tens during morter barrages..while regular army stays in more controlled bunker installments and redoubts.

Also noted is fact that the 135,000 over there in uniform- that 40% is national guardsman.
Rumsfeld idea of citizen army while we still brag that we are only remaining superpower remaining.
See how many of those national guardsman re-enlist when their tour is over after they have been treated as non regular army. Kind of funny on how long this will fly in the future. By depending almost 50% on the national guard is a new way of saying:
"Our army is very small now, we really do not have enough soldiers, full-time, to cover this theater, the other theater or even Warner Bros Theater.
I would venture a guess that Rumsfeld will be new scapegoat and let go after this election, or sooner because his "lighter, more flexible army" is about to break under the strain. Army war college stated 3 weeks ago that every aspect of the military is under intense strain and now bordering on similar circumstances during The Nazi regime's final year...and what did they do when things went wrong- they shot their own generals

It is deja vu all over again as Yogi Berra would say. We cannot even control the Iraq / Syria border because we do not have enough soldiers, so we blame Syria for that and enact sanctions.
see how the blame game works; it is never the current administration's fault.

With Saddam in jail, everyone wins except for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Iraq didn't lower its flag after 911. Neither did Iran or North Korea.

What does any of this even mean? Are you saying that Iraq's not lowering its flag means it's somehow related to Al Qaeda? Also, is Osama somehow damaged at the moment by the present situation in Iraq?

Here's my take on this business: getting the US to invade Iraq in such a way that it will divert resources from both fighting al Qaeda and credibly threatening states like Iran and NK, which are demonstrably more powerful and dangerous, bogging down large parts of that country's military and intelligence apparatus in Iraq for years, and positioning the US as a cusader/oppresor to large parts of the Muslim and Arab worlds certainly would be a coup for the Iranians.

Even if this wasn't a long term operation by Iranian intelligence, it is Iran, North Korea, and Al Qaeda that most benefit.

For thos of you who find it incredible that Iran would want to have the United States on two borders here is a small part of a story that appears in the Financial Times today about the U. S. Armys bullet shortage.

"And with more troops in Iraq, more intense combat than expected and the need for almost every soldier from frontline infantryman to rearguard logistician to be prepared for an ambush, the army suddenly finds itself in a bullet crunch."

The problem with this administration and the sorts that make up the "war bloggers" is that they don't have a clue about what its like to actually fight a war.

In 2001 Iran faced two mortal enemies on its borders. The Taliban and Sadam. Now both are gone. The have been replaced by an elaphantine hyper power that cannot retake towns in Iraq like Fallujah and ends up turning them over to the insurrectionists. Both the Taliban and Sadam had a history of actually intervening ion Iran and bloodying the regime.

The United states basically dithered during the Iranian revolution. During the Reagan administration they found they worked well with Republican administrations (remember it was IRAN Contra). Under Bush 1 they again found accomodation. Now under Bush 2 they have succeeded in what can only be considered a strategic victory. They have secured their borders completely, while undermining the power of the Great Satan.

Does anyone in their right minds think the United States in the near future will be able to invade a third muslim country?

Mike's point above about dollar hegemony being a prime motivation for the war needs more attention.

A variety of reports emphasizing the links between the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq and the rise of the Euro:

http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=490

http://www.rense.com/general36/euro.htm

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2006/stories/20030328006202000.htm
(closing section)

Briefly, these are all consistent with Peter
Gowan's thesis (Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Dominance, Verso, 1999), which argues that maintaining the "Dollar-Wall Street Regime" is a paramount US goal, implying that any combination of force/threats/bribes will be used against any emerging challenge (e.g., Asian tigers pre-1998 and the emergence of a Sino-Japanese monetary alliance, which was
effectively crushed by hedge fund manipulation of Asian currencies, delays in providing IMF support when the subsequent crash came, and so on).

As Clark (first link) summarizes: "The real reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard."

