TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
By JAMES RISEN The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon (news - web sites) received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) wanted to make a deal.
Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq (news - web sites) no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.
The messages from Baghdad, first relayed in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi intelligence officers to open last-ditch negotiations with the Bush administration through a clandestine communications channel, according to people involved.
The efforts were portrayed by Iraqi officials as having the approval of President Saddam Hussein, according to interviews and documents.
The overtures, after a decade of evasions and deceptions by Iraq, were ultimately rebuffed. But the messages raised enough interest that in early March, Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to top Pentagon officials, met in London with the Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage.
According to both men, Mr. Hage laid out the Iraqis' position to Mr. Perle, and he pressed the Iraqi request for a direct meeting with Mr. Perle or another representative of the United States.
"I was dubious that this would work," said Mr. Perle, widely recognized as an intellectual architect of the Bush administration's hawkish policy toward Iraq, "but I agreed to talk to people in Washington."
Mr. Perle said he sought authorization from C.I.A. officials to meet with the Iraqis, but the officials told him they did not want to pursue this channel, and they indicated they had already engaged in separate contacts with Baghdad. Mr. Perle said, "The message was, `Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.' "
A senior United States intelligence official said this was one of several contacts with Iraqis or with people who said they were trying to broker meetings on their behalf. "These signals came via a broad range of foreign intelligence services, other governments, third parties, charlatans and independent actors," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Every lead that was at all plausible, and some that weren't, were followed up."
There were a variety of efforts, both public and discreet, to avert a war in Iraq, but Mr. Hage's back channel appears to have been a final attempt by Mr. Hussein's government to reach American officials.
In interviews in Beirut, Mr. Hage said the Iraqis appeared intimidated by the American military threat. "The Iraqis were finally taking it seriously," he said, "and they wanted to talk, and they offered things they never would have offered if the build-up hadn't occurred."
Mr. Perle said he found it "puzzling" that the Iraqis would have used such complicated contacts to communicate "a quite astonishing proposal" to the administration.
But former American intelligence officers with extensive experience in the Middle East say many Arab leaders have traditionally placed a high value on secret communications, though such informal arrangements are sometimes considered suspect in Washington.
The activity in this back channel, detailed in interviews and in documents obtained by The New York Times, appears to show an increasingly frantic Iraqi regime trying to find room to maneuver as the enemy closes in. It also provides a rare glimpse into a subterranean world of international networking.
The key link in the network was Imad Hage, who has spent much of his life straddling two worlds. Mr. Hage, a Maronite Christian who was born in Beirut in 1956, fled Lebanon in 1976 after the civil war began there. He ended up in the United States, where he went to college and became a citizen.
Living in suburban Washington, Mr. Hage started an insurance company, American Underwriters Group, and became involved in Lebanese-American political circles. In the late 1990's, he moved his family and his company to Lebanon.
Serendipity brought him important contacts in the Arab world and in America. An influential Lebanese Muslim he met while handling an insurance claim introduced him to Mohammed Nassif, a senior Syrian intelligence official and a close aide to President Bashar al-Assad.
On trips back to Washington last year, Mr. Hage befriended a fellow Lebanese-American, Michael Maloof, who was working in the Pentagon as an analyst in an intelligence unit set up by Mr. Feith to look for ties between terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iraq. Mr. Maloof has ties to many leading conservatives in Washington, having worked for Mr. Perle at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration.
In January 2003, as American pressure was building for a face-off with Iraq, Mr. Hage's two worlds intersected.
On a trip to Damascus, he said, Mr. Nassif told him about Syria's frustrations in communicating with American officials. On a trip to the United States later that month, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Maloof arranged for him to deliver that message personally to Mr. Perle and to Jaymie Durnan, then a top aide to the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Pentagon officials confirmed that the meetings occurred.
Mr. Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, is known in foreign capitals as an influential adviser to top administration officials.
After Mr. Hage told his contacts in Beirut and Damascus about meeting Mr. Perle, Mr. Hage's influential Lebanese Muslim friend asked Mr. Hage to meet a senior Iraqi official eager to talk to the Americans. Mr. Hage cautiously agreed.
In February, as the United States was gearing up its campaign for a Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq, Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, arrived in Mr. Hage's Beirut office.
