A new grand bargain?
More and more people are saying that the NIE which said Iran had stopped its nuclear programme is a load of old bull. At the weekend, the Sunday Telegraph reported that British intelligence believes the NIE’s authors were hoodwinked by disinformation from Iran:
The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. ‘We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off. It's not as if the American intelligence agencies are regarded as brilliant performers in that region. They got badly burned over Iraq.’
A US intelligence source has revealed that some American spies share the concerns of the British and the Israelis. ‘Many middle-ranking CIA veterans believe Iran is still committed to producing nuclear weapons and are concerned that the agency lost a number of its best sources in Iran in 2004,’ the official said.
On this blog on December 5, I floated the theory that the US had done a deal with both Iran and Saudi Arabia to produce calm in Iraq in return for a promise not to bomb Iran and to serve Israel to them on a plate. Now Debkafile -- whose bulletins, based on intelligence sources, are not reliable but often contain more than a germ of truth -- is reporting a grander version of the same theory. It claims that a Washington-Tehran understanding is in the making, brokered by Saudi Arabia.
According to Washington and intelligence sources, the first steps of the dialogue were made possible by the US National Intelligence Estimate of Dec. 3 affirming that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been put on hold in 2003. This public statement effectively took the US military option off the table, as stipulated by Riyadh and Tehran.
The Saudis have been offering to mediate the US-Iranian dispute since the beginning of 2007. In early November, DEBKA-Net-Weekly disclosed, the White House announced it was ready to deal. But first, Tehran must undertake to halt its arms smuggling into Iraq, guarantee non-interference in the election of the next Lebanese president later that month and tacitly approve Syrian participation in the Middle East conference at Annapolis on Nov. 27. Furthermore, Iran must guarantee not to torpedo the conference, to which the administration attached the highest importance, by unleashing its terrorist pawns against Israel.
Shortly after DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s exclusive disclosure, the well-connected Saudi journalist Jihad El-Khazen gave his version of the course of events in the Arab newspaper Al-Hayat : ‘Here is what happened: The rate of violent acts dropped in Iraq; therefore the American intelligence services discovered that Iran had halted its military nuclear program in 2003. This means that the resumption of violence will make American intelligence services find out that there is a secret military program that is different from the peaceful and famous one.’
The Saudi reporter went on to ask: ‘Is there a deal between the Bush administration and Iran? I cannot categorically assert that a deal was concluded between the two parties through direct negotiations; however, there is an understanding resulting in the 2007 national intelligence report.’Saudi and American sources told DEBKAfile that President George W. Bush used the Annapolis conference as a piece of theater, which presented a sham moderate Arab front against Iran to disguise the intense work underway on a Saudi-mediated accommodation between Washington and Tehran.
The Bush administration appears to be in the midst of developing a new foreign strategy based on five key elements:1. The halt of Iranian weapons and road bomb shipments into Iraq for use against US forces;
2. An Iranian instruction to Hizballah to open the way for the election of a Lebanese president, in return for which Washington will not interfere with the formation of a new government with a place of honor for the Iranian surrogate militia.
In other words, the Bush administration is not only engaged in a sellout of the Israeli government but also of the pro-Western Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora.
3. The cessation of Iranian arms and roadside bombs to Afghanistan.4. The naming of Saudi Arabia as a channel for arbitrating American and Iranian differences.
5. A US pledge to backtrack on its charges that the Iran is engaged in developing nuclear weapons. This pledge was embodied in the dramatically revised US National Intelligence Estimate compared with its estimate of 2005, and effectively lifted not only the American military axe from over Iran’s strategic and economic infrastructure – and possibly regime - but also tied Israel’s hands.
Far from creating a new strategic realignment with Saudi against Iran, therefore, American Baker/Hamilton/Gates 'realism' would appear to have pushed Saudi into bed with Iran. What a disaster.
Previous
Blogs: Clive Davis | Stephen Pollard | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (19)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Search this blog
Melanie's Published Articles
Has Bush forgotten his own doctrine?
Britain’s dangerous political vacuum
Sleepwalking into Islamisation
Can we afford to lose this expertise?