There's a piece in the NYTimes which suggests Chalabi is the
scapegoat in all this, that George Tenet and his CIA were in
the know on everything, short-selling airline and insurance
stocks before 9/11, writing grocery-cart intelligence pieces
on Iraq that Bush/Cheney could cherry pick from, and only in
the William Clarke fiasco, and after Wilson's wife got outted,
did the CIA get aggressive pointing the finger to their masters,
and ... in this case ... at their master's boy, Chalabi. He may
not be the bad guy, it may be all in the CIA, which should leave
everyone with a punched-in-the-gut feeling. $340,000 a month is
NOTHING compared to the $10B's a year down the CIA rathole. But
I guess ignorance is bliss, and Chalabi should hang for his line
about "rose petals and sweets" and bogus Iraqi nuclear scientist.
"Riot: A Love Story" by Shashi Tharoor has a great passage about
wearing blinders about sly smirkers.

"In 2001 Iran faced two mortal enemies on its borders. The Taliban and Sadam. Now both are gone. The have been replaced by an elaphantine hyper power that cannot retake towns in Iraq like Fallujah and ends up turning them over to the insurrectionists."

Got it backwards, Lawrence. The Taliban and Saddam may have been hostile, but never mortally dangerous to Iran. US is not openly hostile now, but it IS CAPABLE of destroying the mullah regime.

Conspiracy theories are almost more fun than lunch! I'll be brief here, since I have to get back to the office.

Altoid, in 2002 Saddam was totally contained, and was not a problem for Iran. The American base in Georgia was also negligible: it could not have supported a serious invasion of Iran because of the difficulty of massive resupply without Russia's cooperation, which was unlikely to have been forthcoming. At that time, the only major external threat to Iran was the American presence in Afghanistan.

From the Iranian point of view, the status quo was quite tolerable. Why would they have wanted to risk worsening it? Consider the possible outcomes of an American invasion of Iraq:

* The Americans lose, and Saddam is once more unleashed. Bad for Iran.

* The Americans win militarily: probable. They also win over the Iraqi people, which even with all the Rumsfeldian bungling came very close to happening. Very very bad for Iran.

* Stalemate/quagmire: the only good outcome, from Iran's point of view.

Three possibilities, and only one semi-tolerable outcome, and an improbable one at that. Why would the Iranians want to take that risk? Bush's second military adventure was by no means inevitable: there were plenty of countervailing forces, within the U.S. and around the world. If I were Iranian, I would have been doing everything in my power to prevent an invasion of Iraq.

More on the US intelligence community and the media

**The 7 domestic terrorists the recent scare on national TV, of these muslim oriented terrorists-

The news agencies stated Ashcroft said that 6 of these potential terrorists have been plastered on the media earlier and that this is just a reminder because of "chatter" received, and the addition of the 7th terrorists?.

DOES ANYONE REMEMBER ANY WARNINGS OR NEWS MEDIA WARNINGS WHERE THE POSTED THESE PHOTOS AND NAMES BEFORE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS

DOES ANYONE....????.
I do not remember any flashing of photo's or warnings- maybe they just went to police stations for APB.

These kinds of lies stating that these domestic planted were announced earlier is epedemic of something really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really BAD...that they can lie like this and say that these photos were circulated earlier, either months or years or weeks.

This now borders on absurdity and the media cow-tows it along and says OK!

Interesting tid bits on how political intimidation works and why the media, and average journalists are really afraid to report the truth for fear of resprisals; or just being fired.

Michael Moore's Bush movie was banned by Disney and sold away (major award winner in Cannes Film festival.)

Disney stated through news outlet that they were afraid if the documentary circulated the movie that it would hurt its business in the Orlando parks because they were afraid it would piss off Florida Governer Bush, and he would retaliate with non-friendly politically motivated reprisals that would "damage" its park amusement business.
Disney thinks some kind of new amusement tax would commence; or the park would be shut-down for newly discovered safety violations...

1st of all, I and others do not think this is the real reason, but it shows the real fear corporations have of the Bush Administation and its family tentacles-
a real avid testimony of the vicious nature of the Bush family in general - would one say-

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

Now we are told Disney fears the Bush family (That means ABC, since they are one in same)
How Orwelian...like when they funded the moore movie, did they think it would be like a "positive" display of Bush and CO., a rosey-painted picture of his "nice" side. Those Christmas parties, and nice visions of himn petting the white house mutt as he gets off his chopper? How sad; how absurd!!!
The news just gets worse and worse!

