NIE Timeline, Take Three

/in , , , /by

This is a compilation of the several timelines I–and others–have done so far on the NIE.

November 2006: NIE "completed"

January 5, 2007: John Negroponte resigns as DNI, reportedly because of fight over NIE; Negroponte would move to become a top official at State

January 11: US takes six Iranians in custody after a raid on a diplomatic building in Irbil, Iraq

February 2007: NIE completed; Cheney objecting to content

February 7: Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Ali Reza Asgari arrives in Turkey; he disappears there, and is presumed to have defected or been kidnapped; in March he was reported to be cooperating with western intelligence

April 26: Thomas Fingar announces NIE will be delayed due to Ahmadinejad’s demagoguery

May 12: Cheney meets with Saudi Arabia

July 2007: Intelligence community intercepts communications that verify claim Iran’s nuclear program remains suspended; Senior Administration Officials briefed

August 2007: Bush claims he learned new intelligence exists

August 9: Bush substitutes the claim that Iran was seeking nuclear technology for earlier claim that they were seeking nukes. (h/t Froomkin)

They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program. That, in itself, coupled with their stated foreign policy, is very dangerous for world stability. . . . It’s a very troubling nation right now.

August 29-30: Six nuclear warheads "accidentally" get flown from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana

September 6: Israel strikes site in Syria

October 2007: BushCo considers spiking the NIE Read more →

The NIE and Israel

/in /by

In my banana republic thread, MinnesotaChuck asks the $64,000 question.

I wonder if the withdrawal of the resolution, which went down several days ago, had anything to do with the release of the NIE yesterday.

That–or rather the reverse scenario–seems pretty darn likely to me. Consider these data points:

November 26: Per Seymour Hersh, Bush tells Ehud Olmert what’s in the NIE.

November 27: The Annapolis Peace Conference

November 28: The day Hadley claims Bush was briefed on the NIE; Bush meets with Olmert again

November 29: Khalilzad submits a resolution endorsing Annapolis at UN; Condi calls Khalilzad in the middle of the meeting to ask WTF he’s doing

November 30: A Khalilzad deputy withdraws the UN resolution while Khalilzad is in "previously scheduled" meeting in DC with Condi

December 3: Unexpected public release of NIE showing Iran has given up nuke program

December 4: Israelis say the NIE is wrong; Bush announces his first trip to Israel as President (h/t Laura); both Annapolis and Iran’s purported nukes are on the agenda; Khalilzad calls the claim that he had submitted the resolution without vetting it bull

All of which makes me all the more curious how–and when–the NIE got declassified. Because it sure looks like Israel is only going to let Condi have her Annapolis-based legacy if she allows them to continue to war-monger in Iran. Read more →

I Dunno. It Looks Like a Banana Republic to Me.

/in /by

I suspect Zalmay Khalilzad doesn’t care to lose all his credibility in the international community just so Condi doesn’t have to admit she lost her latest fight with Cheney (or did she lose a fight with Olmert?). At least, that’s what I surmise from his snarky response to Madame Secretary’s attempt to blame him, Khalilzad, for introducing a resolution at the UN that the Administration later withdrew (h/t Holden).

Washington’s U.N. envoy denied on Tuesday he had acted alone in handing the Security Council a Middle East resolution he later pulled after Israel objected.

The United States withdrew the draft, which hailed the results of a November 27 Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, last Friday in what the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers called an embarrassing about-face.

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad dismissed what he said were media reports he had submitted the draft resolution "on my own," without consulting the State Department or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Read more →

Intelligence Puts a Crimp in Dick’s War-Mongering

/in , , /by

You’ve no doubt heard the news that the NIE on Iran’s nuclear ambitions judges (with moderate certainty) that Iran has no active nuclear weapon program.

That’s great news. But I’m just as interested in the back story of why we got this news in the first place. As the NYT reveals (h/t Danger Room), the Deputy Director of National Intelligence released the NIE to make sure it was accurately represented.

In a separate statement accompanying the N.I.E., Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald M. Kerr said that given the new conclusions, it was important to release the report publicly “to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.”

Shorter Mr. Kerr: Stephen Hadley’s already madly spinning this result wildly, and I wanted to make sure he didn’t do worse.

But that makes me mighty curious about the timing of this decision. Take a look at the timing in this key judgment.

