US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war

[GIGObuster]

@xtisme

I remember when this first came out there were a few threads on it. But as we’ve heard nothing on it since (that I know of), I’d have to go with the assessment that, while interesting, there is probably not much to this. Either that or Bush et al suddenly got really good at information supression. Would be a first for these fools if so, but who knows?

-XT

I would go for “information supression” for $2000 Alex…

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/

For years, the National Security Agency had possessed the codes used by Iran to encrypt its diplomatic messages, enabling the U.S. government to eavesdrop on virtually every communication between Tehran and its embassies. After the U.S. invaded Baghdad, the NSA used the codes to listen in on details of Iran’s covert operations inside Iraq. But in 2004, the agency intercepted a series of urgent messages from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad. Intelligence officials at the embassy had discovered the massive security breach—tipped off by someone familiar with the U.S. code-breaking operation.

The blow to intelligence-gathering could not have come at a worse time. The Bush administration suspected that the Shiite government in Iran was aiding Shiite insurgents in Iraq, who were killing U.S. soldiers. The administration was also worried that Tehran was secretly developing nuclear weapons. Now, crucial intelligence that might have shed light on those operations had been cut off, potentially endangering American lives.

On May 20th, shortly after the discovery of the leak, Iraqi police backed by American soldiers raided Chalabi’s home and offices in Baghdad. The FBI suspected that Chalabi, a Shiite who had a luxurious villa in Tehran and was close to senior Iranian officials, was actually working as a spy for the Shiite government of Iran. Getting the U.S. to invade Iraq was apparently part of a plan to install a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Baghdad, with Chalabi in charge. The bureau also suspected that Chalabi’s intelligence chief had furnished Iran with highly classified information on U.S. troop movements, top-secret communications, plans of the provisional government and other closely guarded material on U.S. operations in Iraq. On the night of the raid, The CBS Evening News carried an exclusive report by correspondent Lesley Stahl that the U.S. government had “rock-solid” evidence that Chalabi had been passing extremely sensitive intelligence to Iran—evidence so sensitive that it could “get Americans killed.”
The revelation shocked Franklin and other members of Feith’s office. If true, the allegations meant that they had just launched a war to put into power an agent of their mortal enemy, Iran. Their man—the dissident leader who sat behind the first lady in the president’s box during the State of the Union address in which Bush prepared the country for war—appeared to have been working for Iran all along.

Franklin needed to control the damage, and fast. He was one of the very few in the government who knew that it was the NSA code-breaking information that Chalabi was suspected of passing to Iran, and that there was absolute proof that Chalabi had met with a covert Iranian agent involved in operations against the U.S. To protect those in the Pentagon working for regime change in Tehran, Franklin needed to get out a simple message: We didn’t know about Chalabi’s secret dealings with Iran.

Franklin decided to leak the information to a friendly contact in the media: Adam Ciralsky, a CBS producer who had been fired from the CIA, allegedly for his close ties to Israel. On May 21st, the day after CBS broadcast its exclusive report on Chalabi, Franklin phoned Ciralsky and fed him the information. As the two men talked, eavesdroppers at the FBI’s Washington field office recorded the conversation.

That night, Stahl followed up her original report with “new details”—the information leaked earlier that day by Franklin. She began, however, by making clear that she would not divulge the most explosive detail of all: the fact that Chalabi had wrecked the NSA’s ability to eavesdrop on Iran. “Senior intelligence officials were stressing today that the information Ahmed Chalabi is alleged to have passed on to Iran is so seriously sensitive that the result of full disclosure would be highly damaging to U.S. security,” Stahl said. “Because of that, we are not reporting the details of what exactly Chalabi is said to have compromised, at the request of U.S. officials at the highest levels. The information involves secrets that were held by only a handful of very senior intelligence officials.” Thanks to the pressure from the administration, the public was prevented from learning the most damaging aspect of Chalabi’s treachery.

[gonzomax]

The neo cons were hatching this plot for years. Armitage, Wolfowitz ,Cheney and Rumsfield have written position papers for years establishing the aggressive approach to American Policy. They were not suckerered into anything they did not want to do.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

It is certainly possible, and seems quite obvious. Oddly, I cannot recall anyone at all pointing this out during the lead-in to war. We all seem to have been fooled.

All of this will make a very interesting book in twenty years or so.

[ralph124c]

I wonder who will claim the "credit’ for unmasking Chalabi? The guy had a house in Teheran? i would have thought that our intelligence service would have checked this guy out! I wonder how much sensitive ifo Chalabi passed on to Iran? Will anybody pay for this?

[Squink]

@ralph124c

I wonder how much sensitive ifo Chalabi passed on to Iran? Will anybody pay for this?

There was a bit of an investigation back in 2004:
Polygraph Tests In Chalabi Probe

A small number of civilian Pentagon employees are being given lie detector tests in an effort to determine who told Iraqi leader Amhad Chalabi that the U.S. had broken secret codes used by Iran, according to the New York Times…
Sources have told CBS News that Chalabi tipped Iran to the fact that the codes have been broken, saying he had gotten the information from an unidentified American.