But within minutes, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Obeidi collapsed, and a doctor was called to treat him. "He came to my office, sat down, and in five minutes fell ill," recalled Mr. Hage. "He looked like a man under enormous stress."
After being treated, Mr. Obeidi explained that the Iraqis wanted to cooperate with the Americans and could not understand why the Americans were focused on Iraq rather than on countries, like Iran, that have long supported terrorists, Mr. Hage said. The Iraqi seemed desperate, Mr. Hage said, "like someone who feared for his own safety, although he tried to hide it."
Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their people. There are no weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled.
He said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant that Saddam Hussein give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years.
Mr. Hage said Mr. Obeidi made it clear that he wanted to get his message to Washington, so Mr. Hage contacted Mr. Maloof in Washington. "Everything I was hearing, I was telling Mike," he said.
A few days later, Mr. Hage said, he met Mr. Obeidi at a hotel in downtown Beirut, and Mr. Obeidi repeated the offers of concessions, which he said came from the highest levels of the Iraqi government. Mr. Obeidi seemed even more depressed. "The U.S. buildup was clearly getting to them," Mr. Hage said.
A week later, Mr. Hage said, he agreed to hold further meetings in Baghdad. When he arrived, he was driven to a large, well-guarded compound, where he was met by a gray-haired man in a military uniform. It was Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, who is No. 16 on the United States list of most wanted Iraqi leaders. Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush asked him if it was true that he knew Mr. Perle. "Have you met him?"
Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush began to vent his frustration over what the Americans really wanted. He said that to demonstrate the Iraqis' willingness to help fight terrorism, Mr. Habbush offered to hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, who has been indicted in United States in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Mr. Yasin fled to Iraq after the bombing, and the United States put up a $25 million reward for his capture.
Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush offered to turn him over to Mr. Hage, but Mr. Hage said he would pass on the message that Mr. Yasin was available.
Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush also insisted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and added, "Let your friends send in people and we will open everything to them."
Mr. Hage said he asked Mr. Habbush, "Why don't you tell this to the Bush administration?" He said Mr. Habbush replied cryptically, "We have talks with people."
Mr. Hage said he later learned that one contact was in Rome between the C.I.A. and representatives of the Iraqi intelligence service. American officials confirm that the meeting took place, but say that the Iraqi representative was not a current intelligence official and that the meeting was not productive.
In addition, there was an attempt to set up a meeting in Morocco between Mr. Habbush and United States officials, but it never took place, according to American officials.
On Feb. 19, Mr. Hage faxed a three-page report on his trip to Baghdad to Mr. Maloof in Washington. The Iraqis, he wrote, "understand the days of manipulating the United States are over." He said top Iraqi officials, including Mr. Habbush and Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister, wanted to meet with American officials.
The report also listed five areas of concessions the Iraqis said they would make to avoid a war, including cooperation in fighting terrorism and "full support for any U.S. plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. In addition, the report said that "the U.S. will be given first priority as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights," and that Iraq would cooperate with United States strategic interests in the region. Finally, under the heading "Disarmament," the report said, "Direct U.S. involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq."
Mr. Hage's messages touched off a brief flurry of communications within the Pentagon, according to interviews and copies of e-mail messages obtained by The Times.
In an e-mail on Feb. 21 to Mr. Durnan, the Wolfowitz aide, Mr. Maloof wrote that Mr. Perle "is willing to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if it has clearance from the building," meaning the Pentagon.
In an e-mail response, Mr. Durnan said: "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold." In a separate e-mail to two Pentagon officials, Mr. Durnan asked for background information about Mr. Hage. "There is some interesting stuff happening overseas and I need to know who and what he is," he wrote in one e-mail.
Mr. Hage had impressive contacts, but there was one blemish on his record: In January he had been briefly detained by the F.B.I. at Dulles Airport in Washington when a handgun was found in his checked luggage. He said he did not believe it was a security violation because it was not in his carry-on luggage, and the authorities allowed him to leave after a few hours.
Senior Pentagon officials said Mr. Durnan relayed messages he received from Mr. Maloof to the appropriate officials at the Pentagon, but they said that Mr. Durnan never discussed the Hage channel to the Iraqis with Mr. Wolfowitz. (In May, Mr. Maloof, who has lost his security clearances, was placed on paid administrative leave by the Pentagon, for reasons unrelated to the contacts with Mr. Hage.)
