"Late Edition" 11 February 2007

You can either read the transcript below or push the link and watch the whole thing.

Download cnn_discussion.wmv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

New questions this week about intelligence before the war in Iraq, and now a new round of questions about intelligence concerning Iran. What is Iran doing right now and why?

Helping us sort all of this out, two guests: former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Colonel Pat Lang, retired U.S. Army, has long experience in military intelligence and special forces; and Ray Takeyh, he's with the Council on Foreign Relations. He's also the author of a new book, "Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic."

Gentlemen, thanks very much for coming in.

Let me ask you, Pat Lang, first, to comment on this briefing that reporters in Baghdad were given today, suggesting that Iranians -- whether the Iranian Republican Guard, the Quds division, whatever -- are providing the most sophisticated explosives that can take out an Abrams battle tank, all the armor, to Shiite militias in Iraq. And those explosives have already killed well more than 100 American troops.

PAT LANG, FORMER DIA ANALYST: Well, anyone who has been studying this knows that the Iranians are playing a significant role in Iraq, because they are interested in the political outcome there. And the combat situation, of course, directly effects what the political outcome will be.

I think there is not much doubt that they probably have been supplying materiel of one kind of another to the Iraqi Shia. I don't have a problem with believing that.

What I have difficulty understanding, and maybe Ray does, too -- I don't know -- is the idea that all of a sudden, things which have probably been going on for months and months and months have taken on a whole new significance and now we are beating the drum over and over again about the degree of Iranian participation in the war and combat casualties amongst our troops when, in fact, the Iranians have been an ever-present factor from the beginning.

BLITZER: So I just want to get this straight. So you think there's a political motive for releasing this information right now?

LANG: I think there's kind of an eerie resemblance right now, of what's going on in the continual iteration of statements concerning the Iranians, about their nuclear program, about their general menace in the world, about their actions in Iraq, all these kinds of things to what went on in '02 as part of the buildup done in making people think that the Iraqis were such a menace that something had to be done. I think there's a resemblance.

BLITZER: I want Ray to weigh in, but I want to play a little clip of what the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, said on this subject on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GATES: Iran is very much involved in providing either the technology or the weapons themselves for these explosively formed projectiles. Now, they don't represent a big percentage of the IED attacks, but they're extremely lethal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. What's your sense?

RAY TAKEYH, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, I think Colonel Lang is right. Iranians have been providing such munitions with whatever degree of sophistications to the Shia militias. It's part of the Iranian strategy to organize and mobilize the Shia community for a potential civil war that is taking place and combat against the Sunni insurgents.

So in that sense, they are trying to strengthen the Shia community politically, economically, and in this particular case, seemingly militarily.

Now, I don't necessarily think that Iranians were suggesting or pressing the Shia militia groups to use those weapons against the American forces or have such operational control over this issue.

But the notion that Iranians are helping to arm Shia militias makes sense to me because the Iranian policy towards southern Iraq is drawn from the policy toward southern Lebanon, namely getting that Shia community organized, armed in a potential sectarian conflict that is taking place in Iraq.

BLITZER: So, in other words, what you're suggesting is that what the Iranians did in trying to bolster Hezbollah in Lebanon, they're now doing to bolster the various Shiite militias, including the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq?

TAKEYH: I suspect they're primarily support base is with the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution, SCIRI, which is part of the Iraqi government. But the idea that they would have a relationship with the Sadrists and the Sadr militia makes some sense to me.

BLITZER: Do you agree?

LANG: Yes, I do. And, actually, the analogy to what they're doing in Lebanon is very close. You are seeing a period of Iranian expansionism, in terms of their sphere of influence. And these Shia armies are, in fact, surrogates for them.

BLITZER: Here is what the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times, which I'm sure both of you saw on Thursday: "Now, the United States administration is unfortunately reaping the expected bitter fruits of its ill-conceived adventurism, taking the region and the world with it to the brink of further hostility. But rather than face the unpleasant facts, the United States administration is trying to sell an escalated version of the same failed policy. It does this by trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq."

Pat Lang, you worked in U.S. military intelligence for decades. That was your career. What is your reaction when the Iranian ambassador to the U.N. says U.S. military intelligence is fabricating this kind of evidence?

