July 04, 2008
NYT:
More.Iran on Friday formally responded to an international proposal of incentives aimed at resolving the impasse over the country’s nuclear program, but failed to address the central issue of whether it would halt its uranium enrichment activities, according to officials involved in the diplomatic effort.
Instead, the response, which came in a letter by Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, said that Iran would be willing to open a comprehensive negotiation with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the six world powers involved in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It did not specifically address any of the proposals they presented to it last month. ...
But in their public statements on Friday, the governments involved declined to discuss the substance of the Iranian response.
“We intend to study the Iranian response,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, deputy White House press secretary, in a statement. He said the United States would discus the response with the five other governments — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — “before responding formally.”
Similarly, a British Foreign Office official said, “We have received the Iranian response and we are consulting” with the other governments before responding.
Officials in Mr. Solana’s office also said there would be no immediate comment on the substance of the letter.
Still, some officials involved in the negotiations expressed disappointment. ...
In their proposal, the six powers left Iran room for maneuver with a timetable for start-up talks. Under their proposal, preliminary talks would start with a mutual six-week “freeze” period, in which the Security Council would not take more punitive action against Iran and Iran would not expand its uranium enrichment program. ...
Bloomberg: Crude oil prices fall as Iran submits 'constructive and creative' atom response to Solana
More here and here:Crude oil fell from near a record as Iran said it gave a ``constructive'' response to incentives intended to persuade the nation to stop uranium enrichment.
A compromise may allay concern that Israel is ready to attack Iran's nuclear installations, starting a conflict likely to cut supply from OPEC's second-largest oil producer. Futures climbed to a record $145.85 a barrel yesterday on speculation tension in the Middle East may worsen. ...
The government in Tehran has prepared and presented its reply ``with a focus on common ground and a constructive view,'' state television cited Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, as saying today in a telephone call with European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.
Here's the written package the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany offered Iran June 14 via Solana....``We can confirm that there was a phone conversation this morning. Mr. Jalili called Mr. Solana. They had a good conversation and it was decided that they would remain in contact in the coming hours,'' Solana's office in Brussels said in a statement.
Iran's response to the incentives package was delivered by the country's ambassador in Brussels, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency said, citing an unidentified official at the Supreme National Security Council. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki signed a response letter, the news agency said, adding that Jalili and Solana are scheduled to hold talks later this month. ...
Iran will respond on Friday to incentives offered by six world powers to try to entice Tehran to stop enriching uranium, which they fear could result in a nuclear bomb.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator was quoted as telling the European Union's top diplomat: "The Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the letter by the foreign ministers of the six countries ... will be given today."
State radio said Saeed Jalili, the chief nuclear negotiator, spoke to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana by telephone and that they agreed to hold further talks later this month.
July 03, 2008
Perhaps unconnected, but one wonders if the path to Libya runs through the offices of Libya's new lobbyist, Bob Livingston, former RepublicanFormer congressman Curt Weldon is helping broker deals between Russian and Ukranian weapons suppliers and the Iraqi and Libyan governments as part of his new job with a private American defense consulting firm, Wired.com has learned.
Weldon, who is currently being investigated by the FBI over alleged corruption during his time in office, visited Libya in March to discuss a possible military deal, according to a letter describing the trip from Weldon to Defense Solutions CEO Timothy Ringgold. In May, Weldon, together with Ringgold and another company representative, traveled to Moscow to discuss working with Russia's weapons-export agency on arms sales to the Middle East.
Both trips were part of the company's effort to tap into the growing -- and often legally murky -- market for selling weapons from former Eastern Bloc countries to the Middle East and Afghanistan. [...]
In late March, Weldon traveled to Libya for a weeklong trip at the invitation of the Gaddafi Foundation, a group run by the son of Libya's leader, and the chairman of Libya's foreign affairs committee, according to the report he sent to Defense Solutions (.pdf), a copy of which was obtained by Wired.com. The trip reports states: "Agreement reached for Weldon to quickly return to Libya for meetings with son [of Libyan leader Gaddafi] Morti regarding defense and security cooperation."