"The solution, finger some innocent guy, whet the appetite of a racist security officer (Trulok), and lo and behold..."

Got a link to a good source for this, Matt?

This nonsense merely demonstrates how incredible is the degree of self-deception and lying liberals are likely to get themselves into in order to bash someone they hate. Those are about the stupidest conspiracy theories and the lamest political quasi-theorizing I've seen around. Yeah, it certainly helps Iran to have US-invaded country next to its borders. Probably they can convert US Marines to Islam and their thought control installations are massive and short range so they had to get lots of US troops close to them. One thing doesn't fit, though: why are rulers in Libya and Syria are liberalizing their regimes in droves. Probably that is Iranian plot, too.

Liberals seem to be truly completely stupid. US - "an elephantine power". Yeah right. Do you REALLY think USA would have much trouble crashing Iranian regime militarily? The only reason of problems in Iraq is some money shortfall. This is political-economic issue, not military. Had there been more support for war in the world and America, Iran and essentially all Islamic regimes would be crushed in a few weeks, just like it happened in Iraq. You want to argue that would be wrong - fine, do so. But don't argue nonsense like it can't be done or that the US military is too weak to deal with them! If you want to lie, at least try making lies believable, OK?

Watch out neocons, the FBI needs to ask you a few questions...

Okay, Carbo, I didn't think it would make much sense to you. Yes, Saddam was contained in 2002. But it was also clear that Bush intended to send the American armies somewhere and didn't care much about those "countervailing forces" (as demonstrated when he vowed to get a war resolution out of the Security Council and then kicked over the table when it was clear he wouldn't get it). Bush's autocratic tendencies were obvious from a very early date, say abrogation of Kyoto.

The importance of the air bases has nothing to do with invasion. Rather, it's about air strikes, which can be one-off operations and/or part of a coordinated series. The network of air bases in the former Soviet states and in the Persian Gulf already had the Iranians vulnerable from just about any direction. The bases in the Gulf can support sustained aerial campaigns. So the Iranians were always open to the "shock & awe" phase. How much worse would it be to have US ground forces nearby after they'd already shot their wad?

Finally, it may be that each of the three outcomes you lay out had the same probability of happening. But for reasons explained above, I don't think so.

"Had there been more support for war in the world and America . . ."

Well, yes, that's a political problem. And you're right, the American military is pretty damn good at breaking things. It's been less effective at bringing about favorable political results. Since all wars are fought for political ends, that does seem to be a problem.

Did we get a link somewhere in Bushworld?

Lawrence, do you still beieve that there was something called "Iran Contra?" That's a conspiracy-theory myth. It never happened.

Security will be here shortly to escort you from the building. Make no sudden moves and keep your hands in sight.

"Just because its Machiavellian doesn't mean it didn't happen."

And not everything that happens is the result of some elaborate and clever plan.

All I was suggesting was that the Iranians may have had some simple objectives: Keep American attention on Iraq; keep pressure on Iraq so they couldn't rebuild their military. And then it paid off (or didn't, for those who think the situation is worse for Iran than before) in an unexpected way. That seems more plausible to me than an Iranian plan to have the US unseat Saddam.

>These neo-cons really give academic eggheads a bad name. Remember
>the old complaints about liberals in their 'ivory towers?"
>These neo-cons really don' know anything about the real world.

Perhaps the neo-cons in their porcelin bunkers as a matching phrase?
I know that people don't do their best decision making when under stress/fear.
The mania on the financial markets is a good example.
Deliberately fostering a bunker mentality to externalise threats is a classic mechanism to shape the arena of debate (and thus policy options)
And when the presumptions of the few don't pan out, it's left to the rest to take the shit or pick up the broken pieces

What's this???....Perle publicly criticizes U.S. policy:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1085523609417&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

This will get buried by the Orwellians here in the US.

What's next, Iran offering exile to Chalabi?

>Yeah right. Do you REALLY think USA would have much >trouble crashing Iranian regime militarily?

You mean like vietnam? Now iraq? Crashing a regime
is not the endgame, is it? It's really just the
beginning.

My bet is that the Iraq invasion was a confluence of several interests. From neo-cons's ideological interests, to Halliburton's financial interests, to Israel's and Iran's geopolitical interests. In this mystery many suspects had a motive.

