Will WikiLeaks unravel the American 'secret government'?

[Peter Lemkin]

The USG just upped the ante with the State Department announcing that the pending release of documents from Wikileaks would violate several US Laws and would be prosecuted....bluster or are the rendition teams getting suited up as I write?...time will tell.

[James H. Fetzer]

It could all be TRUE and the documents all be AUTHENTIC where those releasing them have a MOTIVE that may be very different than exposing US corruption and duplicity. While I do believe that exposing our duplicity and corruption is a good thing, that makes this case especially interesting.

Plausable, but I see/hear no proof.....just speculation based on possible motive and means. That said there is the possiblility that [perhaps even unknown to Wikileaks] some or all of the massive 'leaks' have come from National actors who have the capability to monitor [electronically or via infiltrated agents] US Military and Government communications. That would, of course, include Israel, but several other nations, as well!!!! :bandit:

[Keith Millea]

or are the rendition teams getting suited up as I write?...time will tell.

Assange hasn't been seen in how many days?


IMHO,the American public had the right to be informed about the real progress of the war.The war logs were released.Releasing these confidential back channel talks by the State Dept.is a whole different level.This will involve many players and from many countries.Now we're on treacherous ground.All I can say at this point is that in any earlier period of time in American history,during wartime,this would be considered as Treason,and with it an ultimate price to be paid.

[Ed Jewett]

An interesting issue/question to follow. The K squads are surely already armed, as are the cyber squads. They are merely looking for a verifiable target. The question is the information and its validity, veracity and value. And, as noted, the purpose is its revelation.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

See http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world...crets.html

The NY Times has started to publish some wikileaks stuff, mostly based on cables from the embassies to Washington. The things I read first circle around Iran and its nuclear program.
On wikileaks itself I see nothing yet, the German Spiegel also has nothing up yet.
But interestingly this new leak was mentioned in yesterday's TV prime time news (Tagesschau) on second position, with the information that Clinton has tried to prepare other nations for the release.

So, is there still room on the couch and popcorn available? :dancing2:

[Jan Klimkowski]

Starting at The Guardian:

US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomacy crisis

• More than 250,000 dispatches reveal US foreign strategies
• Diplomats ordered to spy on allies as well as enemies
• Hillary Clinton leads frantic 'damage limitation'


Share3084 Comments (193) David Leigh guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010 17.50 GMT

The release of more than 250,000 US embassy cables reveals previously secret information on American intelligence gathering, and political and military strategy.

The United States was catapulted into a worldwide diplomatic crisis today, with the leaking to the Guardian and other international media of more than 250,000 classified cables from its embassies, many sent as recently as February this year.

At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated "secret" – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN's leadership.

These two revelations alone would be likely to reverberate around the world. But the secret dispatches which were obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistlebowers' website, also reveal Washington's evaluation of many other highly sensitive international issues.

These include a major shift in relations between China and North Korea, Pakistan's growing instability and details of clandestine US efforts to combat al-Qaida in Yemen.

Among scores of other disclosures that are likely to cause uproar, the cables detail:

• Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme

• Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime.

• Devastating criticism of the UK's military operations in Afghanistan.

• Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family.

The US has particularly intimate dealings with Britain, and some of the dispatches from the London embassy in Grosvenor Square will make uncomfortable reading in Whitehall and Westminster. They range from serious political criticisms of David Cameron to requests for specific intelligence about individual MPs.

The cache of cables contains specific allegations of corruption and against foreign leaders, as well as harsh criticism by US embassy staff of their host governments, from tiny islands in the Caribbean to China and Russia.

The material includes a reference to Vladimir Putin as an "alpha-dog", Hamid Karzai as being "driven by paranoia" and Angela Merkel allegedly "avoids risk and is rarely creative". There is also a comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.

The cables name countries involved in financing terror groups, and describe a near "environmental disaster" last year over a rogue shipment of enriched uranium. They disclose technical details of secret US-Russian nuclear missile negotiations in Geneva, and include a profile of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who they say is accompanied everywhere by a "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse.