A document dated April 16, just two weeks after Weldon's trip, outlines Defense Solutions' proposal to Libya to refurbish the country's fleet of armored vehicles, including its T-72 tanks, BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles, and BTR-60 armored personnel carriers. A copy of the sales proposal, also provided to Wired.com, is on Defense Solutions' letterhead, appears to bear the signature of company CEO Timothy Ringgold, and is addressed to Libya's defense procurement council. "Defense Solutions is committed to delivering a full end-to-end solution to its clients," the proposal states. "Besides refurbishing these vehicles, we are capable of providing a full logistics support package, including a two year supply of spare parts, maintenance and repair services, and operator, maintenance, and repair training." ....
Update: A reader who blogs here writes to remind that the Iraqi MOD contracts with Defense Solutions were signed by a former Iraqi Polish car dealer now on the lam in France:
Albanian stockpiles of Chinese weapons sold on US Defense Department contracts to Afghanistan. Hungarian tanks and Russian arms to MOD in Iraq and Libya with a cut for ex-US congressman Weldon and his company. Former Pennsylvania governor and first Bush DHS head Tom Ridge unregistered lobbyist for Albania, to drum it up some homeland security and defense business. Disgraced ex congressman Bob Livingston representing Libya. There seems to be a pattern of arms dealers with access to East Europe stockpiles getting themselves hooked up with ex US government officials who can grease the way to Pentagon-overseen deals to sell to Iraq, Afghanistan and the markets made available by Bush admin Mid East policy. Quite a bazaar. One former US official comments, "I think they are all scumbags and the reason there is so much confusion is that everyone 'feels' that somehow, somewhere, Weldon is doing what the administration wants him to do."The Defense Solutions contract to provide refurbished tanks donated to the Iraq Minister of Defense by Hungary was signed by Dr. Ziad Cattan on 3/5/05. Cattan is the former Polish Iraqi used car dealer who became the Iraq MoD's chief procurement officer in 2004. Cattan bought $400 million of worthless helicopters and armored cars from Bumar, the Polish state arms dealer, and he spent a billion dollars on worthless junk from Iraqi businessman, Naer Mohammed Jumaili.
The refurbished Hungarian tank contract was originally $3.2 million with an 8% award fee for Defense Solutions upon contract completion. Based on cost estimates, Currus, the Hungarian subcontract charged $1.5 million to refurbish the tanks and NATO picked up the cost of transporting the tanks from Hungary to Iraq.
However, Defense Industry Daily reported on 11/25/05 that the contract was about $4.5 million. In a 2/3/06 Defense Solutions proposal to sell refurbished Hungarian and Romanian tanks to the Sri Lanka army, Defense Solutions listed the Iraq tank contract at $4.6 million.
Although Defense Solutions is a Washington-based firm registered in Pennsylvania, the terms of the contract were specified as being underthe laws of New York State. DS was represented by James Donahue and the Iraq MoD by US LTC Rod Symons.
Defense Solutions did an excellent job promoting the contract as a great deal for the Iraqis. Even Condoleeza Rice touted it. When the Iraq MoD balked at paying Defense Solutions the balance of the contract in 1//05, Defense Solutions held up delivery. Since the DoD was anxious to use the tank deal for p.r. purposes, payment was promptly made.
As an aside, the photo of the tanks at the Taji ,military base in an 11/14/05 Defend America story about the tanks probably are not the actual tanks since the tanks at the time were still in Kuwait. Despite that fact, US LTC Kevin Meredith and Iraqi LTC Saleem praised the performance of the tanks in the article.
NYT's Eric Lichtblau:
A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.
The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program.
But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.
“Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”
Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court. ...
The U.S. ambassador to Israel was on Thursday quoted as playing down speculation that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites by either country was imminent, saying that the allies agreed force should remain a last resort.
"I don't think any decisions have been made to attack Iran in the near future," YNet, an Israeli news Web site in Hebrew, quoted Richard Jones as saying.
"Use of military force is a last option and Israel and the United States are cooperating on this matter."
Sacha Baron Cohen, the ex Borat, takes on the Middle East conflict. Yossi Alpher:
The Hamas-hummus confusion went on for several minutes. Then, the interviewer declared: “Your conflict is not so bad. Jennifer-Angelina is worse.”
We probed our limited memory of Hollywood scandals: Was he comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to some sort of tension between Brad Pitt’s former and current wives?
What was going on here? Should we pull off our microphones, get up and leave? We exchanged worried glances. “Could we take a break?” one of us asked meekly. The request was ignored.
And so it went. The cameras kept rolling, the cameramen never cracking a smile. “Vy don’t you Jews and Arabs settle the conflict with a time share on the land?” “Ven vill you Jews return the pyramids?” “Vy can’t Jews and Hindus get along?”