LANG: Well, I don't think it's the case that military intelligence is fabricating this kind of evidence. In fact, as we were just saying, this has been an ongoing activity, that they've been arming the Shia militia, as part of their program for the Middle East, the Iranians have.

What's different now is that the policy people in the American government are making use of the available data to make a case against the Iranians. And they're doing it with ever-increasing stridency, so far as I can see.

BLITZER: And you see that as potentially setting the stage for military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran?

LANG: It's setting the stage for whatever action the commander in chief and the executive branch decide they're going to take against the Iranians. That seems very much to me to be the case.

BLITZER: You want to weigh in?

TAKEYH: I think what Ambassador Zarif was saying in the New York Times piece, is there's consensus within the Iranian political system today, mainly that the United States, as it loses the war in Iraq, is trying to find culprits to blame. And Iran is one of the easiest ones to blame. So as the Americans are leaving, defeated, they're trying to justify that by blaming others. BLITZER: You disagree?

LANG: Well, I think the United States has not at all accepted the idea that we've been defeated in Iraq. And I think we're looking around for people who are culprits and involved in our present difficulties and seeking to focus on them to see if we can do something about them.

BLITZER: All right, gentlemen, stand by because we have a lot more to talk about. We're going to continue this conversation, also get into questions about whether what's happening in Iraq will spill over to its neighbors and beyond. In other words, is a regional war possible?

But upcoming next, we'll get a quick check of what's in the news right now, including more on Iran's alleged involvement in Iraqi violence. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

(Missing Text and Question from Blitzer)

LANG: And that's symptomatic at what's wrong with a lot of our human intelligence collection. And, in fact, you can go around today all over the United States and talk to people like Ray, who are well thought of, well-informed academics, people in good think tanks around the United States, and you will probably get a better idea of Iranian politics, in fact, because of their real contacts in Iran and with what's going on politically, than you do from the government.

BLITZER: The Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, said this on Thursday: "The enemies know well that any aggression will lead to a reaction from all sides in the Iranian nation on the aggressors and their interests around the world."

That was seen as a threat to the United States and U.S. interests around the world, and that the Iranians could do some horrible things if they wanted to.

TAKEYH: Well, it seems to me that what Iranians are doing today is pursuing a policy not that dissimilar from the Bush administration's. Tough rhetoric yet, at the same time, saying, but we're willing to be flexible and negotiate.

So you begin to see two tracks being played out: on one hand, threats that Iran is prepared to retaliate and has capability of doing so; yet, at the same time, Iran's national security adviser is in Munich today talking about the fact that the country is open to negotiations on this nuclear issue and a range of other nuclear issues. It's sort of a two-track policy that we seem to be playing, and they're playing it back to us.

BLITZER: We had our interview in the last hour with Doug Feith, the former top Pentagon official and undersecretary of defense. And he made the case that what he was doing, and his colleagues, in the buildup to the war in Iraq, was critiquing the CIA's intelligence. They weren't happy with the CIA's intelligence, on any alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida and that was appropriate.

You worked in Pentagon intelligence for a long time. Was it appropriate for this office to go ahead and review the intelligence that was provided by the CIA?

LANG: When I first heard that they were doing that, at the time, I thought this is a perfectly normal activity. What I didn't realize was the way that they were doing it. It is normal to critique the intelligence product, no matter where it comes from.

My problem with what they did is the fact that what they were doing is that the intelligence agency has a huge discard pile of reports that they've been sent from around the world that they've decided are untrue and that they keep around just so they can judge the validity of sources in the future.

Now, what these fellows did was that they went through the discard pile looking for things that suited their program, then would write them into things which they would take around to show to people in the White House, and Congress and other places, and they wold also show the same things to the analysts every day, saying "why aren't you writing about this?"

And when they were told, in fact, that "we're not writing about this because it's untrue, our agencies have decided it's untrue," they said, "well we think you should think about this some more."

And when you get this day after day, week after week, eventually, it starts to skew the total picture held by the government as to what the truth is, just by repetition.

That's what happened, and I think that was most inappropriate and the that the I.G. was right about this, not just on this issue, but also on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, where the bigger problem was that the senior leadership in the intelligence community didn't back the analysts in standing up to guys in Mr. Feith's office. It was a massive failure of leadership in the intelligence community.

BLITZER: We've got to leave it there. Colonel Pat Lang, thanks very much for coming in.

