ABC Warns Iran of US Covert Actions

If Harry Reid had referred to the War on Terror rather than the Iraq War when he stated “this war is lost,” perhaps he would have been closer to the truth. America faces the world’s premier terror sponsor, Iran, rapidly advancing toward nuclear capability, but neither the American government nor the American media have the collective will or discipline to win any war, let alone a war against terrorism.

The New York Times previously revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that monitors communication between persons residing in America and known terrorists in foreign nations. That revelation resulted in terrorist groups altering their communication protocols, making it more difficult for American intelligence agencies to identify terrorists living in the United States and thwart potential attacks on the homeland. Now ABC and “anonymous government sources” are placing the entire world at risk by exposing a covert American intelligence program designed to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons without the U.S. resorting to military action. Keeping nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad’s hands; that should be something all Americans want, right? Apparently the “A” in ABC does not stand for American, as its decision to publish this story was anything but patriotic.

The ABC Blotter report posted last night exceeded the New York Times piece on NSA Domestic Surveillance in its audacity, poor timing, and potential consequences for global security. It is quite clear from the Blotter report that ABC has no sense of self-preservation, and is far more concerned about breaking an exclusive story than it is about Iran’s mullahs holding the threat of nuclear bombs over Israel and America. It is impossible to overstate this fact: If we are hold Congressional hearings about firing U.S. Attorneys and leaking names of “covert” CIA employees who were never covert (Valerie Plame), then heads should roll and charges filed over the “sensitive” (i.e. Top Secret/SCI) information revealed to and reported by ABC. Here are the salient points from the Blotter article:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region...

The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community...

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq...

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran...

Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program...

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders...

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams...

What did Iran learn from this ABC report? First, the general existence of the covert program and its intended goals; second, the U.S. has temporarily chosen to avoid military confrontation with Iran, which will surely lead to Iran further expediting its uranium enrichment efforts without immediate fear of military strikes; and third, the CIA is targeting Iranian monetary accounts which funnel funds to Iran’s nuclear program, which will surely lead to Iran altering the funding process and better disguising these accounts, much like al Qaeda altered its communications after the New York Times revealed the Domestic Surveillance program.

Each of these pieces of information was classified and revealing any of them is a criminal act. The Blotter report also contains important information about who knew about the program and its approval by the White House. This should help prosecutors, if Congress is interested even minimally in protecting national security, to compile a short list of suspects. Bruce Riedel, although hiding behind the moniker “retired CIA senior official” is not immune. Although many reporters speculate about steps America could take to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment, Riedel’s disclosure of the CIA strategy to target specific secret accounts used by Iran to fund its nuclear program was based on his personal knowledge of classified discussions and documents, and under federal law he was not authorized to disclose that information until official declassification, typically 25 years later. He should not have spoken to ABC until the year 2032 and should be prosecuted and professionally shunned for his participation in making it easier for Iran to build nuclear bombs and keep the mullahs in power. If he ever writes a book about his years in the CIA, boycott it.

In Intelligence, military, and law enforcement, the key to victory is “operational security” (OPSEC). It is universally understood that once the public knows about an operation, its effectiveness is virtually neutralized. For an illustration of effective OPSEC, we need look no further than the 9/11 al Qaeda cells. There were no sources within Bin Laden’s “government” who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plot information. There were no revelations to the media about methods al Qaeda was training to implement in hijacking operations. There was no advance warning, and in fact their OPSEC kept the cells from even knowing each other’s identities, locations, or itineraries so that if one cell were identified by the FBI, it would have no capacity to reveal anything about the other cells. If they, being evil, can be so good at OPSEC, why is it that we, being good, are so bad at OPSEC? There can be no covert “black” operations when they are exposed to media light before they can develop.

“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say…” should be the opening argument in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the sources and ABC officials who received classified information and published it. These sources should not be "saying" anything, and they know it. It also clearly illustrates why we will lose the War on Terror. President Bush, who is constantly accused of warmongering by the liberal left, has obviously worked along with the intelligence community to do everything possible short of military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs in defiance of international law. Yet even the non-military approach was leaked to willing accomplice ABC by leftover (or passed over) Clinton/Tenet liberals in the CIA and other agencies in an effort to undermine this administration even if doing so results in a nuclear Iran. America cannot win a War on Terror when half of the nation hates its president more than it hates terrorists. They would rather impeach or embarrass Bush than disarm Iran. They would rather see a liberal win the 2008 election than see the world’s democracies win the War on Terror.

Miniter's Anonymous Sources Place British Crew, Negotiations with Iran in Jeopardy

In an exclusive report by Pajamas Media’s (PJM) Washington Editor Richard Miniter, 2 “anonymous sources” have claimed that the U.S. is holding 300 Iranians with ties to Iranian intelligence agencies, all of whom were captured in Iraq while conducting operations against U.S. troops. All previous official U.S. government reports had acknowledged the military was holding only 5 Iranian intelligence operatives in Iraq. The sources further advised Miniter that these Iranians have been and continue to be interrogated, and the U.S. military has refused to release these prisoners despite pressure from the CIA and State Department to do so.

