I sent a lot of this to The Corner a while ago, but I added some material here and there and thought you should see it.
I am beginning to feel sorry for the people–the men, that is, since no woman’s name has appeared in connection with the event–who issued the now-infamous NIE proclaiming their near-certitude that Iran “halted” its secret nuclear weapons program in 2006, and their heartwarming belief, at a lower level of certitude, that the mullahs haven’t resumed it. This embarrassingly crafted bit of fluff has failed to pass muster in London, Paris, Berlin and Jerusalem, and in much of Washington and New York. Most of us thought this would put an end to any aggressive policy toward Tehran, but life is full of surprises and if anything the call for tougher sanctions is stronger today than it seemed last week.
And supporters of the NIE–a group that more or less coincides with those who still believe in the likelihood of a “grand bargain” with the mullahs–are resorting to some pathetic attempts to advance their policy. Two of them, Hillary Mann Leverett and her husband, Flynt Leverett–both former Bush Administration dissidents–have an odd oped in today’s New York Times, in which they argue a) that anyone who proposed “engagement” with Iran in the early Bush years was risking her career, and b) that Iran has really tried to cooperate with us in the past, but got nowhere.
As for a), I’m not aware that anyone was ever fired or demoted from the Bush Administration for advancing the “engagement” policy. Indeed, Richard Haas, an intimate of then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and head of State’s Bureau of Policy Planning, vigorously advanced it, and I think he got various high-ranking officials (perhaps Mr. Leverett himself) to go meet quietly with Iranian counterparts to explore the possibility of detente. And, as I have written several times, a bit more than a year ago, Secretary Rice asked former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales to go to Tehran, which he did. He met with Mr. Larijani, who told him to forget it.
So a) seems factually wrong.
As for b), you really have to read the small print. For Leverett and Leverett actually say this:
“Iran has tried tactical cooperation with the United States several times over the past two decades — including helping to secure the release of hostages from Lebanon in the late 1980s and sending shipments of arms to Bosnian Muslims when the United States was forbidden to do so.”
Yes, the Iranians were in a great position to be “helpful” to our hostages in Lebanon in the mid and late eighties. After all, they had instructed Hezbollah to take the hostages in the first place. They were running the old mafia insurance scam, first demonstrating their ability to kill us (as they did to at least two of the hostages, Higgins and Buckley), then showing their control by releasing a handful. If that’s the “grand bargain” that the Leveretts have in mind, I’d rather pay protection money. It saves on travel expenses and time wasted.
As for the provision of weapons to “Bosnian Muslims,” this was one of the Clinton Administration’s most scandalous undertakings. We enabled the Iranians to smuggle weapons into the Balkans in violation of formal international agreements, and it enabled the mullahs to set up a substantial terrorist-training network through which many of the most infamous killers, including some involved in the 9/11 attacks, passed in the eighties and nineties. I wouldn’t hold that up as a great example of “tactical cooperation.” More like “American stupidity combined with Iranian murderous cunning.”
The Leveretts give us yet one more pathetic example of Tehran’s presumed virtue, and America’s meanness in response.
“Tehran’s expectations of reciprocal good will have been dashed by American condemnation of perceived provocations in other arenas, as when Iranian support for objectives in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was rewarded by President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil.”
Do they not know that the mullahs were playing both sides of the table? At the very moment Tehran was sitting at the negotiating table with us to discuss the future of Afghanistan, Iranian-guided terrorists were trying to kill Americans on the ground. Just as they are today, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
It’s kind of a template for the nuclear program: on the one hand they make a friendly gesture, on the other hand they continue to produce the ingredients of their atomic bomb. Heads they fool us, tails we die.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
20 Comments
David W. Lincoln:The trouble softliners get us into. Regardless if it is the Cliveden Set that swayed Chamberlain to appease Hitler, or these jokers.
One question Michael, is it the softliners or the hardliners who show the most enthusiasm
Dec 11, 2007 - 7:18 pm Judith:for Kosovo to declare independence, because it looks like the same scenery as that of Iran.
A lot of well informed people thought Baker’s Iraq Study Report was also just a “fluff” agenda driven report of the “surrender-monkeys,” as the NY Post called the authors. Yet, today,recently abandoned Israel would be the first to tell you how thouroughly it was adopted by the Baker/Scrowcroft proteges,Condi & Gates. I fear this dangerous political NIE report will also be adopted & not rightfully dismissed for its obtuse flaws. Reality & agenda-driven politics is ruling the Bush administration & our allies should beware.
