Last week, the Obama Administration formally charged the Islamic Republic of working with al-Qa’ida. The charge was presented as part of the Treasury Department’s announcement that it was designating six alleged al-Qa’ida operatives for terrorism-related financial sanctions, see here. The six are being designated, according to Treasury, because of their involvement in transiting money and operatives for al-Qa’ida to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The announcement claims that part of this scheme was a “secret deal” between the Iranian government and al-Qa’ida, whereby Tehran allowed the terrorist group to use Iranian territory in the course of moving money and personnel.
For the most part, major media outlets uncritically transmitted the Obama Administration’s charge, without much manifestation of serious effort to verify it, find out more about the sourcing upon which it was based, or place it in any sort of detailed and nuanced historical context. Stories by Joby Warrick, see here, in the Washington Post and Helene Cooper, see here, in The New York Times exemplify this kind of “reporting”.
For nearly ten years, a cadre of hawkish analysts, politicians, and some Iranian expatriates have pushed their insistent but unsubstantiated claims of extensive collaboration between the Islamic Republic and al-Qa’ida. Some even charged that Osama bin Ladin was “living in luxury” in Iran, an assertion later elaborated in a 2010 “documentary” film that was extensively “covered” on Fox News.
During her service at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and at the National Security Council in 2001-2003, Hillary was one of a handful of U.S. officials who participated in nearly two years of substantive talks with Iranian counterparts about Afghanistan and al-Qa’ida.
–Since leaving government, we—and other former U.S. officials knowledgeable about the U.S.-Iranian dialogue over these matters—have related how the Iranians raised, almost immediately after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the problem of al-Qa’ida personnel trying to make their way from Afghanistan into Iran, consistently warning about the difficulties of securing Iran’s 936 kilometer-long border with Afghanistan (as well as its 700 kilometer-long border with Pakistan).
–We and others have also related how Tehran documented its detention of literally hundreds of suspected al-Qa’ida operatives, repatriated as many of these detainees to their countries of origin as it could, and requested U.S. assistance in facilitating repatriations of detainees whose governments did not want to cooperate (a request the Bush Administration denied).
–Furthermore, we described how, over the course of 2002 and early 2003, Bush Administration hardliners made substantive discussion and coordination with Iran over Iraq dependent on Tehran finding, arresting, and deporting a small number of specific al-Qa’ida figures—beyond the hundreds of suspected al-Qa’ida operatives the Islamic Republic had already apprehended—that Washington suspected had sought refuge in Iran’s lawless Sistan-Balochistan province. Although Tehran deployed additional security forces to its eastern borders, Iranian officials acknowledged that a small group of al-Qa’ida figures had managed to avoid capture and enter Iranian territory, most likely through Sistan-Balochistan, in 2002. The Iranian government located and took some of these individuals into custody and said that others identified by the United States were either dead or not in Iran. At the beginning of May 2003, after Baghdad had fallen, Tehran offered to exchange the remaining al-Qa’ida figures in Iran for a small group of MEK commanders in Iraq, with the treatment of those repatriated to Iran monitored by the International Committee for the Red Cross and a commitment not to apply the death penalty to anyone prosecuted on their return. But the Bush Administration rejected any deal.
Today, much of the American media unquestioningly “reports” information provided by the U.S. government about Iran’s supposed links to al-Qa’ida, noting, as Helene Cooper does in her story, that U.S. “officials admit that they are largely in the dark about what is going on with the Qaeda operatives believed to be in Iran.” But the only reason why the United States does not know more or have a cooperative relationship with the Islamic Republic over al-Qa’ida is that Washington cut off talks with Tehran over al-Qa’ida and Afghanistan in late May 2003. This decision was supposedly taken because the Defense Department claimed to have a communications intercept indicating that an al-Qa’ida figure inside Iran might have been involved in the May 12, 2003 Riyadh terrorist bombings. But the claim was never substantiated and was disputed by much of the U.S. Intelligence Community; by 2007, the Bush Administration was reduced to telling the Washington Post that “there are suspicions, but no proof” that an al-Qa’ida figures in Iran “may have been involved from afar in planning” the May 2003 attacks, see here.
Not even the George W. Bush Administration was prepared to make concrete accusations that the Islamic Republic was deliberately facilitating al-Qa’ida’s terrorist activities. Now, however, the Obama Administration is advancing specific, on-the-record charges that Iran is helping al-Qa’ida. There is no reason for anyone to have any confidence that official Washington “knows”, in any empirically serious way, that Tehran is cooperating with al-Qa’ida in the ways that are alleged.
