Chalabi and Iran

There really isn't enough information out on the emerging story that Ahmed Chalabi was giving information to the Iranians, and that his "information collection program" was run out of Teheran.
 see here.

But here are some thoughts.  It does seem like it all goes back to Iran-Contra.  The Iranians helped us there and then were "betrayed" when the switch to Saddam happened and we helped him stave off the Iranians.  The Iranians must have been pissed ever since.  

The various theories don't have to be mutually exclusive.  The INC, with help from the Iranians, peddled stuff through the 90's, but no one bought except Trent Lott, Jesse Helms (who got Congress to fund the INC) and the neocons.  The neocons bought because it played into their own fantasy about helping Israel.  (Perle really should get into a warm bath and slit his wrists.)  Cheney bought it because it played into his fantasy of dominating the world with the help of his cronies at Halliburton et al. And Chalabi played it because he really wanted to get back into power in Iraq and rebuild the family fortune.

Meanwhile, the Iranians played their devious game, and they appear to have achieved their objectives.  The US took out Saddam and, in the process, alienated pretty much all of the Muslim world.  And we have so depleted our military forces that an attack on Iran by anything but nukes is impossible now. (We forget that Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq with double the populaiton.  If we can't subdue the one, we certainly can't subdue the other. And Iran probably has enough nukes to take out Israel if we do that.  So it is highly unlikey this is a neocon plot to  attack on Iran.) Yes, there are 150,000 troops next door to Iran, but they won't be there long.

The only remaining question is whether Iran was involved with 9/11 as a way to create the "catalyst" that the neocons had been saying was necessary to mobilize US opinion to move on Iraq.  Certainly bin Laden hated the US, but did he get an assist from Teheran?

One small detail cleared up:  The famous yellowcake forgery came from Iran, via Manuchar Ghorbanifar to Michael Ledeen.  What a tangled web we weave.  Maybe it will now ensnare Cheney and the neocons.  One can only hope.

•  Here are some more thoughts

  The plan was that Chalabi would be installed as the new gov't in Iraq.  Iran surely knew Saddam didn;t have WMD and that his army was toothless, so they expected a quick victory and not necessarily a long occupation.  or they expected more or less what we got.  Either way we are so tied up that it doesn't threaten iran all that much.  

  Why is it all coming out now, when much of this story has been known?  One, those who didn't bite on the Iranian disinformation are now strong enough to try to fight back against the neocons.  Two, the WMD intell committee is gearing up and someone(s) didn't want it to be a whitewash. Three, Bush/Rove are so pissed at how badly it all turned out that they are going to use this as a vehicle to get rid of Rummy, Wolfowitz and the neocons in the hope a "clean slate" is going to resurrect his campaign.  Four, the media are upset that Hersh got the prisoner story and so are primed to jump on something this juicy.  Just wait.

  If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

  by Mimikatz on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:42:56 AM PDT

  •  Also

    I think one of the reasons this came out is bc Jordan came up with the definitive proof that Chalabi was feeding Iran information.

    I don't think Rove wants this to come out before the election, though. It basically would prove the Iraq war to be the biggest F~ckup ever, which is not really what you want to run on.

    by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:11:56 AM PDT

  •  You make a persuasive case

    by gaianne on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:44:50 AM PDT

•  Clarifications

  First, the yellowcake forgeries went through Italy. They first got offered to a journalist whose editor (a close associated of Berlusconi) made her bring them to the US. Which doesn't mean it's not Ghorbanifar (although, actually, I doubt he's involved with the part of the Iranian govt that has stagemanaged this).

  Second, here's how I think the relevant history goes:

  1953. : The US sponsors a coup in Iran. Khomeini is tangentially involved.
  1960. s: Chalabi first makes the association of Perle and Wolfowitz through U Chicago connections.
  1979. : After 25 years of working on building an opposition, Khomeini et al take over in Iran.

  Chalabi establishes a relationship with the clerical government at this point.

  Also, covert BushCo relations with Iran start almost immediately, as they negotiate with the Iranian government to hold onto the hostages until after the election (this has the side-effect of strengthening the more hardline faction in Iran). They are playing both sides from the start, basically pitting Iran against Iraq to neutralize both. The initial weapons deals with Iran, however, are the beginning of the larger Iran-Contra net.