The cables cover secretary of state Hillary Clinton's activities under the Obama administration, as well as thousands of files from the George Bush presidency. Clinton personally led frantic damage limitation this weekend as Washington prepared foreign governments for the revelations. She contacted leaders in Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, France and Afghanistan.

US ambassadors in other capitals were instructed to brief their hosts in advance of the release of unflattering pen-portraits or nakedly frank accounts of transactions with the US which they had thought would be kept quiet. Washington now faces a difficult task in convincing contacts around the world that any future conversations will remain confidential.

"We are all bracing for what may be coming and condemn WikiLeaks for the release of classified material," state department spokesman PJ Crowley said. "It will place lives and interests at risk. It is irresponsible."

The state department's legal adviser has written to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his London lawyer, warning that the cables were obtained illegally and that publication would place at risk "the lives of countless innocent individuals … ongoing military operations … and cooperation between countries".

The electronic archive of embassy dispatches from around the world was allegedly downloaded by a US soldier earlier this year and passed to WikiLeaks. Assange made them available to the Guardian and four other newspapers: the New York Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, Le Monde in France and El País in Spain. All five plan to publish extracts from the most significant cables, but have decided neither to "dump" the entire dataset into the public domain, nor to publish names that would endanger innocent individuals. WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities.

The cables published today reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material.

Classified "human intelligence directives" issued in the name of Hillary Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleeza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA.

The most controversial target was the leadership of the United Nations. That directive requested the specification of telecoms and IT systems used by top UN officials and their staff and details of "private VIP networks used for official communication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys".

When the Guardian put this allegation to Crowley, the state department spokesman said: "Let me assure you: our diplomats are just that, diplomats. They do not engage in intelligence activities. They represent our country around the world, maintain open and transparent contact with other governments as well as public and private figures, and report home. That's what diplomats have done for hundreds of years."

The dispatches also shed light on older diplomatic issues. One cable, for example, reveals, that Nelson Mandela was "furious" when a top adviser stopped him meeting Margaret Thatcher shortly after his release from prison to explain why the ANC objected to her policy of "constructive engagement" with the apartheid regime. "We understand Mandela was keen for a Thatcher meeting but that [appointments secretary Zwelakhe] Sisulu argued successfully against it," according to the cable. It continues: "Mandela has on several occasions expressed his eagerness for an early meeting with Thatcher to express the ANC's objections to her policy. We were consequently surprised when the meeting didn't materialise on his mid-April visit to London and suspected that ANC hardliners had nixed Mandela's plans."

The US embassy cables are marked "Sipdis" – secret internet protocol distribution. They were compiled as part of a programme under which selected dispatches, considered moderately secret but suitable for sharing with other agencies, would be automatically loaded on to secure embassy websites, and linked with the military's Siprnet internet system.

They are classified at various levels up to "SECRET NOFORN" [no foreigners]. More than 11,000 are marked secret, while around 9,000 of the cables are marked noforn. The embassies which sent most cables were Ankara, Baghdad, Amman, Kuwait and Tokyo.

More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked "protect" or "strictly protect".

Last spring, 22-year-old intelligence analyst Bradley Manning was charged with leaking many of these cables, along with a gun-camera video of an Apache helicopter crew mistakenly killing two Reuters news agency employees in Baghdad in 2007, which was subsequently posted by WikiLeaks. Manning is facing a court martial.

In July and October WikiLeaks also published thousands of leaked military reports from Afghanistan and Iraq. These were made available for analysis beforehand to the Guardian, along with Der Spiegel and the New York Times.

A former hacker, Adrian Lamo, who reported Manning to the US authorities, said the soldier had told him in chat messages that the cables revealed "how the first world exploits the third, in detail".

He also said, according to Lamo, that Clinton "and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available in searchable format to the public … everywhere there's a US post … there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed".