Unfortunately, since there are so many suspects, none of them will ever be found completely guilty. A perfect crime against the American people.

CENTURY?

what's wrong with millennium?

CENTURY?

what's wrong with millennium?

I'm kind of under the impression that the US was going to invade Iraq no matter what. They dug up whatever info they could so as best to make their case (lie) and went with it.

Now, the initial desire to invade Iraq, which Bush et al brought with them into the White House, might have been shaped a bit by Chalabi and Iranian intelligence over the years...

Nah, I doubt it. You'd have to believe that Bush and Admin conservatives believed this stuff, about Iraq being a threat, and based their desire to invade on these assessments. No one really believed it, come on now. So whatever Iran might have added was just less (evidence) we had to manufacture ourselves.

This smells like BS. How do we know that the Admin isn't pushing it themselves to absolve their mistaken intelligence? Being fooled is better than being deliberate liars, isn't it?

I think we lefties, in our haste to impute incompetance to these clowns, are falling for another scam.

Jay:

In the build up to the war, I was puzzled as to the real reasons and motives, as the public case didn't seem to add up, aside from being astonishingly weak and falling apart publicly as the war approached. Well, now perhaps we are starting to get an inkling of what those real reasons and motives were, except that none of them were American national reasons and motives. But I wonder whether any of this will lead to a shake-up with lasting effects, in terms of a real reform and reformation of the institutions of the public sphere here in the U.S.A. and the way it goes about conducting our political business.

What's more, our intelligence people were well aware of Chalabi's ties. I just heard an old retired spook on NPR talking about his doings with Chalabi and the Iranians in the eighties.

None of this was a secret. As the poster above said, Chalabi's usefullness to us had just run out, that's all.

elliander said, "How do we know that the Admin isn't pushing it themselves to absolve their mistaken intelligence? Being fooled is better than being deliberate liars, isn't it?"

This doesn't make sense to me. Does it look better to have mistaken intelligence on WMDs, required troop levels, etc., or to be fooled by Islamists into doing their work for them? Will Bush's core consituencies be more troubled by a "mistake" (honest or otherwise) than they would be by an American administration enabling the Iranian mullahs? What?

Ask yourself: do you personally believe that the President lied? Are you surprised and upset by this? Has it changed your opinion?

I think this is becoming a pretty monolithic issue. Either you support the action in Iraq, or you don't. At this point, whether Bush lied or not is probably irrelevant to you. There were people on the radio before I left the U.S. saying that if Bush was lying, they'd revolt. They haven't. The people who are in favor of the action in Iraq will remain supportive as long as they're persuaded it's somehow in the national interest. Telling them "Oops! The Iranians tricked us!" throws all that away and makes their supporters look equally foolish. I can't imagine how this story benefits the President.

Schwartkommanod -- your comments on Bush turning to a higher power for guidance raises a question in my mind.

Why is it that when people ask God for direction, he always tell them to do what they wanted to do? Have you ever heard anyone say that God talked them out of doing something they wanted to do?

The original quote: “You know, he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.”

spencer's question: "Why is it that when people ask God for direction, he always tell them to do what they wanted to do? Have you ever heard anyone say that God talked them out of doing something they wanted to do?"

If in fact the tale is true, and not another manipulation of the most gullible of Bush's constituencies - then in this case , it wasn't an appeal for direction. It was an appeal for strength. He was asking God to enable him to do what he'd already decided. He wasn't asking God for what God would have him do. He might not have liked the answer.

Sometimes God closes doors. But often, when you're rich and powerful, you can force the door open. You may not like what you find behind that door, but it's your problem now - you insisted on opening a door God had closed. Perhaps that's one reason why true Christianity is not commonly found among the rich and powerful.

Opposition by NATO allies might have been viewed as a closed door. Lack of hard evidence of WMDs might have been viewed as a closed door. Concerns expressed by some respected U.S. military and foreign policy experts might have been viewed as a closed door. Bush broke the glass, took the axe, and chopped his way in. He wasn't praying for which door to choose. He was praying for a handy axe.

How "reaganesque" of our current president -- played like a fiddle by the Iranians.