Mr. Hage continued to hear from the Iraqis and passed on their urgency about meeting Mr. Perle or another representative of the United States. In one memo sent to other Pentagon officials in early March, Mr. Maloof wrote: "Hage quoted Dr. Obeidi as saying this is the last window or channel through which this message has gone to the United States. Hage characterized the tone of Dr. Obeidi as begging."
Working through Mr. Maloof, Mr. Hage finally arranged to meet with Mr. Perle in London in early March. The two met in an office in Knightsbridge for about two hours to discuss the Iraqi proposals, the men said. Mr. Hage told Mr. Perle that the Iraqis wanted to meet with him or someone from the administration.
Mr. Perle said he subsequently contacted a C.I.A. official to ask if he should meet with the Iraqis. "The answer came back that they weren't interested in pursuing it," Mr. Perle said in an interview, "and I was given the impression that there had already been contacts."
Mr. Perle now plays down the importance of his contact with Mr. Hage. He said he found it difficult to believe that Mr. Hussein would make serious proposals through such a channel. "There were so many other ways to communicate," he said. "There were any number of governments involved in the end game, the Russians, French, Saudis."
Nonetheless, Mr. Hage continued to deliver messages from the Iraqis to Mr. Maloof.
In one note to Mr. Perle in mid-March, Mr. Maloof relayed a message from Mr. Hage that Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush "were prepared to meet with you in Beirut, and as soon as possible, concerning `unconditional terms.' " The message from Mr. Hage said, "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance."
No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad.
"At least they could have talked to them," he said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...edealtoavertwar
Wow, this is really interesting. Makes one think what would have happened if this back channel WERE used and whether anything would have actually come of it. Or if Hussein were serious about making those concessions what would have happened if he had made these gestures overtly and publicly. It's infuriating to think that the whole mess could have been avoided if any of those options had happened. Can you imagine what a diplomatic victory it would have been for the US if Iraq had done all this publicly? More time was definetely needed ...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa Except that Bush and Neocons didn't want to avoid the whole mess. They absolutely wanted to invade Iraq, so that they can pursue their world domination project starting from the Middle-East. You want proof? The cat �s now out of the bag: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1-2003Nov6.html |
| quote: |
| Bush: Iraq Part of 'Global Democratic Revolution' Liberation of Middle East Portrayed as Continuation of Reagan's Policies By Fred Barbash Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, November 6, 2003; 2:44 PM President Bush today portrayed the war in Iraq as the latest front in the "global democratic revolution" led by the United States. The revolution under former president Ronald Reagan freed the people of Soviet-dominated Europe, he declared, and is destined now to liberate the Middle East as well. In a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) described as a major policy address by the White House, Bush avoided issues such as preemptive attack, weapons of mass destruction and "gathering" dangers to the United States. Rather, he put the war in a broader context of the "2,500-year old story of democracy," in the same tradition as the "military and moral" American commitments to restoring democracy to post-War Germany, to protecting Greece from Communism during the Cold War and combating communist domination in Latin America, Europe and Asia, including, he said explicitly, Vietnam. The nations of the Middle East, he said, are no less entitled to freedom from "despotism" than all the nations liberated in the past. He congratulated the Islamic nations he believes are making at least some progress towards democracy, mentioning Bahrain, Oman, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Bush also said "the demand for democracy is strong and broad" in Iran, adding, "The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy." Bush delivered the speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce during an event this morning marking the 20th anniversary of the NED, a federally funded foundation that provides grants to organizations that advance democracy internationally. Later, Bush signed an $87.5 billion spending package approved by Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's NED speech reflected the views of a generation of neo-conservative thinkers and government leaders, who support U.S. activism in spreading democratic government and free markets to those parts of the world that have yet to adopt them. The speech also had the earmarks of a president seeking to embed a substantive doctrine into his mission, something beyond the doctrine of preemptive war, which Bush and other administration members have invoked in justifying the attack on Iraq. Bush said, "In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty. . . . " Now "our commitment to democracy" is being "tested in the Middle East," he said, which "must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations in the Middle East, countries of great strategic importance, democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter?" As for Iraq, he added, "We're working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test." � 2003 The Washington Post Company |
I thought you guys knew about this story...