Dec 11, 2007 - 10:04 pm Curt:On a related note, is the timing of the report on the CIA waterboarding videos destruction and the new NIE a coincidence, or are they related, i.e. a full court press by those in the CIA wishing to damage the Bush Aministration? I suspect they are related.
Or, am I way behind the rest of you on seeing this relationship?
ML:
As long as you want to see the world as a seamless web, you might as well toss in Annapolis.
It’s hard for people to imagine the chaos inside all democratic governments, and how silly it is to imagine that all these things are somehow coordinated. When I testified to the Iran-Contra Grand Jury one of the jurors asked me at one point: “there was obviously somebody coordinating all these things. Who was it?” And I tried to explain to this poor man that free countries don’t work like that, but I don’t think I made much headway.
Dec 12, 2007 - 10:48 am Azarmehr:Another side of the damage this report has done, is to enforce the image of invincibility of the Islamic regime to the Iranain masses.
They see the ruling clerics with lots of friends and supporters outside who will always help the regime.
Dec 12, 2007 - 12:25 pm Alex:And what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, http://www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn’t it?
ML:
But there is no diminution in Iranian support, at least if ’support’ means the flow of weapons into iraq.
And it is very hard for me to believe that this would be the sort of ’signal’ we would send the mullahs if a deal were in the offing. Undermine Sarkozy? Tell the Iranian people we’re selling out and have lost our nerve?
These analysts are too clever by half, in my opinion. They are always looking for something behind the facts, when it’s hard enough just to get the facts straight.
Dec 12, 2007 - 5:04 pm Roger P:I see that despite the facts finally starting to seep out with this NIE, the irrational bomb-iran crowd which includes Michael Leeden just seem to get louder and more erratic with their ‘logic’.
I don’t understand the points he is trying to convey with this article. Is he claiming that the mullahs are still insane and are not willing to negotiate for peace? Well, if this is his intention the examples he provided are quite poor even for an intellect such as himself. Here are the real examples of Iran’s willingness to cooperate for all out peace:
1992: After Iran helped the US by allowing them to use their airspace and promising during not to push the Shias to revolt during Gulf war 1, Rafsanjani was pursuing a policy of detente. Iran wanted to put EVERYTHING on the table. However, the US did not invite the Iranians to the Madrid Mideast conference Rebuff #1
2002: During aghan operations, Iran helped by allowing US humanitarian aid to pass through and also supporting the Karzai government. High-level Iranian officials spoke to US enovys further and brought up a peace bargain to help with afghanistan and the middle-east. US envoys sent the message to the white house, but there was no response. REBUFF #2
2003: After the Iraq invasion, Iran faxed over the same ‘grand bargain’ through the Swiss embassy. Again, it was met with dismissal. REBUFF #3
This is a following a pattern of Iran extending an olive branch, and the US in particular the Bush administration just dismissing. It’s quite obvious the mullahs aren’t crazy, and are looking after their national interests. But people Michael Leeden will never understand or accept this reality. They just continue add more fuel to the flame.
ML:
This is not the place for a long exchange, but it is hard to take you seriously when a) you cannot even spell my name, which is right in front of you; b) you accuse me of wanting to bomb Iran, which I have always opposed, and c) you didn’t bother to read my comments on the claim of Iranian cooperation on Afghanistan, which are also right in front of you.
Dec 12, 2007 - 6:28 pm David W. Lincoln:Michael, I see that Daniel Pipes is saying the NIE makes war all the more probable.
The url is: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5232
Which fits with the misfits that are stuck in September 10, 2001 (shades of “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell).
Dec 12, 2007 - 11:23 pm Ira Zad:I wrote about the Leveretts in my Iran blog at http://mor2com.blogspot.com/. Check under previous posts where I referred to them as what they were: Iran Appeasers.
The fact is that the disgruntled Leveretts have personal axes to grind with the Bush administration, and yes, they also support the “grand bargain” scenario.
But Hey, we do not even have to go that far out (or down so low) to find Iran “grand bargain” advocates: Look here, our own Ms. Condi Rice is one, too. Talk about a contradictory administration pulling the Iran cart in opposite directions. No wonder nothing serious got done on Iran in 7 years under Bush.
The NIE was concocted by the same groups who are Iran “grand bargainers”.
NIE was basically a political “coup” against VP Cheney’s Iran policy, as well as a loud warning to the President and the VP not to even think of pursuing the military option against the Iran-Appeasers beloved Islamist-Fascist Iranian regime.
We have been nurturing the enemy in our own home.
What’s more, the NIE may have succeeded in what it intended to do. It has dealt a major blow to the administration’s already wobbly, ineffective, and quiet frankly very timid Iran policy.