  1982. : Iran starts to strike back against the US/Israel by sponsoring Hizbollah in Lebanon.
  1980. s: Chalabi's bank funds one or more of the Shia militias in Lebanon.
  1983. -84: Iran-sponsored Hizbollah bombs US embassy  and Marine barracks in Lebanon; after promising to "stay the course," Reagan the "surrender monkey" withdraws.
  1989. : Chalabi, who had been in Beirut and then Jordan goes into exile in London.
  1995. : Chalabi, who has tried to get CIA backing for uprisings in Iraq, loses their support before a failed coup attempt. At this point, he starts to woo the neocons.
  1996. : The neocons (Feith and Perle) develop a strategy for Israel--with the help of Chalabi intelligence--advocating an invasion of IRaq.
  1998. : The neocons (Wolfowitz and Rummy) write a letter to Clinton advocating regime change in Iraq. The plan makes support for Chalabi's INC government policy.

  Al Qaeda declares jihad on the US. They have at least partially modelled themselves on Hizbollah.

  2000. : Israel withdraws from Lebanon. (Victory for Hizbollah and, by association, Iran.)
  2001. : Bush is elected, the neocons lay the groundwork for the Iraq war using gamed intelligence from Chalabi.
  2002. : Several leaders of Al Qaeda are under "house arrest" in Iran. These include bin Laden's son and chosen successor. Iran tries to deal these AQ members off to a third country--preferably to Saudi Arabia--but the US won't deal. It's not clear to what degee the AQ leaders are under arrest and to what degree they are the guest of one faction of the Iranian government.
  2003. : War starts in Iraq.
  2004. : Rising strength of Muqtada al Sadr, another client of Iran.

  I'm missing a lot here (and I'm sure there are some mistakes--so please correct me).

  But it certainly appears that this could be the result of MANY years of planning, certainly at least since the Revolution. And it seems like it could be part of a larger strategy against the US and Israel. As I said, it's not clear what the relationshiph between AQ and Iran is right now, but it is clear that the US is tremendously exposed. If we lose this war and a Shiite religious government sponsored by Iran takes over, then we may lose access to a lot of oil. And, Saudi Arabia looks very exposed as well, since their oil fields are in a majority Shiite area...

  May you live in interesting times...

  by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:07:41 AM PDT

  •  Very good compilation of info

    I think what you say makes sense.

    My source on the yellowcake is Josh Marshall.  he had a post that traced the info from Ghorbanifar, whom he placed in Rome at the crucial time, to the Italian businessman who gave it to the journalist.  I can't remember exactly Ledeen's involvenment, but I think he was the conduit to get it back to the US so quickly.  Marshall placed him in Rome at the crucial time as well.

    If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

    by Mimikatz on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:18:57 AM PDT

    •  Oh, okay

      Thanks, I forgot about that. Since he posted that, several other plausible pieces of info have come up (such as it was done by CIA agents to embarrass Cheney), so I forgot about this.

      Ledeen was caught meeting with Ghorbanifar not long before us, if I remember correctly.

      by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:27:00 AM PDT

  •  interesting

    # s: Chalabi's bank funds one or more of the Shia militias in Lebanon.

    Is that just speculation on your part, or have you seen it somewhere?

    by praktike on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:38:31 AM PDT

    •  Salon report

      It was most recently reported in the scathing Salon article. Here's a key graf:

      One of the key Shia institutions in Lebanon was MEBCO in Beirut, which by the 1980s had become a banker for the Shia Amal militia. Amal and Hezbollah were the principal private armies in Lebanon tied to the regime in Iran. Chalabi was placing Petra depositors' money with MEBCO in those years; by the time Petra collapsed in 1989, bank auditors found, the equivalent of $41 million in transactions with MEBCO were on the books. "All the Lebanese banks were divided between political parties and factions," says Hassan Abdul Aziz, a former director at Petra Bank. "MEBCO bank was no different. All the Shia were close to Iran emotionally or otherwise." A former CIA case officer in Lebanon has a less sympathetic view. "This was basically funding a civil war, which meant murders, assassinations, and blowing up Israelis. MEBCO was putting their chips on every square." Iran and the Shite militias were not the only violent elements destabilizing Lebanon in the '70s and '80s, of course. The bloody Israeli invasions of Lebanon, along with later punitive expeditions, inflamed the Shia and other Lebanese.

      by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:46:39 AM PDT

      •  hmmm

        how'd I miss that?