OK, something to be pointed out which Xymphora has illuminated. I'll quote:
"In order to believe all this you have to believe that the Iranians would want the Americans to attack Iraq. While they hated Saddam, he was absolutely no danger to them. On the other hand, having Iraq under military occupation by an American government whose stated goal is regime change in all the 'Axis of Evil' countries, including Iran, would be the last thing the Iranians would want. The attack on Iraq was the training wheels for a series of wars against those countries targeted by the neocons, and it was not in Iranian interests for this series of attacks to start."
and the link..
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/05/revisionist-history-of-ahmad-chalabi.html

That was fun.

Now lets compare Iran's access to the White House decision-making process to Israel's.

Let's compare the degree that the invasion advanced Iran's foreign policy objectives to the degree to which it advanced Israel's.

It almost seems as if conspiracy theories backed by little evidence that blame the invasion on Israel are anti-Semetic.

But less plausible conspiracy theories that blame the invasion on Iran are OK.

It looks like some people are a little more equal than others.

Yo Mark:

You have it all wrong, when you said it was a money shortfall, what does money have to do with a small, lighter brigade army

sounds to me like a "planning" shortfall; or a "manpower" shortfall.
Sure, it would have been better for manpower if German, France, (spain), and others would have joined in; but they did not- they jumped the sinking ship for many reasons, mostly because they do not believe or want to follow a regime in USA that is "tricky", they were already pissed off by Bush & Co, pulling out of treaties et cetera, by doing that USA isolated itself a la Pat Buchanan philosophy

so, we went it alone because it was our idea in 1st place, let's say, Mark, I want you to jump off the "Brooklyn Bridge" with me, no parachutes, no coast guard to find you because I say there are some nasty alligators in the bay...wanna jump?
Ohhhh, did I say alligators, I meant "possible" alligators, ...Ohhh your backing out, COWARDS, I will go myself without UN approval...so now you have a 40% national reserve in Iraq...
It is a "Shot myself in the Foot" thing, not a money thing, oooh by the way, Mark, give me $250,000 now so I can invest it in Iraqi Dinars...believe me, I will make you money, give me your money, trust me

so, you see- it s "planning" and manpower debacle.
It is a like having 6 policeman to cover 30 city square blocks of a city during a heat-wave.
So please wake and do not delude yourself, we are the cowboys that went it alone, only time will tell whether it was a bad idea, think it through better before you blame other countries, remember Europe still has bad memories from world war 11 (see how fast Spain pulled out when going got rough) Because it is America's war since 9-11, and if we want to pull everyone into world war IV, we have to do a better selling job, Most Americans are not duped, so neither are the Europeans, duh

"Why is it that when people ask God for direction, he always tell them to do what they wanted to do? Have you ever heard anyone say that God talked them out of doing something they wanted to do?"

One morning I woke and decided that I really wanted to believe in God. So I said to Him: "I would like to believe in you. Please tell me to believe in you and it will be done. You have 24 hours."

Evidently He doesn't want me to believe in Him, since there was no response. Sadly, I had to give up the idea of God, in order to fulfill God's will.

The "vice" theory provides a pretty intuitive reason why Iran wouldn't risk such an operation.

However, imagine yourself being singled out as one of three enemies by the biggest bully on the block - and a pissed off and somewhat irrational one at that. What would you do? I'd point to one of the other guys and say, "it was him." Pretty simple logic really.

For those arm chair, war game playing, phony strategists out there here is what a real, succesful military strategist said. (Clauswitz)

"War is but an extension of ploitics by other means."

While the FBI is currently "interviewing" senior officials at the Pentagon about who slipped secret information concerning American troops to Chalabi, who sent it on to the Iranians. And while Chalabi's intelligence chief has taken a long sabatical in Tehran. And while a Washington grand jury continues to interview Administration officials concerning the outing of a CIA agent. Let us pause to consider WHY NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON.

In the meantime the main Iraqi accomplishment of the Gulf War II has been to turn southern Iraq into a tourism hotspot for visiting Iraninans. That's right, we still can't get the lights on, the oil isn't running, the phone system's a mess, you can't travel the roads and U. S. forces have just capitulated in Najaf. But man that Iranian money is just flowing into those Suffi areas. Kind of like an Islamic Miami Beach.

