Reflections on the NIE on Iran and its consequences

It has been over a week since the publications on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and a number of observations about ti can now be made with some confidence.

First and foremost, this NIE is clearly the product of long and protracted negotiations between the UN intelligence community and the Administration. It appears that the office of the VP finally agreed to release this NIE as a way, or so they thought, to preempt the upcoming El-Baradei report which will finally clear Iran from all the accusations of having concealed a nuclear weapons program.

By saying that Iran had a program until 2003 the Neocons can thereby 'prove' that such a program could, in fact, by run right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors. The US intelligence analysts probably figured that making such a concession (putting a totally fabricated 'fact' inside the NIE) was a price worth paying if it could at least undermine the Neocon propaganda about 'an Iranian existential threat to Israel'. So who won, the Neocons in the Administration or the intelligence analysts? Though only time will show, my guess is that the latter did.

Sure, the Neocons can claim that the Iranian nuclear weapons program can be restarted at any time and that therefore Iran is as much a threat as it was in the past. Still, this NIE report release still represented a huge loss of momentum for the Neocon's propaganda campaign. It is one thing to get a nation to war to 'save Israel' and quite another to do some because maybe, in the future, a threat for Israel might possibly materialize.

The trademark of this administration has always been a total incompetence of absolutely breathtaking magnitude and a systematic sacrifice of middle to long term strategic objective to short term tactical goals (and even those were usually screwed-up). The release of this NIE is, I believe, exactly such a miscalculation.

If I am correct, this might very well be the proof that the 'old Anglo guard' has made good use of the removal of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others to weaken the Neocons for whom time is now running out and who need to re-create the momentum towards war with Iran.

To see why the Neocons need a war with Iran at all costs it is absolutely crucial to understand what the absence of such a war would mean to the Neocons. Should this war *not* happen this would mean that:

1) Iran succeeded in calling the Neocon's bluff and that the Neocons "blinked first". It would prove to the entire Middle-East that the USA is not the superpower it claims to be and that it can be openly challenged and deterred.

2) It would very much weaken the position of the "Reformists" in Iran who were harshly criticizing Ahmadinejad for acting in a provocative way towards the West and who now will be told by Ahmadinejad that his hard stance won Iran a victory which the Reformists would have never achieved with their appeasing policies.

3) It would prove to the Israeli Liukudniks that the USA cannot be counted on to obediently execute any policy decided upon by the Neocons and that Israel cannot use the threat to "unleash the USA" on Iran. Think about it: Israel's armed forces were defeated by less than 1000 Hezbollah combatants in 2006 and the USA was deterred by Iran in 2007. Such an outcome would leave Israel tremendously weakened.

4) Last, but not least, short of a war with Iran the Republicans will be booted out of the White House in 2008 and even though I have written many times that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is about as meaningful as the difference between (Kosher) Coca-Cola and (Kosher) Pepsi-Cola, the Democrats might well sacrifice some of the most hated Republican leaders to the anger of the US people. Keeping in mind that the Republicans are clearly guilty of a long list of criminal acts loosing the White House in 2008 might well land some of the Republicans behind bars.

For all these reasons I would argue that the absence of a war with Iran represents an existential threat to the Neocons and their interests. However, the Neocons and their policies represent an existential threat to the US Empire as envisioned and designed by the Old Anglo Guard. We are now entering into a dangerous period of time in which the struggle between these two groups is entering something of an end-game in which one of the two sides will be mated. Which side will win? My guess is that in the end the Neocon control over the US corporate media and Congress will prove crucial to the outcome.

There are, however, cracks appearing here and there in this control.

First, the kind of language and policies pushed forward by Ron Paul and his immense popularity in the only media which, at least for the time being, escapes Neocon control - the Internet - is a sign that an increasing number of Americans are really getting fed up with what is being done to their country.

Second, the kind of angry anti-Bush editorials which Keith Olbermann has recently aired on MSNBC shows that cracks are also appearing in the corporate media:




I have to add here that the very fact that such commentaries are aired and that no action has been taken, at least so far, against Olbermann or MSNBC is a powerful illustration that the USA has not become a true Fascist state yet.