What’s worse is what may follow, even Ahmadinejad wants to do a “grand bargain” now: He said in a speech the other day that the NIE was a “good step forward” and if the US takes 2 or 3 similar “positive steps” towards Iran, he is willing to talk deal with US and make good. Bravo State Department. Congratulations to Condi. Condolences for Iranian secular democracy, and too bad for our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf region. This will only strengthen the Islamists even more all over the world.
What is even more horrifying, and the possible next shoe to drop, could be the return of the European mullahs–a.k.a. “Reformists”, like Khatami and Rafsanjani, back at the helm in Iran by spring 2008 (scheduled Majlis members elections.) If that happens, all bets are off on anything near ‘regime change’ being supported by EU.
In fact, after that, the only thing that could complement the return of the Euro-mullahs in Iran will be a Hussein Obama, or a Chelsea’s Mama in the White House in ‘09 who will promptly strike a “grand bargain’ with the Islamist-Fascists regime in Tehran.
All because our President, who used to have thunder in his voice in the ‘axis of evil’ days, has given up and given in our Iran policy to Iran Appeasers like Condi Rice –(who is frankly utterly unqualified for ANY foreign policy capacity)—and has stooped to no resolve and timidity in dealing with the Iranian regime.
http://mor2com.blogspot.com/
Dec 13, 2007 - 2:14 pm Roger P:Mr. Ledeen,
Only a serious debater would start off a rebuttal by pointing out a simple misplacement of 2 letters. As for you being an opponent of the bombing of Iran, think of it as mullahs opposing the development of nuclear weapons. They claim they are against it, but oh you have a very good feeling of their true hopes and intentions.
I did read your reference to Afghanistan, which you used to show in quite a poor manner the treachery of the mullahs. Who are these ‘Iranian-guided terrorists’ you speak of? However, in light of the other grand gestures made by the highest levels in the Iranian government your analysis of the Afghanistan situation appears quite weak.
It seems like you and many like you are at quite a loss ever since this NIE was released. I can see how desperate you’re all becoming, with more irrational arguments and frantic attacks. Now, the mullah’s are playing us like a fool so they can develop a bomb and drop it on some unsuspecting nation which would really serve no geopolitical purpose. It’s quite a premise for a fictional good vs evil thriller, but it has no place in reality and 60 years of history.
ML:
Please try to be substantive in the future. Misspelling the name of a person you are attacking as unreliable is amusing, and should be embarrassing. Fine, you disagree, but we knew that. If you have something serious to say, please say it. Otherwise, take a deep breath and relax.
Dec 13, 2007 - 3:41 pm Winston:British, French, Germans and Israelis have dismissed this laughable report as a sham and a fake one. Why should any sane person believe it any more?
ML:
Recent polls show that hardly anyone takes it seriously, in fact.
Dec 13, 2007 - 3:59 pm Winston:Fmr. Sec of State Kissinger even questioned this sham report yesterday in an article on Washington Post. I think NIE report on Iran’s nukes is almost dead!
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:50 am Ira Zad:To Roger P.;
Your comments about Iran emanate from a liberal US base. You are obviously not Iranian, and also seems that you do not have any familiarity with the Hell that the Iranian “Theocracy of Turds of Tehran” has imposed on the good Iranian people; who incidentally are mostly an educated, modern, and sophisticated bunch who are fervently against the mullahs regime.
Now, as if the consistent persecutions, torturing, and murdering of dissidents, students, women, workers, and ethnic and religious minorities were not enough; it is now threatening the very existence of the country and its people by forcing the Iranian people –who are unwilling pawns in this game– into a nuclear “Russian (pun intended) Roulette” with the free world.
We are dealing with a fervently medieval, ruthless Shiite Fascist regime here.
So if you have an axe to grind with Bush administration, that’s perfectly fine. Actually, I too, in that I don’t think our Iran policy has been tough enough at all so far. But I suggest that you consider another ‘goat’, other than Iran –where you seem to have no real knowledge at all–, to scratch your anti-Bush itch with.
Dec 14, 2007 - 5:40 pm Anthony (Los Angeles):This NIE (and other instances of intelligence “analysts” trying to write policy) makes me think we’d be better off to scrap the whole intelligence structure and start over.
ML:
Agreed.
Dec 14, 2007 - 5:49 pm Mark William Paules:I don’t understand why partisanship within the bureaucracy, be it CIA or State, is tolerated by any president. If memory serves, Jimmy Carter purged the CIA during his term in office. Even as I disagree with Mr. Carter on just about everything, I would support the executive’s right to fire anyone who won’t carry out presidential policy.