LANG: Thank you."

Comments

[Gerard]

Pat, have you seen the latest Newsweek report that a 3rd carrier group is being prepped for the Gulf? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/

Its kind of buried as an aside in the 4th paragraph, but you mentioned before that a 3rd group is an important milestone. Is this a disturbing sign or just some saber-rattling?

[jr786]

Col.,
Since it looks as if the administration got a 'pop no kick' instead of a 'smoking gun' out of its disclosures about Iranian weaponeering, do you think we are in for another Feith-based intelligence estimate?
Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I get the sense that Bushco knows the game is up, have sent Petraeus out there to do a little cosmetic surgery, and are setting up the Iranians as the blamed, but not attacked, culprits.

[Rider]

"...all of a sudden, things which have probably been going on for months and months and months..."

Excellent point and well-said, Colonel. The Pentagon says that the EFP's are taking more American lives now. But according to the NYT article this weekend, it sounds like the number goes up and down. There was a quote from a Lt. Col. Danna to the effect that there were not a lot of EFP's out there, and that they came out whenever there was a crackdown on Shiite militias. He called it "a political weapon." Bush of course sees his own purposes in them. Do you think the Iranians wanted the origin of these deadly weapons to be found out? Might that have a connection to their diplomatic overtures in Munich?

[arbogast]

The apparent difference between South Lebanon and Iraq is that US troops seem to be able to enter Shia areas whose support comes, in part, from Iran, whereas the IDF was not able to enter South Lebanon successfully, despite saturation bombing including the use of cluster bombs, whose use had been banned by the US, directed specifically against the civilian population.

The US is even able to "lock down" parts of Iraq to search for Shia extremists (cf. The Battle of Algiers):

Well, "lock down" is the correct metaphor. Iraq is a poorly administered prison (cf. Abu Ghraib) created by the US working as a surrogate for the IDF (cf. the parallel drawn by Colonel Lang).

Question: if saturation bombing and invasion, with little regard for the civilian population, didn't work in South Lebanon, where, today, few stones have been left standing on another, how will it work in Iraq?

Answer: the answer is not to be found within the borders of the US, only the administrative apparatus to carry out this folly.

[arbogast]

When Col. Lang speaks of the "discard pile" of national intelligence (a superb phrase, which I pray gets wider use), he is talking about the Office of the Vice President.

And I believe that "The Man from Wyoming", in the adulatory words of the Wall Street Journal, believes that he is channeling Ronald Reagan.

All of which makes the following column, astoundingly written by George Will, must reading. Must reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901931.html

[David E. Solomon]

Colonel Lang,

I watched the interview moments ago.

Thanks for the great, sane analysis.

Please keep up the good work.

Maybe, all will not be lost to the lunacy of the "decider".

Regards,

David

[R.L.]

Very sorry I missed the show.From the transcript I can tell that this program was the first in several years where both guests were intelligent,reasonable,level headed thinkers.I bet Blitzer's mouth was open the whole time.Good thoughts well spoken Col. Lang.

[confusedponderer]

Laura Rozen made a good point on the 'Iranian supplied arms':

"... it's worth pointing out that 170 coalition forces killed by materiel allegedly made in Iran means almost 3,000 US soldiers -- almost 20 times that, or about 95% -- killed by something else."

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005635.html

The US would then, according to the US Administration argument, go to war with Iran over their contribution to 5% of the violent opposition in Iraq. Of course that is just 'outrage stuff'. It is in fact about the Bushite pipedream of finding a Shiite who is stupid enough to be with the US, secular - and against Iran, Sadr and the Sunni and at least indifferent to the Kurds. Ambitious people of that sort are a rare breed with a short lifespan.

Considering the Shia majority it can be expected that at attack on Iran would boost the Shia contribution to US casualties. But can be easily spun that way: It would be be used as a post-factum justification and presented (with Powerpoint, no doubt) as proof of evil Iranian intent right from the start.

[Arun]

Even if it turns out to be overwhelmingly in the national interest to attack Iran, it is NOT in the national interest to attack Iran with Bush, Cheney & Co in charge.

[Leigh]

I saw a magnificent four-color picture of the "supplied munitions". What struck me as interesting is that the labeling done on the sample was in English not Arabic nor Farsi.