Jews and Hindus? ...
More Iran Panic: A follow up discussion with the forum participants:
Go read.Jacqueline Shire: Recent statements by former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati and current foreign minister Manoucher Mottaki indicating that Iran might accept what has come to be known as a freeze-for-freeze arrangement (where the UN Security Council freezes sanctions and Iran freezes at least centrifuge installation if not actual enrichment) for six or so weeks would be a giant step in the current climate (ABC News reports that Israel may be getting serious about a strike before 2009, etc.). It would really take the air out the tension hanging over the issue and provide a context in which a longer-term strategy could be cobbled together.
So my hopes are high. I try not to remind myself that we have also been down this road before, though not in a long time; nor do I dwell on a nagging suspicion that it might prove awfully difficult to actually get the cascades at Natanz to fall silent, or that the White House may reject the installation-freeze as inadequate, or that Iran won't want to be seen as caving to Israeli saber rattling (though Velayati seemed to address this when he referred to the "traps" that Iran's enemies want it to fall into). So I'm very glass-is-half full right now.
Bush to Close Gitmo? ABC's Jan Crawford Greenberg: "President Bush will soon decide whether to close Guantanamo Bay as a prison for al-Qaeda suspects, sources tell ABC News. High-level discussions among top advisers have escalated in the past week, with the most senior administration officials in continuous talks about the future of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay--and how it will be dramatically changed and/or closed in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling that gave detainees there access to federal courts. Sources have confirmed that President Bush is expected to be briefed on these pressing GTMO issues--and may reach a decision on the future of the naval base as a prison for al Qaeda suspects--before he leaves for the G8 on Saturday. An announcement, however, is not expected before he leaves the country. High-level administration officials say the Court's decision dramatically changes the legal landscape--and raises questions about whether the government has solid evidence to present to federal judges to justify ongoing detentions."
July 02, 2008
Freeze for Freeze. Bijan Khajehpour, chairman of the Atieh Group, a group of consulting firms in Iran, writes:
Used with permission.The 5+1 proposal to Iran proposes a "pre-negotiation" phase at which stage there would be a "freeze for freeze", i.e. Iran would not add any new centrifuges and the 5+1 would not introduce any new sanctions. In this phase, Iran would negotiate with 5+1 minus the US to prepare the grounds for full-fledged negotiations which would then include the US. In this phase, Iran can also comment on the agenda of the negotiations and introduce new topics (eg. Tehran could insist that the issue of an uranium enrichment consortium on Iranian soil be discussed with high priority). Iran can also focus on the "commonalities of the two proposals" as Dr. Mottaki has underlined a few times. Once the two sides agree to enter full-fledged negotiations including the US at the table, then Iran will have to suspend enrichment and the 5+1 will lift the existing UN sanctions.
All signs are that Iran will accept the 5+1 package with 1 important change, i.e. Iran will insist that the deadline for the pre-negotiation phase (i.e. 6 weeks) be adjusted. The important element for Tehran is that negotiations can start without suspension being their prerequisite.
Tehran has said a number of times that suspension cannot be a precondition, but it could be a result of negotiations. If the period of the pre-negotiations is extended, then Tehran and 5+1 could agree on a period of suspension in return for the lifting of sanctions which would pave the grounds for more intense negotiations on the other aspects in the two proposals.
Gary Sick, former Iran hand in the Ford, Carter, Reagan White Houses, reads the Iranian tea leaves:
... This offer by Iran does not come out of the blue. Despite the US instinctive reaction that Iran rejected the Solana offer, it was quite clear from the start that Iran was giving it serious consideration.
What is different about this package from the ones that preceded it? It is difficult to say anything authoritative, since we haven't actually seen (or heard) what Solana delivered, and Iran's responses have been positive but ambiguous. Still, one thing that seems to have changed is what appears to me to be a fairly clear signal from the 5+1 negotiators that they are willing to contemplate the reality that Iran has acquired centrifuge technology, that there is probably little that can be done to reverse that entirely, and so the objective has perhaps subtly changed to consideration of how to stop the process before it gets worse and to contain it, if possible.
That may be reading more into the discourse than it deserves, but then I would never expect the 5+1 to simply announce that they have changed their objectives and tactics. So a little guess work is justified. But if it is true (even if that fact is left entirely to emerge during actual negotiations) it means that these talks might have a chance of success.