In a truly Fascist state Olbermann would have been arrested for sedition or sabotage, and MSNBC would have been promptly taken off the air (I even doubt that there are many countries in Europe in which a mainstream journalist would be allowed to criticize the President with the kind of language Olbermann uses). I am not a fan of Olbermann, of the corporate media, and even less so of journalists making commentaries (I do not even own a TV) - but I have to say that the fact that this kind of dissent is allowed in the USA is hugely encouraging for democracy.

Coming back to the NIE and the situation in Iran, I would like to strongly recommend the very interesting interview Scott Horton made with Scott Ritter recently (click here to listen to it). Scott Ritter is one of the very best US analysts on Iran and in this interview he truly makes a very good job of saying the unvarnished truth about the US policies in Iraq and Iran. His take on the NIE and its real meaning is also very interesting.

THE main overwhelming danger now for the Middle-East and the rest of the world is a carefully engineered "Persian Gulf of Tonkin" kind of false flag operation by the Neocons in the White House. All we can hope for is that the Anglos in the Administration, the US armed forces and and intelligence community will succeed in preventing such an operation from being executed. Likewise, we can hope that the same Anglos will also succeed in preventing Israel from executing such an operation with its own assets. We can hope for this, but I should not expect it and my huntch is that such a false flag operating is being worked on as I write these words.

How deeply has the Neocon Empire been hurt by the recent developments?

The Empire's (provisional) scorecard: one win, two losses

The past couple of days have seen several very important developments for the future of the Empire: the Russian elections, the Venezuelan referendum, and the publication of the NIE. Because an Administration can only deal with a finite number of simultaneous crises, these seemingly unrelated events are probably very much linked to each other in the minds of the Neocons and they are likely to influence Imperial policies in Lebanon and Kosovo.

The first of these events, Putin's overwhelming victory in the Russian elections was really never in doubt and the only option left to the US Administration was to pressure the OSCE not to send observers and then announce that the elections were not 'free and fair'.

Once the results came in, however, even that desperate attempt to discredit the victory of Putin's party "United Russia" achieved nothing.

Not only did Putin's "United Russia" get more than 64% of all the votes, but the next three parties are all generally supportive of Putin's policies. As one Russian politician put it yesterday, now all the parties in the Duma are proponents of a 'strong Russia'. Amazingly, not a single pro-Western political party achieved the required number of votes to have even one representative in the Duma.

The results of this election show that all the efforts of the West since 1991 at dismembering, weakening and submitting Russia to the will of the West have now completely failed. It is now obvious that in Russia, just as in Iraq, "mission accomplished" was announced way too soon, the 'Cold War' was declared won by the West (or even by Ronald Reagan, no less) and Western capitalism was declared a historical inevitability. To everybody'ssurprize, it took Russia less than a decade to completely negate all these predictions.

The main impact of this new Russia will be primarily felt in the so-called 'near abroad' (the former republics of the USSR) where an oil rich Russia, awash with money, and with a functioning state apparatus will be able to extend its influence far more effectively than the overextended, politically discredited and financially crippled Empire which will have very little to offer, besides empty words of support, to the leaders of the countries neighboring Russia (the problems of Mr Saakashvili in Georgia are just one example of what could happen elsewhere).

The second event is the defeat of Hugo Chavez in Sunday's referendum. Many observers believe that Chavez' reforms went too far and covered too many controversial issue. While probably true, Chavez' defeat still would not have been possible without a rejuvenated and re-energized opposition which managed to shed its image as CIA-backed putchistas and which skillfully planted the slogan "yes to Chavez, no to the reform" meaning that one could still support Chavez while opposing his policies.

