May 24, 2004

Chalobbying for Iran
Posted by Jon Henke

First, a disclaimer: the allegations that Chalabi has been working for/spying for/funneling disinformation for Iran all along have me....discomfited. Personal ambition for power I could understand, but a servant of the Iranian theocracy? I see neither his own percentage, nor that of the Iranians. Sure, they Saddam was their enemy, but he was no longer any serious threat to them....he was militarily defanged. He was the best of all possible Iranian enemies: one who could not afford to attack Iran.

And while they may still have wanted him gone in the hope they could agitate the Iraqis toward a theocracy, it's hard to see why they would want the United States to do the job. Not only would they not care for the idea of our tanks on their border, we clearly don't have the same goals for Iraq as do the Iranian Mullahs.

And further, why does the evidence of Chalabi's wrongdoing come from Jordan's intelligence service? If the story is to be that we are being misled by false intelligence reports, why is this one - hardly from a dispassionate observer - more credible? I'm not saying it is not credible...just asking "what to believe?"

With all of that said, note this....

When disclaiming a working relationship with Tehran, it's probably best not to have the operative in question flee to Iran.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum has an absolutely invaluable, link-filled Ahmed Chalabi timeline. As he writes: "Bottom line: practically every group that has ever worked with Chalabi has eventually felt betrayed by him".

I've long been uncomfortable with Chalabi, but I thought he may be a useful tool. Turns out, he's just a tool.

UPDATE II: Robert Tagorda has a more, concluding "his scheme proved to be more sophisticated, elaborate, and manipulative", than Tagorda had previously assumed.

TrackBack

Comments

And while they may still have wanted him gone in the hope they could agitate the Iraqis toward a theocracy, it's hard to see why they would want the United States to do the job.

Jon, I think Iran's angle here is to get the U.S. to do the heavy lifting in deposing Saddam (check), then Mogadishu us out of Iraq and win the ensuing civil war.

Posted by: Chris from Dangerous Logic at May 24, 2004 08:13 AM

The Chalabi affair has to be the most opaque development of the whole Iraq situation. Five years from now, someone will write the book.

(Enforced preview? A defense against comment spam? Cool.)

Posted by: The Commissar at May 24, 2004 08:39 AM

There's much in the way of tea-leaf reading going on around Chalabi at the moment, and much in the way of leftists patting themselves on the back for never having trusted him, and chiding the Bush administration for having done so.

But on what evidence do we assume that the Bush administration EVER fully trusted him? Public statements and posturing? Sorry, I don't see that as proof, given the cat and mouse game being played here more levels than this, in that part of the world.

Looking back down this timeline, with this new information in hand, it's starting to sound possible that Chalabi, always a fairly popular person among a few factions in Iraq, was given enough rope to hang himself with, in front of his own countrymen, and is now being dealt with by an enraged Iraqi governing council, not the US. (You may recall, unilateral US action there is supposed to be a no-no in some circles.... And in this case, I'll more than grant that the IGC dealing with this matter is a decided plus, wouldn't you?)

In short, it's my take we knew he had problems and allowed him to expose himself to his own people as such, thus allowing them to take the proper actions with him. If this tea-leaf reading of mine is correct, this is a deft bit of international relationship management that should be in the textbooks going forward.

I can hear the disbelieving snorts of derision form the leftists as they read this. But, time will tell. In every instance over the last few years, Mr. Bush has been outperforming leftist expectations. At what point do you start giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's got more info to work with than you, and more brains than you've been giving him credit for?

Posted by: Bithead at May 24, 2004 09:26 AM

Chris: Well, that's the most straightforward explanation, but it's one hell of a risky shot. They are essentially trading the devil they know for one they don't. And the devil they don't know comes with the United States Marines on their border.

That just seems like too big a gamble.

Bithead:
" But on what evidence do we assume that the Bush administration EVER fully trusted him?"

- - -I don't know if they ever fully trusted him, but they certainly relied on him a great deal...and made him a central part of their plans.

And they trusted him enough to allow him access to intelligence secrets. Also, important and damning documents from the Hussein regime.

I can't see how "setting him up" would be substantially better than "not giving him the inside track" - not at this cost.


"At what point do you start giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's got more info to work with than you, and more brains than you've been giving him credit for?"

- - -Me? I'm not sure I've been worrying about his intelligence...just his decisions.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 24, 2004 09:41 AM

My understanding is that Chalabi was more of the Pentagon's asset than anyone elses. He certainly was persona non grata with the CIA and State wanted nothing to do with him.

Posted by: McQ at May 24, 2004 02:57 PM