Continue reading ""
Posted by Laura at 08:49 PM
Waxman (.pdf): "Documents provided to the Oversight Committee show that Administration officials knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months in advance, contradicting claims that Administration officials were caught off-guard and opposed Hunt Oil’s actions."
Update: NYT.On July 12,2007, Ray Hunt, president and CEO of Hunt Oil, sent a letter to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, of which he was a member, making clear his intentions to pursue oil exploration in Kurdistan. Mr. Hunt disclosed that Hunt Oil was "approached a month or so ago by representatives of a private group in Kurdistan as to the possibility of our becoming interested in that region." He went on to describe the visit of an oil survey team and stated that "we were encouraged by what we saw. We have a larger team going back to Kurdistan this week." ...
The top U.S. military officer said on Wednesday he favored more dialogue with Tehran to avoid a confrontation as a senior Iranian leader indicated his country was open to negotiations over its nuclear program.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a war with Iran would be "extremely stressful" on the U.S. military. But he made clear the United States would act to reopen the Strait of Hormuz if Tehran tried to block the key oil transport route in the Gulf.
Tensions have flared in recent days amid reports Israel is planning for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. That has sent crude oil prices near record highs and led U.S. officials to publicly criticize the reports.
"My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilizing factor in the region," said Mullen, recently returned from a trip to Israel.
"But I'm convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure," he told reporters at the Pentagon.
"There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level," he said.
President George W. Bush reiterated that diplomacy was the first option to address Iran's nuclear program, but he repeated that Washington had all options on the table.
McClatchy's Warren Strobel:
More here and here.Iran's senior diplomat said Tuesday that Tehran was seriously considering a new offer from six world powers to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, and he praised the package as "constructive."
The unusually positive remarks by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to a small group of reporters raised hope that a negotiated solution can be found to defuse the crisis.
The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend the enrichment of uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons, and the Bush administration has refused direct talks with Iran until it meets that condition.
During a 90-minute luncheon at Iran's United Nations mission, Mottaki dismissed the growing speculation that Israel or the United States will strike at Iran's nuclear facilities during President Bush's last six months in office.
He described news reports to that effect as part of a long-running campaign of "psychological warfare."
The chance that Israel will attack Iran "is almost nil," Mottaki said. As for a U.S. strike, he said there was little public support in this country for a new conflict. "The consequences of such an attack cannot be predicted," he said.
Yet there are signs of intensified debate within Iran's leadership about its nuclear program. Iran has long said that it has an inalienable right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But Mottaki declined three opportunities to reiterate that position Tuesday, indicating that Iran is weighing its options.
"We are seriously and carefully examining" the proposal, Mottaki said....
Update: Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, and author of "Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation," was also at the Mottaki lunch, and comments:
At a luncheon today with about a dozen journalists at the iranian mission in new york, foreign minister mottaki did not repeat iran's contention that enrichment is Iran's legitimate right... even when repeatedly prodded to do so. Mottaki said that the proposal made by Iran last month to the U.N. secretary general and the P-5 plus 1 proposal put forward by Solana had enough in common to form the basis for an agenda for talks... It could be that the Iranians are just stalling but it also could be that they are getting ready to accept the Solana proposal....
A U.S. official adds on above developments, "No one is holding their breath, but at the same time we have to be prepared to accept yes for an answer from the Iranians."
NYT's Scott Shane: China inspired interrogations at Guantanamo:
Continue reading ""Not Exactly Charlie Wilson's War. David Ignatius: "'Powerpoint' covert action program." Conveys something of the lackluster, ambivalence and even desperation of the policy, and dare one say it, total lack of ideological conviction? This does not seem to resemble the swashbuckling effort to back the Afghan muj against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for instance. Ignatius: "So far, that argument for a rollback of Iranian power hasn't prevailed inside a divided administration."
NYT: Plea for aid to avert starvation. "Warning that rising food and oil prices pose a crisis for the world’s poor, Robert B. Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, is calling on President Bush and other leaders convening in Japan next week in an economic summit meeting to make new aid commitments to avert starvation and instability in dozens of countries. 'What we are witnessing is not a natural disaster — a silent tsunami or a perfect storm,' Mr. Zoellick said in a letter sent Tuesday evening to the major leaders of the West. 'It is a man-made catastrophe, and as such must be fixed by people.' Mr. Zoellick’s letter, obtained by The New York Times, came with a lengthy study of the impact of rising prices for food, fuel and commodities on the world’s poor. He sent the letter as Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda prepares to host Mr. Bush and six other world leaders in the Group of 8 economic summit meeting on the northern island of Hokkaido."
