Iran ; Off the Hook or On the Hook?

Post Information
Print & pdf

If Israel is not happy with the NIE, it does not matter who else is.

By Anwaar Hussain

iran-nuclear-iaea.jpgThe bolt from the blue called the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which was released on Monday the 3rd of December, reported “with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program ‘because of international pressure’.”

The NIE, in reality, is a final acknowledgement, and a sort of culmination, of a long trail of track-2 diplomacy and intel gathering that the US State department and intelligence agencies have been conducting, and misconducting, with their Iranian counterparts for some time now.

The report is almost a complete U-turn of the community’s 2005 judgment that Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons”. Apart from being a supposed damper on the war lust of the Neocons, the report is a grudging acknowledgement by the West’s intelligence agencies of the rationality of the mad Mullahs.

Now that it is proven that the mad Mullahs were not so mad after all, is Iran off the hook? To answer this question let us go back in time to the immediate post 9/11 period.

In a very recent article written by John H. Richardson in the Esquire magazine, two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush administration have, in some startling disclosures, enumerated several Iranian overtures to resolve their issues with the United States and the Americans’ arrogant rejection of the same.

In this revealing Esquire report, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, who worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council, disclosed that whatever little overt U.S.-Iran engagement the world did see was ‘never serious and designed to fail’. They cite, as an example, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker’s much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad. Crocker didn’t even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

Earlier too, according to the duo, the Iranians had been offering to provide many significant concessions in the war against the Taliban. They agreed to provide assistance if any American was shot down near their territory, consented to let the U.S. send food in through their border, and even agreed to restrain some “really bad Afghans,” like an extremely anti-American warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, by quietly putting him under house arrest in Tehran. But the most important thing, according to Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, was that the Iranians agreed to talk unconditionally. Mann says, “They specifically told me time and again that they were doing this because they understood the impact of this attack on the U.S., and they thought that if they helped us unconditionally, that would be the way to change the dynamic for the first time in twenty-five years.”

The American response came in President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. In that speech Bush linked Iran to Iraq and North Korea in a portentous phrase, “the axis of evil”. By then the Iranians had been trying to engage American government in high-level diplomacy for more than a year. The shock for them was profound.

Despite the rude ‘axis of evil’ jolt, according to the illuminating Esquire article, the Iranians continued to walk the extra mile in their efforts to normalize their relations with United States. In a fax to the State Department from the Swiss ambassador to Iran, who represented American interests in that country, the ambassador reported to have met with Sadeq Kharrazi, a well-connected Iranian who was the nephew of the then foreign minister and son-in-law to the supreme leader. Kharazzi presented to the Swiss ambassador a stunning proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran. In the two-page summary of the proposal, the Iranians gave some spectacular allowances to the United States. Among other things, they promised to take “decisive action” against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program and, above all, also an agreement to recognize Israel.

The White House not only ignored the offer, it lodged a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador’s meddling. What’s more, a little while later, America sent a second carrier group to the Persian Gulf, its troops began to arrest Iranians living in Baghdad, blaming them for meddling in Iraq and openly started accusing Iran of “providing material support” for attacks on U.S. forces, with undertones of a legal justification for a preemptive attack.

According to the op-ed, the situation, in fact, became so alarming that Colin Powell had to warn, “You can’t negotiate when you tell the other side, ‘Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start’.” Even Henry Kissinger, the chief author of the Cambodian Bombing campaign, urged the need to “exhaust every possibility to come to an understanding with Iran.”

The overtures of the protagonists in the events, from immediately post 9/11 period right up to the 2007 NIE, show pretty unambiguously who had whom fixed in their sights and to what end. So much for the madness of the mad Mullahs.

That was then.

Since the report has been released, in the past few days, the war mongers within the US establishment, and their sympathizers all around, have left no stone unturned in disparaging the NIE to make sure that the US war machine stays on course i.e. on an inexorable path of slamming into Iran.

It has come to light that at the time of his infamous World War-3 statement in the month of October, President George Bush was already aware of the contents of the yet to be released NIE report. Despite the knowledge, he went ahead and proclaimed, “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,”. His administration, resultantly, remains unyielding in its position that policy toward Iran shouldn’t change.

Generally speaking, nearly all the U.S. hardliners on Iran are saying the intelligence document is too ridden with internal political bickerings to be credible. In a Washington Post Op-ed, one John R. Bolton, a fanatical Neocon, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” and currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, observes;

“That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this “intelligence” torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were.”

Fox News reports Rush Limbaugh, a rabid Neocon mouthpiece, as blasting the testimony in the Conservative talk radio. He called it a “sabotage of the Bush administration,”. The Wall Street Journal editorial, yet another conservative periodical, shreds the credibility of the NIE by proclaiming some of its authors as ‘hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.’

Above all Israel, the chief beneficiary of America’s foreign policy largesse, doesn’t seem too happy with the NIE. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is said to have observed, “We cannot allow ourselves to rest just because of an intelligence report from the other side of the Earth, even if it is from our greatest friend.” If Israel is not happy with the NIE, it does not matter who else is.