Chavez gracefully accepted his defeat, hinting at the fact that 'this time' it did not work, and thereby proved his 'democratic credentials', for which many of his opponents had to, reluctantly, praise him. Still, the main effect of this referendum was to re-legitimize the CIA controlled opposition which will now 'smell blood' and deepen its campaign to get rid of Chavez. All this is a huge, and rather unexpected, success for Washington. Not only did the Empire succeed in putting Bolivian President Evo Morales on the defensive, but even the comparatively formidable Hugo Chavez has now lost a crucial battle in which he had invested a lot of political capital. Unless the anti-Imperial forces in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and the rest of Latin America realize that all their achievements are not threatened and take action to defend them (primarily by strengthening their economies) American money will now pour into the 'opposition' and Venezuela and the rest of Latin America will undoubtedly enter a period of instability and crises.

The third important event which took place in the past days is the long awaited publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (full public text here format). Packaged in quite a few caveats the bottom line of the 2007 NIE is simple: Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and the 2005 NIE was wrong.

It is really no wonder that the Office of the VP battled the release of this document for over a year and a half: its conclusions are absolutely devastating for the Neocon case to attack Iran. It appears that the uncertainty about the 2008 election and the many scandals surrounding the decision to go to war with Iraq have finally given the US intelligence community the resolve not to be used again in a propaganda campaign aimed at starting yet another war. It is a safe guess to say that this NIE is the result of a number of agencies resolutely opposing a war with Iran because of the consequences which such an aggression would inevitably result in. Weakened by the departure of key Neocons, such as Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz, the War Party simply does not appear to have the bureaucratic weight to impose its will on the JCS, DIA, CIA and the rest of the military and intelligence community. This is, undoubtedly, very bad news for the Neocons and good news for the rest of the world.

The Empire strikes back?

What will the Neocons do next? Well, let's look at their options:

Russia is now firmly outside Washington's sphere of influence. Simply put, the Empire has precious little left to pressure Moscow with. Even the usual verbiage about human rights violations in Chechnia has now become useless as Moscow's stooge thug in the Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, succeeded in delivering a 99% participation in the vote and over 99% of these votes cast for Putin's "United Russia". Sure, some European politicians will continue to bemoan Russian policies in Chechnia, but all in all this entire issue is now off the table. Likewise, Garry Kasparov and others can complain that this election was the worst on in Russian history, but with what amounts to a 80-90% support for Putin's policies nobody will pay attention to that kind of talk anymore. CIA money for anti-Putin propaganda will dry up to a minimal 'capability sustaining' trickle. This battle is over, at leas for the time being.

The real indicator of how much the Empire has been weakened will be the issue of Kosovo. Russia categorically opposes any solution which does not have Serbia's approval. The Serbs, backed by international law and UN resolutions, consider Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia. The recent elections in Kosovo, which were not recognized by Belgrade, gave a majority to the former KLA field commanders who promised to declare independence regardless of what anybody else thinks. Washington is, I suppose, unlikely to recognize Kosovo as an independent state de jure, but de facto it will probably try to seek a Taiwan like solution.

Russia is unlikely to accept such a state of affairs and unless the Empire quietly offers Russia some major concessions elsewhere (think anti-ballistic missiles in Europe). An independent Kosovo would also set a precedent for South Ossetia, the Dniestr Republic, Abkhazia and, possibly, even the Republika Srpska in Bosnia, Eastern Ukraine or the Crimean Peninsula. Russia will not officially condone or support any such separatist movements (the KGB has a saying "the ears should not be sticking out"), but quietly it can give a go-ahead and support these regions.

Knowing the rabid russophobia of the Neocons, I am fairly confident that, acting out of spite, they will ignore Russia's objections over Kosovo and go ahead with their support for the KLA. That, policy, in turn will be duly noted by Russia and as a consequence US-Russian relations will further sour.

What can the Neocons do about Iran? I think that the 2007 NIE's importance goes way beyond the issue of debunking the Iranian military nuclear program nonsense. What this really shows is that the military and intelligence establishment has quietly slipped out of the Neocon's control and this, if true, is definitely a very positive development. Clearly, the old "Anglo" guard has succeeded in partially pushing back the "crazies", at least for a while. This conflict is far from over and the Anglos only won one battle, but the writing might well be on the wall for the Neocons who are likely to respond in the the areas which they still totally control: Congress, the Republican and Democratic parties and the corporate media.

