The Deep Game

My article from last week, ’The Iranian Spy in the House of Bush’, which took a close look at accusations leveled at the White House’s favorite Iraqi Ahmad Chalabi, generated a number of interesting responses from truthout readers. Pointedly, many refused to believe that stories suggesting Chalabi was acting as an agent of Iran in the run-up to the Iraq invasion were anything more than another Bush administration plot, the purpose of which was to gin up national support for an attack against Iran.

The logic people offered to support the idea that we are merely getting jobbed by the Bush crew again is straightforward, and not easily cast aside. This administration has been, since day one of their White House occupation and even before, running the game plan created by the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. A central component of their imperial designs is the need to attack, invade and overthrow many, if not all, Middle Eastern regimes, thus bringing ‘democracy’ to the region. Iran has been a central part of the plan; it is difficult to miss the intent behind the addition that nation to the ‘Axis of Evil.’ What better way to create support for the next phase of the PNAC plan, goes the argument, than to devise a scenario by which America was under an intelligence attack from Iran by way of Chalabi?

Chalabi is accused of passing highly sensitive signal intelligence to the Iranian government. Specifically, he is accused of informing Iran that the United States had broken one of their most important codes, and was basically able to read their mail. Clearly, there is more going on here than immediately meets the eye. The argument that the White House has conjured these accusations against Chalabi for their own military ends, however, fails in the face of several facts.

First of all, it has been known for years in intelligence circles that Ahmad Chalabi had strong connections to Iran. He bragged to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter in 1997 that he had “tremendous connections with Iranian intelligence.” Chalabi’s aide, Aras Karim Habib, has also been a known associate of Iranian intelligence for years. The recent raid on Chalabi’s residence in Iraq was aimed more at Habib than Chalabi. Habib escaped capture in the raid, and is believed to have fled to Terhan. Seized in that raid, however, was the personal Koran of Chalabi. The book carried an inscription from former Iranian ruler Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini himself. The inscription read, “To My Son, Ahmad.”

Evidence to support allegations that Chalabi has been acting in the interests of Iran goes back some ten years. In 1994, Chalabi conjured an Iraqi defector named Khidir Hamza, who claimed to be a senior member of Hussein's nuclear weapons team. According to Hamza, Iraq was very close to completing the development of nuclear weapons. He was given to CIA agents, who subsequently decided he was utterly without credibility. Imad Khadduri, the Iraqi nuclear physicist who was in charge of documenting nuclear development stated flatly that Hamza, “Did not, even remotely, get involved in any scientific research, except for journalistic articles, dealing with the fission bomb, its components or its effects."

Hamza, in attempting to establish his credibility, coughed up a 20-page document which apparently been developed by "Group 4," the Iraqi department responsible for designing nuclear weaponry. At first, the report appeared to be damning evidence that Hussein was developing nuclear weaponry in defiance of UN sanctions. After a further review by the International Atomic Energy Agency, however, it was determined that the report was ”not authentic."

In fact, analysis suggests this purported Iraqi nuclear document was, in fact, a manufactured fraud created by Iranian intelligence. Several technical descriptions in the report used phrases that would only be used by an Iranian. The use of the term 'dome,’ 'Qubba' in Iranian, instead of 'hemisphere,' which is 'Nisuf Kura' in Arabic, is particularly instructive. The usage of these words indicate the document was originally written in Farsi by an Iranian scientist and then translated into Arabic.

Iran, apparently, was creating and disbursing false information intended to demonstrate that Hussein was building nuclear weapons. This particular fraud, and Hamza himself, was used repeatedly to justify the invasion of Iraq. It appears to have been a masterful intelligence operation out of Terhan, one that came to the attention of American officials by way of Ahmad Chalabi. Thus, the new accusations that Chalabi is a tool of Iran have a basis in past activities.

Why would a man with such connections to the anti-American regime in Iran be tolerated in the highest circles of American government? The answer lies in the old Middle Eastern axiom: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Chalabi’s Iranian contacts were tolerated for so long because he was working to the same end as many within the United States, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Over time, Chalabi developed deep connections with CIA, and more importantly, with many who are now power-brokers within the federal government. He became, most specifically, a prized ally of the cabal of neoconservative hawks which includes Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and William Luti. These men helped engineer legislation in Congress which eventually funneled some $100 million into Chalabi’s organization, the Iraqi National Congress. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, they created a special intelligence-manipulation bureau within the State Department called the Office of Special Plans. It was here that accusations of vast Iraqi stockpiles of WMDs, nuclear capabilities and al Qaeda connections were manufactured and disbursed. Chalabi was the main source for these now-debunked accusations.

