Document Analysis: The Iran Connection
As our readers know, Marcie covered this document on Sunday. It was a conversation held by a number of unidentified males, and a man named Tariq. We presume that this is Tariq Aziz given the gravity of the course the conversation takes. Allow me to get into some details with this particular avenue the conversation decided to veer off towards.
We did get a few e-mails regarding this post, and they were full of a couple important questions. I'm going to do my best to answer these questions. Bear this in mind: I'm not an intelligence analyst. I don't do this professionally. However, I'll try to analyze certain things as best I can, and hopefully answer some questions.
Male18 Sir, about the Iranian representative, started to meet a few of the ministers; he’s showing his desire to improve the Iraq-Iran relationship. Comrade Tariq and I talked and discussed information about this subject, comrades Tariq’s idea was that the representative should know that his government is acting completely opposite from what he is saying, and we’ll see the reaction.
Based on the official stance from Iran, up until our invasion, the Islamic Republic was still at odds with Iraq, so this is a key point to address. Iranian ministers seem to be the ones attempting to make contact, and the Iraqis are open to it.
I directed the ones whom he wanted to meet, and this discussion happened.
Until now the representative is assuring the point of improving the relationship and the desire of the Iranian side to improve the relations.
Again, they're reemphasizing that this is an Iranian idea to improve relations. This wasn't Saddam asking permission to send his people there. Iran was desiring to begin repairing relations with Iraq.
The latest I got is, remember Sir, when the Prime Minister and I came back from Iran, and they issued invitations for the ministers.
After an initial visit (I'm guessing this was their first), Iran wants to see more Iraqi officials. This is not simply a move by Iran to improve relations. As we'll see later, Iran has good reason to seek out Iraq.
The latest I got from the Health Minister, our health department that the Iranian Health Minister is asking to visit Iraq because he had a previous invitation. But because of the situation that we used to have he couldn’t before.
The phrase I highlighted is interesting; it declares that the relations once possessed by both Iraq and Iran--that of blood enemies--has changed, already. "We used to have" signifies the past, not the present. So the bigger question that I'm unable to answer (Sorry Jon) is how long could this new relationship been going on prior to this conversation. Could it have been months? Probably. Maybe a year, or so, but it's pure speculation. I have no solid answer.
So they want their Health minister to visit. We looked at it, and we said we have no problem with it, if he wants to come, welcome. If he wants to come and meet with us, we have no problem with that.
The truth, Sir, now they’re trying in a way to contact us and improve their relationship with us, my opinion is yes, what you said about them conspiring against us is true, but that doesn’t mean we don’t take precautions and be aware when dealing with them, and at the same time we move to the Iranian side to at least have them on our side. This is my opinion. This is the information we have about the Iranian movements.
This section is of definite interest. Not only do they reinforce that it is Iran seeking out this "truce," but they note that it is beneficial to them to have them as an ally. This gives me the first clue to when this conversation takes place. It is of urgency, obviously (every time we have seen "Sir" used in these transcripts addressing a superior seems to lend an extra bit of emphasis to what they say), so it is likely that this conversation took place after 2001.
Male 1 About Iran, I’m pointing out one thing, they are practical people, "Pragmatic", as Mr. Sa’dun Hammadi likes to call them. They noticed now that the Gulf countries are not taking care of them like they used to, the Gulf countries have America so they don’t need Iran any more, so the political side got weak, the friendship side. They don’t fear them any more either.
This is the key to unlocking the date. It narrowly defines a possible year. It wasn't until after 11 September that the Gulf States really looked to the US favorably. Not only in shared mourning over the deaths of almost 3000 people, but also because the president served notice. Those that aid and abet terrorists is an enemy. Anyone who harbors terrorists is an enemy. The Gulf States don't want to become targets in our war. They'd rather be our friend. And being our friend means that they need to cease relations to both Iran and Iraq. Why, you ask? Do you remember the president's "Axis of Evil" speech? It was delivered on 29 January, 2002. The rest of that years involved gaining Congress's approval for the use of military force in Iraq, and the build-up for the war. As the year ticked away, so did the mortality of the Saddam regime.
Saddam needed allies, and the best one he could possibly have is Iran. Not only would Iran be able to lend Iraq strength with an alliance, but also lend them the use of their own terrorists from Hezbollah. It's a distinct possibility that Saddam was counting on that help. He opened up his prisons of the most dangerous people within Iraq to give our forces fits, but not too soon after our invasion, we were facing foreign terrorists, and not just the recent arrivals of al Qaeda reinforcements. So, the question remains as to when the conversation takes place, and this piece backs up my speculative assessment. The conversation took place in early 2002 to early 2003, after both nations were put on notice with the president's speech.
And the international level also, they made a big deal of Iran before, and now it slowed down, isn’t that so Comrade Tariq?