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
2 for 1 Cruise Sale
Exclusive web deals and latest ship reviews.
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
City Breaks. ROME and PARIS
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Jewellery. RUFFS (Estd. 1904).
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Geoff Miller
December 11th, 2007 7:38amHad these people never heard of the phrase "lying Arabs"? My uncle Tommy spent much of WWII in the desert and learnt that the saying had more than a little truth in it. Would that our representatives were a little more worldy wise.
Austin Barry
December 11th, 2007 8:38amSooner or later Israel will go it alone and attack Iranian missile sites. It has spent, per Debka, six years and billions of dollars preparing for the event, but predicated on the proposition that the US would participate. With a wobbly US, Israel will have to re-think its tactics, but war is now more like rather than less. Well, done Bush, you've played a blinder.
Spiegel
December 11th, 2007 8:49amChickenhawk Phillips strikes again! And why should the Americans be talking to Saudi at all? Remember who brought the Twin Towers down?
Bob Latchford
December 11th, 2007 10:50amyou know its quite strange, I dont remember Ms Phillips offering such critical analysis of the American intelligence that told us that Iraq had the capability to shower us with WMD's in less than an hour?
ASG
December 11th, 2007 11:22amWith this seductive scenario of Saudi Arabian perfidiousness, where all the political pawns are being maneuvered into place by the hand of Saudi Arabia, to achieve calm in Iraq for the benefit of Washington at the expense of Israel is another indicator of the hypocrisy of the controversial American academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
Ian C
December 11th, 2007 12:27pmLets hope this scenario is wrong. Saudi Arabia were always going to be key in resolving the M/east, terrorism etc simply becuase of their oil, their wealth and their geographical position. The question was always 'what role will they play?' and 'how will it end for the Saudi elite'? Bush so blew the US credibilty (thanks to Rumsfeld's invasion light strategy and the presumption they would be welcomed into Iraq) that he clearly finds himself having to entertain preposterous scenarios such as that painted in this one - and it is very possible it is right (smoke and fire etc.) It alters nothing and confirms that we are in the modern equivalent of the 1930's (and there will be differences when the history books are written) but to assume otherwise would be stupidity writ large. And Bush will deserve the title of worst president ever and the Saudi royals and wider elite will get their come uppance as reward for their part in the consequences.
Ian C
December 11th, 2007 12:29pmLets hope this scenario is wrong. Saudi Arabia were always going to be key in resolving the M/east, terrorism etc simply because of their oil, their wealth and their geographical position. The question was always 'what role will they play?' and 'how will it end for the Saudi elite'? Bush so blew the US credibility (thanks to Rumsfeld's invasion light strategy and the presumption they would be welcomed into Iraq) that he clearly finds himself having to entertain preposterous scenarios such as that painted in this one - and it is very possible it is right (smoke and fire etc.) It alters nothing and confirms that we are in the modern equivalent of the 1930's (and there will be differences when the history books are written) but to assume otherwise would be stupidity writ large. And Bush will deserve the title of worst president ever and the Saudi royals and wider elite will get their come-uppance as reward for their part in it all.
Bob Hatton
December 11th, 2007 12:38pmSo it's all down to "lying Arabs" and the power of the Saudi Lobby?
john
December 11th, 2007 1:12pmShortly thereafter (our) exclusive disclosure, the well-connected Saudi journalist Jihad El-Khazen gave his version of the course of events in the Arab newspaper Al-Hayat :
"Here is what happened: The rate of violent acts dropped in Iraq; therefore the American intelligence services discovered that Iran had halted its military nuclear program in 2003. This means that the resumption of violence will make American intelligence services find out that there is a secret military program that is different from the peaceful and famous one.
The Saudi reporter went on to ask: "Is there a deal between the Bush administration and Iran? I cannot categorically assert that a deal was concluded between the two parties through direct negotiations; however, there is an understanding resulting in the 2007 national intelligence report.”