Chalabi had been chosen by Don Rumsfeld to be the next leader of Iraq, a position which suited Chalabi’s all-encompassing desire to come into possession of Iraq’s vast oil revenues. He promised Rumsfeld and the hawks that he would create a secular Shia government that would immediately make peace with Israel. In other words, he told the PNAC crew exactly what they wanted to hear; a central aspect of the PNAC plan to enact ‘regime change’ across the Middle East was, in their minds, about the defense of Israel via the removal of threatening governments.

The wheels came off when none of Chalabi’s information – about the weapons of mass destruction, about the nuclear capabilities, about the al Qaeda connections, about the ease with which America would occupy Iraq – turned out to be true. Chalabi feld the winds of his fortune changing and, still filled with the desire to rule Iraq in the manner Rumsfeld had promised long ago, turned on his former friends. He began fashioning himself as a martyr for the Iraqi people, began attacking America with the same rhetoric used by Moqtada al Sadr and other radical clerics, in order to develop a power base with the fundamentalist Shia community. Promises to make peace with Israel at some point were exposed as the lies they were.

Thus, the White House approved the move to send soldiers into Chalabi’s compound, to cut off his fat monthly paychecks, and to distance him from the struggle for power in Iraq. According to Newsweek, the final straw for Chalabi came when Bush and Cheney, “were briefed several weeks ago about intelligence indicating that someone in Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress gave the Iranian government ‘extremely sensitive’ and ‘highly classified’ info which could jeopardize U.S. intelligence sources and even ‘get people killed.’ Intelligence sources say potential suspects for the leak include Chalabi himself and his intelligence chief, Aras Habib.” The data given to Iran, sensitive signal intelligence that let Iran know we had broken some of their codes, is a damaging breach of national security.

Is this Chalabi story a calculated ruse by the Bush administration to get the Bush people off the hook for this Iraq disaster by scapegoating Chalabi? Given all the facts at hand, it seems highly unlikely.

It is difficult to imagine a worse situation for the Bush administration than what is currently unfolding. Chalabi is completely the creation of those running the White House and the Pentagon. This is widely known. If it is true that, as they were anointing Chalabi, he was funneling Iranian disinformation straight to the highest levels of our government, who subsequently gave him intelligence data which he handed over to Iran…if this is indeed true, it is a disaster of millennial proportions for the administration. It reveals this White House to be saps, played like violins by Iran in a masterful intelligence operation that removed a long-time enemy of Tehran while setting the stage for a fundamentalist Shia regime in Iraq that would become a boon ally. It is difficult to fathom how any aspect of this helps George W. Bush and his crew.

Is this Chalabi story a calculated ruse by the Bush administration to create an environment where war against Iran would be acceptable? Clearly, they would like this conflict to become a reality. But reality, in this matter, interferes. Consider a call for war in Iran. The immediate questions would be:

* With whose army? Our troops in Iraq are badly stretched, and there aren't many Reserves left. The UN won't have anything to do with another invasion. It is difficult to believe that we would dare use Israel as a proxy force, because we'd lose every other country in the region overnight, including Pakistan, which actually has nuclear weapons.

* With whose vote? Congresspeople have constituents, and the constituents are badly disturbed by Iraq already. The war is a mess, and Congress has more than enough political cover to say 'no' this time around. It isn't 2002 anymore.

* With what money? Bush has spent hundreds of billions on Afghanistan and Iraq, and has failed (quietly on the first and spectacularly on the second). Because of Iraq, Congress can, and almost certainly will, say no to Iran spending.

* With which Pentagon? If you believe Sid Blumenthal’s report that the officer corps in the Pentagon is on the edge of revolt because of what has taken place already, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they would sit still for yet another military action.

No, this is the real deal. The White House has been forced to turn on one of their most important allies because his involvement with Iranian intelligence has been exposed. The American intelligence community despised Chalabi because Bush and his people cut them out of the loop in favor of Chalabi, and then turned around and blamed the intelligence community when Chalabi’s data turned out to be bogus.

Last summer, I wrote that one scapegoats the CIA at their mortal peril. This, a year later, appears to be the final revenge of the intelligence community against an administration that insulted, suppressed and blamed them for the failures of the neoconservative hawks. The fact that the White House provided the hanging rope, in the guise of the badly compromised Ahmad Chalabi, only makes this dish all the colder.