Tariq Yes, and they’re pressuring them about the Nuclear subject.
Male 1 Nuclear, and others…
This also falls in line with the date I've assessed. The first time the IAEA made a big deal about Iran's nuclear program was in February of 2003, when they demanded Iran's compliance to investigate their nuclear facilities. It was not until after the invasion that the IAEA (November, 2003) declared there was no evidence to show Iran was working on nuclear weapons. Iran, at this point, is under severe pressure from the world community regarding it's nuclear programs. If they were really that needy, they would have conveyed a greater sense of urgency in working on a new relationship, and it seems so, thus far, as the conversation illustrates.
Tariq They are talking about Iran just like they did with us in the beginning.
Male 1 In the beginning.
The other side, in their meetings, their ambassadors all over the world are telling them that the Islamic world by consensus is against them, I’m sure they do so because their stand about Iraq, and I’m sure they also tell them, the general Arabic consensus is against them too for the same reason.
So they do need a visit that would give the impression that they are trying to improve things with us. Of course they want that, its not going to hurt them, on the public side…
Male19 Inside and outside
Male 1 And it’s not harmful on the Islamic, Arabic, international and the non-aligned countries sides either. Not harmful is a title, but you know it is very helpful on the inside.
So we shouldn’t give them this unless we agree. In other words, when someone comes and visits, we tell them before the visit, what should we tell our people when you still have thousands being held by you? What should we tell our people when you have your borders? What should we tell our people about your latest silly conspiracy? So come on so we can agree and settle these things clearly; agree on each ones’ benefit and agree on all the steps. Lets not stay Iraqis, "do you know what I mean when I say don’t stay Iraqis?"
Male 20 Good people…
Male 1 That’s what I mean… we’ll tell them, "before you and I visit each other, lets agree on something," agree on something specific, your and our interests are clear, and we keep talking about the Prisoners of War, the war ended. What’s your explanation for keeping the old ones and taking the new ones? The military and the civilian planes? We can’t fly; we’ll bring it, will load it on a truck and bring it. Will dissemble the military planes to 4 peaces and bring it back, and civilian. Let it come back home. A truck will pull it all the way till it gets to Iraq. Once it’s inside Iraq we’ll deal with it.
The other reason for Iran to come our way is that Iran started to feel the dangers… they know that what’s going on in Iraq might happen to them. If they have something, missiles, technology, nuclear or other…That is where they’re going.
This is the one point that throws people off, and makes a few believe that this conversation took place earlier than the one I've given. That questioning results from the italicized section of the quote. Yet, Saddam was given one last chance to come clean. This quote could imply that sort of pressure, as Iraq watched the coalition build around them. And if Iran was that smart to recognize the problems occurring with Iraq to somehow affect them, it made sense to make this alliance.
In addition, it would make some sense for both sides to work with one another. Both nations possessed WMDs, and both nations were working on nuclear weapons. Should they have made that alliance, there is no telling how long their research would take before they were able to make a nuclear weapon. I would say that it was only our timely invasion that prevented any further diplomatic talks, official or otherwise.
No one asked them or consulted with them when it came to the Madrid conference.These are the issues.
Male 21 There are slowly growing changes in the area, but, one must know how to deal with it…
There you go. Amateur analysis, and I hope I answered the questions on our readers minds. Many of them speculated about the date of this conversation. I place it between early 2002 and early 2003. I know it's a broad range, but it's the best I can do. The desire for Iran to locate an ally was simple. The other Gulf States were looking at America as an ally; one that could protect them from possible Iran or Iraq aggression. It's clear from Iran's saber-rattling lately that the Gulf States' fears were justified. As none of the other states have WMDs (especially nukes), a nuclear Iran was their worst nightmare. And as for Iraq's benefit of this new relationship, they would have gained an ally that possessed the same WMDs they had, ensuring a deadly rain on our troops--had this alliance been formed prior to our invasion--but Iran would have fully unleashed Hezbollah on us. And we now have information coming out about al Qaeda's connection to Iran. Two terrorist groups gunning only for us isn't a prospect that warms the hearts of too many soldiers.
Finally, the one question that has to be answered comes from Carmen, a reader in California. The question is simple: Why would two sworn enemies suddenly put all ill feelings aside? Well, aside from the military strength of the alliance itself, the simple truth is an age old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my ally." Marcie stated this in her post, ans she's correct. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraq, Iran ... they all hate us. Yes, it's true that they have deep ideological differences that would likely cause them to turn on one another once they "vanquished" us. But until then, we're their number one enemy, and there is strength in numbers. Those numbers, while unsavory to them, serve as the reinforcements they needed. But now Iraq is removed fromt hat equation, and that "coalition" won't happen with them. The other three are on their own, and they are still plotting or defeat.