If I were Mr. Bush, my instructions would be terse: “This is my policy and I expect you to carry it out. If you cannot do so in good conscience, please resign. If I find you obstructing my policies, I will fire you.”
Where in the Constitution does the bureaucracy have any stated right to initiate policy independent of the executive branch? This situation is worse than bad government, it’s a usurpation of power by unelected careerists. And also disloyal. Mr. Bush needs to take a broom to these agencies.
ML:
You are right, of course. The obstacles to this are:
1. civil service regs, which make it very difficult to fire people (altho there are other remedies such as “reductions in force” which is what Stansfield Turner did at CIA under Carter);
2. fear of scandal. the purgees will talk at great length to the MSM.
Dec 15, 2007 - 11:56 am Ira Zad:Strengthened by the NIE, the regime ‘Reformists’, i.e., mullahs with EU ties, are already coiling to pounce back into power by setting Ahmadinejad aside in the upcoming spring 2008 Majlis elections. See: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22928071-5005961,00.html
And, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071214/wl_nm/iran_reformists_dc
If and when EU’s favorite mullahs Khatami and Rafsanjani take back the helm inside the regime, the chances of EU support for ‘regime change’ will die off completely.
It is all meshing in well with what is going on in the US vis a vis Iran. We seem to have made up our minds to go towards making deals with Ahmadinejad’s Euro-mullah replacements in Iran. We seem to be hanging our hopes on that right now.
Our misguided and timid Iran policies have led to a situation where all signs are pointing to an upcoming new lease on life for the Islamist-Fascist regime in Iran in the foreseeable future. Albeit, this time around, it will be “Back to the Future” with smiling “reformist” Euro-mullahs like Khatami back in charge again.
SIDE NOTE: Ahmadinejad has been invited by the Saudis to perform the annual HAJJ ceremonies in Mecca, starting Dec. 18th. Now, there are rumors circulating in the net that he may not make it back to Iran intact from this trip to Mecca…
The stage is set. The handwriting seems to be well on the wall: the Iran ‘regime change’ effort is pretty much over, and has turned into a sham and a scam.
Too bad for Iranians secular democracy aspirations. Thanks to our wishy-washy Iran policy under Bush and company.
http://mor2com.blogspot.com/
Dec 15, 2007 - 4:22 pm Ira Zad:Finally. Truer words have never been said about our haywire foreign (and Iran) policy. It’s about time someone said it like it was and is. Kodus to Bolton for exposing the rot:
“U.S. President George W. Bush’s foreign policy is in free fall…” said John Bolton today.
“His foreign policy is in free fall. The president is acting against his own judgment and instincts (and is) under the influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,”
“Iranians have got a signal from our own intelligence services that they can do whatever they want.”http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-31009120071216
http://mor2com.blogspot.com/
Dec 16, 2007 - 12:27 pm Ira Zad:Dec. 17,2007 — Ahmadinejad: NIE was a “declaration of surrender” by US.
Iran’s president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a “declaration of surrender” by Washington in its row with Tehran. See: http://infidelsarecool.com/2007/12/16/ahmadinejad-nie-a-declaration-of-surrender/
Sadly, I hate to say it, but he is right. Bush may have had better instincts, but he has so little control over the people who are theoretically under him that whatever he wants is a moot point.
THANKS CONDI.
Dec 17, 2007 - 1:20 am Ira Zad:Even Freidman thinks US is now basically inviting the world to do business as usual with Iran now.
“It (NIE) has left every Arab and European expert I’ve spoken to baffled — not in its conclusions, but by why those conclusions were framed in a way that is sure to reduce America’s leverage to negotiate with Tehran.”
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=319626
Dec 17, 2007 - 1:30 pm Persian Cavalier:Michael,
Relay I can say NIE report is not valuable evidence. I read it ten times and every round I find it as a game with words. It made by no intelligence analysis just by some diplomat that can play with words and possibilities and I were very sorry about US and Bush administration that can allow anybody to play with National Security Interests.
By this report that was called “surrender evidence” by Ahmadi Nejad you can brief any situations in future. For example if tomorrow Iran says they have atomic bomb you can find some word about it in NIE report and if they say they have peaceful technology also you can find it in another paragraph!!
As an intelligence expert I can’t evaluate this report as a valuable intelligence report.
Persian Cavalier
ML:
Nor I, PC.
Dec 17, 2007 - 8:30 pm Persian Cavalier:Dear Michael
Dec 17, 2007 - 8:38 pmWhat is happend for ” Central Bank of Terrorism” a word by Condi for Iran. New report of NIE on 2008 can say it was a small branch that closed on 2003! ha ha ha………
Persian Cavalier