The spin coming out of the Bush administration and friends in response to the NIE has been outrageous and absurd. Bush Iran “has been, is and will continue to be dangerous” no matter what the NIE reports. Bolton was as crazy as ever tonight on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Facts do not matter these radicals are going into Iran during the next 12 months. People should be out on the streets but instead they have their pedals to the metal as they drive to the mall in the bubble.

Who would Jesus Impeach?

No expertise here, just letting you know that I am following events and am interested.

And that I win FITZ!! Maybe.

How about adding in what the Dem candidates have been saying?

What about the BushCo allegations that Iran was arming Iraqi insurgents? That talk was in full force in February 2007.

BTW, Phred EPU’d: “Musharraf’s talks with the King occurred on Tuesday Nov. 20th”

Ooooh - I feel a “document depository” coming on, ala TPM!

Tomorrow morning Diane Rehm show focused on this issue. Call in or e-mail questions. Diane has a great listening audience

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/07/12/05.php#18230

I know there are comments here, and there is a glitch in the system.

I’m wondering if you have access to experts from trusted allies around the world, and would be able to let us know what they have to offer.

It’s so sad that we need sources apart from our own news sources, but TIME magazine has shown that we do.

Respect and thanks beyond expression.

I thought you disappeared, haven’t seen you around for so long…

hey EW!

stellar work, as ever. . . as
to my little garnish for this
sumptous turkey-dinner of a
time-line, let me offer a
state dept. “out of loop“
cranberry chutney, thus:

ALSO on nov. 30, 2007, state
department’s spokesmodel sean
mccormack REALLY lays it on thick
about the continuing nuke progress
RIGHT NOW in iran — that was fri-
day before the monday of NIE release.

clearly, state (read: condi) did NOT
get any advance warning that mcconnell
was going to publish the NIE on iran.

of course, more to come, as i dig around. . .

Which side initiated Musharraf’s visit to Riyadh? Can’t imagine that he asked for an audience to beg them to send Sharif back to Pakistan.

What drove the Saudis to decide that Sharif had worn out his welcome? I know the US badly wanted Musharraf to lift the state of emergency

Well, I would think the Sauds summoned Musharraf to let him know what was about to happen, cutting-Cheney-down-to-size-wise, and why they thought it was the right time for Sharif to head home.

The Sweetie has a theory that “Sharif” is Pakistani for “Ralph Nader,” but now that his campaign is null I guess that spoiler-candidate scenario won’t be playing out after all. I don’t understand what the plan is, but I have to assume there is one, and that it is intended to affect Pakistan’s position relative to the US.

And who knows, maybe it’s about Cousin Osama too.

also — august __, 2007 — mcconnell tells
bush there is “new information” on the iran
nuke capabilities — and bush doesn’t ask
what that information might be. no one
briefs him on it — and, mcconnell does not
think it part of his duties to make sure
the president knows that his WW III rhetoric
is way out of line with reality. . .

oh — wait.

you only want what ACTUALLY happended
on this time-line, right? not what
bush seems to think we are stupid enough
to swallow, here, right? never mind.

i’ll go strike the above.

done.

Ya gotta go back all the way….go back before 9/11, Niger Docs too….Sibel Edmunds…gotta go all the way back…..

Musharraf is an enabler of the neocons agenda.

Right now, they are getting kinda caught…catch them, the time is now!!

Stay open minded.

Two small things on the timeline, and one major question:

October 24, 2007 is the actual date of the memo from McConnell outlining the threshold for even considering publishing NIE KJs.

This is probably what you meant with the early November decision, but it is striking nevertheless that AP reported that on November 13 that McConnell

said a new national intelligence estimate on Iran should be complete in about a month, but its key findings will not be released publicly. He says doing so could alert Iran to its intelligence vulnerabilities.

That makes this very quick turn of events all the more remarkable, if you ask me.

The big question, of course, is what happened in mid-2007. I really think it must have been something big. I mean, it’s clear from Hersh’s reporting that as far back as November 2006 CIA had real doubts about Iran’s purported covert nuclear program. But real doubts are quite different from the rather strong assessment on the part of the IC as a whole that Iran halted its covert nuclear program four years ago. Also, I saw that Hersh was on TV saying that they had the intel over a year ago. I suppose that’s possible, and the analysis just came together. But I suspect more likely they had some of the intel, but something big new came in this year, in the middle of this year. And on that, it’s interesting that same November 13 AP report, obviously before this whole set of revelations, has McConnell saying this:

It was due last spring but was delayed by an influx of new information that raised new questions, said McConnell, the nation’s top intelligence official.