Publius II
As our readers know, Marcie covered this document on Sunday. It was a conversation held by a number of unidentified males, and a man named Tariq. We presume that this is Tariq Aziz given the gravity of the course the conversation takes. Allow me to get into some details with this particular avenue the conversation decided to veer off towards.
We did get a few e-mails regarding this post, and they were full of a couple important questions. I'm going to do my best to answer these questions. Bear this in mind: I'm not an intelligence analyst. I don't do this professionally. However, I'll try to analyze certain things as best I can, and hopefully answer some questions.
Male18 Sir, about the Iranian representative, started to meet a few of the ministers; he’s showing his desire to improve the Iraq-Iran relationship. Comrade Tariq and I talked and discussed information about this subject, comrades Tariq’s idea was that the representative should know that his government is acting completely opposite from what he is saying, and we’ll see the reaction.
Based on the official stance from Iran, up until our invasion, the Islamic Republic was still at odds with Iraq, so this is a key point to address. Iranian ministers seem to be the ones attempting to make contact, and the Iraqis are open to it.
I directed the ones whom he wanted to meet, and this discussion happened.
Until now the representative is assuring the point of improving the relationship and the desire of the Iranian side to improve the relations.
Again, they're reemphasizing that this is an Iranian idea to improve relations. This wasn't Saddam asking permission to send his people there. Iran was desiring to begin repairing relations with Iraq.
The latest I got is, remember Sir, when the Prime Minister and I came back from Iran, and they issued invitations for the ministers.
After an initial visit (I'm guessing this was their first), Iran wants to see more Iraqi officials. This is not simply a move by Iran to improve relations. As we'll see later, Iran has good reason to seek out Iraq.
The latest I got from the Health Minister, our health department that the Iranian Health Minister is asking to visit Iraq because he had a previous invitation. But because of the situation that we used to have he couldn’t before.
The phrase I highlighted is interesting; it declares that the relations once possessed by both Iraq and Iran--that of blood enemies--has changed, already. "We used to have" signifies the past, not the present. So the bigger question that I'm unable to answer (Sorry Jon) is how long could this new relationship been going on prior to this conversation. Could it have been months? Probably. Maybe a year, or so, but it's pure speculation. I have no solid answer.
So they want their Health minister to visit. We looked at it, and we said we have no problem with it, if he wants to come, welcome. If he wants to come and meet with us, we have no problem with that.
The truth, Sir, now they’re trying in a way to contact us and improve their relationship with us, my opinion is yes, what you said about them conspiring against us is true, but that doesn’t mean we don’t take precautions and be aware when dealing with them, and at the same time we move to the Iranian side to at least have them on our side. This is my opinion. This is the information we have about the Iranian movements.
This section is of definite interest. Not only do they reinforce that it is Iran seeking out this "truce," but they note that it is beneficial to them to have them as an ally. This gives me the first clue to when this conversation takes place. It is of urgency, obviously (every time we have seen "Sir" used in these transcripts addressing a superior seems to lend an extra bit of emphasis to what they say), so it is likely that this conversation took place after 2001.
Male 1 About Iran, I’m pointing out one thing, they are practical people, "Pragmatic", as Mr. Sa’dun Hammadi likes to call them. They noticed now that the Gulf countries are not taking care of them like they used to, the Gulf countries have America so they don’t need Iran any more, so the political side got weak, the friendship side. They don’t fear them any more either.
This is the key to unlocking the date. It narrowly defines a possible year. It wasn't until after 11 September that the Gulf States really looked to the US favorably. Not only in shared mourning over the deaths of almost 3000 people, but also because the president served notice. Those that aid and abet terrorists is an enemy. Anyone who harbors terrorists is an enemy. The Gulf States don't want to become targets in our war. They'd rather be our friend. And being our friend means that they need to cease relations to both Iran and Iraq. Why, you ask? Do you remember the president's "Axis of Evil" speech? It was delivered on 29 January, 2002. The rest of that years involved gaining Congress's approval for the use of military force in Iraq, and the build-up for the war. As the year ticked away, so did the mortality of the Saddam regime.
Saddam needed allies, and the best one he could possibly have is Iran. Not only would Iran be able to lend Iraq strength with an alliance, but also lend them the use of their own terrorists from Hezbollah. It's a distinct possibility that Saddam was counting on that help. He opened up his prisons of the most dangerous people within Iraq to give our forces fits, but not too soon after our invasion, we were facing foreign terrorists, and not just the recent arrivals of al Qaeda reinforcements. So, the question remains as to when the conversation takes place, and this piece backs up my speculative assessment. The conversation took place in early 2002 to early 2003, after both nations were put on notice with the president's speech.
And the international level also, they made a big deal of Iran before, and now it slowed down, isn’t that so Comrade Tariq?
