| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Chalabi in cahoots with the mullahs? |
| 2004-05-03 |
| Ahmad Chalabi, the longtime Pentagon favorite to become leader of a free Iraq, has never made a secret of his close ties to Iran. Before the U.S. invasion of Baghdad, Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress maintained a $36,000-a-month branch office in Tehran—funded by U.S. taxpayers. INC representatives, including Chalabi himself, paid regular visits to the Iranian capital. Since the war, Chalabi's contacts with Iran may have intensified: a Chalabi aide says that since December, he has met with most of Iran's top leaders, including supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his top national-security aide, Hassan Rowhani. "Iran is Iraq's neighbor, and it is in Iraq's interest to have a good relationship with Iran," Chalabi's aide says. But U.S. intelligence agencies have recently raised concerns that Chalabi has become too close to Iran's theocratic rulers. NEWSWEEK has learned that top Bush administration officials have been briefed on intelligence indicating that Chalabi and some of his top aides have supplied Iran with "sensitive" information on the American occupation in Iraq. U.S. officials say that electronic intercepts of discussions between Iranian leaders indicate that Chalabi and his entourage told Iranian contacts about American political plans in Iraq. There are also indications that Chalabi has provided details of U.S. security operations. According to one U.S. government source, some of the information Chalabi turned over to Iran could "get people killed." (A Chalabi aide calls the allegations "absolutely false.") Why would Chalabi risk his cozy ties to Washington by cuddling up to Iran's fundamentalist rulers? Administration officials say Chalabi may be working both sides in an effort to solidify his own power and block the advancement of rival Iraqis. A U.S. official familiar with information presented to policymakers said that White House advisers were concerned that Chalabi was "playing footsie" with the Iranians. Yet Chalabi still has loyal defenders among some neoconservatives in the Pentagon. They say Chalabi has provided information that saved American lives. "Rushing to judgment and cutting off this relationship could have unintended consequences," says one Pentagon official, who did not respond to questions about Chalabi's dealings with Tehran. Each month the Pentagon still pays his group a $340,000 stipend, drawn from secret intelligence funds, for "information collection." Still, the State Department and the CIA are using the intelligence about his Iran ties to persuade the president to cut him loose once and for all. Officials say that even some of Chalabi's old allies in Washington now see him as a liability. If Chalabi's support in the administration was once an iceberg, says one Bush aide, "it's now an ice cube." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #7 Yes. It's clear now. The Iraninan-Republican-Iraqi front for oil freedom is obvious. Man-Who-Need-PorkChop-For-DogLove do you ever respond are you pretty much a MassaCunt? |
| Posted by: Mann Bites Dust 2004-05-03 6:20:07 PM |
| #6 Aris has a point. I wonder who's responsible for this leak and why? OTOH maybe it's a PR move by Chalabi himself, trying to stomp on the whole US-puppet stuff. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-05-03 12:12:46 PM |
| #5 Sorry, Mitch, but that's bullshit. Iraq is a drop in the oil bucket regards production. The Eastern Province in S.A. USED to be predominately Shi'a, long long ago before the House of Saud took over - it is NOT now. The oil is there. Do you think the Royals would sit by and allow their sole $$$ source be in such a precarious position? Do you think they want the plum jobs from the constant construction, engineering, maintenance, and mangement going to Shi'a? No chance - they started forcing the Shi'a out and moving Sunnis in starting in the 50's with the first major construction. It never stopped, as far as I know. In addition, much of the Saudi Armed Forces are there - where the oil is, and they are reliable Sunnis. On a personal level, I knew some Shi'a guys at Aramco. Once upon a time they could get on if they were very good technicians (Saudi-version, anyway), and I knew some back in '92, but no longer, only one of the guys I knew is still there. The good ones who were on-board are losing their jobs to the Sunnis cuz there's just not enough cushy jobs to go around - and an Aramco job is a plum for a Saudi. Those left keep a very low profile. And the cleansing continues apace - that's where the money is. Sorry. So what's left in Troll Sucks Dog's post? Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. BTW, the Sunni pop is approx 70% of Arab Islam - Shi'a are the majority only in Iran and Iraq. Yes they have oil, but he's just another moron who's full of shit mixed with Donk screeching. Don't encourage idjits, please, and Troll Sucks Dog is a major example of that species. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-03 11:44:16 AM |
| #4 I think I would rather trust Chalabi to serve Iraq's interests than George Tenet to serve either Iraq's or America's. The CIA has already made a mess of things, and I wouldn't put it beyond them to have made a blunder yet again, and that the Iranians are intentionally manipulating them to cut ties with Chalabi. Sometimes I think that people are forgetting that the other side can be quite manipulative and clever also, offering false information which will serve their purpose. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-03 11:23:46 AM |
| #3 If he means demographically, he might be closer to right than you might think, .com. The southern oil fields in Iraq are obviously in Shia areas, and the eastern portions of Saudi Arabia which are where the majority of the Saudi oilfields are located are heavily Shia. On the other hand, there aren't many Shia in Kuwait, and the Kirkuk oilfields are mostly Sunni, Kurd or Arab. "90%" is an exaggeration, no doubt. Not that this isolated set of facts is particularly supportive of MBD's highly dubious point. Just that they do seem to be, indeed, a species of fact. Or at least in the same family. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-05-03 11:15:48 AM |
| #2 Man Sucks Dog - you don't know fucking dick about the M.E. or oil - or much else from what I can see. 90% of ME oil in Shi'a hands? Are you a looney? Go check, moron - SUNNIs control at least 80% of ME oil - such as the entire GCC. Iran is the ONLY Shi'a dominated country in the ME exporting oil. And Iraq, being recently liberated by Bush, Cheney, et al, will be the second. 'Tard. FOAD, Donk Dick. |
| Posted by: ,com 2004-05-03 9:00:05 AM |
| #1 The Bush-Powell alliance with Chalabi, is a subordination to Iran. Remember: Shiites form the demographic majority in 90% of the Mideast oilfields. I would suggest that Bush doormats put American security interests over crackpot ersatz-democracy crusades. That's not marketable in Shiite Islamania. Indulgence of these animals should not be marketable in America. |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog 2004-05-03 8:51:11 AM |