Asked why such sensitive material was posted on a network accessible to thousands of government employees, the state department spokesman told the Guardian: "The 9/11 attacks and their aftermath revealed gaps in intra-governmental information sharing. Since the attacks of 9/11, the US government has taken significant steps to facilitate information sharing. These efforts were focused on giving diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence specialists quicker and easier access to more data to more effectively do their jobs."

He added: "We have been taking aggressive action in recent weeks and months to enhance the security of our systems and to prevent the leak of information."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov...acy-crisis

[Jan Klimkowski]

No so secret squirrel anymore:

Siprnet: where America stores its secret cables

Defence department's hidden internet is meant to be secure, but millions of officials and soldiers have access

Julian Borger and David Leigh guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010 18.15 GMT

How did such an enormous electronic database come into existence and then apparently be so easily leaked? The answer lies in the tag "Sipdis" which appears on the string of address codes heading each cable.

It stands for Siprnet Distribution. Siprnet is itself an acronym, for Secret Internet Protocol Router Network. Siprnet was designed to solve the chronic problem of big bureaucracies – how to share information easily and confidentially among large numbers of people spread around the world. Siprnet is a worldwide US military internet system, kept separate from the ordinary civilian internet and run by the defence department in Washington.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, there has been a move in the US to link up separate archives of government information, in the hope that key intelligence no longer gets trapped in information silos or "stovepipes".

An increasing number of US embassies were plugged into Siprnet in the last decade, so that military and diplomatic information can be shared. In 2002, 125 embassies were on Siprnet; by 2005, there were 180.

An internal guide for state department staff advises them to use the "Sipdis" designation only for "reporting and other informational messages deemed appropriate for release to the US government interagency community." The guide specifies a number of other channels for even more sensitive material including Nodis, Exdis, Roger and the Docklamp Channel (for communication between defence attaches and the Defence Intelligence Agency), and by now the vast majority of US missions worldwide are linked to the system.

This means that a diplomatic dispatch marked Sipdis is automatically downloaded on to its embassy's classified website. From there it can be accessed not only by anyone in the state department, but also by anyone in the US military who has a computer connected to Siprnet. Millions of US soldiers and officials have "secret" security clearance. The US general accounting office identified 3,067,000 people cleared to "secret" and above in a 1993 study. Since then, the size of the security establishment has grown appreciably. Another GAO report in May 2009 said: "Following the terrorist attacks on September 11 2001 the nation's defence and intelligence needs grew, prompting increased demand for personnel with security clearances." A state department spokesman today refused to say exactly how many people had access to Siprnet.

Within that staggering number of security-cleared individuals, a much smaller number would have a role which allowed them to access Siprnet. And in theory there are built-in safeguards. Users are issued a username and a "strong" password (of 10 characters or more, at least two capitals, two numbers and two special symbols), which must be changed at least every 150 days. In theory at least, the user has to stay at the computer at all times while logged on, logging off even to go to the toilet or get a cup of coffee.

Again in theory, any memory stick or CD connected to a computer with Siprnet access must automatically be labelled secret and stored securely. If a personal device such as an iPod is connected it can be confiscated. In practice these multiple layers of security were relaxed to make the system as easy to use as possible.

There have been suggestions that an alarm system to detect suspicious use of the network was suspended for US military personnel in Iraq after they complained it was inconvenient.

The state department declined to comment on this but spokesman PJ Crowley said: "The defense department is reviewing all of their relevant procedures and taking appropriate action. In the interim, the state department has ensured that essential material reaches those who need it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov...ret-cables

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hardly breaking news to those who understand the geopolitics.

But deeply embarrassing for the Saudis royals. The sooner their chattel slaves run a successful Operation Spartacus, the better....

Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme

• Embassy cables show Arab allies want strike against Tehran
• Israel prepared to attack alone to avoid its own 9/11
• Iranian bomb risks 'Middle East proliferation, war or both'

Ian Black and Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010 18.13 GMT

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.