July 01, 2008
Interpreting Iran "freeze" tea leaves. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, writes:
News of Iran potentially suspending enrichment for six weeks as a good will gesture to get talks going are sending shockwaves in the system. ...
In his interview with Jomhourie Eslami, [former Iranian foreign minister and foreign policy advisor to the Supreme Leader] Velayati argued that the Bush Administration wanted Iran to reject the P5+1 proposal in order to strengthen the case for sanctions and military action. In his view, Iran must work diplomatically to show the world that it isn't interested in war and that through diplomacy this could be achieved. Iran has in essence won recognition for its right to enrichment, he argued, and could as a result negotiate from a stronger position, unlike other regional powers that negotiated out of weakness and were humiliated by the West accordingly.
Iranian state TV have also aired discussions in the past weeks in which the P5+1 proposal has been discussed in a more open way than in the past, in which benefits of compromise have been debated.
Some may draw the conclusion that the sudden shift in Iran's position is a reaction to the recent bluster and threats of war. Several factors dispute this interpretation. [...] Iran's reaction to the P5+1 proposal has been remarkably different than its reaction to the earlier proposal. Note also the relative silence from Ahmadinejad. This preceded the recent spike in bluster between the US, Israel and Iran.
A more likely scenario is that the Iranians are doing this to:
1. Eliminate the risk for any US attack -- however small/large that risk may be -- for the remainder of the Bush Administration.
2. Initiate a process that ...would pave the way for a more robust diplomatic channel between the US and Iran that would be initiated now, but wouldn't bloom until the next [U.S.] President takes office. ...
NYT: State Dept counters latest bomb-Iran rumor:
Anonymous Pentagon sources are going to most visible media outlets in country - ABC, CBS, NYT -, to say looks like Israel is going to do it (when, far as I can tell, that's not true). Leaks to deter Israel from doing it, or, coordinated propaganda campaign aimed at getting Iran to the table?“It’s always amazing that there are lots of anonymous sources out there who profess to know the inner will of officials in other countries, Israel or otherwise,” Mr. Casey said.
Another reporter had a question: “This apparently anonymous official also said that it’s possible that Iran would have enough enriched uranium by the end of the year for a nuclear bomb.”Having reasoned with reporters, Mr. Casey turned to comedy. “You know, I need to find this guy, because apparently he’s an expert on the Israeli military, an expert on Iran and an expert on nuclear issues at the same time,” he said. “Let’s get him a Nobel Prize.”
ABC News, for its part, offered a follow-up article today that included doubts that war was on the horizon. Hirsch Goodman, a national security analyst in Tel Aviv, dismissed the story as “just the latest in the hype that has been generated in the last few weeks.”
Update: I'll just say, I've felt very intensely there's a Pentagon psy ops campaign underway (hence our little "Iran panic" forum), and some extremely credible journalists have been sucked into furthering it. ABC's Jonathan Karl, CBS's David Martin, etc. All of them being worked by presumably trusted or authoritative sources at the Pentagon to basically say Israel is about to do it, etc. when, as far as I can tell, that is just not true, but providing incredibly far reaching platforms to promote the intense sense that it might be.
My sense is the "they're going to do it" is largely coming from here, from the Pentagon - perhaps coordinated. But my sense also is they are not going to signal so hard before they are going to do it. This is signalling for another purpose.
Iran to freeze uranium enrichment for period of six weeks? An Iranian American academic reads at a Farsi-language news site that "Iran will accept a 6 week suspension if formally asked by the EU 5+1, as a precondition for starting talks. Some Majlis deputies have confirmed that head of the Iranian atomic energy organization, Mr. Gholamreza Aghazadeh, has stated Iran's agreement with this plan, and that talks with EU 5 will begin next week. Apparently such a 6 week 'suspension-while-negotiation' plan was part of Solana's proposal to Iran."
He warns that "as in everything in Iran, things could change tomorrow."
Wire reports indicate that Iran has signalled intentions to resume nuclear talks with the P5+Germany next week.
Update: More.