However AFAIK, the whole thing’s sort of petered out.

[Voyager]

@ralph124c

I wonder who will claim the "credit’ for unmasking Chalabi? The guy had a house in Teheran? i would have thought that our intelligence service would have checked this guy out! I wonder how much sensitive ifo Chalabi passed on to Iran? Will anybody pay for this?

Not unless the Democrats get control of at least one house of Congress. The reason that this is active news again is that two chapters of the report on pre-war intelligence are just now coming out - thanks to some Dems getting some cojones at last. The full report was just so big and complicated that it wasn’t supposed to come out for a long, long time.

[Voyager]

@astro

What is surprising is the boggling level of corn fed American stupidity

TO

1: Believe a hard core con man Chalabi in the first place

2: Now believe this is some diabolical master plan by the Iranians to have the American military placed throughout their sphere of influence

Are you saying that there was no reason for Iran to want us to get rid of their biggest enemy? Remember, they and Saddam had been at war for a long time. Getting Shia in power in Iraq, even if not puppets, would certainly improve their situation. I’d guess that they’d never have suspected how badly we screwed things up, though. No matter what happens next, Iran comes out ahead.

This just shows what happens when you make decisions based on both ideology and absolute assurance you are right. It’s the same reason Stalin refused to believe the Germans would invade.

[Der_Trihs]

@Paul in Saudi

It is certainly possible, and seems quite obvious. Oddly, I cannot recall anyone at all pointing this out during the lead-in to war. We all seem to have been fooled.

Well, I certainly heard about it. I assumed at the time it was common knowledge, and that people just didn’t care.

[Wildfire_MM]

@gonzomax

The neo cons were hatching this plot for years. Armitage, Wolfowitz ,Cheney and Rums field have written position papers for years establishing the aggressive approach to American Policy. They were not suckerered into anything they did not want to do.

But maybe Iran made their plan a bit more tempting to accomplish by handing them false information
But who knows, and will we ever know?

[Kimstu]

Well, I remember a 2005 report by Peter Galbraith about the inauguration of the Kurdistan Regional Assembly that indicated that the Iranians, if they didn’t engineer the developments in Iraq, at least were fully aware of the advantages resulting from them:

The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Erbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at [the head of the American Embassy offic in Kirkuk] Ms. Bodine, he said simply, “This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power.” He did not add “Thank you, George Bush.” The unstated was understood.

[Mtgman]

@Paul in Saudi

It is certainly possible, and seems quite obvious. Oddly, I cannot recall anyone at all pointing this out during the lead-in to war. We all seem to have been fooled.

All of this will make a very interesting book in twenty years or so.

What is the “this” you refer to? Chalabi’s untrustworthiness? Or the links to Iran? I saw a lot of the former before the war, not as much of the latter but those have been uncovered in the past year and a half or so. Chalabi being a con man and crook and yet being a “source” for US Intel was something I remember being pissed about pre-war. I may be able to find some posts from that time if you want.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Paul_in_Qatar]

I cannot remember anyone anywhere saying we were being suckered in to do Iran’s dirty work.

[rjung]

I’d wager that the folks who did the most to “dupe” the US into war with Iraq war were this group.

[marshmallow]

Wasn’t Chalabi at one of the State of the Union speeches as a special guest of President Bush? I believe he sat behind Laura. Then when Chalabi’s popularity fell what with the lies and lie detector tests and the press questioned Bush he said he never heard of the guy even though he mentioned him in a couple of speeches…that Chalabi, right?

Who? Ken Lay? I don’t recall that fellow either…

[elucidator]

No, no, that was Ahmed Chalabi the Iraqi patriot, next president of Iraq. This is about Ahmed Chalabi the theif, liar, and scoundrel. Completely different.

[Loopydude]

@xtisme

I disagree. From YOUR perspective maybe, but you have to realize that Bush et al don’t see things in the same way you (or I or most Dopers) do. From THEIR perspective it wasn’t ‘cherrypicking intelligence’, and said intelligence was far from ‘known to be faulty’…nor do I think that THEY think they were ‘making shit up to deliberately go to war’.

Yeah, well, this is the usual response, to which I would link to something like this, to which you’d probably say something like “liberal rag” and so on, wash, rinse, repeat.

Almost too depressing to try, really, but whatever.

[Zoe]

gonzomax: The neo cons were hatching this plot for years. Armitage, Wolfowitz ,Cheney and Rums field have written position papers for years establishing the aggressive approach to American Policy.

I haven’t read Armitage’s position papers, but I don’t think that I would classify him as a neocon. Certainly, he is more in sync with Colin Powell than Rumsfeld and Co.

This Frontline interview with James Mann was very helpful in sorting out the political philosophies and histories of these guys. It is entertaining to read also.