Probably that looked different at the time than it does now.

OT - Techs. the “ads by Google” ad server is holding up the show.

Huh. Well, in that case, Musharraf going to Saudi Arabia might have been like Cheney going to Saudi Arabia, i.e. to be told “The US is not driving any more. We are driving now.”

OK, but what drove the Saudis to decide that Sharif had worn out his welcome? It’s something Condi would have wanted - US was trying to pressure Musharraf to end martial law. But why would the Saudis accede? Or if not accede to Condi, why did they want him out?

Well, I have no special information, but to me it felt more like placing a chess piece on the board at the opportune moment, not so much like expelling a guest who had overstayed. To ask it the other way: Why did they take him in in the first place, and why did they prevent his return before 11/25?

Hey guys, not everything in the world is about the currently pathetic United States. Having Sharif was a pain in the ass, for a lot of reasons, for the Saudis; they were tired of the hassle and said that arrangement with Musharref was over and done.

Ray Mcgovern on the NIE report
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/20…..cgovern-8/

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12001

Iran on the NIE
http://english.aljazeera.net/N…..A496C1.htm

Al jazeera/Elbaradei
http://corner.nationalreview.c…..hhMmZhMDk=

Micheal Rubin
http://corner.nationalreview.c…..hhMmZhMDk=

Bolton babbling
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..-nie-iran/

Ledeen on NIE
http://article.nationalreview&.....I5MzUxNTM=

With WordPress, you write a page instead of a post when you want a static presence for said content.

The problem with this site design, among other things, is there is no sidebar navigation where such things as links to static pages would appear. There’s no place for archives and there’s no navigation between blogs, from earliest to latest.

NIE timeline additions? I’m sure there’s loads more to add. The research monkeys are on the case and kicking bottom.

I agree everything isn’t about the US of A. Can you cite any particular reasons his presence was a burden on the Saudis? It had to be either something he was doing while living in SA, or a Suadi response to some external pressure, in which case such pressure probably did come from the US of A.

The third possibility is that the Saudis ejected him on their own to screw over Musharraf, but if so, why?

I can’t remember where I saw this, or what news I saw it … some source I deemed credible … but I recall something to the effect that the Saudis had some sort of gentlemen’s agreement with Musharref to keep Sharif; but it was a hassle. As an ancillary bonus apparently they thought it would prick Musharref in the process as that was right when he was dealing with the return of Bhutto. It is certainly possible that Rice or another from the US government lobbied in as well, I dunno. Wish I could be more specific; but that is the best I can recall right now.

Hi Loo Hoo -
I’ve been a daytime lurker and nighttime commenter at TNH for a while now. I prefer the quiet, and the quality of the commenting (not to mention EW’s analysis) is the best to be found.

Hey randiego, good to see you. By the way, I have a lot of old friends in the concert business and the rumor is that Zep is seriously considering a limited US tour.

Jeff - Apparently I am on a roll tonight with things I kind of know, but can’t quite remember all the specifics on. At any rate, I think I recall something about about a lead Iranian weapons scientist/engineer or official or similar muckety muck walking into the hands of the US. If it was around this time, I could certainly see them wanting to incorporate and/or test his info vis a vis the NIE. I know that is a terribly lame reference, I’ll see if i can find what the hell I am referring to. Maybe someone else has a better clue what I am trying to refer to….

Zep on tour? Yeah, for $200 a pop! I keep seeing ads for the new compilation everywhere… are they seeding the market?

I’m torn about it - one side of me says some things just should not be - but then I still really enjoy Springsteen shows…

PS - I had Hold Steady on my calendar back in November, but a bout of stomach flu knocked me out. I’ll definitely catch them next time.

Elbaradei has been telling us for four years that there was no hard evidence to back up the repeated claims by the cakewalk zealots about Iran. Now we have the NIE to back up what elbaradei has been saying.

Would Iran be more willing to give up their uranium enrichment (legal under the Iaea) if the US and Israel would sign an agreement stating that they would not pre-emptively strike Iran?

Would Iran be more willing to give up uranium enrichment if Israel would sign the Non_proliferation Treaty and open up to inspections like Iran?

Thanks, bmaz@23. I have reasonable explanations in my head for Annapolis (cynical ploy by the US to isolate Iran - Palestinians? feh), for the release / leak of the NIE (pushback by the military and the intell agencies vs Bushco and the Neocons - appearing at MSG, tickets start at $250), for the Israeli rejection of the NIE (Bibi is breathing down Ohlmert’s neck).

But not for why SA is willing to screw over Musharraf.

