RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "Many Americans think secret U.S. documents become public after, say, 30 years, but many are hidden indefinitely to conceal inconvenient truths that could enlighten public debate."

President Ronald Reagan with Secretary of State Alexander Haig and National Security Advisor Richard Allen during a meeting with Interagency Working Committee on Terrorism in the Cabinet Room, Jan. 26, 1981. (photo: Reagan Library archives/Consortium News)
President Ronald Reagan with Secretary of State Alexander Haig and National Security Advisor Richard Allen during a meeting with Interagency Working Committee on Terrorism in the Cabinet Room, Jan. 26, 1981. (photo: Reagan Library archives/Consortium News)


Failing to Hide Israel-Iran-Iraq Secrets

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

12 May 15

 

Many Americans think secret U.S. documents become public after, say, 30 years, but many are hidden indefinitely to conceal inconvenient truths that could enlighten public debate, as Robert Parry discovered in getting a redacted version of a "top secret" paper from 1981 that he had already found in unredacted form.

y recently releasing a redacted version of top secret "talking points" that Secretary of State Alexander Haig used to brief President Ronald Reagan about Mideast developments in spring 1981, the U.S. government has inadvertently revealed what it still wants to hide from the public some 34 years later – because I found the full version in congressional files in late 1994 and first wrote about it in early 1996.

The key points that the U.S. government still doesn't want you to know include that in early 1981 Israel already was supplying U.S. military equipment to Iran for its war with Iraq; that the Saudis had conveyed a "green light" supposedly from President Jimmy Carter to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980; and that the Saudis agreed to finance arms sales to Pakistan and other states in the region.

President Ronald Reagan with Secretary of State Alexander Haig and National Security Advisor Richard Allen during a meeting with Interagency Working Committee on Terrorism in the Cabinet Room on Jan. 26, 1981. (Photo from Reagan Library archives)

All three points have relevance today because they reveal the early seeds of policies that have grown over the past three decades into the twisted vines of today's bloody conflicts. The still-hidden sections of Haig's "talking points" also could cause some embarrassment to the nations mentioned.

For instance, the Israelis like to present their current hostility toward Iran as derived from a principled opposition to the supposed extremism of the Islamic state, so the revelation that they were supplying U.S. military hardware to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's government, which had held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, suggests that less noble motivations were driving Israel's decisions.

Though ex-President Carter has denied encouraging Iraq to invade Iran in September 1980 – at the height of the hostage crisis which was destroying his reelection bid – the Saudis' "green light" assertion at least indicates that they led Iraq's Saddam Hussein to believe that his invasion had U.S. backing.

Whether the Saudis deceived Hussein about the "green light" or not, their instigation of the war exposes the origins of the modern Sunni-Shiite conflict, though now the Saudis are accusing the Iranians of regional aggression. The Haig "talking points" reveal that the first blow in the revival of this ancient fight was thrown not by the Shiites of Iran but by the Sunnis of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime with Saudi backing and encouragement.

The Saudi agreement to pay for arms purchases by Pakistan and other regional government sheds light on another aspect of today's Mideast crisis. Saudi financial help to Pakistan in the 1980s became a key element in the expansion of a radical Sunni jihadist movement that coalesced along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to carry on the CIA-backed war against the Soviet army and secular Afghan forces.

That war – with the United States and Saudi Arabia each eventually pouring in $500 million a year – led to the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the collapse of the modernist, leftist regime in Kabul to be replaced by the ultra-fundamentalist Taliban which, in turn, gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda led by a wealthy Saudi, Osama bin Laden.

Thus, the outlines of today's violent chaos across the Middle East were sketched in those years, albeit with many subsequent twists and turns.

The Persian Gulf War

After the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988 – with both countries financially drained – Saddam Hussein turned on his suddenly stingy Sunni benefactors who began refusing further credit and demanding repayment of wartime loans. In reaction, Hussein – after consulting with U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie and thinking he had another "green light" – invaded Kuwait. That, in turn, prompted a U.S.-led deployment to both defend Saudi Arabia and drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Although Hussein soon signaled a readiness to withdraw his troops, President George H.W. Bush rebuffed those overtures and insisted on a bloody ground war both to demonstrate the qualitative superiority of the modern U.S. military and to excite the American people about a military victory – and thus to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome." [See Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

Bush's military offensive succeeded in those goals but also provoked bin Laden's outrage over the placement of U.S. troops near Islamic holy sites. The United States became the new target of Al-Qaeda's terrorist revenge. And, for Official Washington's emerging neoconservatives, the need to finally and completely destroy Saddam Hussein – then Israel's bête noire – became an article of faith.