CIA's revenge, Bush's aim to gin up war with Iraq. Solid analysis. Outstanding. Thanks Mr. Pitt for your work, keeping us on the right track. These are facts that, although long known by some, should be repeated until they become a standard refrain in tune with our opposition to Bush's manufactured war in Iraq and his calculated meddling in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian people have been more inclined to support America than anyone in the Middle East. I do not see Iran as a great enemy of America?? So, even if Chalabi got the Shiites in power, would that really be so bad for America if they are allied with Iran???

then yes. As of right now, however, the Iranian people are not in control of the country.

are not in charge of America either.

Government and religion should be never intertwined ESPECIALLY not a shiia government.

Chalabi is the pivot in a Shakespearean drama...he sells a ruse to a regime eager to buy - and re-sell - a justification for war. Bought and paid for until events, the ruse unravels.

Thanks, William.

One trifles with the CIA at one's own peril. Disclosure of Chalabi's ties to Iranian intelligence could very well be payback for 'outing' Valerie Plame.

Regarding use of Chalabi as an excuse for going to war with Iran: it doesn't work. It would be far simpler for the Bush regime to fabricate interdiction of a WMD cache from Iran. Predicating a war on fake intelligence reports wouldn't garner much support among US allies or on the homefront.

then shouldn't he be arrested, detained, tried and perhaps convicted?

I particularly like the last part of the article with the big questions that make it unlikely this is a Bush cabal plot.

Is it just me, or does it feel really weird to think that on this one the CIA might actually be on the side of the angels? :)

Some nits:

paragraph two...it should be "it is difficult to miss the intent behind the addition of that nation to the ‘Axis of Evil.’" You leftout the "of".

Paragraph 6...it should be "Hamza, in attempting to establish his credibility, coughed up a 20-page document which had apparently been developed by "Group 4,". The "had" is missing.

Paragraph 12...gotta little typo. Feld instead of felt. :)

Paragraph 15...this sentence is a little clunky. " If it is true that, as they were anointing Chalabi, he was funneling Iranian disinformation straight to the highest levels of our government, who subsequently gave him intelligence data which he handed over to Iran…if this is indeed true, it is a disaster of millennial proportions for the administration."

I left that idea behind though after about a week or so because as you point out : "It is difficult to imagine a worse situation for the Bush administration than what is currently unfolding."

wondering.

Neocon Lets Cat Out of Bag
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/neocon_lets_cat_out_of_bag.php

Well, says Rubin, who served as one the Pentagon’s liaisons to Chalabi, that’s exactly what they want you to think:

“Much of the information he collected was to roll up the insurgency and Ba'athist cells. It caught people red-handed," said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser who is now at a conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

"By telegraphing that he is not the favorite son of America, the administration will bolster him, showing he is his own man."

in putting as much distance between Bush and this scandal as possible. "It isn't true, they just *want* you to think it's true."

The problem here is that most of the assholes who ginned up this war, and Chalabi, are graduates of the AEI Neo-Con assembly line. PNAC itself was an outgrowth from AEI. As goes Chalabi, so goes AEI and PNAC. I'm not likely to take Rubin's word, accordingly.

Remember, Rummy said, "I'm a survivor".

I agree. By the time I read this editorial on truthout, a week after the TomPaine article, I had all but abandoned the idea. Your editorial was the last push I needed to leave the idea behind completely.

Thanks!

It is a "deep game". Who knows what the intent of the CIA is or was? I seriously doubt that they were played by Chalabi. More likely, they used Chalabi to get what they wanted...IMO

(note, link is busted)

Coup?

Strike?

Wait for November and vote Dem?

If it was the CIA who made public Chalabi's activities with Iranian Intelligence, it could be not only revenge for the Plame incident, but yet another move against the neocons in the defense dept.
A few more nits:
I believe that Iranians speak Farsi or Persian, not "Iranian" (p. 7).
Again, check but I recall that the Office of Special Plans was set up in Defense, not the State Dept. (para 10).

MAGNIFICENT. As usual.

but with a coherence I couldn't bring to it. Excellent piece, will.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060104A.shtml

Thanks for the help, everyone. Suggested changes were made.

why aren't you obeying?

later, I've run out of time. :kick:

while keeping the marionette strings attached.

The suggestion that Chalabi fooled the US on WMDs and thus caused the war I find ridiculous. The invasion was going ahead whether or not there were WMDs, and Chalabi may have provided false cover but I do not think he affected prevailing opinion on this matter within the White House. To believe this is to believe the official reasons for going to war. And therein lies the crux of the matter - I think the whole Chalabi thing is designed to buttress the official story for going to war. Not that there were WMDs mind, but that the US went to war because it believed this to be true.

At least some here can see that buying into this story is actually HELPING the Shrub administration.

