AQ Khan & Iran - Does Bush Really Want to Open Up this Can of Worms?

[leveymg]

The New York Times is trying to sell the story that Iran was the primary client of the A.Q. Khan nuclear network, and received miniaturized warhead designs. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/world/asia/16nuke.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss That is about as accurate as Judith Miller's stories that Iraq had WMDs.

The fact is, Khan's nuclear program was originally part of the 1976 deal that CIA Director George H.W. Bush made with Princes Kamal Adham and Turki al-Faisal, co-heads of Saudi external intelligence, the GID. In exchange for Saudi funding of U.S. intelligence operations banned by the Democratic Congress since the Church Commmittee hearings, the Agency looked the other way as the Saudis implemented their own covert operations around the world, including Pakistan's bomb program, influence operations and financial frauds inside the U.S., which included BCCI and the S&L scandals.


BCCI was created as the funding vehicle for this joint intelligence operation, called the Safari Club. In addition to bank takeovers, BCCI funded Khan's program to build the Islamic atomic bomb and the develpment of a global Jihadist paramilitary, programs managed by Pakistani ISI intelligence. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/280

The Pakistanis developed a working bomb during the Reagan-Bush era. Khan then began peddling uranium enrichment centrifuges. Customers included North Korea, Iran, and Libya. These machines were of poor quality, broke down constantly, and generally delayed the progress of those who operated them. Khan's machines also required specialized parts manufactured in third-countries, the importation which the CIA used to monitor the progress of Khan's customers. Khan also peddled A-bomb plans of dubious quality - the North Korean device tested in October 2006 didn't work. The CIA, which worked with Khan, tried to do the same with Iran in the late 1990s -- this was called Operation Merlin -- but the Iranians caught on that the plans were bogus. When Cheney outed Plame, he destroyed the CIA unit that was working with Khan on these Clinton-era deception operations. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x4659

The paramilitary aspect of this also deserves mention. In the late 1970s, the CIA commenced Operation Cyclone , working with GID and ISI to train and equip Islamic fighters in Afghanistan, operations that continued in Bosnia as it eventually morphed into what we know today as al-Qaeda. Key 9/11 leaders were part of ongoing joint CIA-ISI-GID operations in the secret war against the Russians in Chechnya, which allowed these al-Qaeda operatives to freely travel in and out of the US under the sponsorship of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center. The failure of Bush to roll up these CIA-ISI-GID paramilitary operations inside the US -- in spite of the urgings to do so by the CIA during the summer of 2001 -- was the direct cause of the 9/11 attacks. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/337

Iran is entirely peripheral to all this.

[ProSense]

1. "Iran is entirely peripheral to all this. "

Iran always was, and so was Iraq

[leveymg]

2. Slightly enlarged version available in orange

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/17/12343/5611/674/537313

[kpete]

3. k&r

!

[readmoreoften]

4. This explains a hell of a lot.

[hootinholler]

5. Thank you Mark! Rec'd

You save me from do a poor job of pointing this stuff out, and I don't have time do do it now.

Khan was all over NPR this AM.

-Hoot

[robertpaulsen]

6. It's easier to make shit up when you don't know what you're talking about.

Neither Bush nor Judy Miller's former employer have any idea what they're talking about regarding Iran now that Brewster, Jennings & Associates have gone the way of the dodo bird. But they're more than happy to sell the fear of their fantasies!

Remember this?

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: February 13, 2006

Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.

Plame's team, they added, would have come in contact with A.Q. Khan's network in the course of her work on Iran.

snip

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html

[leveymg]

8. Laura agrees Val was a subject matter expert, not a desk officer.

That means Plame dealt with Iran and Iraq (and other Khan customers) before she went on maternity leave. As for whether Val was actually part of the unit that ran AQ, Val wrote she "rubbed shoulders" with them at CIA CTC on the 7th Floor bullpen at Langley.

Nobody wants to talk about who actually burned the remnants of the Iran network in 2004 after Merlin, but Risen writes it was a female officer.

