November 18, 2019

"The trove of leaked Iranian intelligence reports largely confirms what was already known about Iran’s firm grip on Iraqi politics."

"But the reports reveal far more than was previously understood about the extent to which Iran and the United States have used Iraq as a staging area for their spy games. They also shed new light on the complex internal politics of the Iranian government, where competing factions are grappling with many of the same challenges faced by American occupying forces as they struggled to stabilize Iraq after the United States invasion. And the documents show how Iran, at nearly every turn, has outmaneuvered the United States in the contest for influence.... [B]y and large, the intelligence ministry operatives portrayed in the documents appear patient, professional and pragmatic. Their main tasks are to keep Iraq from falling apart; from breeding Sunni militants on the Iranian border; from descending into sectarian warfare that might make Shia Muslims the targets of violence; and from spinning off an independent Kurdistan that would threaten regional stability and Iranian territorial integrity. The Revolutionary Guards and General Suleimani have also worked to eradicate the Islamic State, but with a greater focus on maintaining Iraq as a client state of Iran and making sure that political factions loyal to Tehran remain in power...."

From "The Iran Cables: Secret Documents Show How Tehran Wields Power in Iraq/Hundreds of leaked intelligence reports shed light on a shadow war for regional influence — and the battles within the Islamic Republic’s own spy divisions" (NYT).

48 comments:

John henry said...

Sounds like PDJT is screwing up again, right?

Couldn't be Obama's fault at all, right?

John Henry

Hagar said...

Toldjah!

Michael K said...

The US "Intelligence Agencies", ie, CIA, seems to have taken its eye off the ball unless it was, under the influence of John Brennan suspected Muslim convert, aiding Iran. That would go along with the policies of the president at the time.

BUMBLE BEE said...

American Taxpayer funded. Thanks Barry. He said he was getting good at killing people.

rhhardin said...

Intelligence leak means it hurts Trump.

gilbar said...

here's a hypothetical poll question:

Did you think it was proper for the President of the United States to send an airplane full of pallets of unmarked bills to the iranians to support their terrorism efforts?

Robert Cook said...

"American Taxpayer funded. Thanks Barry. He said he was getting good at killing people."

You forgot to thank his colleagues Bush and Cheney. They created the disaster to begin with. Once Hussein was gone, Iran had entree to exercise greater influence in Iraq. (Bush, Cheney, and Obama were good at killing people, btw. They were all successful mass murderers. However, this is not an indication they were good at anything else...and they weren't.)

mockturtle said...

Gee, it's almost as if there's a religious and ideological struggle going on between Iran and Iraq! Quelle surprise. IIRC, this has been the case forever. The only people really worried about it are the Saudis. Let's stay the hell out of it!

Hagar said...

Not only that, but perhaps a nationalist element as well?
Maybe George W.'s dream is not quite dead yet?

Wince said...

Obama, Clinton and Kerry...

The archive is made up of hundreds of reports and cables written mainly in 2014 and 2015 by officers of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or M.O.I.S., who were serving in the field in Iraq. The intelligence ministry, Iran’s version of the C.I.A., has a reputation as an analytical and professional agency, but it is overshadowed and often overruled by its more ideological counterpart, the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which was formally established as an independent entity in 2009 at the order of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"The current objective is for this person to provide intelligence insights into the U.S. government’s plans in Iraq, whether it is for dealing with ISIS or any other covert operations. The ultimate goal is for this person to be an informant, either in the U.S. State Department or with any Iraqi Sunni or Kurdish leaders who are willing to cooperate."

...According to the reports, after the American troop withdrawal in 2011, Iran moved quickly to add former C.I.A. informants to its payroll. One undated section of an intelligence ministry cable shows that Iran began the process of recruiting a spy inside the State Department. It is unclear what came of the recruitment effort, but according to the files, Iran had started meeting with the source, and offered to reward the potential asset with a salary, gold coins and other gifts. The State Department official is not named in the cable, but the person is described as someone who would be able to provide “intelligence insights into the U.S. government’s plans in Iraq, whether it is for dealing with ISIS or any other covert operations.”

“The subject’s incentive in collaborating will be financial,” the report said
.

mockturtle said...

Not only that, but perhaps a nationalist element as well?
Probably not. Iran and Iraq have never been nationalistic in the sense Western nations are. Religious and tribal affiliations are stronger than any sense of nationhood. Iraq was, after all, only formed into a 'nation' by British coercion.

gilbar said...

some sort of delicious soup said...
Let's stay the hell out of it!


The problem with that is: We get ALL of our oil from there
To replace their oil, We'd have to:
A) develop totally new ways of drilling, so that we would need so many drill sites
B) develop new ways of extracting oil from hard shale rocks that just WON'T release oil
C) allow LARGE SCALE private oil production across our country ("drill baby drill")
D) put pipelines across the midwest, to get dakota's oil to refineries

Oh, wait; in the classic words of Emily Litella ... Never Mind

mockturtle said...

