A Daily Briefing on Iran: The Weldon book ...

Dan Darling, Regnum Crucis:

Because I keep getting e-mails about this.

I haven't received a copy yet (anybody policy wonks want to give me one? I'm already in DC ...) and I am deeply suspicious of some of the press reporting that's taking place. The stuff about bin Laden being in Iran comes from at least two other sources of which I am familiar with, one of which would probably strangle Fereidoon (aka Faridoon, after the great Zoroastrian hero) Mahdavi if he were ever in the same room with him. It doesn't mean the information is accurate, but it does mean that these claims come from more than just one source. READ MORE

The "take-down" in American Prospect relies heavily on genetic arguments (Mahdavi is linked to Ghorbanifar, Ghorbanifar's stuff was wrong/duplicitous in the past, ergo he must be wrong/duplicitous this time around) and innuendo that leave me rather underwhelmed. If that's the standard by which information should be judged, I heartily await the day where Paul Lukasiak will be voted off the island because of his association with Bill Burkett ...

I'm also extremely dubious of those who are using this to hold Ghorbanifar up as an "Iranian Chalabi" given that no matter how good Chalabi was at playing the mainstream press, he wasn't the end-all be-all for US intelligence on Iraq that he has been made out to be by his detractors.

More on this later.

UPDATE: What I meant as far as Chalabi is concerned is that the man has become the penultimate scapegoat to the point where people now regard him and the INC as being the only source of intelligence on Iraqi WMDs. In fact, according to the WMD Commission:
In fact, over all, CIA's post-war investigations revealed that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on pre-war assessments. The October 2002 NIE relied on reporting from two INC sources, both of whom were later deemed to be fabricators. One source the INC source provided fabricated reporting on the existence of mobile BW facilities in Iraq. The other source, whose information was provided in a text box in the NIE and sourced to a defector, reported on the possible construction of a new nuclear facility in Iraq. The CIA concluded that this source was being directed by the INC to provide information to the U.S. Intelligence Community. Reporting from these two INC sources had a negligible impact on the overall assessments, however.
Yeah, I know, it doesn't say that Chalabi, Feith, Cheney, et al. were solely and maliciously responsible for all the inaccurate intelligence on Iraq, so it must be lying. The absence of evidence is, as we all know, always proof of the conspiracy.

My major point as far as all of this goes is that Ghorbanifar isn't the source of all the intelligence connecting al-Qaeda to Iran, nor do I think his past behavior means that one should immediately dismiss what he is now claiming. At the same time, I have a great deal of respect for Reuel Marc Gerecht and his comments in the Times about Congressmen not being people who specialize in intelligence.

At the same time, I am also deeply suspicious of the appearance of a "recently departed" CIA official coming out to attack Weldon. As readers of this blog should know, for some time now elements within the CIA who were under the impression that it was their job to make to policy rather than to carry out intelligence activities engaged in a "war" with the administration in the aftermath of the failure to find to find WMDs in Iraq. They lost and Goss cleaned out a large number of CIA officials who had been involved in political activities quite outside the Company's mandate, usually by giving them the option of resigning or being fired. So I can't help but wonder at least in part if at least some of the animosity on the part of a former Agency official isn't at least in part due to the fact that they lost the political battle but are still trying to win the policy one. I should mention that I do not know Mr. Murray personally, nor am I aware of the circumstances behind his departure, which could easily be related to matters outside the Agency's politicking. But I want that much on the table as we have this discussion.

Check out the comments on this post. Well worth reading.

Chalabi always said just what the commission said: that the INC had provided two 'sources' to CIA, while there were hundreds of sources that led the intel community to its conclusions.

Chalabi's basic advice to the USG has, I think, proven correct: that occupation was a mistake, that it was necessary to empower the Iraqis as quickly as possible, and that the basic thrust of US policy should be political, not purely military.