Yes, Val knew what was going on in Iran, and the current NYT editors have not a clue. Never have. Don't want to -- that's not their job. Sometimes, a few individual journalists work beyond their job descriptions. Risen did, and it cost The Times $2 million in lawyer fees to keep the Bush Justice Dept. at bay.

[Octafish]

7. You are correct. The thing is, Bushco wants a reason for war.

And the nuke card "works" best for them. It did in 1990, when there was little support for mobilizing against Saddam. It worked wonders in 2003.

Regarding Iran and nukes, in the real world: While Iran is largely Shia and petrodollar rich BCCI was largely funded by Sunni Saudi Arabia, the thing is Nixon-etc helped the Shah get clearance for his nuclear program in the early '70s. They were needed to help with processing the stuff. How convenient for Dr. Khan, later.

Here's a bit of background:

NEED TO GRILL A.Q.KHAN

by B.Raman
South Asia Analysis Group

(Text of the comments sent by the author on December 19,2004, in reply to a query from an Italian journalist regarding possible Pakistani nuclear assistance to Saudi Arabia)

The late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto projected to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Libya Pakistan's project for an atomic bomb as a project for an Islamic bomb to counter what he used to call the Christian, Jewish and Hindu bombs and persuaded them to share the cost of the project. While the exact amounts paid by these countries are not available, the major share came from Saudi Arabia and Libya and a smaller amount from Iran.

2 . While the flow of funds for the Islamic bomb project was substantial and regular from Saudi Arabia and Libya, it was sporadic from Iran. It was regular till 1979 when the Shah of Iran was in power. After the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the US and some other Western countries imposed economic sanctions against Teheran. The US froze all Iranian assets in US banks. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s aggravated Iran's economic difficulties. Saudi Arabia, a Wahabi State, was extremely suspicious of the Shia revolutionaries of Iran. Gen.Zia-ul-Haq, who overthrew Z.A.Bhutto in 1977 and seized power, was himself worried over the radicalisation of the Shias of Pakistan, who constitute about 20 per cent of the population, following the success of the Shia revolution in Iran. The US was interested in the success of Iraq in its war against Iran and would have viewed adversely Pakistan hobnobbing with Teheran and adding to its military muscle.

3. All these factors slowed down the flow of money from Iran, but not Iran's interest in benefiting from Pakistan's experience and military nuclear technology. After the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran's economic position once again improved and the flow of money to the Pakistan project increased and continued.

4. When Z.A. Bhutto and other Pakistani leaders projected the Pakistani atomic bomb as the Islamic bomb to Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran, they emphasised the following:

Pakistan would hold the bomb in its custody on behalf of the Islamic Ummah as a whole.

The bomb would be available for use, if need be, not only against India, but also against Israel.

If any of the funding countries (Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran) felt the need for developing their own independent nuclear capability to protect themselves against Israel, Pakistan would be happy to assist them by training their scientists in Pakistani nuclear establishments, by sharing its technology and experience with them and by placing at their disposal its clandestine nuclear procurement network.

CONTINUED...

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers12/paper1193.html

South Asian journalism really helps, this stuff's so complicated. Big thanks to you, too, leveymg!

[leveymg]

10. This time, nobody wants to believe the damned lies about WMDs.

They're all tired, broken, and ready for home deployment. Nobody believes the stuff about rose petal roads to Tehran. Or, even wants to, anymore.

Dubya and Dick are on their own.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. The CIA installed the Shah, a US-friendly puppet.

They've since given weapons to both Iran and Iraq to get them to fight. Daddy Bush was highly involved. Now we control the oil in Iraq. Bush family friends the UAE, Kuwait, and the Arabians control three of the largest oil reserves on the planet. Iran and Iraq are the remaining two of the overall top five oil reserves on the planet.

Guess who's been after them for decades, and are on the cusp of controlling them completely.

It's all and only about the oil, and the cash and power it provides. It has been for decades.