If you’re going to mention Nawaz Sharif, you might want to include the fact that he was barred from competing in Pakistani elections on December 3. Not sure where exactly you’re going with that thread, but it seems relevant.

You might be thinking of Brigadier General Ali Reza Asgari who apparently/purportedly defected around February 2007. Someone else floated that idea by me, and it seems possible. But it’s hard to see how his info could sustain the judgment that they were moderately confident the covert nuclear program was shuttered through mid-2007. Who knows.

Randiego - Yeah, tickets to a Zep show would be steep. I don’t know what they would have left (did hear the rehersals for the O2 show in London were killer though); but I will say this, I saw the Stones a few months back at the end of the Bigger Bang tour and they were still just fine. Shockingly good actually, and in the scheme of things today, well worth the $175 I paid for the ticket (not many bands I could ever say that about). The Hold Steady isn’t in these guy’s league, but they are a pretty fun touring bar band. They tour around a lot; they’ll be back (cheap too; ticket here was $20).

dday -

Yes of course it’s relevant. But the way I see it, it’s a response by Musharraf to Sharif’s unwelcome presence in his country beginning a week prior. Excluding him from the “election” is an obvious countermove a dictator such as Musharraf would employ, and so not at all a surprise. My questions is why, and how, Saudi Arabia forced Musharraf to allow Sharif back into the country, which went down over the 2 weeks prior to his exclusion from the election.

Yep. Just looked him up. That is the guy. I didn’t know if that could be it or not, but thought i would throw it out…

Whoa - Friedman tries his hand at snark.

So…who forced the release of the NIE, complete with judgments? Was it someone in Congress, as Washington Monthly speculated? I have been trying to stay on top of this through work but I don’t think I’ve seen the party that forced the release. This has got to be in spite of WH efforts, so there must be some power behind it.

The NIE shows that our Military didn’t think Iran had an active Nuclear Weapons Program, which might explain why Bush’s Summertime Run-Up to the War in Iran fizzled.

So, the Military is out of Bush’s pocket, the IC is acting independently of Bush’s Ideological ‘Assessments,’ and Mukasey might let Fitz’ non-Grand Jury Plame materials get turned over to Waxman.

Who, besides Condi and a herd of soon-to-be-extinct, more-getting-indicted-every-day Republicans, is left standing with Bush and Cheney?

When did Bush start to use “Iranians bla bla bla knowledge necessary to bla bla bla nuclear weapons”?

I’d suspect he started to use those words after he was told what is in the NIE about Iran’s nuclear program.

Using teh Google with ‘bush knowledge necessary’ returns:

October 17, 2007 NYT WWIII Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10…..?ref=world

Mr. Bush said he had “told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

EW, the post heading references NIE, but then a number of the items are wider in scope.

Here are some ‘tea leaves’ that I pulled off the w3 tonight. Themes are bolded. Links are included for the sake of credit + verifiability in case anyone is interested:

——————-

Fear that I’m being an info-glutton, but figured that I’d toss the lot your way in case any is of interest. I see nodes here, although I realize they may not be obvious to others. It’s interesting to note that the pushback at BushCheney is correlating with a sinking dollar, and (as I’d expect) other nations — including Russia and China - appear to be moving toward some… ‘new opportunities’ in Iraq.
I hope Ben Lando over at UPI’s “Iraq Oil Report” is a good source; I found him via Juan Cole, which seemed like a reasonable filter.

http://www.economist.com/finan…..d=10229471
(Big Shitpile): On November 26th the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), a secretive sovereign-wealth fund, displaced Prince Waleed as the bank’s biggest shareholder, paying $7.5 billion for a 4.9% stake.

http://iraqoilreport.com/2007/11/28/
(Iraqi Oil & Russia - Oil Politics) - Lukoil, the private Russian major that claims rights to develop Iraq’s largest oil fields, has reportedly restarted talks with the Iraq Oil Ministry, in Baghdad, the awkwardly named Noozz.com reports.

http://iraqoilreport.com/2007/11/27/
(Kurdistan vs Baghdad - Oil Politics) Iraqi Kurdistan’s oil minister, Ashti Hawrami, begins his U.S. tour of political and business leaders from Washington to Texas a hot item with international oil companies, but with icy relations with his counterpart in Baghdad. He has signed around 20 oil deals with international oil companies, most after the national oil minister labeled them illegal.

http://www.economist.com/finan…..d=10191747
(Big Shitpile) Back-of-the-envelope calculations from Goldman Sachs suggest that if banks suffer a $200 billion loss on subprime mortgages but want to keep their capital ratios at an average level of 10%, that would stifle lending by a whopping $2 trillion.