The revelations, in secret memos from US embassies across the Middle East, expose behind-the-scenes pressures in the scramble to contain the Islamic Republic, which the US, Arab states and Israel suspect is close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has hitherto been viewed as a desperate last resort that could ignite a far wider war.

The Saudi king was recorded as having "frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme", one cable stated. "He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008.

The cables also highlight Israel's anxiety to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly, its readiness to go it alone against Iran – and its unstinting attempts to influence American policy. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, estimated in June 2009 that there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable". After that, Barak said, "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage."

The leaked US cables also reveal that:

• Officials in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear programme to be stopped by any means, including military.

• Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war".

• Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, warned in February that if diplomatic efforts failed, "we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike, or both".

• Major General Amos Yadlin, Israeli's military intelligence chief, warned last year: "Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on 11 September 2001."

Asked for a response to the statements, state department spokesman PJ Crowley said today it was US policy not to comment on materials, including classified documents, which may have been leaked.

Iran maintains that its atomic programme is designed to supply power stations, not nuclear warheads. After more than a year of deadlock and stalling, a fresh round of talks with the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany is due to begin on 5 December.

But in a meeting with Italy's foreign minister earlier this year, Gates said time was running out. If Iran were allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, the US and its allies would face a different world in four to five years, with a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. King Abdullah had warned the Americans that if Iran developed nuclear weapons "everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia".

America is not short of allies in its quest to thwart Iran, though some are clearly more enthusiastic than the Obama administration for a definitive solution to Iran's nuclear designs. In one cable, a US diplomat noted how Saudi foreign affairs bureaucrats were moderate in their views on Iran, "but diverge significantly from the more bellicose advice we have gotten from senior Saudi royals".

In a conversation with a US diplomat, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their [Iran's] nuclear programme, by whatever means necessary. That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it." Zeid Rifai, then president of the Jordanian senate, told a senior US official: "Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter."

In talks with US officials, Abu Dhabi crown prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed favoured action against Iran, sooner rather than later. "I believe this guy is going to take us to war ... It's a matter of time. Personally, I cannot risk it with a guy like [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. He is young and aggressive."

In another exchange , a senior Saudi official warned that Gulf states may develop nuclear weapons of their own, or permit them to be based in their countries to deter the perceived Iranian threat.

No US ally is keener on military action than Israel, and officials there have repeatedly warned that time is running out. "If the Iranians continue to protect and harden their nuclear sites, it will be more difficult to target and damage them," the US embassy reported Israeli defence officials as saying in November 2009.

There are differing views within Israel. But the US embassy reported: "The IDF [Israeli Defence Force], however, strikes us as more inclined than ever to look toward a military strike, whether launched by Israel or by us, as the only way to destroy or even delay Iran's plans." Preparations for a strike would likely go undetected by Israel's allies or its enemies.


The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told US officials in May last yearthat he and the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, agreed that a nuclear Iran would lead others in the region to develop nuclear weapons, resulting in "the biggest threat to non-proliferation efforts since the Cuban missile crisis".

The cables also expose frank, even rude, remarks about Iranian leaders, their trustworthiness and tactics at international meetings. Abdullah told another US diplomat: "The bottom line is that they cannot be trusted." Mubarak told a US congressman: "Iran is always stirring trouble." Others are learning from what they describe as Iranian deception. "They lie to us, and we lie to them," said Qatar's prime minister, Hamad bin Jassim Jaber al-Thani.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov...audis-iran

[Jan Klimkowski]

Again, always known, but denied by both US and British governments because "The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that "the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable".

Now proven that the UN was spied upon

US diplomats spied on UN leadership

• Diplomats ordered to gather intelligence on Ban Ki-moon
• Secret directives sent to more than 30 US embassies
• Call for DNA data, computer passwords and terrorist links

Robert Booth and Julian Borger guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010 18.14 GMT

Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.

Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".

The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.

The operation targetted at the UN appears to have involved all of Washington's main intelligence agencies. The CIA's clandestine service, the US Secret Service and the FBI were included in the "reporting and collection needs" cable alongside the state department under the heading "collection requirements and tasking".

The leak of the directive is likely to spark questions about the legality of the operation and about whether state department diplomats are expected to spy. The level of technical and personal detail demanded about the UN top team's communication systems could be seen as laying the groundwork for surveillance or hacking operations. It requested "current technical specifications, physical layout and planned upgrades to telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks and technologies used by top officials and their support staff", as well as details on private networks used for official comunication, "to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys and virtual private network versions used".

The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on priveleges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".

The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that "the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable".

The emergence of the directive also risks undermining political trust between the UN leadership and the US, which is the former's biggest paying member, supplying almost a quarter of its budget – more than $3bn (£1.9bn) this year.

Washington wanted intelligence on the contentious issue of the "relationship or funding between UN personnel and/or missions and terrorist organisations" and links between the UN Relief and Works Agency in the Middle East, and Hamas and Hezbollah. It also wanted to know about plans by UN special rapporteurs to press for potentially embarrassing investigations into the US treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, and "details of friction" between the agencies co-ordinating UN humanitarian operations, evidence of corruption inside UNAids, the joint UN programme on HIV, and in international health organisations, including the World Health Organisation (WHO). It even called for "biographic and biometric" information on Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of WHO, as well as details of her personality, role, effectiveness, management style and influence.

The UN is not the only target. The cables reveal that since 2008 the state department has issued at least nine directives to embassies around the world which set forth "a list of priorities intended to guide participating US government agencies as they allocate resources and update plans to collect information".

They are packed with detailed orders and while embassy staff are particularly encouraged to assist in compiling biographic information, the directive on the mineral and oil-rich Great Lakes region of Africa also requested detailed military intelligence, including weapons markings and plans of army bases. A directive on "Palestinian issues" sent to Cairo, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Amman, Damascus and Riyadh demanded the exact travel plans and vehicles used by leading members of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, without explaining why.

In one directive that would test the initiative, never mind moral and legal scruples, of any diplomat, Washington ordered staff in the DRC, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi to obtain biometric information of leading figures in business, politics, intelligence, military, religion and in key ethnic groups.

Fingerprints and photographs are collected as part of embassies' consular and visa operations, but it is harder to see how diplomats could justify obtaining DNA samples and iris scans. Again in central Africa, embassy officials were ordered to gather details about countries' military relations with China, Libya, North Korea, Iran and Russia. Washington assigned high priority to intelligence on the "transfer of strategic materials such as uranium", and "details of arms acquisitions and arms sales by government or insurgents, including negotiations, contracts, deliveries, terms of sale, quantity and quality of equipment, and price and payment terms".

The directives, signed simply "Clinton" or "Rice", referring to the current and former secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, form a central plank of America's intelligence effort and reveal how Washington is using its 11,500-strong foreign service to glean highly sensitive information on both allies and enemies.

They are compliant with the National Intelligence Priorities Framework, which is approved by the president, and issued by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence who oversees the CIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency, FBI and 13 other intelligence agencies.

Washington circulated to its Middle Eastern embassies a request for what was effectively a counter-intelligence operation against Mukhabarat, the Palestinian Authority's secret service, and Istikhbarat, its military intelligence.

The directive asked for an assessment of the foreign agencies' "signals intercept capabilities and targets, decryption capabilities, intercept sites and collection hardware, and intercept operation successes" and information of their "efforts to illicitly collect classified, sensitive, commercial proprietary or protected technology information from US companies or government agencies".

Missions in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were asked to gather biometric information "on key Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders and representatives, to include the young guard inside Gaza, the West Bank", as well as evidence of collusion between the PA security forces and terror groups.