Ordinarily, a report that the U.S was holding Iranian intelligence operatives captured in Iraq would hardly raise an eyebrow, as it is common knowledge that Iranians have been funneling weapons, personnel, and other means of support to terrorist “insurgents” fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. However, Miniter’s exclusive report comes when tensions between the U.S., Britain, and Iran are anything but ordinary.

Last Friday’s seizure by the Iranian Navy of a British vessel and 15 British sailors and marines, which according to the official British statement occurred in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters, raised the already high probability of conflict to a dangerous level. The British are outraged by the incident and Ahmadinejad’s decision to move the British personnel to Tehran, threatening to put them on trial based on “confessions” obtained through interrogation of the 14 men and 1 woman in custody. The EU, feckless as it is at times, has united in its condemnation of Iran’s actions and issued a joint statement urging Iran to release the prisoners.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned Iran that he expects the British crew to be released within days and no longer. Adding to today’s tension, the presidents of Russia and China urged Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council demands for inspections and regulation of Iran’s nuclear program. The Security Council, to demonstrate its resolve, voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran. Iran responded today by ignoring the Security Council warning, resuming payments to Russia for nuclear fuel, and took the additional step of suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the entity charged with monitoring nuclear non-proliferation.

In this climate, with Iran simultaneously and blatantly ignoring the Security Council, the IAEA, and the EU, and anxious ongoing negotiations over the British crew and nuclear arms, Miniter’s anonymous “diplomatic and military sources” chose a remarkably poor moment to loosen their lips to report information that was sensitive if not overtly classified. The motivation for such a disclosure appears to have been related to State Department and CIA desires to sidestep General David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. Petraeus is leading the “surge” strategy to secure Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, and one key feature of the Petraeus plan was obtaining authorization to capture and hold foreign (non-Iraqi) operatives suspected of participating in terrorist attacks in Iraq. As Miniter points out, Iraqi law authorizes this counterterrorism tactic, thus Petraeus is actively enforcing the will of the Iraqi people.

According to Miniter’s report, the State Department and the CIA do not want this strategy enforced quite so strongly, and have argued that releasing the captured Iranian intelligence operatives will give the U.S. leverage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Thankfully, General Petraeus has held firm. Miniter reported:

The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.

The two sources requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence and developing events with Iran.

This brief excerpt from Miniter’s report contains a modern day Patrick Henry “give me liberty or give me death” style statement of determination by general Petraeus, but it also contains a modern day Benedict Arnold style statement of treason by Miniter’s anonymous sources.

State Department employees or military personnel requesting anonymity from a reporter because the intelligence they are revealing is sensitive is no different than a previously undiscovered rapist requesting anonymity from a reporter because rape is a crime and the rapist wants to avoid arrest and prosecution. In both cases, felonies have occurred. The number of Iranian intelligence operatives being held, the fact that they are being interrogated, and General Petraeus’ gritty promise to continue holding and interrogating them, are all pieces of information that were never intended to be distributed outside of officially classified channels.

Miniter’s sources knew that divulging this information to Miniter was a criminal act, as anyone with a government access clearance receives explicit training as to the permitted uses of the material they will see or hear. Even if one were to argue that he/she merely heard a supervisor talking and thus was not aware of the official classification level of the information when he/she provided it to the media, the anonymous source would still be in violation for not verifying that the information was NOT classified. Under ordinary peacetime conditions, such divulgence of sensitive information may have repercussions over time. During a war, in this case 2 wars in Iraq and the War on Terror, such loose lips are truly despicable and can immediately harm the war effort.

What of the motive for leaking this Iranian prisoner information now? The most likely motive appears to be a strategy by the State Department to publicly expose the imprisonment and interrogation of Iranians by the U.S. and thus gain their release through public outcry. General Petraeus, rightly, will not order their release unless ordered to do so by the civilian command structure of the military. That civilian command all too often is swayed by public opinion rather than what is working and what is right. The leaked information about the 300 Iranians will sway public opinion in some countries, and was thus sensitive situational intelligence unlawful to share outside of official channels.

The most disgusting aspect of this leak is its timing, while negotiations are underway regarding the potentially lengthy imprisonment and show trials of the British crew held in Tehran. Leaking information about the Iranian intelligence operatives held by the U.S. appears to be an effort by State to deflate world anger against Iran, particularly within the EU, which had finally united on an issue other than anti-American bitterness. With this treasonous divulgence, Iran can point to 300+ Iranians held by the U.S. in Iraq and use that fact to justify its seizure of the British vessel and crew. It will be much more difficult for the U.S. and Britain to secure solidarity on the prisoner issue from potential and existing allies now that the moral relativism card will be played.