Things have certainly turned out well for the Iranian Mullahs. Their oil is selling at all time highs; they just "won" an election; the holy shrines in Iraq are open; the Great Satan is tied down; Sadam is gone; the Taliban are fughting the Great Satan. Allah has been truly merciful and just for the Iranian Mullahs.

Or to put it another way who could ask for a better enemy than the Bush administration? Naive, incompetent, self-rightious, rigid, incoherant, except where it is venal. Brings back memories of Jimmy Carter.

Professor DeLong's apparent disappearance after his latest blog entry is not, I hope, another nefarious deed to the credit of Ahmed Chalabi!

This topic has brought out the worst side of many bloggers. My observation of human societies for 7 decades indicates that the probability of successful conspiracy is low, while the probability of stupidity and deception by leaders of every country is high. Power corrupts and when you get to the top you believe that you can do whatever you want. George W would have attacked Iraq anyway once 9/11 occurred and possibly even if it never happened.
What Chalabi and his stupid stories did was accelerate the timing (no need to prepare for a postwar period, no need for Arabic speakers among our forces) and provide some nice if bogus cover stories - do you remember Salman Pak, the "terrorist training camp, just South of Baghdad, where a 707 was parked on railroad tracks". Stories of this bogus camp were carried by NY Times, PBS and all the big media- PBS even said "The existence of the plane has been confirmed by U.N. inspectors. The general describes the men who trained there, the camp's security, and his "gut feeling" that the camp was in some way tied to the Sept. 11 attacks." The General was one of Chalabi's boys. Problem is that nobody could find that plane once we got into Iraq- maybe it was towed away to Syria?

No UN inspector ever saw that plane, the Chalabi boys just said that and that our noble NYT, PBS, NPR and other journalists accepted it as fact. I'd say that media laziness and their feeling that they have to get they story out immediately-breathless-no time for checking- is the problem.

George Bush Jr. is a Punk!

The neocons were going to do the Iraq thing no matter what.

The Iranians had to have known this.

The worst part about this entire episode is that Iran now most likely has all sorts of sensitive material on our national secrets.

Imagine if Clinton had done something like this. The rightwing facist media machine would be running 24 hour slash and burn fests on it.

Hmm, apparently I was killed by friendly fire. I guess that means everyone here owes Ted Rall a big apology.

We are students and we have to do report about outsrcing and the efects it has to the econmy, could you tell were we could find information?

thanks

dvd - this is the wrong thread for "outsourcing" links but try:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83301/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html?mode=print

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3564275.stm

This is how cunning the Iranians are: They arranged for two Kuwaitis (Abdul Basit Karim and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) to avenge Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait by organizing a decade of Al Qaeda terrorism against the USA. They tried to blow up the WTC on the second anniversary of the Kuwait ceasefire. They arranged for a plane to explode over New York on Iraq's national day, while Ramzi Yousef was on trial there for planning to do just that. They had 9/11 followed up by an anthrax letter campaign, knowing full well that anthrax was a key component of Iraq's never-located biowarfare arsenal. Brilliant stuff, huh?

Mitch, Mitch, Mitch. By now, if the administration had been able to torture ^H^H^H^H^H 'stress' out any evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaida, they'd have gleefully presented is as a justification for the war.

I would chide you for not keeping up on the latest administration propaganda line, but they can't even get it straight.

Probably few people will get this far reading the responses, but never the less I would like to point out that there is no real evidence that the United States was played by Iran, rather than by Chalabi and the INC.

Chalabi had contacts with high level Iranian officials, but he also had contacts with high level American officials. He was given a seat of honor at the President's State of the Union speech, for heaven's sake! It made sense for Chalabi to seek the support of countries strongly opposed to Saddam, and that meant the U.S. and Iran.

Chalabi and the INC apparently worked for Iranian intelligence. They also worked for U.S.intelligence, and I'd say it's a safe bet that we paid them a lot more money than Iran did. I see no reason to suppose that Iran could buy the loyalty of the INC any more than the United States could.