Taken together, the directives provide a vivid snapshot of America's perception of foreign threats which are often dazzlingly interconnected. Paraguayan drug traffickers were suspected of supporting Hezbollah and al-Qaida, while Latin American cocaine barons were linked to criminal networks in the desert states of west Africa, who were in turn linked to Islamist terrorists in the Middle East and Asia.

High on the list of requests in an April 2009 directive covering the Saharan west African countries, including Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal, was information about the activities of fighters returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Information was wanted on "indications that international terrorist groups are seeking to take advantage of political, ethnic, tribal or religious conflict".

Diplomats were told to find out about the links between drug traffickers in the region to Latin American cocaine cartels, as well as terrorist or insurgent groups' income derived from the drugs trade.

Sometimes the directives appear linked to forthcoming diplomatic obligations of the secretary of state. In a cable to the embassy in Sofia last June, five months before Clinton hosted Bulgaria's foreign minister in Washington, the first request was about government corruption and the links between organised crime groups and "government and foreign entities, drug and human trafficking, credit card fraud, and computer-related crimes, including child pornography".

Washington also wanted to know about "corruption among senior officials, including off-budget financial flows in support of senior leaders … details about defence industry, including plans and efforts to co-operate with foreign nations and actors. Weapon system development programmes, firms and facilities. Types, production rates, and factory markings of major weapon systems".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov...-spying-un

[Jan Klimkowski]

Again strongly suspected, now proven.

Israel primed to attack a nuclear Iran

US embassy cables show security service has told Washington 'all options' are on table if Iranian bomb looks inevitable

Ian Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010 18.20 GMT

Israel regarded 2010 as a "critical year" for tackling Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons and has warned the United States that time is running out to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, told American congressmen in June 2009 there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable". After that, Barak said – in a striking admission recorded in a confidential state department document – "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage".

Barak's comments were one of many occasions in the last five years when Israeli leaders and officials have hammered home the message to the US that Iran's nuclear ambitions pose an "existential" threat to Israel. Israel is widely believed to have an extensive nuclear arsenal but under its policy of "ambiguity" it has never been avowed. Unlike Iran it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

Israel saw 2010 as a pivotal year. "If the Iranians continue to protect and harden their nuclear sites it will be more difficult to target and damage them," the US embassy reported Israeli defence officials as saying in November 2009. In a discussion of the upcoming delivery of GBU-28 bunker-busting bombs to Israel it was noted that the transfer "should be handled quietly to avoid allegations that the US government was helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran".

Secret cables originating from the US embassy in Tel Aviv record the head of the Mossad secret service, Meir Dagan – along with senior military men and diplomats – repeatedly explaining to US visitors Israel's concerns and strategy for confronting Iran, including a readiness to take military action.

By late 2009 the Mossad's view was that "there is no reason to believe Iran will do anything but use negotiations to stall for time so that by 2010-2011, Iran will have the technological capability to build a nuclear weapon – essentially reducing the question of weaponising to a political decision".

Dagan told an American politician in March 2005: "Iran has decided to go nuclear and nothing will stop it." Israel and the US sometimes differed in their analysis, the Mossad chief conceded, but the facts themselves were "not in dispute".

US officials repeatedly expressed concern about conflicting assessments by their Israeli counterparts, some of whom admitted that their own estimates should be treated with caution: one diplomat noted that Israeli assessments from 1993 onwards had predicted that Iran would possess an atomic bomb by 1998 at the latest.

"We should recognise that Israeli intelligence briefings will understandably focus on worst-case scenarios and may not match current US government assessments," commented the US ambassador, Daniel Kurtzer.

By the end of 2009 the view from Israeli military intelligence was that by 2012 Iran would be able to build one nuclear weapon within weeks and an arsenal within six months. "It is unclear if the Israelis firmly believe this or are using worst-case estimates to raise greater urgency from the United States," a US diplomat responded. General Amos Yadlin, Israel's military intelligence chief, acknowledged differences with the US but observed to a visiting congressman in summer 2009: "Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on 11 September 2001."

