The Spies Who Fooled the World – BBC

On 18 March 2013, the BBC broadcast a documentary called The Spies Who Fooled the World as part of its Panorama current affairs series. The spies in question were those whose claims that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were used by the UK and US governments to justify the invasion of Iraq 10 years ago. Other sources that showed that Iraq did not have WMD were rejected because their intelligence did not fit the views of the UK and US governments.

The programme was presented by Peter Taylor, who has made many programmes about terrorism and espionage, including Modern Spies last year.

The most important source for the existence of Iraq WMD was Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, code-named Curveball, an Iraqi who claimed political asylum in Germany in 1999. He claimed to be a chemical engineer who had worked at an agricultural seed plant. According to him, mobile laboratories capable of producing biological and chemical weapons were based there.

August Hanning, then Director of the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND), and Joschka Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, told the programme that the Germans were sceptical about al-Janabi’s claims and had cut their links with him by the start of 2001.

For example, satellite photos showed that an articulated lorry could not get out of the warehouse that he said the mobile labs operated from. A friend and former boss of al-Janabi described him as a congenital liar. Al-Janabi admitted on the programme that he made up his claims.

After 9/11, however, President George W. Bush erroneously linked Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda. Curveball’s intelligence was too useful to the US case to dismiss it. There were some doubts within the CIA and MI6 about him, but his claims were accepted. The programme quoted an MI6 report as saying that:

 Elements of [his] behaviour strike us as typical of individuals we would normally assess as fabricators [but we are] inclined to believe that a significant part of [Curveball’s] reporting is true.

Further intelligence came from an Iraqi defector, Major Muhammad Harith, who claimed that the mobile labs were his idea and were mounted on seven Renault trucks. The Americans became suspicious of his story because it was elaborate and unbelievable. He was branded as a fabricator in mid 2002, but his claims remained on record.

Further intelligence appeared to show that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Rocco Martino, who had dealings with the Italian and other intelligence services, provided Elisabetta Burba, a journalist who appeared in the programme, with documents that purported to show that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Niger. An Iraqi ambassador had visited Niger in 1999, but most of these papers were crude forgeries. Martino’s family said that he was too ill to comment.

An interview with the late Dr Brian Jones, a WMD expert at British Defence Intelligence, was shown in which he said that Saddam had sought nuclear weapons, but there was no suggestion that he had acquired them or was close to doing so. However, the alleged attempt remained on UK and US files.

In April 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair met Bush at his ranch in Texas and agreed to support military action against Iraqi WMD if the UN route had been exhausted. In July, Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, told Blair that war with Iraq was seen as being inevitable in Washington as information and intelligence was being fixed round the policy. Dearlove was invited to appear on the programme, but said that he did not want to comment on the subject until the current Chilcot Inquiry into the war has concluded. Blair was too busy to participate.

Pierre Brochand, then Director of the French Foreign Intelligence Service (DGSE), said that intelligence was used to disguise a war of choice as a war of necessity.

In July 2002, Blair was told by Jonathan Powell, his Chief of Staff, that public opinion was ‘fragile’ and a ‘Rolls-Royce’ information campaign was required to convince the British public of the necessity for war.

MI6 received three new pieces of information whilst preparing  a dossier on WMD that would be published on 24 September.

Iraqi WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. This came from the Iraqi National Accord, a group of Iraqi exiles based in Jordan. According to Dr Ayad Allawi of the INA, the source was an Iraqi artillery Colonel, who was assuming that boxes delivered to his unit contained biological or chemical weapons without knowing for certain. His claim that they could be deployed within 45 minutes referred to short range battlefield weapons, but the report applied it to longer range strategic missiles.

The other two new sources were too late to actually be included in the dossier, but reinforced its case. The first was a spy with access to the production of chemical and biological agents. The other was a spy called Red River, who produced hearsay evidence of mobile chemical labs, but made no claim connecting them to WMD.

Blair regarded the dossier as making it beyond doubt that Saddam had WMD. Lord Butler, who headed the first British inquiry into WMD, said that Blair did not lie, but misled himself. General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff at the time,  said that ‘what appeared to be gold in terms of intelligence turned out to be fool’s gold,
because it looked like gold, but it wasn’t.’  Butler and Jackson both argued that Blair was not a liar, but genuinely thought that Saddam had WMD.

The Bush Administration wanted to use Curveball’s evidence to make their case. August Hanning of the BND sent a cable to George Tenet, Director of the CIA, warning that this intelligence was uncorroborated. The CIA claims that it never left the desk of Tyler Drumheller, then head of its European section; Drumheller stated in the programme that he had passed it on.