The INC gave Iran a copy of a highly classified communications intercept by the U.S. National Securty Agency. If Chalabi was actively spying against the United States on behalf of Iran, that would indicate that Chalabi was more loyal to Iran than to the United States. But there is no evidence that that's what was going on If you think back to the outing of Valery Plame, Novak didn't have to dig very hard to get the information. Probably a member of the Bush Administration gave Chalabi a copy of the intercept, and Chalabi decided to provide Iran with a copy in order to improve his relations with Iran. There is no reason to suppose that the INC was conducting an active intelligence operation against the United States.

There has been some discussion here about whether Iran wanted the United States to invade Iraq. On the other hand, there is no doubt that some of the Bush people in the Pentagon, such as Paul Wolfowitz, were in favor of invading Iraq. Nor is there any doubt that the INC was on the Defence Department's payroll. So if the INC was being paid to mislead the United States into war, there is no reason to blame Iran rather than the Bush Administration. But there is no reason to suppose that the INC had to be paid to drag the United States into war with Iraq. OF COURSE the INC sought to convince the United States to overthrow Saddam. Replacing Saddam was the stated goal of the INC.

In short, I see no reason to suppose that the INC was acting on behalf of anyone other than itself. You would expect an organization like the INC to produce anti-Saddam propaganda, and that's what it did.

"Mitch, Mitch, Mitch. By now, if the administration had been able to torture ^H^H^H^H^H 'stress' out any evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaida, they'd have gleefully presented is as a justification for the war."

If Iraq was behind Al Qaeda all along, and the US government also knew that all along, but chose not to trouble you with that knowledge - it's going to look pretty bad for the very institutions that are supposed to fight the war on terror, since they will have been complicit in the deception. But there's no need for it to come out - just focus on the WMDs. Something's bound to turn up; it's a slam-dunk!

More time with his family? An undisclosed location? A ride in the country? An offer he couldn't refuse?

You're theory is flawed. As usual. For two reasons. The ayatollahs are dictators and dictators have only one dictum; to survive. Saddam was caged and his army was not capable of attacking Iran. Two; Iraqis ayatollahs and the Iranian ayatollahs are in competition for the post of number one ayatollah. Saddam kept the Iraqi ayatollahs down. Now Iraqs ayatollahs have all the freedom to rise above the Iranians. Anybody who suggests Iran planned Saddam's removal doesn't know the Middle East and If Johnson is a terror expert then I understand why 9-11 could build in this nation and why Al Qaida could gather strength. The guy is ignorant.

"My observation of human societies for 7 decades indicates that the probability of successful conspiracy is low, while the probability of stupidity and deception by leaders of every country is high."

That's stupid and it's a cliche too. Completely kneejerk among many. Doshonest manipulation behind the scenes often works. There's no reason why it shouldn't.

So can anyone explain to me why, after the USA expelled Iraq from Kuwait, two guys from Kuwait engineered three super-terrorist attacks on the USA (WTC 1993, Bojinka, 9/11), and when one actually worked, the USA attacked Iraq itself? Was this also an Iranian plot? I'm asking seriously. As you may know, Laurie Mylroie's theory is that the 'Kuwaitis' in question were Iraqi agents, using identities stolen during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. I haven't heard any better theories.

Incidentally, Larry Johnson, whose quotation currently adorns Brad's front page, has endorsed Jayna Davis's work on an Iraqi connection to Oklahoma City. But he apparently thinks the Iraqis in question were under the command of Iran and Syria. And we thought the neo-cons were crazy, huh?

Brad won't give up will he? Barely off the "get Saddam" bandwagon now he's on the "get Iran" bandwagon.

Chalabi is the protégé of the late ziocon patriarch and nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, who happened also to be the mentor of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay khalilzad, and Donald Rumsfeld. Perle married Wohlstetter's daughter and inherited his political connections. Wohlstetter entrusted Chalabi's mentorship on his son-in-law. Chalabi was the lever with which Perle nad his ziocons achieved the fragmentation of Iraq, an Israeli strategic goal of long date.

Chalabi is an "Iranian" agent like Gorbahnifar, the Irangate fixer, was an "Iranian" agent: These "Iranian" agents all get their orders from Tel Aviv.

:-)

Online Casino Directory

Thank you for sharing that with us!