Via Steve Aftergood, new Congressional Research Service report: "Iran's Nuclear Program: Status" (.pdf).
WP: Ex CIA agent says CIA ignored Iran facts:
A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.
The onetime undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.
The former operative alleged in a 2004 lawsuit that the CIA fired him after he repeatedly clashed with senior managers over his attempts to file reports that challenged the conventional wisdom about weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Key details of his claim have not been made public because they describe events the CIA deems secret. ...
In court documents and in statements by his attorney, the former officer contends that his 22-year CIA career collapsed after he questioned CIA doctrine about the nuclear programs of Iraq and Iran. As a native of the Middle East and a fluent speaker of both Farsi and Arabic, he had been assigned undercover work in the Persian Gulf region, where he successfully recruited an informant with access to
sensitive information about Iran's nuclear program, Krieger said.
The informant provided secret evidence that Tehran had halted its research into designing and building a nuclear weapon. Yet, when the operative sought to file reports on the findings, his attempts were "thwarted by CIA employees," according to court papers. Later he was told to "remove himself from any further handling" of the informant, the documents say. ....
Update: I hear the story may be more complex than above account would suggest. That the employee involved was never certified as a case officer. That his reporting on Iraq was initially inclined to promote that he knew where the WMD in Iraq were. And that he allegedly created fake informants/agents, got money to pay them, and then allegedly stole the money-- a story the CIA may not be so anxious to get out, I hear. And his wife was secretary for a prominent for Reagan administration official.
Walter Pincus: Pentagon creeps into West African counternarcotics mission:
... In his role as assistant secretary, Benkert said he is "working with various policy and intelligence elements of the department to help define this new mission space," meaning his expanded office of global security affairs.
He said he plans "to consolidate and institutionalize" what he termed "the 'toolkit' of programmatic and related options available for advancing the Department's strategy of building partner capacity." Two of the biggest tools, which together may draw nearly $1 billion in fiscal 2009, are what are known as Section 1206 funds, referred to as "global train and fit" authority with $800 million; and Section 1207 funds, referred to as "security and stabilization assistance" authority with $200 million.
Section 1206 money helps build the security and military forces of partner nations to "either conduct counterterrorist operations or participate in or support military and stability operations where U.S. forces are a participant," Benkert said.
With the State Department's blessing, Section 1206 this year is covering coalition partners in Iraq, including Algeria, Chad, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Lebanon, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Yemen, and Sao Tome and Principe. Also being added are a number of African, East Asian and Central European countries.
June 30, 2008
Daniel Levy and Trita Parsi weigh into day two of a lively "Iran panic" discussion at MoJo.
Bloomberg: "Crude oil was little changed, after rising to a record above $143 a barrel on concern Israel may attack Iran over its nuclear program and disrupt supply from OPEC's second-largest producer. Pressure on Iran to end uranium enrichment and the falling value of the U.S. dollar may drive prices to $170 a barrel, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said June 28. Kuwait, the fourth-largest OPEC producer, is taking precautionary steps to export oil if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, Kuwait News Agency reported."
Spencer Ackerman: A security contractor's intelligence briefing for its clients about the conditions in Baghdad differs from administration picture.
Haaretz: "On Sunday, the [Israeli] cabinet overwhelmingly voted in favor of a prisoner exchange with the Lebanon-based guerilla group Hezbollah in which two kidnapped Israel Defense Forces reservists presumed dead, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, would be returned in exchange for five Lebanese fighters including notorious terrorist Samir Kuntar. Olmert said Monday that he believed there was a possibility that the government's move to begin the process of declaring the abducted soldiers dead, spurred Hezbollah to consummate the deal more quickly."
NYT: "A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say. The disclosure, coming on the eve of the contracts’ announcement, is the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism. In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said." Optics of this -- not so good.
June 29, 2008
Seymour Hersh: Preparing the Battlefield:
A friend comments:Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
This bit strikes me as among the most important issues raised by the Hersh piece:The Seymour Hersh article is actually really interesting, good, and not overblown - as long as you read out anything coming from Gardiner.
There is much in it, but this is sure to provoke a big blowup:
A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Gates's comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates's answer, the senator told me, was "Let's just say that I'm here speaking for myself." (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator's characterization.)