So in conclusion, none of the original members of the war party seem to be much impressed by the NIE. Moreover, little things like a NIE cannot be allowed to stand in the way of ideologies needing solid military muscle for a springboard. Iran, therefore, stays on the hook. The American military juggernaut, for the same reason, stays on course. Only the countdown may be delayed a wee bit.

In an inadvertently honest observation, the NIE categorically states that “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to weapons irrespective of the political, economic and military costs”. Wish the same could be said of the country in whose service the spy masters have compiled the report.

Copyrights : Anwaar Hussain



Comments

10 Responses to “Iran ; Off the Hook or On the Hook?”

  1. Doug on December 8th, 2007 10:15 am

    Anwaar:

    You have it about right. The US foreign policy is dictated in Tel Aviv.

    What has been happening:

    The mistake of the US AirForce moving old cruise missiles to Texas with nuke warheads was not a mistake by AirForce personnel. It was a rogue Jewish/Israeli operation operating within the White House. These nukes and missiles were ordered by operatives within the White House to move to the Middle East. When Texas military personnel questioned the orders via challenge and authentication procedures, that is when the improper order came to light. It is one thing to authorize the movement of military arms……….. but quite another to authorize the arming of a nuke warhead which has several levels of discrete arming codes: tactical military (chain of command), strategic military (Sec of Defense), and Civilian (Commander in Chief).

    Coming Soon:

    In order to sell a gold mine, unscrupulous sellers of an unprofitable mine would sometimes “salt the earth” with glittering pyrite to lure unsuspecting buyers.

    Expect the Israelis to salt the earth with stolen Iranian refined uranium or plutoniun… or other derivative by-products such as Cesium………. in order to prove to IAEA and to the world that the Iranians are secretly making warheads.

    The extra millions of gallons of JP-5 for the F-15s and F-16s should be arriving in the Middleast theatre within two weeks. Expect the US or Israel to attempt to provoke a confrontation in Jan 2008….. in order to build the evidence of hostile intentions.

    Gulf of Tonkin II may be coming!

    Never under-estimate the violent nature of a leader who seeks to bring peace to Palestine by offering them statehood….. while bribing all sides to shut up and sit back for a few months.

    This is the way a Presidential legacy is built. Recall that Bush Sr. invaded Somalia shortly before he left office. Apples never fall far from the tree.

    Doug, USA

  2. Anjum Zia on December 8th, 2007 10:49 am

    Dear Anwaar,

    Keep the truth flowing. I am proud to see you at this work.

    Regards,

  3. Michelle on December 8th, 2007 11:51 am

    News of release of the NIE report keeps the observer focused on Washington and the Bush Administration while behind the scenes the real goal is being achieved without hindrance or vocal skepticism.

    You’d think that the NIE report would have an effect on European leaders…cause SOME type of protest at Washington’s actions toward Iran.
    The fact of the matter is that there hasn’t been a peep from the major powers of Great Britain, Germany or, France. In fact, following the release of the US National Intelligence Estimate report Monday, leading European politicians have stressed the need for continuing sanctions and political pressure on Tehran.

    Nor did any European politicians or media offer any criticism of the recent statements by Israeli politicians, who denounced the NIE report and renewed their threats of aggression against Iran.

    Seems as though major European powers would just as soon sit back and let The U.S. do all the dirty work, keeping their hands clean until Iran’s natural resources are open for Western consumption demands, and out of reach for China and Russia.

    US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice is due to arrive in Brussels at the end of this week to attend a NATO meeting where she will be calling for a further round of punitive sanctions against Iran.

  4. Anwaar on December 8th, 2007 12:25 pm

    Here is another example of the claptrap coming from the current American administration. Gates would have us believe, with fervent urgency, that the mad Mullahs are about to launch on a missile shooting spree on all and sundry in their surrounding. We are sure to see more of this in the coming days. Brace yourselves.

    Anwaar

    Gates warns of Iran threat to US and Middle East, (AFP), 8 December 2007

    MANAMA - US Defence Secretary Robert Gates on Saturday said Iran’s foreign policy was a threat to the United States, the Middle East and all countries within range of missiles Teheran is developing.

    “There can be little doubt that their destabilising foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing,” Gates told delegates at a conference on regional security in Bahrain.

    Iran is also “funding and training” militias in Iraq, supporting ”terrorist organisations” such as Hezbollah and Hamas and developing ”medium-range ballistic missiles that are not particularly cost-effective unless equipped with warheads carrying weapons of mass destruction,” Gates added.

    His accusations came five days after the publication of the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which said that Iran halted a secret nuclear weapons programme four years ago, a conclusion at odds with Washington’s stance of recent years.

    Suspicions about Iran’s controversial nuclear activities have been a key driver of the tough US approach towards Iran and its pursuit of sanctions.

    In a wide-ranging speech Gates also urged delegates to the conference to support efforts to stabilise war-torn Iraq.