Of the six al-Qa’ida operatives sanctioned by the Treasury Department last week, only one is alleged to be physically present in Iran—and, by Treasury’s own account, he is there primarily to get al-Qa’ida prisoners out of Iranian jails. Moreover, the United States apparently has no hard evidence that the Iranian government is supportive of or even knowledgeable about the alleged al-Qa’ida network in the Islamic Republic. In her story, Helene Cooper writes that a “senior Administration official” said “in a conference call for reporters” (which means that the White House wanted everyone to hear this, and Helene did not have to leave her office to hear it), that “our sense is this network is operating through Iranian territory with the knowledge and at least the acquiescence of Iranian authorities”. A “sense” that al-Qa’ida is operating in Iran with “at least the acquiescence of Iranian authorities” now apparently amounts to proof of a “secret deal” that can be authoritatively referenced in the announcement of a legally and politically significant action by the Treasury Department.
This is all strongly reminiscent of the way in which the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations prepared the way for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. And much of the mainstream media seems content to reprise the dishonorable role they played in making that war possible. As her pre-war reporting on Saddam Husayn’s weapons of mass destruction programs unraveled in the war’s aftermath, Judy Miller of The New York Times sought to defend herself by arguing that “my job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself.” Ms. Miller may no longer be at The New York Times. But it seems that her spirit lives on there, at the Washington Post, and in too many other journalistic venues.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
fyi,
What percentage of Iranian oil exports goes to the “Axis powers”?
Sakineh,
The British FCO does not object to Iran’s occupying a prominent position in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but obviously Britain would not welcome an Iranian military intervention in other countries in the ME. Personally, I see little likelihood of any Iranian direct military intervention in any other country (on a “first-strike” basis).
What do you think is the best way forward, regarding the situation in Libya? I agree with FYI that the UK should look toward a reduction of the scale of its intervention in that country.
BiBiJon says: August 1, 2011 at 6:19 pm
The Axis Powers have provoked the Sunni Muslims by the strategies they have pursued in the Near East.
I think they are mad to want to provoke Shia Muslims as well.
But they think they can handle the situation.
Let them try.
I was just about to say Sakineh, ‘intervention’ is one of those words adding to the vagaries of international relations.
“The UK has no objection to Iran’s being the master of its own destiny, provided this does not mean intervention in the affairs of other countries.”
Yes James, how could I forget? This function (intervention) is reserved for the UK, US, and the so called West, right?
Sakineh,
The UK has no objection to Iran’s being the master of its own destiny, provided this does not mean intervention in the affairs of other countries. And Iran is welcome to sell its oil for what it can obtain. Isn’t one-third of Iranian oil going to Europe?
Sakineh,
No, I think it is clear that for the UK, the issue is the Iranian nuclear programme and potential for more rapid enriching to weapons grade. This is the reason for concern about the enriching to 20%.
Daily Telegraph today (Aug. 2nd) called for the UK to “re-assess” its Libya strategy.
“The UK does not want another war in the Middle East, and I think if Iran continues to show it is not diverting uranium from its civilian nuclear programme, there will be no war.”
James,
Hasn’t it been established that it is not about the enrichment, and perhaps more to do with Iran wanting to be the master of her own destiny and natural resources?
fyi says:
August 1, 2011 at 5:16 pm
When you see hundreds of scholars of religion work every day to promote inter-faith dialogue and understanding …
When you read and watch and listen to countless of experts and commentators refute the stereotyping of adherents of various religions ….
Then you might think folks who pick out a few extremes and insist on making a rule out of the exceptions, have an unbreakable mindset. Rigid as a rock as that mindset might be, in prevailing winds of misguided public discourse, that mindset might even appear to be nimbly floating like a feather.
The wars, if they happen, will have an element of religion as an excuse, but historians will rightly judge the reasons to be mostly geopolitical/financial/imperial/etc.
Kristin Szremski has some comments on the current effort to restrict free speech in the US and Canada, to benefit the Zionist programme:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/new-moves-curb-criticism-israel-us-and-canada/10219
fyi,
If by winding down opeations in Libya, you are arguing that the UK should press for an effective cease-fire, I very much agree.
The comments in the Financial Times this past Friday, by one of the liberal interventionists (Slaughter) who talked Obama into backing the UK/French operations in Libya, were very good. She sees that the intervention is only leading to more civilian death and destruction than otherwise may have obtained.
Voice of Tehran,
I would suggest being a bit calmer about the situation, and more analytical about who the individuals are who try to steer the direction of things one way or another. The UK does not want another war in the Middle East, and I think if Iran continues to show it is not diverting uranium from its civilian nuclear programme, there will be no war.
