James Jesus Angleton, the late chief of CIA counterterrorism, and one of Americaโs all-time fans of James Joyce, was looking for the right words with which to express his feelings about the latest developments. It may have been the uncertainties associated with the (very) long-distance connection Iโd worked out via my old ouija board, but it seemed to me that he was actually sputtering.
JJA: Can you believe it? The Brits getting rolled by an Arab thug? Itโsโฆ well, itโs pure blackmail, and they actually paid off.
He was talking about the story that appeared in the Guardian back on February 15, telling of the day when Prince Bandar โ formerly ambassador to Washington and now the head of the Saudi national-security council โ told the British government that if they didnโt shut down an investigation into payoffs from British arms manufacturers to Saudi businessmen, it might lead to the loss of โBritish lives on British streets.โ The Saudis would just cut off intelligence on โsuicide bombers and terrorists,โ and so there might well be โanother 7/7โ in England. Blair caved, and the investigation was terminated.
ML: Seems pretty obvious, doesnโt it? On the one hand, if you tell Bandar to take a hike, youโve got the proven risk of terrorist attack. On the other, if you do what they want, you keep the information flow coming, and you make money on the arms deals. What government would say โnoโ to that?
JJA: You must be kidding. The Saudis are sitting on a tinderbox in the middle of a region in flames. They are in no position to defend themselves against Iran โ which is why theyโve been so nice to the mullahs of late โ and they count on the Brits to deliver the Americans. Bandar was bluffing. If the Brits had just said, โwell, weโre sorry youโre upset, and we sympathize. But weโve got an independent judiciary and, you know, we suffer from it too,โ and then added, โit would really be a shame if there were more terrorist attacks in London; Blair might have to throw in with crazy Bush, and God only knows where that would lead.โ
ML: Seems like a hell of a big risk to me. What if he wasnโt bluffing?
JJA: Thereโs an unspoken premise in the Saudi threat: that theyโve penetrated the terror cells. If that is true, they will have demonstrated it by now, by the quality of the information they have given Her Majestyโs government. Otherwise the threat couldnโt have been made, right?
ML: Right. But thereโs another assumption too, isnโt there? Namely that the Brits could only get that information if the Saudis wanted them to have itโฆ
JJA: Very good, youโre starting to think like a counterintelligence analyst now. The Brits have been in Arabia for a long time, even before Peter OโToole learned to ride a camel.
ML: Lawrence, you mean.
JJA: Yes, whatever. And donโt you think that the Brits, whose intelligence service is quite good, have managed to get their own sources inside the kingdom?
ML: But they wouldnโt want the Saudis to know that.
JJA: Bravo! Which is probably why the โblackmailโ worked, along with the money, of course.
ML: You mean that if the Brits told Bandar to take a walk, the Saudis might realize that the Secret Intelligence Service had other ways of finding out what the Saudis knew?
JJA: Is that less likely than the British government humiliating itself by succumbing to a crude blackmail threat?
ML: I guess not, but itโs pretty complicated.
JJA: Most of life in the world of intelligence is very complicated.
ML: Which brings me to my other big question, the infamous National Intelligence Estimate on Iranโs nuclear weapons program. Itโs now a commonplace in the MSM that our intelligence community thinks it knows that the Iranians stopped their secret nuclear weapons program several years ago.
JJA: Yeah, although the Estimate itself said weโre not certain about what, if anything, happened thereafter.
ML: Thatโs not what Robin Wright just said in the Washington Post. She wrote โPresident Bush saidโฆthat Iran has declared that it wants to be a nuclear power with a weapon to โdestroy people,โ including others in the Middle East, โcontradicting the judgments of a recent U.S. intelligence estimate.โ
JJA: But that same estimate says that โconvincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iranโs keyโฆobjectives, and given Iranโs considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weaponsโฆand (the decision to suspend the program) is inherently reversible.โ
ML: So youโre not convinced?
JJA: Convinced of what? The nuclear-enrichment program seems to have accelerated in the past few years, and thatโs the key to building your own atomic bomb. And Iโd have to know a hell of a lot more than I do know, to judge the importance of the โinformationโ the IC says it has. Maybe itโs very good, and maybe itโs a deception. Remember the timing.
ML: Yeah, the โsuspensionโ coincides with the invasion of Iraq.
JJA: At which time the mullahs must have been afraid weโd keep marching. Towards Tehran.
ML: So you think itโs possible they staged something to show their, uh, good will?
JJA: Hahaha, good will from a country that has ceaselessly killed Americans for nearly 30 years, thatโs a good one.
ML: I think Iโm losing youโฆ
The ouija board was emitting sparks and a bit of smoke.
JJA: Wait, thereโs moreโฆBush had it mostly right, I meanโฆ Ahmadinejadโฆ wiped off the mapโฆand more stillโฆ
But there wasnโt. Maybe next time.






Comments