I’m Confused. Are THESE Leaks Permissible, or Not?

As you read this Reuters story, remember that the House voted to mandate investigations into leaks that undermined Israel’s case for war against Iran and that the biggest new news in David Sanger’s reporting on StuxNet is that Joe Biden and others believed the Israelis set StuxNet free of Natanz. Leaks that inconvenience Israel’s hawks, you see, are bad, even if they serve US interests.

The Reuters story is a response to two reports in Ha’aretz yesterday that a new NIE–or maybe not an NIE but a top intelligence report–says Iran is closer to developing nukes than the US previously believed.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak confirmed on Thursday Haaretz’s report that President Barack Obama recently received a new National Intelligence Estimate report on the Iranian nuclear program, which shares Israel’s view that Iran has made significant progress toward military nuclear capability, and said that the report has raised the urgency of the issue.

Speaking on Israel Radio on Thursday morning, Barak said that there is a U.S. intelligence report “being passed around senior offices,” and that, as far as Israel knows, this report has brought the U.S. position over Iran closer to the Israeli position, and made the issue more urgent.

[snip]

Haaretz reported on Thursday that the National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran was supposed to have been submitted to Obama a few weeks ago, but it was revised to include new and alarming intelligence information about military components of Iran’s nuclear program. Haaretz has learned that the report’s conclusions are quite similar to those drawn by Israel’s intelligence community.

Not a single member of Congress called for a witch hunt into who leaked the NIE–or maybe not an NIE but a top intelligence report–to Israel and/or Ha’aretz.

Apparently, it’s okay to leak intelligence to Israel if it helps build a case (just in time to roll out a new product in September, I’ll note) for war, but not if it hampers Israel’s efforts to gin up a war. Is that the rule?

If so, what about this Reuters story?

In it, we have anonymous sources back in full force, refuting (sort of) those reports. Note the sourcing.

The United States still believes that Iran is not on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and that Tehran has not made a decision to pursue one, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

[snip]

But a White House National Security Council spokesman disputed the Israeli reports, saying the U.S. intelligence assessment of Iran’s nuclear activities had not changed since intelligence officials delivered testimony to Congress on the issue earlier this year.

“We believe that there is time and space to continue to pursue a diplomatic path, backed by growing international pressure on the Iranian government,” the spokesman said. “We continue to assess that Iran is not on the verge of achieving a nuclear weapon.”

[snip]

Another U.S. official said the United States regularly exchanges intelligence reporting with its allies, which would include Israel.

Apparently, Tommy Vietor (or someone sitting next to him) felt obliged to refute the reports, but would not do so on the record, not even to back his two sentence quote in the Reuters report. It’s okay for Ehud Barak, who was fed this intelligence either in normal intelligence sharing or alternately just handed the US the report in question and now is claiming that the report has been incorporated into the NIE (says a US official who seems determined to provide some explanation for this leak), to talk about leaked US intelligence on the record, but it’s not okay for the NSC spokesperson to do so.

It’s a new twist on the A1 cutout Dick Cheney used, I’m fairly certain: launder the leak through leaks to Israel, because no one in Congress or DC generally (except the FBI) gives a damn about leaks to Israel.

Whatever. I’m thoroughly confused. Am I right that the leak to Israel is considered acceptable but now the sources for the Reuters report will be targets of a witch hunt?

Tweet about this on Twitter3Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook2Google+0Email to someone

10 Responses to I’m Confused. Are THESE Leaks Permissible, or Not?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Why does 9/11 report say we need more fearmongering if counterterrorism performance as good as it say it is? http://t.co/LnVR7IAW9T
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel 9/11 Report warns of "creeping tide of complacency" v rising threats in ME. Why threat rising if CT performance good? http://t.co/LnVR7IAW9T
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Justifies? That your client was able to say things he almost certainly wouldn't have before? That's your question?
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Yes, there is a whistleblowing process. Yes, in this case that was made easier bc Snowden leaked the info first.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq No, your original, fanciful claim is this info is not declass bc of Snowden. Unless Clapper was lying abt his actions it is.
25mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq But to invent world in which Clapper didn't declass all that info in response to Snowden is simply fanciful.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq And again, that's NOT to take away from your client. Now people will finally read what was in public domain bc of Snowden leaks
28mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Very basic point: Snowden leaks. Clapper releases info saying he did so to respond. Your client writes op-ed on info.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Again, PLEASE stop mischaracterizing what I say so you can pretend things are something other than they are.
31mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Jj_nyappdefense Did I say that? Nope. But let's start w/McMillan's access to press, which not all inmates have.
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq That Clapper released all the info your client did, saying it was so he could respond to Snowden leaks.
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BradMossEsq Again, are you accusing Clapper of LYING abt his declass? otherwise, your point is false. @Paulmd199 @ashk4n
35mreplyretweetfavorite
August 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031