The recnt noise about al-Qaeda, to impugn Iran, may reflect an understanding that the nuclear card in itself cannot be played (to set up a war).
James Canning says: August 1, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Given that UK is broke, I suggest that UK Government best concentrate on stanching the further deterioration of its polity. The 25% of GDP that came out of City is never going to come back withing the life time of any one alive today.
In regards to Libya, he should admit defeat implicitly by winding down the operations there.
But like Suez, this is going to cost him his premiership.
Success has many fathers, Failure is an orphan.
Sakineh,
thanks for the link to Lobe’s piece. We should remember that warmongering neocons lied about Iraq’s support of al-Qaeda even though Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein and wanted him killed.
fyi,
There seems to be little interest in the UK in more wars in the Middle East. In the US, the foolish Christian Zionists welcome the end of the world.
That the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 played a significant role in the forming of Osama bin Laden’s ideas is interesting, and not surprising. I know that American encouragement of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians also played a part.
In the Sunday Times (London) July 24th, Michael Burleigh had an excellent commentary on the Libyan situation: ‘The impetuous West will blink first in Libya’.
What advice would you offer Cameron and Hague?
James Canning says: August 1, 2011 at 2:37 pm
When 19 Men attack the United States invoking Islam, you must take notice of it.
When another group of young men launch attacks in London and in Madrid, in the name of Islam, it is best to pay close attention.
When the late Mr. Bin Ladin’s mother ascribes the motivation of his son in attacking US to the 1982 war of Israel against lebanon, I would tell to myself that surely a mother knows her son’s mind better than I.
I am saying that when a diverse collection of Sunni Muslims from different parts of the world take it upon themselves to attack the United States, then it is a good idea to ask oneself “Why?”
When you travel in Pakistan’s Punjab and the belief in US & Israel wanting to destory Islam is widespread and is not even challenged, then I think that there could be a problem here and there.
And when you travel in US and ordinary Protestant Christain Americans take Israel’s side against any and all, then you know that you are in trouble.
Very many Protestant Christians and Jews in Nroth America think that there is a margin in being at war with Islam.
There isn’t.
If I were them, I would repeat the mantra “We respect Islam and we are not at war with Islam” as often and as loudly as possible – using all channels of communication.
I personally expect things to get uglier before they get better – people seem to welcome a religious war.
Here is a complimentary piece by Jim Lobe on the topic.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56676
The Race for Pakistan
====================
“The six are being designated, according to Treasury, because of their involvement in transiting money and operatives for al-Qa’ida to Pakistan”
Let’s not miss the fact that, whereas Iran is only implicated once, Pakistan is implicated six times.
“Osama bin Ladin was “living in luxury” in Iran”
It wasn’t only Fox News. Remember Stephenopolis’ hostile interview of Ahmadinejad, where he tried to smear the president with the same line? Remember Ahmadinejad’s typically Persian wit response?
On a milblog closely associated with the US military, I find myself disputing historical claims of official Iranian association with AQ-I. It’s as if nobody there has ever read the writings of Zarqawi. And when they’re called on it, they simply ignore the actual historical record and continue to push the same line, over and over again. Yes, this is what passes for journalism these days.
I applaud Hillary for critically examining these claims. I just wish mainstream media journalists did the same but obviously that’s expecting too much. I agree, it’s the same tactic being applied to Iran that was applied to Iraq prior to OIF.
It might be about time for this Blog to recognize that the mainstream media are owned by a small group of megacorporations that are closely tied in with the military industrial political complex. They are mouthpieces, in other words. There would be nothing wrong with saying that.
Voice of Tehran says: August 1, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Bombs are not falling on your head.
Voice of Tehran says: August 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm
That is blatantly false.
Why is that ?
Voice of Tehran says: August 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm
That is blatantly false.
James Canning says: August 1, 2011 at 2:40 pm
UK cannot improve her relationship with Iran, neither can any other EU member state.
That door was closed (or perhaps not-opened) back in 2007.
This is finished until US changes course.
Iran is in a state of an all-out war with the US/EU/ISR axis , which is feeding the war beast aginst Iran.
Any religiously justifiable move/alliance with any group , country , individual to defend its soil and its population , is warrantable and welcome.
fyi,
What policy recommendation would you offer to William Hague, regarding the best way forward in Libya?
fyi,
I take it you are saying the US has been warned, that through its utter stupidity in the Middle East, is in danger of being seen as an “enemy of Islam”?