In early 2003, two pieces of intelligence that claimed that Iraq did not have WMD came to light. French intelligence had a key intermediary, an Arab journalist who knew several Iraqi ministers, including the Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri. . They passed him onto Bill Murray, the CIA’s Paris station chief. The Arab wanted $1m for his information, but Murray beat him down to $200,000, including expenses. The expenses included a new suit for Sabri; he was to wear it when making a speech to the UN in order to prove that the intermediary was genuine.

Murray said that Sabri told the CIA via the intermediary that Saddam was interested in acquiring WMD, but then had only a few chemical weapons left over from the 1990s. Sabri did not appear on the programme, but issued a denial that he had provided information to the CIA. The intermediary was invited to participate, but did not do so because the BBC refused to pay him the €10,000 that he wanted in return.

Murray said that his report on Sabri’s testimony was used selectively. He argued that very bad intelligence reached the leadership quickly, whilst better intelligence did not make it.

The other source was Tahir Habbush al-Tikriti, head of Iraqi intelligence. He met an MI6 officer in Jordan, telling him that Iraq had no WMD. MI6 thought that both these pieces of intelligence were dis-information, designed to  mislead. Tahir is the most senior member of Saddam’s regime to still be at liberty.

On 5 February 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell put forward the case for Iraq having WMD. Joschka Fischer presided over the meeting. In the programme, he said that Powell claimed things that he could not be certain of to be facts.

No WMD were found after the war. Red River, the MI6 spy, failed a lie detector test. The 45 minute claim was dropped. In April 2004 the CIA and MI6 met Curveball and declared him to be a fabricator. Tenet resigned from the CIA a week later. Curveball admitted on the programme that the US/UK coalition went to war on a lie.

Overall, it is clear that the war was launched on faulty intelligence. At best, it may be said that the US and UK governments started with a view about Saddam and WMD and rejected intelligence that did not fit with this preconceived notion. All evidence has to be considered, not just that which confirms what one wants to hear.

For viewers in the UK, the programme is available on the I-Player from this link, which says that it is available until 18 March 2014, far longer than programmes normally stay on the I-Player. It was made jointly with ZDF of Germany.

Advertisements

18 Comments

Filed under Current affairs, Political History, Reviews, War History

18 responses to “The Spies Who Fooled the World – BBC

  1. FDR got the U.S. into WWII to cure financial troubles and presidents have been trying to re-create the situation ever since.

  2. This paragraph provides clear idea for the new users of blogging, that really how to do blogging.

  3. This paragraph will assist the internet visitors for building up
    new blog or even a blog from start to end.

    • Bruce:Of course a mlisise by itself is not a WMD. But even Saddam himself has admitted to having Biological weapons because: a) He did start destroying some of the material, as requested by the UN, and b) This country sold him some of the original material.You argument that it would have been more dangerous for them to use it than us being on the receiving end is ridiculous; if I tell you I have a grenade that is has an 80% chance of exploding when I take out the pin before I throw it at you, would you shoot me before I take out the pin? The only thing UN inspectors found is that Saddam gave them a hard time and didn’t let them do their job, right until the point he kicked them out. Common sense tells you that if someone has nothing to hide, then they do not need to obfuscate or obstruct.We had to end his regime because we do not live in a vaccuum; what Saddam does affected us, because this country, like many others, depends on an economy which depends on oil. If you read nothing else I wrote than READ THIS: it was a non-nuclear Iraq which attacked Kuwait, and it was non-nuclear thanks to Israel preemptive strike. If Saddam controlled Iraq’s and Kuwait’s oil together, he would have been able to truly harm this country.And there is also a moral argument here: because what he did in Kuwait and in his own country is Hitler-like, I’m glad he is gone. It just so happens that the moral argument was the icing on the cake to an economic decision to protect this country’s interest in beginning the war. I understand this article is about WMD’s, and the argument, at least in the media, to invade Saddam’s Iraq was centered on that, but it is only a portion of the reasoning. Oil is the other. The third is that at the time Saddam was giving the finger to the world at the UN (remember after the first Gulf War, Iraq was supposed to disarm) by not disarming, the US was within the war on terror, a post 9/11 world, and had to make an example out of him. The fourth reason for the war let the enemy fight us and focus somewhere else than our homeland, which even Al Qaeda admitted Iraq was their focus. The fifth and final reason was that Al Qaeda was freely operating in Iraq, and Saddam wouldn’t do anything about it.In 1998, Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox, which had over 650 sorties, to punish Saddam for kicking out the weapons inspectors. The limited strike did not convince Saddam to allow inspectors back in, and Clinton decided to let it go, but the CIA knew the WMD issue would come back. The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Bill Clinton in 1998 There is a larger picture here more important than WMD’s, and it is the key to understanding what is going on there. When the US decided to go into Iraq, given that it was already in Afghanistan, knowing that Iran was influencing other areas in the middle east, and was being assisted by Russia and China since before 2000 regarding mlisise and nuclear development.

