Posted on 06/22/2004 5:31:09 AM PDT by yoe
The Iranian government learned recently that American intelligence has deciphered its codes and can read its mail. This is a blow to American interests, for it means losing the ability to access the enemy's confidential communications, with all the advantages that offers.
Who is to blame for this development?
Ahmad Chalabi — the Iraqi politician whom I have known, worked with, supported, and admired since 1991 — has for the past month sat in the hot seat, accused by unnamed intelligence officials of informing the Iranian regime that its codes had been cracked.
Mr. Chalabi denies the accusation, saying that he and his organization, the Iraqi National Congress, have not received "any classified information" from the American government. For what it is worth, the Iranians also deny that Mr. Chalabi told them about American code breaking.
Thinking this through logically, I conclude that Mr.Chalabi is not responsible for the damage to American interests; rather, the blame falls on his opponents in the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department. Here is my logic, a form of "walking back the cat" (spook-speak, defined by William Safire as applying "what is now known to the actions and events of a previous time").
To begin with, I make three assumptions: First, that the reaction in Washington, which includes possible criminal prosecutions, bespeaks sincerity and confirms that American cryptographers did indeed crack the Iranian codes. Second, that Tehran interprets the American reaction as proof that its codes were cracked. Third, that it is taking the necessary steps to regain secrecy.
One possibility is that Mr. Chalabi told the Iranians nothing. In which case, the allegation that he did so originated elsewhere:
Perhaps State or the CIA made it up. (Plausible: Time magazine has documented how, since April, the White House has been attempting to marginalize Mr. Chalabi.) Or the Iranians floated it to check if their codes were broken. (Plausible: It would explain why they used that same code to tell about the code break.) Or Mr. Chalabi did tell them that Washington had cracked the code. In which case:
Perhaps he made this up and just happened to be right. (Plausible: Mr. Chalabi reportedly took steps in 1995 to trick the Iranians.) Or he thought he was providing disinformation but actually was telling the truth. (Unlikely: Too convoluted.) Or he knowingly divulged classified information. (Unlikely: Why should the Americans give Mr. Chalabi, a British subject known to be in close contact with the Iranian regime, a crown jewel of American state secrets?) Whichever scenario actually took place, the implication is identical: the brouhaha in D.C., not what Mr. Chalabi did or did not say, signaled Tehran that the Americans broke their code.
That's because anyone can assert that the code was cracked, but why should he be believed? The Iranians surely would not accept Mr. Chalabi's assertion on its own and go to the huge trouble and expense of changing codes because of his say-so. They would seek confirmation from American intelligence; and this is what the unnamed sources who leaked this story did — they supplied that proof. Their fury at Mr. Chalabi instructed the Iranians to change codes.
In the end, what Mr. Chalabi did or did not do is nearly irrelevant; his detractors in the American government, ironically, bear the onus for having informed the Iranian opponent about a vital piece of intelligence.
Americans might pay heavily for the rank irresponsibility of those in State and the agency who publicly confirmed the code break as part of their turf wars with the Defense Department and, more broadly, their fight with the so-called neoconservatives.
On this latter point, note how gleefully elements of the American press exploited the allegations against Mr. Chalabi. To take one example of many, the Los Angeles Times on June 10 published "A Tough Time for 'Neocons'" which states that neoconservatives are "under siege" partly because, "in a grave threat to their reputation, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi — is enmeshed in an FBI investigation of alleged intelligence leaks that supplied secrets to Iran."
Were the press properly doing its duty, it would stop playing the Washington favorites game and investigate the likely damage Mr. Chalabi's opponents have done. Were State and CIA managements doing their job, they would be punishing the elements who conveyed a vital secret to the militant Islamic government in Iran.
State and the CIA need a thorough housecleaning!
Exactly. Daniel Pipes gets it right - Ahmad Chalabi did not betray a secret to the Iranians, forces inside our government did in order to sideline democrats inside Iraq. Now that's promoting American interests in the Middle East - undermine your friends and help your enemies.