[leveymg]

11. Hard to argue with that logic, except, it's the threat of war that keeps prices high,

rather than the reality of it in the Middle East.

Best deal for the producers and multinationals, alike, is to maintain tensions and the prospect of supply interruptions, not to actually sink a bunch of tankers and warships in the Straits of Hormuz.

If you're suggesting this is a dance, I'm inclined to agree.

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. It's long been planned out, and was very evident looking back at the Bush/Reagan years.

Iran/Contra, etc.

They're just fulfilling the long-term plan. You betcha that they'd find any reason to keep prices high, any number of phony conflicts/tensions, it doesn't matter, only the end matters. All else is mockery.

[leveymg]

13. Bush Administration tried its damnedest to hang Iran with a WMD rope in 2004-05, but was rebuffed

by the uniformed military and the intelligence mandarins. If Bush-Cheney couldn't succeed then in starting another war, what makes you think they'll succeed now, with less than 5 months left until the election of a new Adminstration?

BTW: You should read the extract of Risen's book, State of War, here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/05/energy.g2 Lays out the Agency's failed effort to scam Iran in 2000 with phony Russian bomb plans. Interestingly, they seem to refer to a plutonium device, but Iran wasn't domestically producing significant amounts of plutonium, just enriched uranium. Did the CIA have information that Iran had plutonium, or did it plan to provide plutonium to Iran? What about the engineering problems attached to milling and fabricating plutonium into spherical plates suitable for implosion?

Lots of interesting questions raised by the Merlin operation.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. Bush invaded Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

What's to stop him from invading Iran?

[leveymg]

15. He got the "Iraq War Resolution" in October, 2002.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 passed both houses by large margins. Based in lies, of course, but those who bothered to read the unclassified version would have seen the Intelligence Community was far from unanimous about Saddam's alleged WMDs, ties to al-Qaeda, and other accusations made by the Administration.

The Pentagon would not start bombing Iran just because Bush picked up a phone and ordered it. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/17/172417/205

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. That's odd, thanks. I'll have to read up on that.

[readmoreoften]

18. I thought that Pelosi killed a motion forcing Bush to ask congress before attacking Iran.

That was on another thread by kpete today.

[leveymg]

21. That's true - but, what if that measure had been rejected by Congress under AIPAC pressure?

Look at the lop-sided endorsement of Kyl-Lieberman.

If the amendment went ahead and failed, that might have been characterized by the Administration as a go-ahead for use of force again Iran with Congressional authorization. Pelosi is trying to pull-off a dangerous balancing act that gets us to January without another war.

[AntiFascist]

16. High prices may not be the ultimate goal...

as any business major should know, if prices are too high then profit will start to fall.

The importance of the Persian Gulf to our foreign policy has always been stressed, even by President Carter. The goal is to continue to supply our oil needs, even as Saudi oil fields begin to decline and as China and India increase their demands.

I believe the goal of this administration has always been to bring about regime change and put into place a privatized-leaning government that will provide easy access to their oil by the West. Of course, they would be calling it a true democracy. Ironically, the CIA once overthrew a democracy in Iran and installed a dictator when Iran threatened to nationalize their oil in the early 1950s: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

[readmoreoften]

19. Our overthrow of Mossadeq is what led to the 1979 revolution.

They hated the Shah so much everyone got together behind hardline Islam because the mosque structure allowed them to pass along secret cassette tapes and notes. The communists (Tudah party), the secular humanist academics, the nationalists, and the Islamists all joined forces to overthrow the Shah because he was (literally) destroying the country and murdering citizens in secret prisons. Then as soon as the Ayatollah took power, he turned around and took all the communists, secular humanists, and nationalists, carted them off to the same secret prison (with its name changed) and killed them all.

Which is probably what we wanted in the first place as I believe Mossadeq was socialist.

[AntiFascist]

20. Excellent points...

also, don't forget, the American right-wing was fully supporting the Islamic forces of God in battling the godless Soviet Union.