We get ALL of our oil from there

What??? The US gets only 12.9% of its crude oil from the Persian Gulf. Most of it comes from:
1. Domestic sources
2. Canada
3. Mexico

Earnest Prole said...

Hey, I’ve got a great idea: Let’s spend our blood and treasure invading Iraq so we can turn it over to Iran.

buwaya said...

mockturtle -
Is joke.

mockturtle said...

Buwaya: Oh. [embarrassed silence]. It's still early here. ;-) After I responded I got to thinking it might be sarc.

William said...

The Iranian intelligence services are described as "patient, pragmatic, and professional". I suppose it's possible that someone in Iran is patient, pragmatic, and professional, but those are not words that leap readily to mind when describing the lunatics there.

Birkel said...

The ROEs should have been relaxed to allow American soldiers to aggressively patrol the Iraq/Iran border and, further, to kill the Iranians who were in Iraq to foment civil war.

Bob Boyd said...

Not sure the mullahs have a firm grip on anything these days.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50444429

buwaya said...

The US in Iraq post-2003 had to deal with that usual problem of an insurgency plus both covert and overt subversion and political opposition supported by not one but two (Iran and Syria) nearby enemy powers (or possibly three or four or more, if you count Turkey, and Saudi and Qatari support for various factions) that served as havens for this opposition. And in true "Great Game" style these opponents supported a variety of anti-US and anti-"stability" forces, no matter their religious affiliations.

This is a churning pot, where today's ally is tomorrows enemy. Consider the career of Muqtada al-Sadr. Then Pro-Iran and fanatically anti-Sunni, supported by the IRGC, now playing with the Turks and Saudis and anti-Iran.

Birkel said...

buwaya,
Not to mention the American politicians more concerned with Bush's failure than with America's successes.

Big Mike said...

And the documents show how Iran, at nearly every turn, has outmaneuvered the United States in the contest for influence....

Point #1: The leaked documents may have been edited. Trusting documents that are not real time intercepts is risky.

Point #2: It isn’t Iran, the country, outmaneuvering the United States. It was the Iranian intelligence services outmaneuvering the Central Intelligence Agency at a time when the agency was led by John Brennan.

J. Farmer said...

None of this is really surprising, and the first sentence Ann quoted points that out. The documents "largely confirm what was already known." It is obvious that in competition for Iraq, Iran would likely come out the victor. Americans, by and large, have very little interest or knowledge of Iraq. The country is thousands of miles away from us and poses no real threat to our security interests. Iran, by contrast, has a number of major concerns regarding Iraq and shares a long border, a long complicated history, and a long cultural connection with them. Given this context, it would be rather foolish to expect American intelligence agencies to outmaneuver the Iranians in Iraq.

Bob Boyd said...

Iranian protesters set fire to the Central Bank of Iran in the city of Behbahan, Khuzestan Province, in demonstrations against the government’s decision to ration and hike the price of petrol.

https://twitter.com/AlArabiya_Eng/status/1195637934457794560

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Thanks, Obama.

No, really. Damn near every foreign policy mistake of the last 4 years of his Administration, and there were many blunders, can be traced back to the goal of an historic "Iran deal."

Oh well; if they didn't take back his Nobel for the drone strikes they won't take it back for the obvious failure(s) on Iran.

mockturtle said...

Big Mike observes: It was the Iranian intelligence services outmaneuvering the Central Intelligence Agency at a time when the agency was led by John Brennan.

IOW, mere child's play.

J. Farmer said...

@HoodlumDoodlum:

No, really. Damn near every foreign policy mistake of the last 4 years of his Administration, and there were many blunders, can be traced back to the goal of an historic "Iran deal."

I think you have it backwards there. The biggest foreign policy blunders of Obama's second term (e.g. supporting a Sunni insurgency in Syria, supporting the Saudi war on Yemen) were made as explicit anti-Iran measures. Attempting to remove Iraq from Iran's sphere of influence and incorporate it into an American sphere of influence would be a fool's errand.

mockturtle said...

As I understand it, Iraq has a majority Shiite population. Saddam Hussein was keeping it in line until we intervened.

Hagar said...

@mockturtle
Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, was the dominant presence in Paris in 1919 when the Middle East was carved up into the states we see today.
Whatever the reasoning - or lack of reasoning - was, the U.S. is not without responsibility for the results.

mockturtle said...

This is certainly true, Hagar. I was referring specifically to Iraq.

Birkel said...

I like living in a predictable world.
The pro-Iranian positions of J Farmer provide exactly that predictability.

(Save your protestations.)