I heard about it before the war starting. They talked about that lebanese buisness man and interviewed him on French Canadian tv.
bah anyways....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ahlamalek I thought you guys knew about this story... I heard about it before the war starting. They talked about that lebanese buisness man and interviewed him on French Canadian tv. bah anyways.... |
I heard this news, surprising enough, on my local TV station early this morning. Im glad to see this posted allready here on TA, hence the fact it was publicized on the New York Times. - As time goes by, we will be able to find so many things come up to the light.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Wow, this is really interesting. Makes one think what would have happened if this back channel WERE used and whether anything would have actually come of it. Or if Hussein were serious about making those concessions what would have happened if he had made these gestures overtly and publicly. It's infuriating to think that the whole mess could have been avoided if any of those options had happened. Can you imagine what a diplomatic victory it would have been for the US if Iraq had done all this publicly? More time was definetely needed ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by malek I thought you guys knew about this story... I heard about it before the war starting. They talked about that lebanese buisness man and interviewed him on French Canadian tv. bah anyways.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa Except that Bush and Neocons didn't want to avoid the whole mess. They absolutely wanted to invade Iraq, so that they can pursue their world domination project starting from the Middle-East. You want proof? The cat �s now out of the bag: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1-2003Nov6.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3248119.stm Bush's speech is 100% compatible with Thomas Barnett's Globocop suggestions: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets...a%20article.htm To be more exact, Bush's speech is identical to a specific Neocon variation where the goal is a domino-like democratization of the Middle-East. This was widely discussed even before the Iraq War, but Bush proceeded to invade despite warnings from US traditionalists who rebutted the domino theory: http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000024.html Despite the average Westerner's long education, and despite US Administration's unprecedented efforts to explain their politics to ordinary people in hard-to-avoid magazines (Wolfowitz in Vanity Fair, Barnett in Esquire, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in Wall Street Journal), the majority of Westerners still keep on pretending that the Iraq War was about Saddam's WMD and cruelty. This can only be explained as Westerners' willful ignorance. Westerners refuse to accept the existence of a new US foreign policy. They want to pretend that we are still living in the 20th century, during which the power balance of big countries meant that war, politics and economy could all be explained as legitimate reactions, instead of as unchecked imperialism. My point here is that the targets of the Neocon hit-list have been well-known since 2002: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0611-02.htm Of course, every one of these targets has been using all possible channels to avert US invasion. Perhaps Iraq did all this publicly, but the Western World didn't publish and analyze Saddam's media releases. The Western puppet press published only pro-war propaganda articles, and suggested that everything Saddam said was deception. Muslims are also known to use more elaborate and indirect language than Westerners to express their suggestions. That may be the reason why Saddam didn't go to the Western press to say explicitly: "SOS, an unprovoked US invasion imminent." Well, he did suggest a TV debate with Bush, and might have presented some explicit peace offers there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/w...000/2796551.stm Saddam even had a track record of trying to avoid war with the US. Saddam's troops were retreating from Kuwait, but Bush Sr attacked nonetheless. Even after the Gulf War, Saddam made concessions to prevent a new invasion: http://www.google.fi/search?q=cache...&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8 But the article about the Hage-Perle contact is interesting because it rebuts one of the most blatant pro-Neocon media lies: http://www.usatoday.com/community/c...3-18-peters.htm If Saddam was desperate enough to use private contacts to Neocons to avert war, he must have known that an invasion is imminent. Thus, it's hard to believe the Neocon-propaganda that Russians and French had promised him not to worry: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2-2003Nov2.html An alternate explanation for Saddam's relative inaction just before the invasion is that the US reportedly kept troops on a carrier outside Turkey to make Saddam think that no war could happen before those troops would be in position. Thus, Saddam may have not had time to present his best offer. |
Well, I reckon we'll hear the rest of the story (just like Paul Harvey says), when Saddam finally goes to trial...
Lol!
[[[smoke]]]
Where did Vesa go, BTW?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Where did Vesa go, BTW? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by smokeape Well, I reckon we'll hear the rest of the story (just like Paul Harvey says), when Saddam finally goes to trial... Lol! [[[smoke]]] |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Where did Vesa go, BTW? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z A more interesting question, where the hell did his post go? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I think a woman is involved with his disappearance. That or the political party he was starting up. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X But why (or should I say, how) how did all of his old posts get deleted? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.