Tag Archives: Syria

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE INTELLIGENCE PROBLEM
AND THE MIDDLE EAST

Syria claimed to accept the cease-fire agreement proposed by U.N. envoy Kofi Annan, but the guns never stopped roaring. Assad said one thing to Kofi Annan, and another to his troops. “Okay,” to Kofi. “Sick ‘em” to the army. In response, Prince Saud al-Faisal called for the arming of the rebels and saw doing so to be “a duty.” Speaking for the opposition, Lt. Col. Qassim Saad al-Din indicated he wanted the truce, but the government continued to keep tanks and troops in the villages. For the freedom fighters to stop under these conditions would be a slaughter. Shouldn’t the world have known that Assad would not stop? Well, yes and no. No, if we base decisions on his previous behavior. Possibly yes, if we were aiming at insider information for his defense leaders. In an earlier blog, I noted that spying on Iran is tougher than ferreting information out of North Korea. Spying hasn’t proved easy in Syria. Why hasn’t the intelligence gathering been better? There are larger reasons for American reluctance.

A recent front page story from The New York Times noted that the ghosts of Iraq hang heavy around the CIA. Months after the war began, one of the CIA analysts had an emotional breakdown because he realized that he had misguided the Bush administration. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! The fear that the intelligence community might get it wrong again continues to spook current analysts and advisers. As shouts for military intervention increase, the Central Intelligence Agency knows that its credibility is on the line. They can not afford to be wrong again.

Charges are being made against the American spy system that range from sloppy work to reluctance to being blamed for sending the country down a dead end street again. Former agents point to murky information that is difficult to always understand. Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst on the Middle East, warns of overcompensation for past errors. At the same time, other authorities recognize that there are gaps in what we know. One of the previous problems was former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s frequent visits to CIA headquarters pressuring officials to document his concerns just before the Iraq war began. On the other hand, conversatives now claim the Obama administration may be doing the same thing. When there is top down pressure on intelligence gathering, the results have to become warped. One conservative critque accused the CIA of superficial information gathering in order to influence the coming election and political Thomas Fingar, former chairman of the National Ingelligence Council, added a thoughtful note. “Learning from past mistakes is imperative. Worrying about them is

As I try to pull together past mistakes and current concerns, I conclude its imperative to keep politics out of intelligence gathering. Keep the politicians of both parties up on Capital Hill and let the spies do their work in the dark. We don’t need politicians in the kitchen stirring the soup. As we attempt to discover what Assad’s next moves will be in this bloody campaign, let’s hope poor judgments about Iraq aren’t contaminating precise insights about the current Middle East situation.

Question: Can Americans trust the CIA if politicans continue to influence decisions? Do
we need a new approach to intelligence gathering?

WHY CAN’T WE GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER ON IRAN?

Israel says one thing; American says another.

Netanyahu says go; Obama says wait.

Why the disconnect?

In 2010, a crisis erupted in America’s intelligence gathering community. Sixteen different agencies struggled to decide if the Iranians were in a crash program to develop nuclear explosives. The opinions were far from unanimous. In the end, many within this select and clandestine group concluded Iran might not have decided to pursue such a weapon yet.

These assessments certainly face a new pressure. During the Bush years, the United States badly mis-assessed Iraq’s race for nuclear weaponry. With a grinding of the teeth, officials of Bush’s administration now admit they were wrong. In spite of loud mouthed radio commentators, no missiles were found in the desert sands. Consequently, the current administration is reading and re-reading reports carefully.

However, there is another factor in this equation that makes the matter even more difficult. Accurate intelligence on Iran is harder to gather than was the case in Iraq.  A senior intelligence official recently stated it is even more difficult that it is with North Korea.

Why?

It is highly difficult to determine who speaks authoritatively on what. Serious divisions of opinion exist within Iran. While they all hate America and Israel (because we live in the 21^st century while Iran is stuck in the 6th), the country has deep divisions. Several years ago, I was in Damascus, Syria when a group of tourist from Iran came through. Thinking I was a Canadian, a couple sat down to talk. with me. I discovered that they were trying to immigrate to Canada as they feared what was ahead for Iran. The couple whispered that they believed “craziness” ran the country. I hope they were able to get out.