[taters]

I was fortunate to catch you on Late Edition, Col. Lang. Like I've stated before, you really bring out the best in Wolf Blitzer. It was excellent. Between what you stated, Ray Takeyh and the Milt Bearden piece that you posted - we really get an excellent appraisal of what is going on. Thank you.

[meletius]

Let's not forget that in the insane moral calculus of today's world leaders and media folks, it was completely reasonable and justifiable for Israel to bomb Lebanon back to the iron age because a single unwary patrol of Israeli soldiers was attacked by Hezbollah.

So under this precedent, the "proven" killing of a single American by an "Iranian agent" will certainly be enough of an act of war for Washington to level Iran's infrastucture.

The next time one of these things goes off and kills a soldier, that could be declared the causus belli.

[chew2]

Colonel,

Question sspecifically about the shaped charged IED's that Iran has allegedly supplied to the Shia militia since 2004.

1. Has there been any evidence of IED use by the Shia as opposed to the Sunni. They are alleging 170 killed specifically by these devices since 2004.

2. Why couldn't these shaped charges be fabricated by former regime elements in Iraq (in auto machine shops or elsewhere)? The shaped charges reportedly involve pvc pipe and copper war heads. Isn't copper a pretty soft metal and easily machined?

3. Is there any prior reporting detailing that these type of devices were used or possessed by Hezbollah or other guerillas over the years?

[Brent Wiggans]

Cast in the best possible light, that they were just getting a “second opinion”, the administration still must answer for consistently choosing the wrong analysis. They can choose their poison: incompetence or fraud. Denial has finally been rendered ridiculous by relentless reality. The mess in Iraq has overwhelmed the propaganda. The misdirection being created around Iran is a desperate and reflexive response that will not garner the hoped for support at home. Time for lots of smoke, personal exit strategies and, of course, “looking to the future”.

[Nancy Kimberlin]

re comment by Arun, I cannot imagine it being in the national interest of the US to attack Iran, whether the President is Bush, Clinton, Obama or Guiliani or McCain. We are not doing so well in Iraq, and Iran is another story all togather. It would be too reminiscent of Vietnam, where we had to destroy the villages to save them. I cannot imagine the rest of the world sitting back and watching us destroy Iran.

[dan of steele]

If this thread is still alive, I would like to know why the date on the mortar represents the Gregorian calendar whereas the Iranians use a different calendar? The date shown on that mortar round occurs almost 500 years in the future.

also, some munitions have "Lot" numbers. Is there no such word in Farsi?

much has been made of none of the military wanting to go on record for any of this. why would that be? If these are true facts, what would anyone fear?

thanks

[Sgt.York]

RE: "Iranians... are providing the most sophisticated explosives that can take out an Abrams battle tank."

Jebus! You mean the Iranians are supplying RPG29s, SPG-9s, and M19 anti-tank mines?

Nevermind, apparently we still talking about Iraqi Sunnis building "MacGyver Bombs" in the local machine shop. A pipe bomb with a concave brass cap (EFP) isn't sophisticated.

=================

[ali]

I'm very suspicious about this, the administration has always greatly exagerated the role foriegners play in the insurgency.

This is far too flimsy to provide a justification for an attack on Iran but it does not look like the usual pack of lies. I'm a worried it's about being able to say I told you so as they retailiate and the flag drapped coffins get replaced with body bags.

There's evidence that some Iranian light weapons are finding their way to Shiite militias, credible I think, but there is really no sign of something like China arming the ARVN.

The militias are closely linked to the ruling Shi'a parties they all have very good connections in Iran. Badr in particular is trained by the IRGC. Weapons prices have been soaring in Iraq as the nation prepares itself for a bloodbath. Iraqi Army weapons are being sold to the insurgents. You just need one Iranian quartermaster with an eye on the main chance to explain this.

It's not impossible that Qods Force are handing out munitions to the Sunni insurgents who are the main threat to US forces. The Iranians are subtle chaps; they'll arm them and happily slaughter them later.

But if the Iranians move it will be mainly in Maysan, Basra not the peripheral Sunni KZ of al Anbar. It would be logical to prepare their retaliation in the South. Arms dumps would be part of that and we may have some seepage getting onto the market.