I am also pretty skeptical about the CIA-supporting-PJAK/Baluch to destabilize the Iranian regime stuff that Gardiner, discredited former ABC news consultant and phony Obama interviewer Alexis Debat, and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been saying. Skeptical in large part because people out front saying it like Debat have shown an inclination to make things up, while well meaning and sincere people like Gardiner saying it don't offer much in the way of evidence beyond their own conviction and some charts tracking the hawks' rhetoric that make the conspiracy theorists go nuts but don't in the end really show very much but that there's a propaganda effort, which was already reported a year ago. Another of that allegation's sources cited in the piece, who I do respect, seems sometimes inclined to crowd please and sex things up for his audience on occasion, in an almost he can't help himself or unwitting way perhaps because he feels that's what his audience wants. But mostly I'm skeptical because of the fact that former US intelligence sources I consider highly credible tell me the CIA is not working with the Baluch/Rigi, certainly not to destabilize the Iranian regime, and those like British reporter James Brandon who have been up in the Qandil mountains with the PKK/PJAK say the groups have no good weapons, are extremely modestly supplied, and no sign of serious US or western support to be found. They expressed that they would welcome western support when he was up there over a year ago, but he saw no sign and they said they hadn't gotten any. And indeed far more recently the PJAK has threatened to attack US forces because of US support to Turkey in its attacks against the PKK. As well as because of the fact I talk to several Iranian diaspora oppositionists and hawks some of whom would love the US to support these groups and act more aggressively to destabilize the Iranian regime, who are pretty unhappy with the Bush administration for not doing very much on this issue.There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
In the end, I just don't think the Bush administration is trying to seriously destabilize the Iranian regime or change it, while no doubt it would be thrilled if the Iranian Thomas Jefferson suddenly came to power or Ahmadinejad stepped on a poison viper. I think the thrust of the policy is overwhelmingly geared towards the fairly unsexy effort to cobble and keep together however imperfectly an international coalition to try to pressure and isolate this Iranian regime diplomatically, economically, etc. while preparing to turn over that multilateral diplomatic framework to its successor. Of course, in the meantime, it's trying to gather intelligence and get leverage - and not appear as a Gulliver hamstrung by Iraq, or a paper tiger, before Iran, as much as it can. And important too, it doesn't want Iran to miscalculate out of overconfidence either, and think the US indeed has no leverage. So a lot of projecting power, rhetoric about keeping military option on the table, etc. and of course, contingency planning in case something drastic changes (and leaving room, as Hersh illustrates, for accidents and incidents to exploit by those seeking to gin up confrontation, although they've failed repeatedly til now which is evidence as well of the thrust and direction of the policy and the people driving it). Was with someone last night working the issue pretty close to ground zero so to speak. The policy and expectation are basically to tread water on Iraq for the next six months, barring a major change. And treading water requires a degree of projecting power so that such a major change or provocation from Iran is, at least most in the administration hope (OVP excepting perhaps), averted.
The group I assembled at an online "Iran panic" forum offer considerable more insights on this, and you can join in.
Update: US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker to Candy Crowley on CNN Late Edition: "I can tell you flatly that US forces are not crossing the border into Iran. ... US forces are not operating across the Iran-Iraq border." (Does it depend how you define "US forces?" )
I do think Hersh makes an important larger case that administration and CIA are increasingly going to the defense appropriations subcommittee for authorization for covert budget items .... rather than to Congressional intellience oversight committees, which haven't passed an intelligence authorization bill for a few years; and that the administration, by defining something as military force protection and preparing the battlefield and running it out of the Pentagon rather than the CIA, is legally excusing itself from reporting covert actions to the intelligence oversight committees. I don't see them slipping in a war with Iran that way on the way out the door. He makes the point that it is more than a hypothetical possibility. But there are larger signs and far more that point to the policy continuing to be nudged along in a different direction.
June 28, 2008
"Iran Panic." How likely is a scenario in which the US or Israel strikes Iran before Bush leaves office? (Or is the left falling for propaganda?) I asked former Mid-East peace negotiator Daniel Levy, Iranian American pro-engagement activist Trita Parsi, Israeli national security correspondent Yossi Melman, former State Department counterproliferation expert Jacqueline Shire, and anti-war writer Danny Postel. Check out their responses, and join the conversation at MoJo all week, where they'll be weighing in.
I hear long-time jailed Iranian student dissident Ahmed Batebi, who appeared on the Economist cover on the Iranian student demonstrations in 1999, arrived in D.C. last Tuesday night.....