  4. Im not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later. Many thanks

  5. Pingback: The Iraq War – BBC2 | War and Security

  6. Wow! Finally I got a website from where I can actually take valuable information regardinhg my study and knowledge.

  7. Hurrah, that’s what I was searching for, what a material!

    existing here at this webpage, thanks admin of this site.

  8. , eventually the truth does resfaurce. About seven years later, and you see the great strategic advantage of being there, and that’s where the truth is, in how things turn out. There is a strategy in place, and no matter who is the president, the reality of the evil of the world forces each president to continue on.I understand you feel misled. Personally, I feel that if we didn’t live in a 5 second sound byte type of society, a president will be able to give us the better, and naturally more complex reasons of why we went to war. The president did not lie to you when he cherry-picked his reasons for going to war; neither did the top democrats lie when they agreed with his cherry-picking when they knew exactly what was going on. If you are intellectually honest, you can’t deny the president was not alone. For example, just as Nancy Pelosi knew about the water boarding, she also knew the real reason we went into Iraq.And Bush has told us the main reason for war over and again it’s no secret. The spread of freedom aimed at tyrannical regimes whose way of life threatens us because two oceans no longer protect us is the best way to secure America’s future. And he acted based on that. And a democratic congress funded his efforts. And a democratic president is continuing and expanding Bush’s effort.But the truth does come out. You see it in everyday events, or you can zoom out and see it trends across decades. The fact is, America depends on the Middle East, we have multiple interests there, and that’s why we are in Iraq. For example, Iran and America are on a crash course. Although Obama reached out to Iran, he only did so to gain the American and world support for when he MAY need to conduct military action to defend our interests. The instability in Iraq is Iran-Syria generated. No different than the instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, and Yemen. If there fighters isn’t there, their money is. We are also on a course against Russia and China, although it may not be a crash.My point is this: we are a democracy, there is accountability and oversight. Cherry-picking is not lying, it has been done by both sides and will continue to be as long as we are a sound byte society. The threat to our Middle Eastern interests and allies was real (even without WMD’s), and the strategic advantage of taking that tyrant out was almost priceless. Now, the strategic position we have against Iran can be seen now, and the truth is coming out every day in the events that occur everyday, and the trends that continue. Just like Bush, Obama will not only stay the course, he will expand it.Here is a quote from Obama during his Noble Prize acceptance speech:“The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.”If there is threat that threatens us, as long as WMD scares the public and fits in a sound byte, even Obama will cherry-pick it and go to war, because even as a Republican myself, I know enough about reality to know that even a chicken president, liberal/socialist democrat like Obama will do whatever it takes to protect us, even strike preemptively and say WMD was the reason watch as it happens.

  9. We stumbled over here from a different web
    address and thought I might as well check things out. I like what I see
    so now i’m following you. Look forward to looking at your
    web page repeatedly.

  10. Howdy! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist
    with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to
    rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good results.
    If you know of any please share. Many thanks!

    • There is a plug-in called All in One SEO Pack for hosted blogs using the software downloaded from wordpress.org. However, my blog is on wordpress.com, which does not allow plug-ins for security reasons, so I do not know how it works or how successful it is. For wordpress.com, I suggest looking at the suggestions from the following page on the wordpress.com help pages:

      http://en.support.wordpress.com/search-engines/

      You could also ask in the wordpress.com support forum:

      http://en.forums.wordpress.com/

      If you are using wordpress.org software on a hosted blog you will have to ask somebody else. Sorry that I cannot be of more help.

  11. Hi! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group?
    There’s a lot of folks that I think would really enjoy your content.
    Please let me know. Thanks

  12. Hello my friend! I want to say that this post is amazing, nice
    written and include almost all important infos.
    I would like to see extra posts like this .

  13. Thank you for every other wonderful article. Where else may just anyone get that kind of info in such
    an ideal way of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week,
    and I’m on the look for such information.

  14. Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing.
    The clearness in your put up is simply excellent and i could suppose you’re a professional
    in this subject. Fine along with your permission let me to clutch your RSS feed to stay updated
    with forthcoming post. Thank you 1,000,000 and please keep up
    the gratifying work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s