Lynne Teperman
December 11th, 2007 3:10pmSaudi Arabia in cahoots with Iran. Given the intense sectarian-based rivalry between the two nations that's gone on since the overthrow of the last Shah, I find it rather hard to believe that the Saudis would want to see a nuclear-armed Iran.
Huw Thornton
December 11th, 2007 8:54pmGosh, is there nobody who is not involved in this rotten conspiracy? But, seriously Melanie, are you arguing that it should be USA policy simply to destroy the Iranian regime, irrespective of whether it is currently developing a nuclear weapons capability or not? And if so could this be brought about by air strikes? And how many air strikes would you need, given that the effect would probably be to cause most Iranians to rally round their government?
Alex
December 11th, 2007 10:26pmAnd what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn't it?
Alex
December 11th, 2007 10:30pmAnd what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn't it?
Al Ramy
December 12th, 2007 1:04amIsraelis regard Debka as a one off! Debka is a folkloric Middle Eastern dance, which has little to do with Israel, yet the authors are Israeli. While their pasted theory sounds possible, considering the conflicted Bush family history,(Papa was a "Spy Master" and no friend of Israel) every modern POTUS (Pres. of the U.S.) goes for this legacy thing which fails and the wreckage is left for the next POTUS...the dogs bark and the caravan moves on! The Jews will pay for their follies, trusting a friend and for being restrained. It happened before- 1956!
paul hill
December 12th, 2007 11:40pmUntil recently nearly all U.S human intelligence (Humint) was provided by Israeli assets in the various "player" nations in the area. As part of their entirely sensible policy of having their fighting done for them by dumber but more muscular nations recent('96 onwards)Israeli administrations have condoned the "bending" of this intelligence to repeatedly get fairly heavy handed intervention in the area. However as Uncle Winston told us "You can't fool all of the people.....etc,etc. The C.I.A is now actually being run by smart (although U.S armed forces aligned)professional intelligence officers,instead of neo-con sock puppets. By dint of very intensive scrutiny they are building a VERY good picture of Iran and coming up with a lot of very different conclusions. Just to make it even more interesting they now have a pretty good handle on how Israeli intelligence was "bent" and more interestingly on who did the "bending".Even more interestingly ,possession of these two last nuggets makes them entirely bullet proof-hence last weeks report
Mladen Andrijasevic
December 13th, 2007 6:06pmGingrich’s September 10, 2007 speech is even more interesting. Apparently, he, John Bolton and Giuliani are the only ones who understand what is going on. http://www.americansolutions.com/blog/Read.aspx?guid=a7194460-7659-435c-af7e-4c060b60ab34
Marcus
December 13th, 2007 6:55pmDiplomacy with Iran is of crucial importance, and the only road that should be taken.
J. Isaacs
December 13th, 2007 9:25pmHow does paul "bender" hill obtain such sensitive intelligence? Maybe he bends over backwards to make friends in secret places. But even his secret places are not bullet proof and perhaps he too is being shafted.
Paul Hill
December 19th, 2007 11:31pmMr Isaacs.I'm very sorry not to have replied sooner to your message;please accept my apologies. Rather than providing the public domain information which is probably rather tedious, and which you may already be familiar with, might I ask you watch the events of the next few months as confirmation of the accuracy of my last post. In particular please pay attention to the following:- 1) The American intelligence community will continue to correct the picture with regard to Iran and (probably) Syria 2)The marzipan layer neo-cons will splutter and fume about this with absolutely NO result 3) U.S forces will increasingly be deployed to the South of Iraq using the Basra airbase as a jumping off point 4)IMHO (and this is speculative)the State Department will then sanction a three way split of Iraq into a Kurdish North,an Iranian Shia dominated South and an "Iraqi" central belt centred on Baghdad. 5) The U.S. Chiefs of Staff will reveal the facts about what has gone on in the intelligence and foreign policy arenas with as much force as they are constitutionally allowed at the beginning of the Presidential campaigns.More speculatively I think it's possible that by using (say) the American Legion that the armed forces will try to compel candidates to investigate what has gone on and pledge that politics led intelligence gathering is never allowed to happen again If you wish to reply please be courteous and factual-splenetic and content free posting tends rather to confirm me in my views