Tariq Yes, and they’re pressuring them about the Nuclear subject.
Male 1 Nuclear, and others…
This also falls in line with the date I've assessed. The first time the IAEA made a big deal about Iran's nuclear program was in February of 2003, when they demanded Iran's compliance to investigate their nuclear facilities. It was not until after the invasion that the IAEA (November, 2003) declared there was no evidence to show Iran was working on nuclear weapons. Iran, at this point, is under severe pressure from the world community regarding it's nuclear programs. If they were really that needy, they would have conveyed a greater sense of urgency in working on a new relationship, and it seems so, thus far, as the conversation illustrates.
Tariq They are talking about Iran just like they did with us in the beginning.
Male 1 In the beginning.
The other side, in their meetings, their ambassadors all over the world are telling them that the Islamic world by consensus is against them, I’m sure they do so because their stand about Iraq, and I’m sure they also tell them, the general Arabic consensus is against them too for the same reason.
So they do need a visit that would give the impression that they are trying to improve things with us. Of course they want that, its not going to hurt them, on the public side…
Male19 Inside and outside
Male 1 And it’s not harmful on the Islamic, Arabic, international and the non-aligned countries sides either. Not harmful is a title, but you know it is very helpful on the inside.
So we shouldn’t give them this unless we agree. In other words, when someone comes and visits, we tell them before the visit, what should we tell our people when you still have thousands being held by you? What should we tell our people when you have your borders? What should we tell our people about your latest silly conspiracy? So come on so we can agree and settle these things clearly; agree on each ones’ benefit and agree on all the steps. Lets not stay Iraqis, "do you know what I mean when I say don’t stay Iraqis?"
Male 20 Good people…
Male 1 That’s what I mean… we’ll tell them, "before you and I visit each other, lets agree on something," agree on something specific, your and our interests are clear, and we keep talking about the Prisoners of War, the war ended. What’s your explanation for keeping the old ones and taking the new ones? The military and the civilian planes? We can’t fly; we’ll bring it, will load it on a truck and bring it. Will dissemble the military planes to 4 peaces and bring it back, and civilian. Let it come back home. A truck will pull it all the way till it gets to Iraq. Once it’s inside Iraq we’ll deal with it.
The other reason for Iran to come our way is that Iran started to feel the dangers… they know that what’s going on in Iraq might happen to them. If they have something, missiles, technology, nuclear or other…That is where they’re going.
This is the one point that throws people off, and makes a few believe that this conversation took place earlier than the one I've given. That questioning results from the italicized section of the quote. Yet, Saddam was given one last chance to come clean. This quote could imply that sort of pressure, as Iraq watched the coalition build around them. And if Iran was that smart to recognize the problems occurring with Iraq to somehow affect them, it made sense to make this alliance.
In addition, it would make some sense for both sides to work with one another. Both nations possessed WMDs, and both nations were working on nuclear weapons. Should they have made that alliance, there is no telling how long their research would take before they were able to make a nuclear weapon. I would say that it was only our timely invasion that prevented any further diplomatic talks, official or otherwise.
No one asked them or consulted with them when it came to the Madrid conference.These are the issues.
Male 21 There are slowly growing changes in the area, but, one must know how to deal with it…
There you go. Amateur analysis, and I hope I answered the questions on our readers minds. Many of them speculated about the date of this conversation. I place it between early 2002 and early 2003. I know it's a broad range, but it's the best I can do. The desire for Iran to locate an ally was simple. The other Gulf States were looking at America as an ally; one that could protect them from possible Iran or Iraq aggression. It's clear from Iran's saber-rattling lately that the Gulf States' fears were justified. As none of the other states have WMDs (especially nukes), a nuclear Iran was their worst nightmare. And as for Iraq's benefit of this new relationship, they would have gained an ally that possessed the same WMDs they had, ensuring a deadly rain on our troops--had this alliance been formed prior to our invasion--but Iran would have fully unleashed Hezbollah on us. And we now have information coming out about al Qaeda's connection to Iran. Two terrorist groups gunning only for us isn't a prospect that warms the hearts of too many soldiers.
Finally, the one question that has to be answered comes from Carmen, a reader in California. The question is simple: Why would two sworn enemies suddenly put all ill feelings aside? Well, aside from the military strength of the alliance itself, the simple truth is an age old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my ally." Marcie stated this in her post, ans she's correct. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraq, Iran ... they all hate us. Yes, it's true that they have deep ideological differences that would likely cause them to turn on one another once they "vanquished" us. But until then, we're their number one enemy, and there is strength in numbers. Those numbers, while unsavory to them, serve as the reinforcements they needed. But now Iraq is removed fromt hat equation, and that "coalition" won't happen with them. The other three are on their own, and they are still plotting or defeat.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:54 AM
1 Comments:
Excellent analysis. Ty. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home