(US Politics: Congress vs Bu$hCheney )Nov 16 - Harry Reid says, ‘no recess appointments for Dubya’

http://iraqoilreport.com/2007/11/08/
(Iraq-Iran Oil Pipeline) A pipeline from Iraq to Iran is being built, according to press reports. The Ministry of Oil plans to increase exports and production through this and other pipelines, but this is the first groundbreaking we’re hearing. Also to watch: a proposed but separate, Oil Minister Shahristani told me, pipeline sending products refined from Iraqi oil, in Iranian refineries, back to Iraq.

http://iraqoilreport.com/2007/11/07/
(Kurdisan ignores Baghdad. Again. — Oil Politics) Iraqi Kurd government to announce two more oil deals soon … Reliance paid $15M+ as signing bonus

http://iraqoilreport.com/2007/11/06/
(Turkey & Iraq - Oil Politics) What’s the Turkish move toward Iraq really about?
“…highlighted the overlooked complexity of Turkey’s beef with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party guerrillas: “Is this really about PKK? Or is this about Kirkuk?”

http://www.economist.com/finan…..d=10048962
(Big Shitpile) While some investors have clearly been getting carried away, the crisis in credit markets is far from over—and may be about to get worse. One depressing indication of this was a vast, $8.4 billion writedown this week by Merrill Lynch, an investment bank.

Iraqoilreport, Oct 18 , 2007
(China, Iran Do Biz in Iraq - Oil Politics) - Iraq has signed $1.1 billion worth of deals to construct new power plants with both Iranian and Chinese firms.

Iraqoilreport — October 12, 2007
(Is Condi still working for Chevron? - Oil Politics) Hunt Oil talked to State Dept. prior to signing KRG deal, contrary to prior statements –

IMbobo@22:

The third possibility is that the Saudis ejected [Nawaz Sharif] on their own to screw over Musharraf, but if so, why?

It may be not so much to screw over Musharaff, as it is to put a piece in play while Musharaff is getting screwed over anyway.

Bhutto is considered a secular leader. Shawaz has more ties and affiliations with the religious sectors in Pakistan. It may well be that Saudi Arabia feels their interests would best be served by Sharif in power, or at least in contention for it, over Bhutto.

That seems the most likely explanation to me, at any rate.

It seems clear from yesterday’s press conference that Bush’s hand was forced on the release of this NIE conclusion. So, who forced him, how, and why?

Almost surely it was a combination of the intelligence community, who are still smarting from getting blamed for the Iraq fiasco, and the upper-levels of the military, particularly the Navy:
- Secretary of Defense is career CIA: Gates
- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is an admiral: Mullen
- Commander of CENTCOM is an admiral: Fallon
- DNI is a retired admiral: McConnell
What’s the Navy’s particular concern? War games show that in a conflict Iran the Fifth Fleet would get wiped out: http://www.agoracosmopolitan.c…..01932.html

March 12, 2007

VP is Keynote speaker at AIPAC national conference. Makes some interesting comments about Iran http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..9736/posts

(Sorry folks about the link. I click on the link icon and it is not working for me.)

Here’s a bit from the speech:

Friends owe it to friends to be as candid as possible. So let me say that a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States and the entire Middle East. It’s not hard to imagine what could occur if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves. Moderates would be crushed, Shiite extremists backed by Iran could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists led by al Qaeda and remnants of the old Saddam regime. As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional war.

If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies would recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and underwrite their terrorist designs, including their pledge to destroy Israel.

If Iran’s allies prevailed, the regime and Teheran’s own designs for the Middle East would be advanced and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.

My friends, it is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while, at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel’s best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened. (Applause.)

EW,

Thanks for working on the larger timeline. Thanks to all who are contributing in the threads. This kind of work brings a bigger picture together. Super amazing to have everyone researching and building the timeline.

EW - you might want to add in statements by the Pentagon highest — e.g., Fallon and Gates — against starting a war with Iran.

I have to say that it is somewhat comforting to watch the news and hear one news show after the other virtually refer to the pres as a liar. On the other hand, I cannot quite figure out why americans have not recognized the complete and utter danger of having a lying neo con shadow government in charge. HELLOOOO!! Can we wait until they are voted out of office?? I don’t think so. Also we need hearing going on as voting approaches so that all of the Bush crimes are on the table, daily, and so that all those goobers who associated themselves with him, can go down in flames.

And then we need to find out how badly our country has been hijacked.