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. [my emphasis]

In other words, the most important key judgment in this NIE (in terms of impeding Dick’s war-mongering, at least) comes from mid-2007. That’s pretty fascinating timing, given the time line of Dick’s attempts to stifle the key judgments on Iran. Here’s a time line taken excerpted from this article. Read more →

The Monday before Tuesday

/in /by

I don’t believe we’re going to wake up at the end of tomorrow, after the Annapolis conference, and discover peace has broken out across the Middle East. I’m not developing some newfound faith in Condi’s ability to negotiate real diplomatic deals. But I am intrigued by the degree to which pieces are falling into place, just on the eve of tomorrow’s conference.

First there was the news that Syria will attend the conference. The most telling explanation of what that might mean, I think, is Iran’s response.

Syria’s decision to attend the conference will please many U.S. andIsraeli officials eager to make the talks appear successful. But itwill likely upset Iran, which has become Damascus’ biggest ally at atime when the West and fellow Arab states have spurned the country of19 million over its support for Iranian-backed militants in Lebanon,the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Tehran has vehemently denounced the Annapolis conference.

"They[the U.S. and Israel] intend to deceive a bunch of people who are likethemselves in a watery conference and make them give concessions to thecriminal Zionists," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today,according to the Fars News Agency.

Damascus may have decided tobuck Tehran because Americans met its condition of including the GolanHeights on the agenda and would face criticism as an obstacle to peaceif it then failed to attend, an analyst said.

Sending Moqdadinstead of the more senior foreign minister, Walid Moallem, may be aconcession to Iran, said the analyst, speaking on condition ofanonymity. But Moqdad, a seasoned Syrian diplomat, is considered arelative heavyweight within the Damascus political elite. EmadMustapha, Syria’s well-connected envoy to Washington, will also attendthe talks, the official in Damascus said.

Ahmadinejad andSyrian President Bashar Assad spoke today in a phone conversation andissued a joint statement affirming that conferences such as Annapolis"are destined to failure even before they start," Fars reported.

Usually, Ahmadinejad manages to achieve coherent demagoguery, not this futile sputtering. Which suggests Iran has some real concerns that Syria might be seduced by what it sees in Annapolis. Which is kind of what Colonel Lang thinks:

Read more →

Does this Sound Familiar?

/in , /by

Where have we seen this before: a Bush Administration gives vague guidance to our favored military dictator in a turbulent neighborhood, and the dictator takes a step that might destabilize the whole region.

The Bush Administration knew that Pakistani strongman PervezMusharraf planned to institute emergency rule but did not act or speakout about the plan, according to officials with knowledge of thediscussion who spoke anonymously in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

"In the days before the Nov. 3 announcement, the general’s aides andadvisers forewarned U.S. diplomats in a series of meetings inIslamabad, according to Pakistani and U.S. officials," the paper said.

Because the US response was "muted," Pakistan interpreted Americansilence as a green light to instituting martial law, quickly deposingan intransigent Supreme Court, which had ruled against the general inthe past.

"One of Gen. Musharraf’s closest advisers said U.S. criticism wasmuted, which some senior Pakistanis interpreted as a sign they couldproceed," the Journal said. "’You don’t like that option? Yougive us one,’ the adviser says he told his American interlocutors.’There were no good options.’"

A U.S. official "familiar with the discussions" told the paper thetalks were part of "’intensive efforts’ to dissuade Gen. Musharraf fromdeclaring a state of emergency."

"There was never a green light," the U.S. official told the New York daily. [my emphasis]

Of course, when we offered such vague guidance to Saddam Hussein in July Read more →

Putin Captures Opponent’s Bishop

/in /by

The Saudis Have Been Busy

/in /by

The Saudis appear to be moving three chess pieces at once. I won’t pretend to know what the moves mean. But I’d suggest that the coincidence of the three moves might suggest they’re taking an upper hand in the US policy-making in the Middle East.

Nawaz Sharif

First data point: after preventing former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from returning to Pakistan several weeks ago, the Saudis now appear to be forcing his return on Pervez Musharraf.

Mr. Sharif met Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh yesterday evening, toclear his passage. Previously, Saudi Arabia had been complicit inkeeping Mr. Sharif forcibly in the country under an agreement with Gen.Musharraf, who had told the kingdom’s royal family that it was neededto ensure stability in Pakistan.

However, Saudi Arabia was angered when Gen. Musharraf allowedanother opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, back to Pakistan. The Saudishave always been sympathetic to Mr. Sharif’s pro-religion politics,whereas Ms. Bhutto represents the forces of secularism.