J. Farmer said...

@Hagar:

Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, was the dominant presence in Paris in 1919 when the Middle East was carved up into the states we see today.
Whatever the reasoning - or lack of reasoning - was, the U.S. is not without responsibility for the results.


I would never describe Wilson in Paris 1919 as "the dominant presence."

narciso said...

well we had the former airforce intel, nurges witte, who apparently defected in 2013, and we weren't told about it for six years,

the shia have been the majority in Iraq, for at least a hundred years, but the sunnis beginning with the first post colonial prime minister ghailani, yes the father of the future head of the golden square, then the baath, they drove them and the kurds who are moderately sunni, out of the professions and later public life, they filled the ranks of the Iraqi communist party, hence the baath would seems anti communist, yet largely following soviet training methods,

narciso said...

no it was largely Clemenceau, and Lloyd George who made a hash of the Versailles matter, in the middle east the land was promised three way, sykes picot, to the leading powers, Lawrence and the cairo office, promised to the arabs, and balfour to the jews, you can see the problem, even if the last was the smallest quadrant,

what has become clear with the writings of kyle orton among other, is the operating structure of the baath, had become at least more sympathetic to the salafi, between 1991 and 2003, the shia exiles had become disolutioned after the events of the first date, and had sought out Iranian support, whether they operated in Damascus, London et al, foggy bottom, was wedded to the notion of grandees like pachachi, who was out of date, like the late orson welles,

Hagar said...

I would never describe Wilson in Paris 1919 as "the dominant presence."

And yet he was, though perhaps he could also be described as the man expected to be the dominant presence and he just failed to live up to the expectations he had created.

narciso said...

much was made of chalabis supposed Iranian sympathies, but the reality is they went all on Malaki, who was an undisputed Iranian asset, exiled in Damascus, who wasn't really keen on the war that had enabled him,

J. Farmer said...

@Hakar:

And yet he was, though perhaps he could also be described as the man expected to be the dominant presence and he just failed to live up to the expectations he had created.

How did his dominance work out for the 14 points?

narciso said...

now were the 14 points realistic, in that era, would the notion that America would immesh itself in border disputes in former Austrian territories have held up,

Hagar said...

Don't be dense. The miracles expected of him made him the dominant presence. That is so even if he failed to live up to expectations.

J. Farmer said...

@Hagar:

Let me put it another way. Who, at the end of the Paris Peace Conference, do you think got more of what they wanted> Wilson, Clemenceau, or George?

Robert Cook said...

"The Iranian intelligence services are described as 'patient, pragmatic, and professional.' I suppose it's possible that someone in Iran is patient, pragmatic, and professional, but those are not words that leap readily to mind when describing the lunatics there."

They are no more lunatics than we are. Take that as you will.

narciso said...

the same service, that targeted the American embassy in Beirut, the jewish community center in Buenos aires, and dissidents in berlin and Vienna,?

Hagar said...

"Hello, man!"
"Ax handle!"

J. Farmer said...

"Hello, man!"
"Ax handle!"


When you're over the hill, you're halfway there.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Lets see documents... 2014, 2015, 2014, 2015 2015, 2014. Obama $1.7 Billion Cash flown in to Iran, ignoring congressional non-awareness of same. Certainly Bush-Cheney.
Cookie, you are not detail oriented. You earn all the scorn in these comments and more. What's your line of work?

J. Farmer said...

@BUMBLE BEE:

Lets see documents... 2014, 2015, 2014, 2015 2015, 2014. Obama $1.7 Billion Cash flown in to Iran, ignoring congressional non-awareness of same. Certainly Bush-Cheney.

What do you think was a more valuable move to Iran, a one-time cash offer or the elimination of Saddam Hussein/Sunni-minority rule of Iraq? The $1.7 billion figure is little more than a cudgel to use against Obama for insufficient towing the fanatically anti-Iran line that has formed in Washington. He towed it partially, mind you, just not absolutely. Consider that during Ahmadinejad's tenure (2005-2013), Iran received more than &800 billion in oil revenue. In yet, even with these funds, Iran was not able to significantly alter the balance of power in the region. A billion dollars is a rounding error at that point.

Cookie, you are not detail oriented. You earn all the scorn in these comments and more. What's your line of work?

He doesn't necessarily "earn all the score." He receives quite a bit, but actually earns very little. In fact, the amount of scorn heaped on tends to be proportional to the correctness of his statements.

Rabel said...

What Hagar said.

JamesB.BKK said...

We heard about the Jay Garners and other public screwups in Iraq, but who were the Ciamerella and Vindman types that saw to the messes in what remain of Iraq and Syria? It was clear that Bush was being undermined by insubordinates at State during that period, just as Trump has been only much worse for Trump as they are actively seeking out conflict with other countries.