What Kind of Sponsor of Terror Is Iran???

by emptywheel

Just a quick note on the NIE, which is here.

The NIE talks about how Bush's folly in Iraq has created Jihadistan, and it paints the Iraq Jihad as a do or die thing for Al Qaeda.

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

But there's something missing from the key judgments that is central to BushCo narratives about the Middle East. Iran is called the biggest state sponsor of terrorism (somehow, Pakistan, which just released all their imprisoned Al Qaeda operatives got a pass, as did Saudi Arabia).

While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.

But there is no mention--nada, zip, zilcho--of Hezbollah in the key judgments.

This is disturbing on two counts. First, the Ledeens of this world have been warmongering for the last two decades six months based on the premise that "Syran" is the big cause of terror in the Middle East. But the main terrorist group it supports, Hezbollah, doesn't even merit a mention?

Equally disturbing, a good number of smart people think Hezbollah, and not Al Qaeda, is more capable of inflicting serious damage in the US. Particularly if, say, someone started bombing the shit out of Iran. For example, my good buddy Richard Armitage has called Hezbollah the "A-Team" of terror.  Hezbollah is the real deal.

But it gets no mention in the key judgments of the NIE?

Not only does this mean the NIE does little to help us assess our progress in the war on terror. But it suggests frightful blind spots among the same people making the decision whether to bomb the shit out of Iran. I mean, even in Iraq, one of the biggest problems we face is the increasing militarization of Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. Are they simply discounting this threat because it is Shiite, and not Sunni?

Update: I think I figured out where they put Hezbollah. On the cutting room floor.

In all, roughly 3 pages of the 9-page key judgment section were finally released by the White House.

Update: As someone reminded me, the statements on Hezbollah in this NIE have already been a source of controversy. From Laura Rozen, who first mentioned this NIE:

 

In April , the community produced a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism, which, according to people who have read it , says that Hezbollah is the only major terrorist group with global reach currently not trying to kill Americans. The document also raised the intelligence community's concern that, if the United States were to attack Iran over its nuclear program, Iran might use Hezbollah to strike US targets once again.

Huh, what a surprise. I wasn't off the mark wondering why there wasn't a Key Finding on how, if we attack Iran, Hezbollah will come after us hard. What a surprise.

Comments

[William Ockham]

ew,

You are absolutely correct in noting that the most interesting things about this document are the things it doesn't say, with Hezbollah at the top of the list. They don't mention Palestine either. I could go on...

But I have to make fun of a couple of things the document includes:

We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Of course, they had to get this in:

This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt
terrorist methods to attack US interests.

Somebody tell me again which century this is.

[Meteor Blades]

• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

D'oh. How many times over the past 42 months have those of us opposed to the Iraq War/Occupation said that?

[emptywheel]

WO

Yeah, if this is the best they can do, there really must be doozies in the rest of it. Any bets on how BushCo will avoid releasing the really devestating one on Iraq alone?

[ab initio]

I am glad the Dems are on the offense with the NIE. Jane Harman has called for the Iraq "NIE" to also be published.

The fact of the matter is that common sense is all that is required. What many in the liberal blogosphere have been trumpeting for so long is so obvious. This massive intelligence complex that taxpayers fund has been emasculated by the focus of Bush-Cheney and their neocon cohorts in trying to fix intelligence to their brain-dead policy.

Hezbollah has emerged much stronger with their recent conflict with Israel. Their recent massive rally and Nasrallah's speech were defiant. Reading the translation of Nasrallah's speech does not indicate that terrorism is any priority for them. Evicting the Saniora-Hariri group and their US leaning is his priority. His speech was more about Lebanese nationalism and an effective deterrence against Israel.

Iran is now in the catbird seat in the Middle East. I am sure the NIE has nothing to say about that.

[Mimikatz]

Read Laura Rozen's piece at The American Prospect about Iran. They haven't a clue, if they are getting their intel from Gorbhanifar. The Dems should just keep the pressure on to release the newest NIE, and also link it to the torture bill--if this is the best we got under a torture regime, why not take the moral high road and go back to legal interrogations? The current plan is just making things worse. There is no need to lose our souls over this. Take the time to do it right. Like after the Dems take the Congress.

[Tom Maguire]

Ditto Hezbollah, double-ditto Palestine.

Bush's disengagment there has been stupid or brilliant, but how can it not be mentioned? Instead we get this:

...Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims— - all of which jihadists exploit.

Is Palestine (1), an "entrenched grievance", or (4) "pervasive anti-American sentiment"?

And does "pervasive anti-American sentiment" have causes that we can address, or does it just happen, like the desert wind?

Or maybe the Palestine problem is not a problem anymore - I'm sorry I missed that story...

Our tax dollars at work.

[mickey]

Speaking of other things, is there an emptywheel comment coming on this article?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-is-richard-armitages_b_30409.html