We do know Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remains Iran’s supreme leader and is more rigid than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, both are extremist. On the other hand, some estimates say that 80% of the country are opposed to these rulers. With their economy headed toward the bottom and international sanctions piling up, many predict it is only a matter of time before Tehran’s theocratic regime is pushed out of office.

No one can tell how accurate these reports are, but they do reflect highly significant divisions within the country. Actually, Iran is a weak and vulnerable country. Their recent decisions have made them increasingly isolated.  Of course, no one wants the military option. The problem is that a small group in that country do.

In the vacuum of solid information, it appears the Ayatollah holds the trump card. Would he play it? The Iranian couple I met in Damascus believe he would.

One of the great strengths of American life and politics is the recognition of the country’s founders that church and government must not mix. The shadow of the Ayatollah reminds us of how deadly religion can be when stirred up as a position in politics.

Back to where we started. America and Israel aren’t really that far apart. Mossad leaders tilt toward more aggressive action because of the existential threat to the Jewish state. Making sure of the facts concerning Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons remains the unresolved issue

Question:

What’s your guess? Do you think Iran is hotly pursuing a nuclear weapon?

UPDATE ON ISRAEL’S VULNERABILITY

Not long ago I was in Israel’s Jezreel Valley. Sometimes identified as the sight of the great battle of Armageddon, the peaceful, rolling green pastures look like a gentle farming area. Not far away is the Meggido Pass which holds some of the most ancient ruins in Israel because Meggido had always been a major crossroads in journeying from Egypt to the Fertile Crescent. A fascinating vacation area. Not so!

Hidden within those hills is Ramat David Air Force Base housing F-16 fighter jets that come roaring out every few hours to patrol the skies. Jets are scrambled daily to intercept civilian aircraft failing to respond to Israel’s air traffic control demands and thus prevent a 9/11 disaster in Israel. Because of this strategic location, Ramat David would be a prime target for Syria or Hezbollah in a future war. Currently, Syria remains bogged down in what amounts to a civil war so I’m sure the base is not a primary interest for the Al-Assah regime. However, an assault would probably come from another direction.

When (assuming Iran remains intransigent) Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, Ramat David would probably be the point of departure should the attack on Iran come from the sky. In a mission of considerable distance, saving every drop of fuel would be paramount. Ramat David’s location in the far north provides that advantage. But can they accomplish the goal of knocking our Iran’s program? The answer depends on who you listen to.

Three recent chiefs of staff includind Dan Halutz, Gabi Ashkenazi, and Benny Gantz believe Israel can knock out some of Iran’s facilities, but not destroy their program because Iran has already mastered the technology to build a bomb. A strike on buildings, storage tanks, etc., would be feasible but difficult. To avoid what happened to Syria and Iraq, Iran has built their facilities across a wide area, making one strike impossible to stop the program. Still, knocking out the facilities at Natanz, Arak, and Isfahan would deal a serious blow to Iran’s attempt to create nuclear weapons.

The hidden joker in the deck may yet prove to be Israel’s three Dolphin-class German-made submarines which can carry large warheads. These vessels might be capable of carrying nuclear-armed Popeye Tubo cruise missiles. If I was sitting in the driver’s seat in Iran, I’d be giving more than a second-thought to what this backdoor approach could accomplish if provoked.

Probably, the most important element in this situation is the unequivocal support President Obama gave publically to Israel in exchange for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s agreement to give more time for sanctions to work. Mr. Obama gave Israel the green light that the USA will stop Iran at all costs, including use of military force.

I conclude that Israel’s front and back doors are covered. While President Obama has not been trusted by Israelis for some time, this recent confirmation that America stands behind Israel reshuffles the cards.

Israel is secure; Iran is not.

The mullahs better give the situation a great deal more scrutiny. My bet? They won’t.