        Now, this could well be nothing.

        But it don't look pretty.

        by praktike on Sat May 22, 2004 at 01:04:05 PM PDT

•  More details

  Iran's ally is first and foremost Russia. Some geopolitical strategists have argued that Bush went into Iraq in a face-off with Putin.

  I would bet grandma and the farm that Iran had nothing to do with 9-11. Khatami and the reformers done much to thaw relations with Washington.

  Bush decided to go to war before recruiting this motley crew of exiles, yellowcake stories and shadowy go-betweens.

  by paper tigress on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:52:55 AM PDT

  •  One of the few things I have

    caught all along is the low and quiet laughter of Putin.  While Bush thought he saw into his soul, and whatever else Bush was looking at...

    by Marisacat on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:57:51 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      The Gentleman's C versus a crafty old KGB operative. Who do you think is going to get the upper hand. Shrub should never have been allowed near Putin.

      I have some questions, now that tigress has raised the Russian connection.

      First, remember the Russian diplomats attacked on their way out of Baghdad. Probably carrying intelligence. Do we still assume that this was the US trying to get at some documents Russia wouldn't want to bring to light?

      Second, if this is an elaborate Iranian plot, how far into is Russia? Was their opposition to the war, then, token opposition? If Iran takes over in Iraq (through a Moqtada puppet, presumably), how many oil contracts will Russia really get?

      Third, how does the larger oil market play in. Obviously, if Iran takes over with the Moqtada puppet, it will be the big player in oil. It, plus Russia could be the REALLY BIG PLAYER. And heck, if the Shiites in the Saudi oil field get riled over the Najaf bombing...never mind. But anyway, does Iran want to control the oil market with Russia, or instead of them?

      by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:16:56 AM PDT

      •  Russian Oil Robber Barons

        Putin locked up the Russian oil robber barons(and they have connections to Israel, no less).

        Putin isn't that clever.  He was an average neighborhood kid from the playground with a burning desire to grow up to be a spook. The difference is that Putin keeps a poker face and has better set of advisors than Bush. Dumbya believed he could corrupt Putin (remember that week at Berlusconi's private estate on the Mediterranean) but Putin is a fervent nationalist, it didn't work.

        Russia has centuries of expertise in dealing with Asia and Islamic interests. Centuries! I think Putin realized he was indirectly attacked by the Americans in Iraq and has reacted by joining the Paris-Berlin-Moscow entente.  This should send quivers down Dumbya's spine. These are old European powers with cash, territory, brains and desire to give the US a bloody nose.

        by paper tigress on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:33:32 AM PDT

        •  Not to mention

          The EU just traded WTO support for Russia in exchange for Russian support of Kyoto (not to mention the end of energy subsidies to Russian companies). The EU has been looking for that Kyoto support for two years now.

          by emptywheel on Sat May 22, 2004 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

      •  Must disagree --

        Don't know enough about Putin to comment on his creativity or emotional/psychological make-up, but the man is not of average intelligence.  He's very smart -- way above average.

        by Marie on Sat May 22, 2004 at 03:38:19 PM PDT

•  Shifting sands

  erase footprints of friends and foes.

  Good info and thoughts on this diary.

  What would be really interesting would be to come at this from multiple perspectives traced through the years (from at least 1945 on).  (That's what makes Phillip's Bush book so good.)

  1. Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
  2. Shia, Sunni, Shite and Wahabi
  3. Cold War (US/Soviet Union) and CIA - (this is critical.  Must not overlook Carter's attempt to clean house in his term.  That let some "spooks" out there as free agents) and PNAC.
  4. Vietnam - Scoop Jackson and his acolytes; "October surprise;" Lebanon marine barracks bombing; Afghanistan; Iran-Contra; Iran/Iraq War; Gulf War.

  It's a mosaic but the key players in all these years are all linked.  The one link that I would find very hard to accept in the absence of rock solid evidence is 9/11 to Iran, Iraq, or the Palestinians or any state for that matter.  9/11 is simply too clever in plan and yet too weak in analysis of potential outcomes to suggest an action by any state.  Not to say that states have not minded OBL's jabs at the US, but none of them would be anywhere near an action to attack NY and DC.  The OBL team is merely a much smarter, better funded and more patient version of the McVeigh team.  Vicious actors, not states.

  by Marie on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:15:23 AM PDT