Chalabi is being set up by this administration as its fall guy. Shrub, Cheney, Rummy et al aren't going to take the blame (do they ever?), but they need someone that can pin things on since the war is going so badly. Enter Chalabi stage right. Who knows- it may have been in the game plan all along that Chalabi would take the fall if things started going badly. After all, he's not a US citizen or resident, not an elected official here, and his standing/reputation in the ME would only be helped by the idea that he double crossed the Americans. He's the ideal one to be blamed, thereby giving this administration a pass on a war that's going so badly.

Chalabi gives this administration cover on so many issues. He helps support the official version of WMDs and at the same time defelcts attention away from the accusations that this invasion was nothing more than an oil grab.

Thanks Vlad. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who refused to buy into this.

It doesn't help the Bushies, it makes them look like chumps. And (we must point out no matter how much they try to sidestep the point) THEY were in charge. THEY chose to believe Chalabi when the regular intel people considered him unreliable. THEY sidestepped the very apparatus that exists to avoid problems like that.

Chalabi and his "intel" was their baby, from top to bottom. They can choke on it, but they can't spit it out.

"THEY chose to believe Chalabi when the regular intel people considered him unreliable."

Read your very own post- you also assume that Chalabi's so-called intelligence was the *reason* we invaded Iraq, when we all know that wasn't the case. Chalabi helps them convince the great unwashed masses that this wasn't an oil grab, that it really in truly, honest to goodness WAS based on WMDs after all. He gives them the ability to argue "Our intelligence was wrong, not our motive". And then most Americans will be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they really did have the best interests of the country in mind- rather than the interests of their corporate friends.


No, they didn't choose to BELIEVE him- they USED him as cover.

I don't assume Chalabi's intel was the reason for the invasion.

My argument is that IF YOU CLAIM IT WAS, then it comes comes with baggage that makes the Bush crew look like utter fools, and if you take one, you have to take the other.

they would prefer people to think they made a mistake but went in because of WMD, then for people to think they went in for something else. The WMD lie, however it is perpetuated, helps them maintain the facade of the war on terror. Remember that 60% of Americans still believe in a link between Iraq and Al Quaida.

and that is why it looks bad for Bushco. Makes them look more blatantly deceptive and craven.

Iranian Govt. They KNEW that the associate he put in charge of "Information Collection" (which began before the invasion, btw, under the DIA) - had standing ties to Iranian Intelligence. It makes them look WORSE than chumps. More than ever it makes their decision to use this (dubious - they knew that, too) intelligence from this source to look particularly craven.

look like he is being set up to be the fall guy...guess time will tell.

one over Bremer and Brahimi to get Allawi named as Prime Minister.

He is an opportunist - and he is trying as hard as they are to out maneuver. That is what makes this particular trainwreck so fascinating to watch. So many groups with their own agenda have the knives out for one another.

It reveals this White House to be saps, played like violins by Iran in a masterful intelligence operation that removed a long-time enemy of Tehran while setting the stage for a fundamentalist Shia regime in Iraq that would become a boon ally. It is difficult to fathom how any aspect of this helps George W. Bush and his crew.

That was pretty much my take on it. If the Bushies were trying to run a covert game, they'd pick a different scenario. This just makes them look like Grade-A chumps.

I think we're looking at another "great unravelling" (to borrow a term from Krugman): of the myth of the "brightness" of the neocons, and of the political skill of Rove/Bush. The men behind the curtain are finding themselved revealed -- leak by leak, expose by expose -- and it's becoming apparent they're not so bright after all. Adacious, to be sure, and ruthless as all get-out, but now we know the secret of their success was the layer of more pragmatic people they USED to report to. Once in charge, the "adults" acted like kids on a joyride. What's so "bright" about that?

Seriously, the intelligence community knew damn well and good about Chalabi's ties to Iran and the White House had to be informed about it. somebody in the white House ignored the signs that Chalabi was working for the Iranians and gave him extermely sensitive information. On top of that, apparently Chalabi had more information than the secretary of state!

Chimpco. got chumped by Chalabi and Iran.

Who knows how much damage Chalabi really caused? Chimpco. gave him access to so much and he was in so deep, who knows what contacts he's made or what else he got his hands on?

"Is this Chalabi story a calculated ruse by the Bush administration to get the Bush people off the hook for this Iraq disaster by scapegoating Chalabi? Given all the facts at hand, it seems highly unlikely."

Who knows with this group... either way it will definitely come back to bite them in the ass and not soon enough!

Just now, he acted as if he hardly knew Chalabi, said he only spoke to him in the rope line at the State of the Union, and said that Brahimi picked Chalabi, the US did not. Check it out when the transcript is available.