Blogs and Stories
Iran's Secret Bargain With Bush?
Here are the pointers that convince my sources there is an understanding with Iran:
- Saudi officials have been involved in secret mediation between the US and Iran.
- Despite the Bush administrations protestations that Iran remains a nuclear threat, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in December, 2007 downplayed this and undermined the main justification for a US or Israeli strike, thus paving the way for a “dialogue” that seems to have gone beyond the two meetings that had already taken place between the US and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad.
- Shortly after the US surge, which preceded the NIE report by a few weeks, Iran’s Al-Quds force in Iraq almost totally ceased attacks against US troops.
- The Al-Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia backed by Iran, declared a six-month truce last fall, then another open-ended one. Not all followers of its leader, Muqtada Al-Sadr, complied, so Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki attacked in Basra, Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad, killing 700 to 800 of Mahdi Army militants. The truce, tacitly endorsed by Tehran, freed Maliki’s hands and U.S. forces to target remnants of Al Qaeda fighters in Anbar and Mosul. Simultaneously, Syria, an ally of Iran, tightened its border controls, making it harder for Al Qaeda’s foreign fighters to get into Iraq.
- Two militants, Emad Mughniah and Mahmoud Kolaghassi, involved in recruiting and training Shiite militias and Al Qaeda fighters sent to Iraq, respectively, were assassinated in Syria. The Syrians want to prevent the possible indictment of Syrian leaders by the international tribunal in the Hague, which is about to start prosecuting suspects in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Harriri.
- Arab countries, such as Jordan, Kuwait and Egypt, have expressed worries the US may strike a deal with Iran at their expense, and have expressed concerns published in the Arab media over a probable “Grand Bargain.”
- Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, in a July 19 commentary for Project Syndicate, lent credence to these fears, concluding: “If Iran is serious [in pursuing talks with the Bush administration], the result may be nothing less than the long awaited ‘Grand Bargain’—a regional reconciliation of interests between Iran, on one side, and America, Europe, and the region’s U.S. allies on the other.”
- Israeli officials, who reject the findings of the NIE, accuse the US of striking a deal at Israel’s expense. On July 26 in Debkafile, a pro-Israeli website with links to Israeli intelligence, Prime Minister Olmert is reported to have protested to President Bush that the administration “had violated its understandings with Israel on Iran and Bush’s personal promises to the Prime Minister (of Israel) earlier this year.”
- David Wurmser, former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, told a Brussels conference two weeks ago that Bush would not use military force against Iran. "The feeling to a large extent now is that diplomacy is working, that there is a trend in the regime toward moderation, that pressure is building on the regime.”
People who bought into the conspiracy theory of an October Surprise in 1980 will be intrigued to note a remarkable coincidence. One of officials in the Iran-Contra deal, by which the US offered arms to “moderates” in Iran in return for getting hostages freed in the mid-1980s, was Elliott Abrams. He was convicted in 1991 of two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation, but has since returned to government. He now serves in the current Bush White House as Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy in the Bush White House.
On the Iranian side, the man who brokered the deal was Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjani, who later became president of Iran. Rafsanjani, who lost the last presidential elections to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected in September, 2007 to the influential post of Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and head of the Expediency Council of Iran.









Chinese and middle east governments and investors have lost millions in respect of their holdings in US Stocks. These powerful interests may be putting extra presure on Bush to achieve some peace dividends instead of cash returns.
Excellent. Realpolitik prevails in the end. Now it is time to let the Imam Al-Mahdi manifest himself, so that ghastly Wahabis may get their comeuppance and true justice reign.
The Priest
I don't quite understand the logic here. The fact that John McCain was in favor of the surge and that its success is helping his campaign is interesting, but does it follow that a secret Iranian-Bush Administration Bargain was set up with this intention? The "surge" was announced in Jan. 2007, at which time McCain's candidacy was anything but uncertain. And is this worth it for Bush to put up with being ranted at by Ahmadinejad on American soil? The war isn't over yet after all, and seems unlikely that the surge results are going to "save" the reputation of a government that is even getting the wash from its own party. And if the Iranians are cooling down in Iraq, they want something in return -- more than just NOT getting bombed. Is the key point in the argumentation inherent but missing -- that they want to be left alone to develop nuclear energy/weapons, which would put their neighbors at risk? Allies of the US, one and all. This feels like an important story, but it reads like a memo of accusations instead.
Excellent analysis! Although this piece bears some truth and it's a fair and logic argument but i think there is more to it. This piece contains the western elements of the deal but it doesn't say much on the price that was given to Iran by giving it and its ally Hezbollah a complete control over Lebanon. As for the NIE i don't think that we should treat it in terms of what it actual is NOT more. The NIE said "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons" and they added that "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons". Between mid-2007 and now there is more than a year and there is a lot they could have done in this year. So maybe we shouldn't rush to a conclusion and underestimate what the Iranians are capable of doing especially that they have the Russians on their side. After all we all might think that logic should prevent Russia from helping Iran having a nuclear weapon but since when we can bet on LOGIC when it comes to Russia nowadays?!!!!!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.