Will that be enough to still get their way and have a war with Iran? Possibly. After all, a war can be started by, say, an Israeli bombing raid or by some other carefully staged event: remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Markale market bombing in Sarajevo, the Racak 'massacre' in Kosovo, or killing the American Marine officer Lt. Robert Paz in Panama, all if which conveniently happened right when the Empire needed a pretext to attack? It will be far more difficult for those opposed to a war inside the US to openly refuse to salute and attack Iran if such a provocation is carefully staged and executed.

One one hand, the Neocons can still count on the abject subservience of Congress and the US political elites and that just might be enough to trigger and crisis and prevail (they could even be forgiven for thinking that this might be the best, if not only, chance for them to remain in power). On the other hand, if that NIE is just the tip of a larger bureaucratic iceberg this might indicate that the tide is turning and that a strategic decision has been made in the military and intelligence establishment to back down from a confrontation with Iran.

Iran, however, cannot be taken out of the larger Middle-East context and the current political crises in Afghanistan, Iraq and, in particular, in Lebanon are all linked to the Empire's policies towards Iran. At this stage it is unlikely that Washington will reverse its 'redirection' from fighting the Sunnis to supporting them against the Shia. So while a the 'big war' option might have been put on the back burner, the 'creeping war' against Iran which has already been going on for a long while will only intensify. I expect that the Empire will redouble its covert military, economic and political efforts to undermine and destabilize Iran (including supporting further terrorist attacks inside Iran). Not only will such an expansion of anti-Shia policies help to push the Middle-East further into chaos, but it might even yield a pious pretext to attack Iran after all.

It appears that the Empire is further weakening and it is loosing ground in some key issues, but it is far from over and it can still viciously lash out at its opponents. The days of 'fighting everybody at the same time' are probably over, but the Empire is still deeply enmeshed in alliances with highly unstable and dangerous countries like Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and many others which might force it to intervene militarily. Furthermore, while the Empire suffer a defeat in Australia, it also can find comfort in the fact that in Great Britain and, even more so, in France bona fide Neocons are firmly in power. So while one can rejoice at some of the recent setbacks suffered by the Neocons it would be foolish now start hoping for a rapid collapse of the Empire. The recent events did not mark the beginning of the end. Only a war with Iran would truly mark the beginning of a general collapse of the Empire and my guess is that, regardless of the recent setbacks suffered by the Neocons, this war will occur before the 2008 election.

Can't Find Osama? Attack Iran Instead

by Philip Giraldi

The July 17 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "On the Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland" [.pdf] warns that al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself in the tribal areas of U.S. ally Pakistan, that it has resumed training of cadres intending to carry out "high impact plots" against the United States, and that the terrorist threat for the next three years continues worldwide and is even growing in places like North Africa and Britain. As always there is a bland euphemism to define the emerging situation, in this case that the United States will be experiencing a "heightened threat environment." And to make sure that the conflation of terrorism with Iraq is not lost on the reader, the "central front" in Iraq makes an appearance among the report's "Key Findings."

In a tour-de-force of misinformation disguised as fact, the report states, erroneously, that al-Qaeda in Iraq represents the principal threat for an attack on the U.S. homeland "because it has expressed a desire to attack us here." The "attack us here" theme has been around for several years, and it has lately been reinforced by the White House's incessant linkage of Iraq to al-Qaeda, culminating in a July 10 speech in Cleveland in which President Bush named the terrorist organization 30 times during comments that were ostensibly on the war in Iraq. Anyone who follows terrorism even in a pedestrian fashion might politely suggest that the administration's position on the terrorism problem is nonsense. The main threat to the U.S. comes from the real original unadulterated al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Iraq, though a magnet and training ground for terrorist aspirants, is neither interested in nor capable of exporting its own particular brand of anarchy to America's shores.

