As you well know, I have put a lot of stock in what you and Alan say. In fact, this is probably the first time I have disagreed outright with one of his analysis. That is because I don't rely on single sources for my information. This particular theory doesn't hold water for me. But, as I said, it is quite possible someone leaked information from Iran, but without any "official" knowledge at the top.
If one accepts the premise that Iran is involved with the "insurgency" (supplying IED''s and such) and is trying to foment civil war in Iraq so that we will leave (allowing them the opportunity to move in and pick up the pieces), as I do, and as you and Peters have indicated in the past, then this is entirely counterintuitive.
It makes no sense to that the people who would benefit the most from chaos in Iraq would drop a dime on the guy creating the most chaos there. Especially when they know that the Sunnis would be the ultimate losers in an all-out civil war, and that we would not stick around to be participants. I don't see the logic there, and until I do, I won't buy the idea that Iran's leadership gave Zarqawi.
Even the captured Zarqawi letter that states the al-qeuda should try to start a war between Iran and the US doesn't change that. Many have speculated that Iran itself is looking for such a conflict in order to consolidate popular support for the government, including Alan if I'm not mistaken. If that is true, and I think it may be, that is yet another reason to let Zarqawi keep on keeping on.
It is quite possible though, that having seen Zarqawi killed, and his usefullness at an end, that the Iranian leadership decided to make political hay by taking credit for it giving him up. This, to me, is the more likely scenario.
You and Peters can't be right all the time. No one is. Don't take it personally. And if it turns out you are right, I will humble myself by apologizing on this forum.
There are multiple factors that made Iran do what it did. None of them were intended to take any credit 'after the fact'. The take down decision was made at the top levels of the neo-Iranian regime (Ahmadi-Nejad etc.) with Al Qaeda input and request. The "leak" of this being Iranian has damaged them not helped them and was not intended to come out.
1. They host some very senior Al Qaeda leaders, including OBL's son and several hundred others. These were increasingly upset at Zarghawi refusing to work with the most senior Al Qaeda operative in Iraq and rising above his position. Remember he was considered a thug and a half-wit even by the Al Qaeda, so not held in high esteem for what he did.
2. As you say, Iran backs the Shias and Zarghawi crossed the line with his slaughter of Shia innocents. And also Sunnis in a fairly indiscriminate fashion to suit himself not Iran's plans. This reached a point where he became a liability to the whole insurgency movement - with both Sunnis and Shias and Iraqis in general beginning to hate him for killing innocents.
This began to instigate an anti-insurgency backlash and Iraqis began to give up insurgents. Even openly fight against them in some areas. Not good for Iran's general plans. Nor Al Qaeda's objectives.
3.Iran has plans that require an even "negotiating" apearance as they try to buy time with the USA - as they have for years with the EU. Zarghawi was making this impossible and would not take orders any more. Even after Al Qaeda put in place someone above him and the other senior Al Qaeda man in Iraq to try to maintain some semblance of order in the ranks.
4. Iran's stance against Israel requires their surrogates HAMAS to be less of a target in Jordan, which had begun finding, arresting and disarming HAMAS operatives. And their weapons caches. Which through Syria and Jordan itself could be turned back and used against Israel at the right time. Again Zarghawi was making this impossible with his attacks on/in Jordan, including killing a prominent HAMAS leader in the hotel bombing.
5. He publicly berated and disrespecgted Iranian President Ahmadi-Nejad for paying lip service to the destruction of Israel and not really taking any action to achieve it. Remember Zarghawi is a Palestinian and a loose cannon here, who wants the destruction of Israel more than anything else. Other than rising to prominence to a point where he overshadows OBL and Al-Zawahiri. Neither of whom could stomach the dimwitted thug nor rely on his weak brain power to do what was best for the movement rather than personal notoriety.
6. Jordan feels vulnerable as HAMAS and 65% of Jordan's Palestinian population were reverting to considering Jordan as the new Palestinian State, something Arafat tried to promote but was kicked out of the country for preaching sedition. Zarghawi was again helping foment this thought and had to be removed sooner or later for Jordan's survival as a monarchy.
7. Iran would love for this story to go away instead of having two Iranian passengers in a car shot to death and their consulate in Southern Iraq attacked by Shias. Who resented Iran's support of Zarghawi and the latter's indiscrimihate murder of Shias. While Sunnis were becoming increasingly irritated by the manner of sectarian strife Zarghawi was sowing. Mostly indiscriinate slaughter. Neither Iran nor Al Qaeda needed this to continue after it crossed the red line of tolerance or acceptance by Iraqis. But Zarghawi would not listen and was "fired" - permanantly.
Iran could not clearly sully its own hands with his blood, so came the conduit to Jordan via HAMAS.
With Zarghawi becoming too big for his boots to listen to instructions and becoming a liability too great to continue to accept his mindless killings, Iran gave HAMAS detailed info, which they passed to Jordan, which then adivsed us in Washington DC.
Letting the USA know may not have been part of the plan since HAMAS was offering Jordan an olive branch and probably hoped Jordanian Special Forces, who operated in the region, would kill Zarghawi (they have always wanted him badly).
Jordan wants a slow down or halt to the USA pushing for a Palestinian State because it could be Jordan itself that became earmarked to be that State rather than the West Bank or Ghaza. So Jordan gave us the heads up to earn some brownie points.
This is all convoluted interaction of many policies and varied benefits among confrontational and amicable parties.
I respect your comments and would never need an apology of any kind ever, just a realization that interactions here run deeper and in more directions than may appear to your logic at first sight.
NOW! What think you of the North Korea missile situation? Has it also occurred to you that it is a proving test for equipment already sold to Iran?
That it is not an independent N. Korean action or test or sabre rattling but linked to Iranian plans for missiles and nuclear capability?
N. Korea has been the provider of nose cones to Iran and now a longer range missile than Iran's Shahab 3.
Which has to be first tested and proved before Iran hands over the money?
BTW - Somebody posted a link in this thread to the GIS website which describes what their activites are and have been for DECADES.
They are the "go-to" guys for many intel organizations as they have worldwide "assets" on the ground and among intel services of many countries. I cannot remember which post it was but it provided a link with contacts. As far as I know you can only subscribe if you are a member of a recognized intel organization. It's not for the general public or the Press.
They are unerringly, sometimes eerily accurate and totally unjournalistic in their presentations. They write analyses for the intel pro and only for them.