I fully expect to hear Ahmadinejad’s next typical speech in which he vows to wipe Israel off the map, turn America into a nuclear fireball, and then slips in “and by the way, you captured 300 of my innocent Iranian faithful brothers engaged in nothing but prayer in Iraq, and we seized only 15 of your violent infidel marines so clearly in our territorial waters. I ask the world, who is worse?”

Having written a post last week titled “Government Droning too much to Media About Drones,” in which I urged government agencies to return to adherence to the phrase “loose lips sink ships”, it is a sad irony that only a few days later diplomatic and military sources leaked sensitive information during a moment of intense confrontation with Iran over hostages and nuclear weapons programs. The stakes could not be higher, and the need for integrity in keeping sensitive information within official channels has likewise never been greater. Loose lips really can sink ships, but in the case of the HMS Cornwall, loose lips may sink negotiations for release of a ship and her crew.

Government Droning Too Much to Media About Drones

American government agencies, facing the constant task of justifying to Congress the need for bigger budgets, frequently tout their importance to national security by disclosing their capabilities and technologies to the media. Such public disclosures, it is believed, improve an agency’s or department’s image, increase recruiting, and help Americans feel more secure. Agencies and departments also hope that widespread media reports of counterterrorism technologies and operations may act as a deterrent to future terrorist attacks, particularly on U.S. soil. This theory has some merit and is based largely on the example of overall crime statistics, which tend to decline sharply immediately after new enforcement methods or detection technologies are recognized by criminals and before they adapt their methodology.

However, the key to such successes is concealing the technologies and strategies from criminals (or terrorists) for as long a period as possible. By gushing to the media about our capabilities in hopes of bigger budgets and public adulation, agencies are hobbling their own counterterrorist efforts and exposing existing holes in our homeland defenses. The Navy phrase “loose lips sink ships” comes to mind as a suggested motto for all agencies and departments involved in the War on Terror.

Two very clear examples of well-intentioned but ultimately dangerous government disclosures to the media occurred yesterday and today, and both involved the ubiquitous unmanned aerial drones (UADs, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) utilized by the U.S. in various war and terror surveillance operations worldwide. These drones have proven to be one of the most useful and cost-effective intelligence gathering (and covert attack) tools available in the War on Terror.

The first of the two examples of government droning on and on to the media was reported in a USA Today article titled “Drones Could Defend Airports”. The title and the concept of unmanned drones detecting, disabling, or destroying shoulder launched missiles (MANPADs) should bring some peace of mind to America’s air travelers. The use of drones in this manner is a promising system of defense for our airports and should be supported and fully implemented. Yet by publicly reporting plans for continued testing and implementation of a UAD airport defense system, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also providing notice to terrorists worldwide that America currently has no systems in place around our airports to defend against shoulder-fired missiles, which, as the USA Today article mentions, are widely available and inexpensive.

Indeed, such portable and easily concealed missiles have already been utilized against civilian aircraft in several incidents. As I discussed in a previous post, Pakistan cloned American Stinger missile sensors and helped the Taliban equip their SAMs to make them more effective against U.S. and NATO aircraft. An Israeli airliner departing Mombasa, Kenya in 2002 was fired upon by a shoulder launched missile, but the attackers failed to hit their target. A DHL cargo jet luckily crash landed successfully after being hit in one wing by a similar missile in Iraq in 2005. And just today, a cargo plane was rumored to have been shot down by a missile upon take off from Mogadishu, Somalia. According to the State Department, since the 1970s, more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by MANPADs.

The potential for such an attack on an American civilian airliner cannot be overstated, yet DHS has now made it officially known that our government is concerned, but unprepared. Terrorists looking for a window of opportunity also learned from the DHS official quoted by USA Today the following useful intelligence information: the official internal DHS name of the project, when and where the airport defense drones will be tested, what technologies the UADs will be equipped with, and an admission that 4 years of testing of anti-missile laser systems mounted directly on jetliners did not produce a workable aircraft defense. Would it not have better served the interests of national security to have completed testing and successfully deployed UAD defenses for our major airports BEFORE making announcements about their existence?

The second example of “loose lips” about UADs by government officials was published in today’s Seattle Times, in the article “Border Drone Spots Suspect in Child Rape”. The article described the effective use of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP, also a DHS agency) UAD equipped with infrared cameras patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona. The UAD camera’s heat sensing infrared lens spotted 6 men illegally crossing the border from Mexico into Arizona, and relayed the images and GPS coordinates to CBP agents monitoring the UAD from a command center. Agents were dispatched to the coordinates and arrested the illegal aliens. The arrest netted a load of smuggled marijuana, but more importantly also resulted in the capture of a felon charged with child rape in the State of Washington. He had been wanted by authorities for more than a year. By all accounts, the use of UADs in this manner is a tremendously cost-effective method for patrolling broad desert expanses near our southern border. According to the CBP spokesman quoted by the Seattle Times, UADs have produced 3,900 arrests and significant seizures of narcotics in the Southwest.