Asgari. Looks like he has spilled a lot of beans.

alank

Those features will be here. I just haven’t gotten them installed yet. Oh boy am I looking fowrard to having static pages.

So how do we know if Asgari spilled accurate beans? Do we know if our gov’t is just “using” him the way they used other tortured Iraqi’s in an effort to create rationale for war. Or is there legitimate concern?

We don’t have all the facts, but the one fact that speaks loud and clear is that Bush Co has no credibility. Therefore his leadership (or lack thereof) is a considerable danger to the american people. Can’t we all agree on this one point. Bush has lost all cred and it leaves americans extremely vulnerable to being “played”.

The timeline illustrates the three dimensional chessgame aspect of
policy making/war planning… the modus operandi of this crowd is make
it up as you go, but these moves look desparate, off tempo, like POTUS
at the last presser… fine work EW and crew!

I’m still focussed on the bigger picture. So, at the point the NIE was “ready,” was right around the time they were expecting the report of the BiPartisan Commission on Iraq. How does that play into the mix here? We know bush was against it initially etc.

Also, wasn’t it in December of ‘06 that the NY Times finally published the info about the degree of warrantless spying?

Plus, not only were they against Iran for fear of nukes, but they kept tying Iran to those IED’s.

Just trying to broaden the context here.

Folks, I added this to the timeline, but wanted to call your attention to it:

Another possibility exists, though: the Bush administration may have wanted to salvage negotiations with Iran after the “disaster” this weekend in London. This story has been largely lost in the NIE furor, but the new Iranian nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, told diplomats that all proposals made in previous negotiations over the nuclear issue were irrelevant – that the diplomatic efforts to date were for naught. This led to intimations that the negotiations would shut down, with one official quoted saying “we can’t do business with these guys at this point.”

Since the NIE says very explicitly that international pressure was instrumental in causing a halt in Tehran’s nuclear weapons research, the Bush administration may have hoped releasing the report would shore up support for continued diplomacy.

And Rumsfelt was finally pushed out just after the election… again, right around the time frame of this report… which they didn’t want to believe…

I think it’s important to have the wider context and not just confine it to stuff related to Iran.

the Bush administration may have wanted to salvage negotiations with Iran after the “disaster”

So many disasters. So little time.

This morning the Diane Rehm show will be focused on the NIE.

EW I have two questions that I will be trying to get on the show. Do you have an opinion on which one I should try to get through?

This question is for Kenneth Pollack

On Oct 25 2005 the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that you said “I believe I am USGO1″ (United States Government official) in the six times delayed and upcoming Aipac espionage trial. Most of the classified intelligence that was allegedly passed from Larry Franklin to Rosen and Weismann had to do with IRAN. This investigation and the upcoming trial have basically taken place under the MSM ’s radar, another indication of the power of the Israeli Lobby. Most Americans are completely in the dark.

Will the newly appointed Attorney General Mukasey dismiss this upcoming trial? Will the American public ever find out about the Iranian classified intelligence that was “allegedly” passed to Israel?

Diane will you be doing any shows about this very serious investigation and trial?

JTA articlehttp://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20050829ProminentMideastan.html

Or

Iaea’s director Elbaradei has been telling us for four years that there was no hard evidence to back up the claims being repeated by the “cakewalk” zealots about Iran. Now the NIE backs that up.
Would Iran be more willing to consider giving up their uranium enrichment (legal under the Iaea) if the U.S. and Israel would sign an agreement stating that they would not pre-emptively strike Iran. Would Iran be more willing to consider giving up their uranium enrichment capabilities if Israel would sign the Non Proliferation Treaty?

Via NYT’s March 20th 2007

“PARIS, March 19 — Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran’s nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council, European, American and Iranian officials say.

“The ultimatum was delivered in Moscow last week by Igor S. Ivanov, the secretary of the Russian National Security Council, to Ali Hosseini Tash, Iran’s deputy chief nuclear negotiator, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a confidential diplomatic exchange between two governments was involved.

For years, President Bush has been pressing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to cut off help to Iran on the nuclear power plant that Russia is building at Bushehr, in southern Iran. But Mr. Putin has resisted. The project is Tehran’s first serious effort to produce nuclear energy and has been very profitable for Russia.”

and this

From Russian Election blog

“On November 18, 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a currency other than the rapidly depreciating U.S. dollar.

The meeting was held in the Saudi capital Riyadh, with heads of states and delegates from 13 of the world’s biggest oil-producing nations, was the third full OPEC summit since the organization was created in 1960.

Ahmadinejad’s comments at the rare OPEC summit meeting also highlighted the growing challenge that Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, faces from Iran and its ally Venezuela within OPEC.