There is no real evidence this ace in the hole is in play yet; there would be an awful lot of dead Squadies if it was. Just over 132 have died in Iraq. The IRA killed 80 or so British soldiers in 72 alone. If anything the Iranians are biding their time and holding the militias back.

But its the EFPs that are the core of the story and the weakest part. A well equipped light machine shop can make an EFP. They are practically admitting they are being assembled in Iraq. Iraq is full of trained military engineers. The insurgency has always been entrepreneurial in nature and has demonstrated in the past a ability to innovate rapidly in technical matters. Just Email them the blueprints and leave them to it, a very deniable way of "disseminating the technology". That's about how thin this is; it is so deniable could just as well be the Saudis.

This isn't even a great topic for the administration to bring up. The big IEDs that occasionally kill a squad of Marines are mostly constructed from munitions looted from arms dumps we left unsecured.

[meletius]

Assume the Military's super-IED story is true to some degree:

1. Why didn't we just bring it to the attention of the sovereign government of Iraq to bring up with their neighbor Iran?

2. If we presented Maliki with these super-IED "facts", and he downplays them, dismisses them or doesn't care, then how committed is his government to disarming shi'ite militias, which supposedly both the US and his government wish to accomplish? What should that tell us?

Do we need to demand that independent, sovereign Iraq "elect" yet another prime minister?

[Chris Marlowe]

I'm convinced that Cheney just has bloodlust, and wants to kill, kill and kill. He doesn't really care who American forces are killing, as long as he doesn't have to admit that Iraq and the PNAC plan was a debacle from the beginning.

How else can you expect a ME foreign policy which is completely incoherent without clear friends and enemies, without any clear goals and any chance, or even definition, of victory?

And what does congress do? Nothing! What kind of democracy is this?

This article explains how the US has prevented Israel from negotiating with Syria:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB13Ak05.html

The following article explains how Tehran is using American forces in Iraq to kill anti-Iranian Shi'ite Iraqis.

The Americans may be dumber than shit, but they have very nice weapons which should be used against their enemies, according to the view from Tehran. Can't say I wouldn't do the same thing if I were in their position.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB13Ak04.html

[John Shreffler]

The "Iranian" munitions pictured in the PowerPoint are from a U.S. Army field manual, according to Jeff Huber.

http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2007/02/iran-nyt-repeats-history-wapo-rewrites.html

[walrus]

An excellent interview Col. Lang, and a measured response to the hysteria sellers.

Considering the Iran/Iraq war and subsequent events, I'm sure that there is a more than adequate supply of just about every type and nationality of weapon and munition in Iraq.

I support you conclusion that Iranian weaponry must be filtering across the border, after all smuggling has been stock in trade throughout the entire middle
East for centuries. Whether it is official Iranian Government policy, or unofficial "looking the other way" I wouldn't know.

As for the "sophisticated" shaped charge, and the allegation that "parts" (presumably the liner) are coming from Iran, I think its possible, but in any case, so what, unless of course we are going to have a repeat of the war of Jenkins ear?

It would be interesting, to me at least, to track down the source of the copper used in the liner. Is sheet copper easily available in Iraq? What sort of explosive is used and who makes it?

As for its production, unless it was chemically milled and perhaps tapered (and I can't think why you would do that), it could be produced by anyone with access to an old lathe and a press, or a metal spinning machine, or even by a patient man with a hammer and a block of wood.

[John Howley]

Thanks, Col. If we manage to avoid the worst, you will deserve some of the credit.

Today's WaPo has an article by the inestimable Shadid; he wanders around Cairo chatting to folks about the Sunni-Shia thang. Linked to the article is an online chat transcript on the same topic.

His feeling is that while sectarian differences are real, they don't run very deep. (Outside of Iraq madness, of course.) Hence, the transnational confrontation seems artificial and concocted.

So, if the US attacks Iran, who is to say that the Sunni street wouldn't line up with their Muslim brothers in Iran, creating even more problems for our "moderate" friends in the region?

[Alex Mackenzie]

Good points Ali. However, I doubt very much that China armed ARVN.

[johnf]

chew2

>. Has there been any evidence of IED use by the Shia as opposed to the Sunni. They are alleging 170 killed specifically by these devices since 2004.

I think the British have been hit by these devices on several occasions around Basra, but senior British officers deny vehemently that they were of Iranian origin.