The director general of the Israeli defence ministry said around the same time: "All options must remain on the table." The official "acknowledged that part of his job was ensuring Israel was ready to employ such an option, no matter how undesirable it may be".

The Tel Aviv embassy has been sharply aware of differing views within Israel, noting in 2007 an increasing sense from diplomats and thinktank experts on Iran that military action must be a last resort. "The IDF [Israel Defence Forces], however, strikes us as more inclined than ever to look toward a military strike, whether launched by Israel or by us, as the only way to destroy or even delay Iran's plans," it reported.

Dagan, an army general appointed to head the Mossad by Ariel Sharon, was seen by American officials as a pessimist on the Iranian nuclear issue. But a White House interlocutor found him "surprisingly optimistic" in mid-2007 about the effect of two UN sanctions resolutions in "stigmatising Iranian businesses and discouraging risk-averse Europeans from being connected with Iran".

Shortly afterwards the Mossad chief briefed Nicholas Burns, the US under-secretary of state, on Israel's five-part strategy:

• Bring Iran before the UN security council to pursue a third sanctions resolution;

• "Covert measures: Dagan and the under-secretary agreed not to discuss this approach in the larger group setting";

• Counter-proliferation: prevent know-how and technology from making their way to Iran;

• Sanctions – the biggest success so far. Three Iranian banks were on the verge of collapse. Financial sanctions were having a nationwide impact.

• Regime change. Israel believed more should be done to foment this, possibly with the support of student democracy movements and ethnic groups such as the Azeris, Kurds and Baluchs.

State department cables show Israel was sceptical about the effect of political pressure on Iran, especially by the EU. But it was maintaining "low-profile diplomatic activities such as supplying IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] members with intelligence material related to the Iranian program".

Israel's foreign ministry feared "any overt Israeli pressure would backfire, leading to a surge of Arab support for Iran and focusing attention on Israel's own nuclear activities" – a rare reference to a highly sensitive issue. In 2005 US diplomats were told by a senior military intelligence official that Israel did not know where all Iranian nuclear targets were located and that any attack would only delay, not end, the programme. Potential targets were well dispersed throughout the country, with several in built-up civilian areas.

Public speculation about possible strikes focused on the differences from the Israeli attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. "In private," the US embassy reported, "government officials have acknowledged that several factors would make any attack against Iran a much more difficult mission."

It added: "It may not be possible to detect preparations for any military strike. Air defence operations would pose nearly perfect cover for civil defence and air force activities preceding any attack. Due to both the extreme sensitivity of the issue and the government of Israel's near inability to prevent leaks, any attack order would be closely held."

Dagan encouraged and commended US efforts to put pressure on Iranian banking facilities, forcing a move to banks in the Gulf states and the far east, and Swiss and Japanese banks forgoing business with Iran. The Mossad was keeping up pressure on this front, he revealed in 2006.

By late 2008 the Mossad assessed that the economic problems Iran was experiencing as a result of sanctions were encouraging debate within the Iranian regime. "The pressure is on," Dagan told the US treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Stuart Levey. "But he could not estimate when Iran would hit the brink."

Optimism on this front had faded by late 2009, when Tehran appeared to have regained full control after the popular unrest that followed that summer's disputed presidential elections.

Amos Gilad, the influential political-military director of Israel's defence ministry, told a high-level US delegation that efforts to persuade Tehran to comply with international demands were its "last chance". But Iran remained determined to reach the "nuclear option", which Gilad described as "intolerable". Iran, in the view of a Mossad representative at the meeting, could continue to "play for time" while pursuing its strategic objective to obtain a military nuclear capability.

"From Mossad's perspective there is no reason to believe Iran will do anything but use negotiations to stall for time so that by 2010-2011, Iran will have the technological capability to build a nuclear weapon – essentially reducing the question of weaponising to a political decision."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov...clear-iran