Oil is priced in U.S. dollars on the world market, and the currency’s depreciation is a significant source of concern to oil produces as it has played a role in the increase in crude prices and the decrease in the value of their dollar reserves.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah had tried make the environmental impact of the oil industry on the environment the topic of the summit, but faced continual interference from both Iran and Venezuela.

Iran and Venezuela proposed trading oil in a basket of currencies to replace the historic link to the dollar, but they had not been able to generate support from enough fellow OPEC members. Many OPEC members, such as Saudi Arabia, are U.S. allies.

Both Iran and Venezuela are currently at odds with the U.S., and their proposal may have political, as well as economic motivations. Iran is in a dispute with Washington over its nuclear program, and Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez is an open critic of U.S. President George Bush. U.S. sanctions on Iran have made it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for the country to do business in dollars.

A day earlier, Saudi Arabia opposed a move by Iran on Friday to have OPEC include concerns over the falling dollar included in the summit’s closing statement after the weekend meeting. Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister even warned that even talking publicly about the currency’s decline could further hurt its value. But by Sunday, it appeared that Saudi Arabia had compromised…Algeria’s Oil Minister, Chakib Khelil, said he would urge Russia, the second-biggest oil supplier, to join OPEC when he became president of the organization.”

http://russianelection2008.blo…..-opec.html

And this from Asia Times on October 26:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M…..6Ak06.html

Diplomacy only as a cover for the neocon dream strike that has always
been the intent of this administration. Remember Kurusu and Nomura talked
past the zero hour.

And then this in the WAPO on Nov. 18th, 2007 re: Iran & China

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01680.html

Lots of pieces fitting together…

Going back to August 2, 2005, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.” The assessments, representing the views of the intelligence community, sharply “contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that ‘all options are on the table.’”

And then in Oct. 17

Iraq announces private contracts with China and Iran to build power plants

(And yet Iran cannot finish building their own power plant with the aid of Russia?) Okay what up on this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10…..8grid.html

And then this from Reuters on Nov 13 about Iran-China relations and trade growth from 200 million to 20 billion

http://www.alertnet.org/thenew…..353031.htm

And references to a “currency cold war” waged by China, Russia, Iran and Venezuala

and this from January 2007

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..uela_x.htm

The NIE left out the mineshaft gap, oddly enough.

A couple things you’ve left out:
- first half of October, 2007
Russian head-o-gov’t Putin meets with German Chancellor Merkel. Topics of discussion (per German radio news, which I listen to): Iran, Iran, and petroleum and gas. They come to a relatively unified position about what to do about Iran and the Iranian program, though what that position is (other than resolving things peaceably) is not disclosed.

Comment: It needs be remembered that each New Year’s for the past several years, Putin and the state(i.e., Putin)-controlled gas companies in Russia have had occasion to turn the faucet on the gas pipelines bringing Siberian gas across the Ukraine and Belarus to Western Europe, usually in the context of a “dispute” with those two nations over the transit fees being imposed upon the gas by those nations and the distribution of same. It’s a yearly thing, and there’s little doubt in my mind, at least, that avoiding that drama (cold German houses at Christmas) was on Merkel’s agenda. Her plate is already full with the continuing locomotive engineers’ labor dispute, which really bit hard when all the trains stopped a couple weeks ago (they promised this week no more strikes until after Christmas and New Years’, but it ain’t over), and the growing appearance of cracks in her grand coalition government. Putin, has other things on his plate, not the least of which is the proposed NATO ABM (anti-Iranian, supposedly) system still on the boards for deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic. Bushco’s continued intransigence on that issue led, a couple weeks ago, to the Russians announcing they would no longer abide by the Conventional Forces Limitation treaty (one of the treaties closing out the Cold War), which limited the number of tanks and similar west of the Urals.

Putin leaves Germany prior to Bushie’s WWIII commentary and continues his trip, stopping next in … Iran. While there, he has extended summit meetings with Ahmedinejad (or however you spell it).

Bushie makes his WWIII comments.

October 22-23, 2007: Asia Times reports on the Russian-Iranian summmit meetings, linked here,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M…..6Ak06.html

And, well, the headline says it all: “Attack Iran and You Attack Russia”.

The article (admittedly, it says its sourced on unnamed sources characterized as high-level diplomatic persons) but it sends a pretty clear message. Note that in the coming weeks, there appear to be no rebuttals of the article or its tenor coming from Russia. At least publicly.