Given the prominence of Iraq, the NIE is clearly more a political document than an objective assessment. It goes on to state that the U.S. has been on the offensive against terrorism, that it has "built new institutions" and "developed new tools." It is "constantly evaluating the threat" in hundreds if not thousands of meetings in Washington. Lots of meetings. Lots of reviews. Lots of worker bees working. The irrepressible Karen Hughes at State Department has summoned her Myrmidons, "countering al-Qaeda's violent message," challenging terrorists to cyber duels over the Internet. It's Star Wars all over again. "We remain vigilant." It's all there in the NIE.

But one might be forgiven for thinking, perhaps, that all is not well, that the terrorism problem is somehow worse now than it was in 2001. Such reflection, which would be appropriate for anyone who truly cares about the United States and its people, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the past six years of misdirection and mismanagement have made the world a much more dangerous place. In that light, one might conclude that the NIE is more a chronicle of failure than success, an admission that the White House and Congress have, in fact, been unable to protect the American people. It might also be observed that one doesn't get as much bang for the buck as used to be the case. The expenditure of half a trillion dollars in a "global war on terrorism" (GWOT) that has led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, intelligence officers, and law enforcement personnel against no more than a couple of thousand terrorists concentrated in one of the world's most backward regions has not radically shifted the playing field in America's favor. Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda carried out 9/11. Osama has been hanging around in Pakistan since late 2001, and he is still there, training new terrorists and planning.

And, if something is wrong in the GWOT, as usual no one is to blame, as-finger pointing would reflect badly on the political leadership. Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, the architect of the administration's failure to finish off a cornered Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan's Tora Bora Mountains in December 2001, received his Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004. He now sits on the boards of the Bank of America and Outback Steakhouse, and it is assumed that he will soon be named president of Oklahoma State University. Ex-CIA Director George Tenet, who claims he warned Condoleezza Rice about an impending terrorist attack but, inexplicably, failed to tell the president, just received a $4 million book advance. Paul Wolfowitz, whose lack of judgment guaranteed that the U.S. occupation of Iraq would not succeed, is now comfortably back at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute after his failure at the World Bank.

The blundering of the past six years in which America's friends overseas have been turned into enemies by arrogance and bullying, in which Washington's standing among nations has plummeted, has not resulted in any serious change of course. No one is responsible. The neoconservative architects of the Pentagon assault on Iraq that has turned that country into a failed state and a magnet for terrorism have left for greener pastures, but not a one has admitted to error or been publicly admonished. Several, including Vice President Dick Cheney and the National Security Council's Elliot Abrams, are still in positions of power, advocating a new war as part of a larger conflict that will go on indefinitely, everywhere.

And it's always convenient to blame it on the bad guys. Per the NIE, terrorism is not a problem because America's politicians, bureaucrats, and pundits stacked a hundred high in every office lining the Potomac have failed to understand the nature of the threat. It is rather because the terrorists have "evolved" and "adapted," hardly playing fair.

The NIE is not pleasant reading, even though it tries to make the essentially political point that everything possible is being done to protect "the Homeland." What it really is arguing is that everything that is being done should continue to be done, and more. That means more of the bloated bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and the world's mightiest military budget. Another White House tactical response to the very real terrorist threat, which it doesn't want anyone to think about too much, is, predictably, to look for a diversion in the form of someone else to kick. With Iraq and Afghanistan in shambles, there just happen to be a couple of neighbors who can be credibly accused of "interference" with the U.S. military's civilizing mission. In the intelligence business it is sometimes necessary to use "disinformation" to establish a false factual basis or to create a straw man that can be used to divert attention from an unpleasant reality. If it is too hard to catch Osama bin Laden, it might be more convenient to talk about Iran instead. As Syria and Iran have both long been in the crosshair of the neoconservatives because of those countries' antipathy to Israel, it is reassuring to know that they have not been forgotten by the White House. It is possibly no coincidence that there has been a significant increase in the anti-Iran rhetoric emanating from both the Bush administration and Congress over the past few weeks, mostly seeking to establish a casus belli by contending that Iran is masterminding lethal attacks directed against U.S. troops in Iraq and NATO forces in Afghanistan. A tidy little war against Iran would be a useful diversion that would make everyone forget about the NIE and the inability to do anything about Osama bin Laden.