James Canning says: August 1, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Once the United States has been convincingly identified as an enemy of Islam, there is no going back for her to the status quo ante. That is the end of the line for US in her interactions with the Muslim World.
Just watch the slow progress and as yet unfinished progression of Israel into an Enemy of Islam.
You have been warned and heard it first from me here.
fyi,
And yes, there is a real danger that the American people will continue to be so applaingly ignorant, and stupid, as to allow their leaders to bring this about. Many of those leaders, of course, are also ignorant and rather stupid. Some are devious, clever in their calculations, and of course very dangerous to the American people themselves.
fyi,
Thanks. What you miss, I think, is that the concocted hostility toward “Islam” is part of a giant scam on the American taxpayers, accomplished by the “military-industrial-congressional” complex so they can scr*w those taxpayers. The scam interlocks with the Zionist-expansionist conspiracy, carried out by rich and powerful Jews in the US, delusional Protestants (primnarily from uneducated and lower-class backgrounds), and others.
Rehmat,
HuffingtonPost carries many reports, comments, etc., hostile to Zionist expansionism and supportive of the Palestinians.
James Canning says: August 1, 2011 at 12:43 pm
You are missing an essential danger to the United States by concentrating on “trillions of dollars” etc.
The danger to the United States is that she will become – through her policy exertions and choices (some of them on behalf of Israel) – an enemy of Islam.
In his recently published book Rouge in Power: Why Stephen Harper is Remaking Canada by Stealth Professor Christian Nadeau speaks of “Canada being seen as one of the main allies of the Zionist cause”.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/harper-i-stand-by-israel/
The non-brainwashed people around the world are still waiting for the 9/11 charges against Muslims to be proven in a court of law.
I have no doubt that both NYT and WP, like the disgraced Murdoch – are trying to boost their credibility. I would rather believe Israeli daily Ha’aretz than these two Israel Hasbara organs.
In July 2004, Jewish-owned TIME magazine reported that Bush’s 9/11 Commission found an Iran-Al-Qaeda link.
In May 2011 – Zioncon Huffington Post claimed that Tehran has developed close relationship with Al-Qaeda.
In October 2010 – Ziocon think tank, CFR, claimed that Tehran sponsors al-Qaeda terrorism.
Contrary to the above, many Jewish, Christian and Muslim academics and former US military and CIA officials have claimed that 9/11 was an Mossad false-flag operation.
“The truth is there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US….” Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/whose-al-qaeda/
BiBiJon,
I agree. And let’s remember that the neocon put in charge of the Pentagon’s special office for planning illegal wars (Office of Special Plans), Abram Shulsky, had a speciality of using newspapers to deceive the public (whether of the US or the UK). Tony Blair was one of their stooges.
BiBiJon,
Barnett has predicted the US will annex much of Latin America and Canada. I see the chance of any American annexation of further territory as ZERO. I think his delusions about Iran’s wishing to harbor al-Qaeda, and an American annexation of Anglophone Canada, are indicative of his thinking.
James Canning says:
August 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm
It is said that in Naples, Italy, a nano second is defined as the time elapsed from when the traffic light turns green and the start of honking of the car behind.
The definition for Lee Smith would be the length of time from a baseless government assertion to penning an article advocating “taking Iran head on”.
BiBiJon,
What a piece vicious propaganda, and utter rubbish, from Thomas Barnett and Michael S. Smith, that you linked. Just what Iran needs, another Sunni terror group operating within its borders!
Here’s cse in point:
Might al-Zawahiri’s al-Qa’ida come to view future nuclear power Iran as THE perfect sanctuary?
Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/08/01/might-al-zawahiris-al-qaida-come-to-view-future-nuclear-power-iran-as-the-perfect-sanctuary/#ixzz1TnYuOr13
So, the government confabulates, the media conflates, and we the people …
Flora Lewis of the New York Times, writing three weeks before “9/11″, said: “There will probabl;y never be a return to the discretion, really collusion, which which the media used to treat presidents, and it is just as well.” She was referring to the ways American news media deceived the American public about the Vietnam War.
Was she ever wide of the mark! Bovard cites this bit in his review (as above).
Bravo! Both the New York Times and the Washington Post were essential participants in the neocon conspiracy to set up an illegal war with Iraq based on knowingly false intelligence. Discrediting the government of Iran is a service both newspapers provide to powerful Jewish interests who seek to “protect” Israel no matter how many trillions of dollars this costs the American taxpayers.
I recommend “Leviathan’s Lies” in the August 2011 American Conservative magazine (review by James Bovard of John Mearsheimer’s new book: “Why Leaders Lie”).