Comment: My conclusion is that Bushie was directing his WWIII comments not so much at Iran, as at Putin (primarily) and the US’ Euro allies (secondarily), following Putin’s (effectively) guaranteeing Iranian sovereignity during his summit. That Putin made that guarantee post his summit with Merkel indicates the Germans, and perhaps others among the US’ Euro allies, decided to line up with Putin on this issue, or at least not oppose it, and thus put their foot down to force Bushie and Deadeye to back off. And, I’d suppose, the Germans made pretty clear to Bushie and Deadeye just what they were doing, why, and wherefore, so there would be no mistaking it for anything else. I get the feeling from German news coverage that they are just fed up with what they see as the intransigent, immature stupidity of the Bushco MidEast policy.

Also on 10/22, Scott Ritter on Truthdig,
http://www.truthdig.com/report…..struction/
talking about “imprinting” the WWIII discussion into Bushie’s head, and who’s doing the imprinting.

Comment: Bushie’s WWIII comments, and his blatant lying yesterday about timing the NIE, indicate to me the sort of bully-caught-out-and-trying-to-brazen-his-way-out of everyone ganging up on him that would be consistent with his personality and the idea (in his makeup) that he can do no wrong.

I’m open to your interpretations, too….

I’ll resist the urge to start my timeline in 622 CE.

October 2001 - Italian spy agency (SISMI) begins (knowingly?) passing on false information about Iraq overtures for Nigerien uranium to other Western spy agencies.

February 2002 - Niger claims reach Cheney; CIA sends Joe Wilson to Niger.

March 16, 2002 - Alireza Jafarzadeh, pr rep for terrorist group MEK, claims Iranians have secret nuclear weapons program. Reveals secret Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.

[I’ll leave out the gory details of the rest of 2002]

January 29, 2003 - Bush includes Niger claim in SOTU.

March 19, 2003 - U.S.-led invasion of Iraq begins. U.S. plans to install Ahmed Chalabi, suspected Iranian agent, as leader of Iraq.

May 1, 2003 - Bush declares “Mission Accomplished”.

May 15, 2003 - Alireza Jafarzadeh claims Iran has chemical and biological warfare programs.

July 14, 2003 - Bush Administration deliberately blows the cover of Valerie Plame Wilson, CIA NOC specializing in Iranian WMDs.

Sometime in 2003? - Ali Reza Asghari, high-ranking Iranian defense official turned by foreign (Turkey?) spy agency.

Sometime in 2003 - Iranian government takes unilateral steps to defuse antagonistic relationship with U.S., including cancelling covert nuclear programs.

***

Yes on the CFL!

Agree on the ties. We made similar links to info and I think we are on the same path of thought on the big picture…

Although I did not link the article regarding the EU’s position with Iran - a group effort to leave alone but actions do not appear to be that…

Looks like spin to me. What can you say about someone who cites Podheretz as an authority.

scribe

What do you make of the Danger room piece above? It looks liek, directly after that meeting, 6 EU countries got together and had a bitch fest.

Why did you not tell ze world? Exactly my point, an entirely humorless
lot this neocon group.

I avoided the temptation to get into a debate about the diplomacy between Japan and the U.S. Stimson was as much a case as Cheney. He wanted to attack Japan in 1933.

There was also that supposed death threat against Putin when he was in Teheran, which I took, paranoiacally or not, to be a little message from us.

My thought about this palace coup: doesn’t the logic of this dictate that Cheney actually be removed officially from power, from heart problems, say? I’m not talking about impeachment by Congress, of course; they wouldn’t do it any more than Fred Hiatt would, even though Cheney and Bush have been caught red handed trying to lie us into another war.

Bush, the dumbfuck, is always letting the cat out of the bag and letting his emotions (if you want to call them that) show — the WWIII was clearly a tantrum directed at Putin. Here’s another open confession of his malign designs against Iran from yesterday’s coverage: “Bush said he is not troubled about his standing, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people. ‘No, I’m feeling pretty spirited — pretty good about life,’ Bush said. ‘I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world.’” He feels “pretty good” that Iran is “dangerous”.

Danger room?

Different issue, first: You’ve got the time Putin visited Iran wrong.

The Asia Times article was published October 22-23. The article makes clear that Putin’s visit, statements (and decision-making/agreement with Iran) took place the week prior, i.e., around October 15-16. In other words -
about 10/12-13: Putin visited Germany and he and Merkel hashed out some issues.
Putin flew on to Iran directly from Germany.
(Presumably, the Germans tell the US what they and Putin talked about)
about 10/14-16: Putin in Iran and meets, discusses and agrees with Iran that “Attack Iran and you attack Russia”
Word of this gets back to D.C. - either from Russia, Germany, Iran, or any or all of them.
10/17 Bushie starts talking about WWIII
10/22-23 Asia Times runs its story.
10/22 Ritter talks about Deadeye imprinting “WWIII” into the speech centers of Bushie’s brain.