When Mr. Sharif landed in Pakistan in September this year, he wasquickly bundled off to Saudi Arabia by the Musharraf regime. This time,it seems unlikely that Mr. Sharif will be sent packing, as the Saudisare no longer willing to keep him. While Ms. Bhutto has engaged insporadic power-sharing talks with Gen. Musharraf, Mr. Sharif hasdoggedly refused to negotiate with the general.

Musharraf made an unexpected trip to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, at which he discussed Sharif’s return. And Sharif apparently met with the chief of the ISI.

Musharrafhad made a brief visit to Saudi Arabia on November 20 where he met theKing and apparently discussed the issue of Sharif’s return.

Though the military ruler’s spokesmansaid there was no contact between Musharraf and Sharif, it is believedthat Sharif met Lt Gen Nadeem Taj, chief of the Inter-ServicesIntelligence agency, who accompanied Musharraf to Riyadh.

So we’ve got a religious conservative returning to Pakistan in time to contest the election for President–with Saudi support and the potential involvement of the ISI.

Saudis to Attend Annapolis Peace Conference

And then, on the very same day that Sharif was finalizing his plans for return to Pakistan with King Abdullah, the Saudis announced they would attend the Middle East peace conference to be held in Annapolis starting Tuesday.

The US-brokered Annapolis peace conference was given a significantboost yesterday when heavyweight Saudi Arabia decided to send itsforeign minister to the launch of the first peace talks betweenIsraelis and Palestinians in seven years. Syria, Israel’s mostimplacable Arab enemy, signalled that it was now also likely to attend.

PrinceSaud al-Faisal said he would be taking part in next Tuesday’s Marylandsummit as part of an Arab "consensus" of support for the Palestinians -despite near-universal gloom about the prospects of agreement on thetoughest issues.

The decision had as much to do with Arab consensus as it has to do with any events in Pakistan. For whatever reason, it appears the Arab states may believe the Saudi proposal–normalization in return for the pre-67 borders–may be on the table. It even appears possible that Syria will win recognition of its right to the Golan Heights, pretty remarkable given Israel’s apparently successful recent strike in Syria.

Of significance, Bush will personally participate in the Annapolis conference, which might be read as a signal for his support of Condi’s attempts at peace-making over Cheney’s attempts to foment war. And it surely will give whatever discussions occur real emphasis.

Read more →

No, Pakistan Was the Last Big Test. And We Failed It.

/in , , /by

"Serious Person" Michael O’Hanlon and  escalation surge architect Fred Kagan end their op-ed with the following words.

There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly ahumanitarian worry; today it is as much a threat to our basic securityas Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and diplomaticallyprepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be thenext big test. [my emphasis]

I’m just a DFH and not a "serious person" or anything. But I am certain they have this wrong–dead wrong. It highlights the problem of neoconservatism–an acute myopia that therefore cannot see a problem until we’re already in the thick of it and until they can make an argument–however specious–that the only solution is military.

The way in which O’Hanlon and Kagan conceive of Pakistan "becoming the next big test" is the perfect illustration of this. They describe the events that need to occur for them to take some action–and of course, action is exclusively military.

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the UnitedStates simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descendedinto the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw ourforces from an improving situation in Iraq Read more →

Oil Bucks

/in , /by

I’m a determined skeptic about broadcast "accidents." But for the life of me, I can’t understand the precise goal of allowing a discussion about not discussing the falling dollar at the OPEC summit to be caught on tape. Here’s the Financial Times’ version of events–which depicts it as disagreement about the underlying issue. 

In a landmark summit, leaders of the Organisation of the PetroleumExporting Countries are meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were dividedover how they should respond to the weakness of the US dollar, whichhas fallen 16 per cent this year against a basket of leading currencies.

Thedollar has dropped 44 per cent against the euro since Opec leaders lastmet in Caracas, Venezuela in 2000. Opec members are also divided aboutwhether the group should seek to play a greater role in world politicsas well as in the oil market.

The disagreement was revealed whena ministerial meeting Friday afternoon, supposed to be in closedsession, was accidentally broadcast live to reporters for about 30minutes, before Saudi officials cut off the transmission.

But look atBloomberg’s version:

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largestcrude oil exporter, rejected a proposal by Iran and Venezuela todiscuss the weak dollar at this weekend’s OPEC summit in Riyadh,saying it didn’t want the U.S. currency Read more →

image_print