Hmmm. The US has a source who has access to the minutes of meetings by Iranian military officials "involved in the weapons development program". How many persons had this access? Thousands, hundreds? Or maybe a half dozen whose names are on an Iranian counterintelligence list now?
And the Times noted that we intercepted communications between Iranians complaining about the halt that backed up the documents. Wretchard wonders if the Iranians will shut down that avenue of information.
Do we now have confirmation that Iran halted their nuclear weapons programs and never restarted them? Given that apparently the Times has wrecked two more sources of information for the US government, this seems plausible. Or is it too easy to believe the Times would betray our sources of imformation again?
We had a new source of information over the summer? One of very few who could have this information? Could it be Ali Reza Asgari who supposedly defected to us last spring?
It is clear that Asgari is a man privy to numerous secrets which Iran desperately does not want revealed. As well as being a former deputy defence Minister, Asgari was also a General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). The IRGC, more than any other branch of Iran’s armed forces, is aware of, and has access to Iran’s nuclear program. Its members are in charge of monitoring and protecting Iran’s nuclear installations, and scientists.
Did we kidnap him? I was shocked at the time that we'd try something that bold. Perhaps I was right to have doubts, though in the end I only danced around those doubts and instead looked for reasons to believe such a man would defect.
Did Asgari really just walk in and defect with convenient notes of important meetings? Perhaps I was too eager to believe that. Of course, at the time I assumed the information he had would confirm Iranian nuclear programs.
Perhaps Asgari did walk in. Maybe our CIA thinks they scored a coup. But maybe Asgari fed us information Iran wanted us to have that is now being portrayed as new and improved intelligence. Maybe Iran did shut down their nuclear programs in fall 2003. And information confirming that shutdown is what Asgari provided. Maybe Iran started them up shortly thereafter, however. Which Asgari did not mention.
Maybe Asgari, former loyal member of the Islamic Revolution, is still a loyal member of the Islamic Revolution doing one more job to help Iran get nukes.
Really, does it make sense that a man would defect to tell us Iran is innocent of charges they seek nukes? Imagine that contact:
CIA agent: So, you wish to defect? What can you tell us that makes this worthwhile?
Asgari: I have secret information that shows Iran has halted its nuclear weapons programs.
CIA agent: Yes, we'll risk the diplomatic uproar to bring you in for information like this! By God, my career is assured!
Hmm. For our politicized CIA, that might be all too plausible, now that I think about it.
Or maybe Asgari is in the custody of the Israelis and he is one reason Israel disagrees with the NIE so strongly.
Remember, too, that we intercepted conversations among Iraqi officers discussing chemical weapons (and Secretary Powell played the recordings at the UN). So Iran knows we listen. The Iranians talking could have even believed what they said was true--just like the Iraqis before the liberation of Iraq believed Saddam had chemical weapons.
I find it far more plausible to believe that Iran suckered us than that our keystone cops at Langley pried out this great secret from Tehran.
And if this new source that the NIE relied on isn't Asgari, where is Asgari, what does he know, and who did he tell it to?
Still, if this was an Iranian plant, could even the Iranians have hoped that the American media would only selectively report on the NIE's 2003 suspension finding and ignore the rest of the NIE? Go read it! It is just a summary and is quite brief. After you read it, you tell me that Iran is as harmless as our press is now saying.
And then explain why France and Germany, and then our other European NATO allies, still agree that Iran is a threat:
At a working dinner in Brussels, the alliance's headquarters, the ministers accepted the Bush administration argument that Iran remains a threat and needs to be treated as such, Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht told reporters.
"On Iran, everybody around the table agreed we should not change our position," he said after the dinner at which Rice presented Washington's position.
Earlier Thursday, ahead of Rice's meetings in Belgium, the leaders of both France and Germany expressed similar sentiments, calling for a two-pronged approach of pressure and negotiations with Iran.
Our press is hammering Bush for not changing his mind about Iran despite the NIE report that our press has clearly not read (with few exceptions). Now that our allies agree with us, can our press keep up this attack?