    “I urge you to exercise your influence with the Iraqis and encourage them to meet their own goals and expectations,” he said.

    “I also urge you to help them in every way that you can by dampening home-grown insurgencies, by alleviating sectarian strife and by providing economic and diplomatic support,” he added.

    The event in the Gulf archipelago — home to the US Fifth Fleet — brings together more than 200 ministers, security officials and anti-terrorism experts from around 50 countries.

    Source : www.khaleejtimes.com

  5. Carl on December 8th, 2007 8:54 pm

    President Bush bragged about the competence of his intelligence advisers. It was in Iran’s best interest to divulge what they did 3 years ago. There is a solution to his mess and it will be achieved 11/06/2008. Iran is off the hook. The shift in world-opinion was sudden.

    The World and America is tired of this grand alliance of America and Israel that has generated more Anti-Semitism in less time than anything else.

    Carl

  6. Robert Klassen on December 9th, 2007 2:32 am

    War requires wealth and armed forces. The US is bankrupt and the military is broken. The US psychopaths ruling the State may bomb Iran in a demented final frenzy, but that would precipitate a total collapse at home. As the US goes, so goes Israel. I believe some folks see that.

    Bob

  7. Jonathan Stephenson on December 9th, 2007 8:40 am

    People think that Bush/Cheney will be dissueded by this report, they are wrong, madness is not convinced by logic or truth, for madness only truth is what is in it’s own head. They will launch a false flag operation either here in the USA or in Iraq or our ships in the Gulf, and the attack will be underway when we first hear about it. As I say this, I am from a military family, and understand military doctrine and I also have many contacts in the military. We have heard in the past that military leaves were being canceled and yet I knew that this was not true, through my contacts, now it is true, all leaves it appears are being canceled, for after the 20th of December. You always hear about these things when it involves a big holiday, and it is widespread and the reason is clear to all. Look for an attack against Iran before May of 2008, a combined US, Israeli, and British attack.

  8. Rowan on December 10th, 2007 2:42 am

    I think that the only difference that the NIE will make is to change the propaganda strategy. It will not undermine the BushCo desire or plan to bomb Iran.

    The early cries of “Whew! Now they can’t go to war on Iran.” were quite simply hyperbole. I truly can’t believe that any on the Congress are that naïve. Not to mention that it is Congress’ responsibility to stop this administration - even though they have been loathe to do so.

    Thank you for the excellent analysis!

  9. Keith Mothersson on December 19th, 2007 4:19 am

    I am more hopeful that Iran is off the hook for now.
    Reasons why Cheney gang couldn’t clinch it for war:
    a) Iranian refusal to be bullied;
    b) relatively courageous and uncorrupted IAEA wouldn’t play ball;
    c) Shanghai Co-operation Council realising that the neocons had to be stopped, in all their interests. Putin’s state of art missiles paraded; Chinese sub popped up in the very middle of a big US naval exercise off the coast of Iran - my God, we can’t detect their electric-powerd subs!
    d) years of great work by the likes of Francis Boyle blowing on the embers of military honour - seminars with Airforce and other officer corps about Duty to resist illegal orders ;
    e) building on this US Patriots Organisation has an address list of 20,000 e-mails of veterans and serving men and officers to whom their self-appointed and unarrested Commander sends poingted reminders of military and domestic and international law duty, including duty to preserve Constitution of the US against war crimes and all domestic enemies;
    f) Cheney credibility broken by combination of Iraq WMD lies, four stolen elections in a row, and 9/11 has been a a running sore - ex President Cossiga recently told one of the main Italian newspapers that it has long been ‘common knowledge in the intelligence services of the world’ that 9/11 was an inside job; something which most top brass with half a brain also know and talk about. The 9/11 truth movement’s educating people/officers/police to the possibility of False Flag Terrorism, may have also helped to deter operatives from helping Cheney (or whoever) in making a Flase-flag incident.
    g) The revolt of the Airforce top brass and local vigilance by lower ranking officers came together at the Mid-East sending base in Louisiana to block Cheney manouevering nukes about off the books.
    h) world diplomatic community pressure, e.g. Gulf States and India didn’t fancy being further poisoned by US-caused uranium.

  10. Anwaar on December 19th, 2007 12:40 pm

    Keith,

    All your arguments are quite weighty when applied to rational decision makers trying to act within a sane/legal milieu. Here, unfortunately, we are dealing with dangerous criminals, habitual law breakers and mad hallucinators. What better example can we give of these hardened criminals war mongering than that of butchering more than a million Iraqis on the non-existent WMD charade? Not just the boy king, every one of them knew well in advance there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    These are dangerous hombres Keith and the US military is too well disciplined to disobey their orders.

    Iran, I am afraid, is not quite off the hook.

    Anwaar

Leave a Reply






Anwaar’s articles appear simultaneously here at Truth Spring and at Soul Vibes in The Pakistan Tribune.


US loses its status as economic world power
DAVOS, Switzerland, 2008
.: ARTICLE BLOCKED :.
ON MARCH 2008
Who links to my website?