On al-Adel...if Zarqawi was (and is) operating out of Iran, I would expect to hear al-Adel say "the Iranians really hated us, made our life difficult, even arrested our people."

This has been the Iranian line from the beginning. "Don't blame us, we're arresting them all." When of course it's clear that Tehran is supporting the terror network. Or has Hizbollah suddenly become an independent contractor?
michael ledeen | 06.11.05 - 9:36 pm | #

Gravatar The thing that grates me in particular about the Iranian claims that they claim they've "arrested or deported" all the al-Qaeda in their country when the Iranian definition of "arrested" seems to be that you get a condo on the Caspian with free Internet and "deported" means you get a new passport and some spending money for the trouble. Maybe this is all much clearer to a native Farsi speaker, no?

As for Hezbollah, the standard line is that Iran has "scaled down" its above-board support for the group, as though the IRGC publishes its budget figures at the end of the year. And then, somewhat related, there is the issue of Mughniyeh ...
Dan Darling | Homepage | 06.11.05 - 10:26 pm | #

Gravatar Indeed. The WaPo actually had an article, quoting the usual unnamed intelligence experts, claiming that Hizbollah was all over Iraq, but not involved in terrorism.

Which is kinda like saying that yes, there's a brothel on the corner, but there are no prostitutes there.

On "Prospect" recycled lies, I was told by Laura Rozen that she had received a copy of a memo on Ghorbanifar et al from a certain Mr Pavitt, who until the arrival of Porter Goss was the Deputy Director for Operations at CIA. When I asked her why she would believe the CIA (I mean, several commissions have concluded that the CIA has been wrong about a lot of things), she stared at me. And then repeated the nonsense that Pavitt had given her.

Just so you know that these so-called progressives are in the tank for the Central Intelligence Agency.
michael ledeen | 06.12.05 - 11:10 am | #

Gravatar Pavitt, eh? Wasn't he one of the guys who was claiming all the stuff about al-Qaeda/Hezbollah training, et al. that came out at the 1998 embassy bombings trial was bunk? I know Pillar was, but I keep getting different stories as to whether or not he's been voted off the island yet.

And Weldon's book is "outrageous" because it says the CIA needs to be purged at the top.

Love the brothel/prostitute analogy, BTW.
Dan Darling | Homepage | 06.12.05 - 12:18 pm | #

Gravatar On Chalabi. While it is true that the information collection program only provided two defectors to American intelligence, Chalabi's network did provide lots of information to the US government over a long period of time unconnected to that particular program. For example, AC's network was involved in feretting out the now, largely discredited defector Khidir Hamza in the late 1990s. At the time the agency believed Hamza. He also provided information to journalists, including me, that has not turned out. In some cases however, Chalabi has been spot on. A DIA analysis of his program after the liberation credited the Information Collection Program with helping catch and depose wanted Baathists. His information on oil for food is also looking accurate.

I agree that Chalabi provided very little unique information that influenced the intelligence community's estimates on Iraq WMD or even other judgments on links to al-Qaeda. Keep in mind that Tenet and Powell privately bragged that their presentation to the UN Security Council was free of neocon influence. And if we are to go down this road, then so-called progressives should first direct their outrage at the awful liars at UNSCOM.

The lesson here is that Rozen and others have allowed the CIA to do their thinking for them. It is quite possible, nay likely, that in the Middle East sources that want to help America may be lying some or most of the time. But that does not mean they are not worth talking to at all.
Eli Lake | Homepage | 06.12.05 - 4:41 pm | #

Gravatar That Powell's presentation was entirely free of any "neocon" influence has been something that I've noted before. The terrorism portion at least certainly wasn't a product of Feith's office as some have alleged - the SSIC report makes that much quite clear.

I myself would be more interested, at least in the case of Ali/Mahdavi, in seeing examples of x, y, z where he's wrong versus just being told that he's a liar by people who quite likely have their own axes to grind on this stuff.
Dan Darling | Homepage | 06.12.05 - 5:04 pm | #