May 27, 2004
KNOWING YOUR ALLIES (via GG):
US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war (Julian Borger, May 25, 2004, The Guardian)
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."
America and the Shi'a have an obvious convergence of interests--the real question is how did Iran get Saddam to attack Kuwait and make eventual regime change inevitable. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 27, 2004 9:59 AM
Does the Zimmerman Telegram ring a bell?
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at May 27, 2004 10:03 AM"the real question is how did Iran get Saddam to attack Kuwait and make eventual regime change inevitable."
Taking advantage of an existing situation has never happened before, and couldn't have happened in this case. The real question, then, is how did Iran's mullahs get his mother to conceive him when they were just embryos themselves.
Posted by: GG at May 27, 2004 10:04 AMWell.....
"Across the gulf of war, I salute a great general."
I still believe it was the right thing to do overall, but props to the mullahs if true.
Posted by: Andrew X at May 27, 2004 10:18 AMThe implication here is that without Iran's involvement there wouldn't have been any reason to go after Iraq. This seems to completely disregard the UN sanctions, all of the other countries having the same intel as the US, and the oil-for-food scandal.
Posted by: AWW at May 27, 2004 1:16 PMThere was nothing inevitable about the Kuwait counterwar.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 27, 2004 3:10 PMI agree with AWW -- even discounting Chalabi, there were plenty of good reasons to nail Saddam, and we can't help it if the media is too churlish and/or stupid to remember them.
Hey, wait a minute! Maybe those 17 UN resolutions were just a bad dream, along with the entire Clinton presidency, and the stock market flying up so high so that I could roll my 401k into tech stocks right at the very top of the NASDAQ, only to watch them free fall! Yeah, I'm going with that. Bad dream.
Additional point - if the mullahs tricked the US into getting rid of Saddam for them then they apparently have no problem with 130K US troops right next door for the foreseeable future. Somehow I doubt this is true.
Posted by: AWW at May 27, 2004 4:07 PMIf true, Iran's mullahs probably figured the US would get rid of Saddam for them, get sick of it (as they turned up the guerrilla heat), go home, and leave Iraq to them free for the taking.
God's Will, you know.
Posted by: Ken at May 27, 2004 8:26 PMIran's Mullahs can't even maintain their rule in Iran, why would anyone think that they'll be able to control Iraq ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 28, 2004 12:43 AMMichael:
For the same rerason people imagine the Germans or Russians could have maintained control of all Europe--they're delusional.
Posted by: oj at May 28, 2004 7:47 AMBecause their Direct Line to God says they can and will. GOD'S WILL.
Posted by: Ken at May 28, 2004 12:53 PM