[KharmaTrain]

22. It Goes Back To The Founding Of Aramco...

Arab-American Oil Company back in the 30's and 40's...this gave the Saud Family the support it needed to take over Arabia and then to fund its draconian rule. It also created all sorts of revenue streams that have created havoc all over the Middle East...from funding Hamas and Fatah to spreading Wahabism in madreassas all over the region to propping up repressive regimes in the area to funding Khan's work and so much more. The connections are there for all to see, but it's always been a dirty little "family" secret to many in this country as we needed the oil and looked the other way as to what happened with the money or who the money went to.

Iran has long been a strawman as they're an economic, political and religious rival of the Saudis. The U.S. has constantly built its foreign policy to favor the Sauds...especially in recent years...as they profit from the turbulence in the region. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Paksitan have helped the Saudis defuse their own repression as the "jihad" in those countries are the focus...and the more turbulence, the less oil that is put on the market that keeps their profits and market share high.

As always...follow the money...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. This can of worms will only come out into the public 5 years after the war with Iran, don't ya know?

All the info on Iraq and WMD was at everyone fingertips, but because MSM didn't report it, most people were duped. Why should this be any different?

[leveymg]

24. There's been a steady stream of disinformation pushing this

One of the more influential is the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS). In early May, 2007 they published a paper accusing Iran of continuing to be Khan's biggest customer, and claimed a US attack would result.

This is a continuation of accusations they've been making for years that contradict the CIA's recent assessment that there is no solid evidence the program continued after 2003. IISS seems to have some problems assessing the situation

For instance IISS reportedly predicted, incorrectly, two years ago that the US would attack Iran, using its nuclear program as a pretext, but because things weren't working out in Iraq: http://www.buzzflash.com/mediawatch/06/03/wmw06027.html

MARCH 8, 2006

1//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates--AMERICAN ATTACK ON IRAN ‘LIKELY’ (The quagmire that America finds itself in Iraq "makes an attack against Iran more likely," according to the Oxford Research Group. The comments came as Iran was accused of seeking weapons of mass destruction. "The evidence points to Iran building a bomb," the International Institute of Strategic Studies told Gulf News. … The Oxford Research Group is the leading organisation in its field, facilitating dialogue. It has close connections with the highest levels of the British government and is acutely aware of the issues of the day. … "Well, they haven't got Iraq right, which means it is more likely that they will take action against Iran. But there is one other major issue here that America is worried by and that is China. Iran has just signed a $70 billion oil deal with China. This worries America. The geo-politics of oil and the Middle east over the next 30 years is what this is about." … The International Institute of Strategic Studies increased the pressure on Teheran when it told Gulf News that it now believes Iran wants a nuclear weapon. "The cumulative evidence suggests that Iran is building nuclear weapons," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the IISS, a think-tank that examines the global military situation. ... "We are perhaps about 4-6 months from a turning point." This does not mean that Iran will have a physical bomb, that is still about three years away, but it does suggests a time when the knowledge and basic framework needed to produce a bomb come together or at least will be apparent to Teheran. The IISS is considered "left wing in America and right wing in Europe." It reflects Washington's foreign policy through a European prism. What its says carries weight through the fact that it echoes official Washington viewpoints for an audience that is not American.)

And, last year they again cried wolf: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0504/p07s01-wosc.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The jury is still out as to whether Pakistan's nuclear proliferation network, run by scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, is truly dead. But evidence presented this week, by the London-based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), suggests it is not and raises new questions about how that network accommodated Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The report reveals that Mr. Khan "provided Iran with centrifuges, technical designs, components, and an 'address book' of suppliers" and also claims that pieces of Khan's network could still be in operation.

Iran has denied that Pakistani nuclear scientists aided its nuclear program, which it maintains is for peaceful civilian purposes. But the IISS's report suggests that "at least some of Khan's associates appear to have escaped law-enforcement attention and could, after a period of lying low, resume their black-market business."

Now, it's 2008, and the drumbeat goes on. Same beat, same message.