"Or the Iranians floated it to check if their codes were broken. (Plausible: It would explain why they used that same code to tell about the code break.)"
This is a real possibilty.
Enough. The diplomatic culture in the west needs to be shaken out. We need a more 19th century policy, in which the national interest comes first, and which understands that diplomacy only operates in the shadow that power casts. I get disgusted with European diplomats in particular who believe that negotations are the be all and end all of dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein - it is only the idea that you are willing to slaughter the likes of Saddam Hussein, that gets them talking in the first place. Otherwise, all bargaining is done from a position of weakness.
As for the spies, they need the 19th century treatment as well, where necessary.
Regards, Ivan
He cleverly avoids the most obvious means of the Iranians detecting the code break. Mr. Chalabi has a close relationship with the Iranians. Mr. Chalabi revealed information to the Iranians the he had gotten from the Americans. The particular information makes the Iranians suspect a security leak so they feed information into their system they are confident will be forwarded to Mr. Chalabi if the Americans learn it. They send different pieces by different methods, using only one method for each piece. Mr. Chalabi feeds back info to the Iranians which was sent only in a coded message. Voila! The Iranians know the code is broken and Mr. Chalabi is unaware that he is the rat.
It makes so little sense that the Iranians used the same supposed broken code to tell their allies that Americans had broken their code that I laugh out loud whenever I read about this matter.
"State and the CIA need a thorough housecleaning!"
I was hoping Bush would take a giant roto-rooter to State. I don't think he even fired the worst of Beelzebubba's commie fag appointees.
Your post is notable for its clarity. Those who think that the Iranians just used Chalabi's name as the leaker to plumb for leaks ignore the fact that Chalabi is close to the Iranian regime. Why would they burn one of their best allies in Iraq if they were just floating a trial balloon? They could've alleged that they got the info from any number of sources not as favorable to their interests.
The whole thing stinks of an op. Apparently, we want Iran to change its method of secure transmissions for some reason.
Probable reasons:
1) It's a major hassle, and all Iranian secure transmissions made before the new systems are in place must be assumed compromised.
2) We will probably be very close to the solution they choose.
3) In the meantime, their intelligence apparatus is handicapped, making intelligence operations more difficult to conceal, cutting off some deep operatives and possibly exposing them as the transition is made.
The extremely unusual public confirmation of our ability to decipher Iran's communications indicates that this is something we wanted to have happen.
The timing suggests that this was done in part to make it harder for Iran to infiltrate the nascent Iraqi government.
All in all, this cat's been for quite a walk.
That's what they did, so maybe they're not as close to him as you think.
WASHINGTON — The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that for years Iran has used a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress to funnel disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.
"Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program (ICP) information to provoke the United Sates into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source who was briefed on the conclusions of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
Still doesn't answer the question of why they would burn him, unless they were just done with him.
Don't drink the LaRouche kool-aid.
I thought DIA was something a bit different that DISES - that DIA was the recent Rumsfeld creation. Am I missing something? Can't imagine this guy working for Feith.
Check out this correction in the july 17 NYT which admits that its repeated stories that Chalabi's INC provided the "false" witness "Curveball" , sourced to an unnamed CIA official--were wrong and that the 9/11 Commission never made such a finding:
"An article on Monday about the Senate intelligence Acommittee report on prewar intelligence about Iraq misstated the relationship between a defector known as Curveball and the Iraqi National Congress. There is no information that Curveball, who worked with German intelligence, was introduced to that service by the I.N.C., which is led by Ahmad Chalabi. (Articles on June 2 and June 4 also described such a connection, attributing that account to American intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. Those officials now say there was no such established relationship.) The Iraqi National Congress has denied any connection whatsoever to Curveball, and the Senate intelligence committee report issued on July 9 did not describe such a relationship. (Go to Article)"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.