Had the CBP spokesman resisted the understandable urge to “toot the horn” of the CBP, this article would have contained an encouraging example of why UADs are needed and a complimentary account of the CBP’s work. The spokesman, however, allowed enthusiasm for a successful program and a seemingly innocuous media question to override good judgment. It was clear from his response that the spokesman was asked a general question about how many drones are in operation and in what areas, as well as a specific question about CBP’s UAD use in the State of Washington. The reporter recorded the spokesman’s reply:

A second aircraft will be launched in North Dakota later this year to monitor the Canadian border. . . . He said there are no plans to have such an unmanned plane patrol the Canadian border in Washington State.

The spokesman thus announced to any terrorist or criminal seeking to infiltrate our borders in remote areas on foot that Canada, not Mexico, offers less risk of detection since there will be no UADs patrolling any part of the northern border until later this year. More specifically, terrorists, who already crossed into Washington State in December 1999 from Canada en route with explosives to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on New Years Day 2000, learned from the CBP spokesman that “there are no plans” to have UADs on that border in the future. A vehicle checkpoint and an alert Customs Inspector foiled the plot to bomb LAX, but the next group will know to walk through the forests with no fear of infrared detection from high above, thanks to a CBP spokesman justifiably proud of the UAD program.

In fairness to the spokesman, the plans to implement UADs on the Canadian border was first reported in January 2007 by the Canadian National Post, which obtained a press release from CBP containing detailed specifications of the UADs to be utilized as well as the location of their operational base and a general time frame for implementation. Why this information was provided to Canadian media instead of remaining known only to the Canadian and American governments is really the crux of the issue. The altitudes at which these drones fly, their relatively small size, and their quiet operational noise levels would have made it unlikely that residents on either side of the border, particularly along the North Dakota border area, would have noticed or paid any attention to them. Instead, CBP, because that is how the Beltway budget game is played, drew attention to the project intentionally.

Perhaps the most effective law enforcement and intelligence deterrent to terrorists and criminals plotting to strike America is the mystique which surrounds our agencies. The more terrorists and criminals know about our methods and technologies, the easier it is for them to adapt, and the less fear they will have of being detected or captured. Hollywood nearly always portrays government and law enforcement agencies as villains, but it also portrays these agencies as possessing a myriad of super secret advanced technologies and capabilities. This actually acts as a somewhat valuable deterrent to crime and terrorism in America, since fiction and reality are so skillfully intertwined that it is nearly impossible for the average American (or foreign national) to accurately estimate our capabilities. In many cases that is very helpful, since reality too often relies on budgets rather than threat assessments.

Some foreign militaries, intelligence services, and even terrorist groups possess such drones, but currently the U.S. inventory appears to contain the most sophisticated and most effective models yet developed. Foreign governments that have not developed or acquired their own silent sentinels desperately want them, and terrorists operate in constant fear of being detected and possibly bombed by our drones.

When the War on Terror began, terrorists were only vaguely aware, if at all, of the capabilities of our UADs, and did not account for them in the planning of their personnel and equipment movements. This resulted in successful destruction by the U.S. of terrorist Surface to Air Missile systems (SAMs) and in at least one instance, the assassination of 6 known al-Qaeda leaders bombed by a Predator drone. Likewise, terrorists were largely unaware of our communications interception capabilities, and spoke freely and frequently on their cell phones. Unfortunately, through treasonous internal leaks and willing media exposure, the communications intercepts became front page news and terrorists, who employ their own media monitoring and production staffs, soon realized their vulnerability and the phones went silent. Now they use disposable, prepaid phones and have also embraced encrypted email systems.

Once terrorists realized the dangers posed by UADs, through government “horn tooting” press releases to the media, they began targeting these drones with SAMs and MANPADs, shooting down several in the past few years. In the BBC account linked here, note the details available to the public of the drone’s features, equipment, capabilities, and vulnerabilities. Where did those details come from? What national security purpose was served by making these details available to the media?

Having an open society must also be tempered by being a wise society. Too many details of too many government intelligence and law enforcement agency programs and strategies are made public, for no other reason than to increase their public visibility and budgetary justifications. Publicly announcing what we can and cannot do, and where we are weak and where we are strong invites our enemies to exploit those holes in our defenses. Publishing manuals containing our military doctrines and tactics and later making them available for purchase by the public helps our enemies learn how we think and how we are trained to respond. We should make it more difficult for them to identify those vulnerabilities, rather than announce them to the media. Budgets and agency images will not seem so critical when we suffer another attack on America soil.