The two stories I cited took a week from the happening of the event they report upon until publication.

Everyone seems to be thinking Bushie was talking about WWIII being US v. Nucular Iran (some time in the distant future), when in fact it would have been US v. Russia (this month, upon the triggering event of the US attacking Iran). And that’s why the US media are either making fun of Bushie, not reporting the Asia Times story, or both. Because if they were to do so, everyone would recognize we were/are in imminent danger of these clowns making sure no one sees 2008.

Frankly, I get the idea the DC Establishment is treating Bushie like townspeople treated the kid, Charlie, in that old Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a good Life” where he can hear thoughts and has limitless powers. Everyone thinks good (i.e., pleasing to Charlie) thoughts and tells Charlie how good he is out of fear for their lives. When Charlie’s fed-up father tries to whack him, Dad’s head winds up on a jack-in-the-box. Fer sher, Bushie has Charlie’s petulance down.

emptywheel:

Gareth Porter’s Asia Times story about Admiral Fallon was May 17, 2007:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M…..7Ak03.html

Here is the Putin “assassination plot” story from October:

http://www.iht.com/articles/20…../putin.php

Just throwing this out… what if Asgari is sitting in a Moscow flat.

10/22 Ritter talks about Deadeye imprinting “WWIII” into the speech centers of Bushie’s brain.

ROTFLOL

Asgari is probably holed up in Tel Aviv.

Asgari fled Iran to Istanbul in early 2007.

True enough, there is a case that US policy under FDR was hardline
toward Japan, Matsuoka’s comment about the British and Americans teaching
the Japanese to play poker while changing the game to contract bridge
is not entirely innaccurate. Diplomats have always been at the mercy of
militarists when there is no countervailing public opinion in play.

What did Bush know and when did he know it?

Amy Goodman on it
http://www.democracynow.org/

“dick Cheney held it up”

Where would you fit in the classified intelligence in regard to Iran being handed off to Israeli officials

Amy interviews Gareth Porter on this program about the NIE
http://www.democracynow.org/

Good question. I’m not sure where that fits in, but it clearly does.

Spot on analysis scribe.

If you look at the vacuum created from the fall of the Soviet Union, we have the PNAC us v. them crowd who need an enemy to fear. Condi, Cheney, et al are lost without the broad brush of a Manichian world view. Hoftstadter had it right… Paranoia on a nationalistic scope.

Folks, I added this to the timeline, but wanted to call your attention to it:

Another possibility exists, though: the Bush administration may have wanted to salvage negotiations with Iran after the “disaster” this weekend in London. This story has been largely lost in the NIE furor, but the new Iranian nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, told diplomats that all proposals made in previous negotiations over the nuclear issue were irrelevant – that the diplomatic efforts to date were for naught. This led to intimations that the negotiations would shut down, with one official quoted saying “we can’t do business with these guys at this point.”

Since the NIE says very explicitly that international pressure was instrumental in causing a halt in Tehran’s nuclear weapons research, the Bush administration may have hoped releasing the report would shore up support for continued diplomacy.

i hadn’t considered this before, but some variation on this might help explain speaker pelosi’s otherwise idiotic (*)press release monday:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on the Bush Administration’s release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program:

“While harboring no illusions about the intentions of some Iranian leaders, the new Iran NIE suggests there is time for a new policy toward Iran that deters Iran from restarting its nuclear program while also improving relations overall.

“The NIE also illustrates the effectiveness of international monitoring and targeted sanctions to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These tools, and efforts such as the Nunn–Lugar program to secure loose nuclear materials that Congress expanded this year through the passage of the 9/11 Commission recommendations legislation, can be employed successfully to deter the production or acquisition of the components needed for nuclear weapons.”

(*) note: idiotic because (among other things):

1) didn’t our big sanction efforts begin after 2003? (or do i have that wrong?)
2) didn’t iran offer a grand bargin in 2003, which we rejected - ie we refused negotiations?

so, i don’t see how she can say that iran’s lack of a current nuclear weapons program is due to our negotiations and sanctions regime. it makes no sense to me, unless her statement is really about some other negotiations.

excellent analysis.

I just see Pelosi spinning this thing to show that Congress is working and passing effective legislation that contributes to a safer world and security in the U.S. She’s doing what Speakers do best: spinning the story.