The Persian Gulf War's demonstration of U.S. military prowess – combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 – also encouraged the neocons to envision a strategy of "regime changes" for any government that showed hostility toward Israel. Iraq was listed as target number one, but Syria also was high on the hit list.

By the early 1990s, Israel had grown alienated from cash-strapped Iran, which had withdrawn from the lucrative arms bazaar that Israel had been running for that Shiite government through the 1980s. Gradually, Israel began to realign itself with the Sunnis bankrolled by Saudi Arabia.

The 9/11 attacks in 2001 were an expression of the anti-U.S. outrage among Sunni fundamentalists, who were funded by the Saudis and other Persian Gulf oil states, but the intricate realities of the Middle East were then little known to the American people who didn't much know the difference between Sunni and Shiite and who lacked knowledge about the hostilities between secularists like Hussein and fundamentalists like bin Laden.

President George W. Bush and his administration exploited that ignorance to rally the public behind an invasion of Iraq in 2003 out of unrealistic fears that Saddam Hussein would share weapons of mass destruction with Osama bin Laden. Beyond the false claims about Iraq having WMDs and about a connection between Hussein and bin Laden, there was little appreciation even within the higher levels of the Bush administration about how the ouster and killing of Hussein would shatter the fragile equilibrium between Sunnis and Shiites.

With Hussein removed, the Shiite majority gained control of Iraq, distressing the Saudis who had, in many ways, launched the modern Sunni-Shiite war by pushing Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 but who now saw Iran's allies gaining control of Iraq. The Saudis and other Gulf sheiks began financing Sunni extremists who flooded into Iraq to fight the Shiites and their enablers, the U.S. military.

The Saudis also built a behind-the-scenes alliance with Israel, which saw its financial and geopolitical interests advanced by this secret collaboration. Soon, the Israelis were identifying their old arms-trading partners, the Iranians, as an "existential threat" to Israel and pushing the United States into a more direct confrontation with Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Did Money Seal Israel-Saudi Alliance?"]

Expanding Conflicts

The battlefront in the Sunni-Shiite conflict moved to Syria, where Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Sunni states joined in supporting a rebellion to oust the government of President Bashar al-Assad, an Alawite, an offshoot of Shiite Islam. As that conflict grew bloodier and bloodier, Assad's relatively secular regime became the protector of Christians, Shiites, Alawites and other minorities against the Sunni forces led by al-Qaeda's Nusra Front and the hyper-brutal Islamic State.

In 2014, pressed by President Barack Obama, the Saudis joined an alliance against the Islamic State, although Saudi participation was tepid at best. Saudi Arabia's true enthusiasm was to push a series of regional proxy wars against Iran and any Shiite-related movements, such as the Houthis in Yemen and the Alawites in Syria. If that helped Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, so be it, was the Saudi view.

Though the two redacted paragraphs from Haig's "talking points" from 34 years ago might seem to be ancient history no longer worthy of the secrecy stamp, the U.S. government still insists on shielding that information from the American people, not letting them know too much about how these entangling alliances took shape and who was responsible for them.

The primary sources for Haig were Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Saudi Prince Fahd (later King Fahd), both of whom are dead, as are several other principals in these events, including Reagan, Hussein and Haig. The two redacted paragraphs – that Haig used in his presentation to Reagan – read as follows, with underlined sections in the original "talking points":

"Fahd was also very enthusiastic toward your policies. As a measure of his good faith, he intends to insist on a common oil policy at a forthcoming meeting of his Arab colleagues which will include a single price and a commitment to no drop in production. Also of importance was Fahd's agreement in principle to fund arms sales to the Pakistanis and other states in the area.

"Both Sadat and Fahd provided other bits of useful intelligence (e.g. Iran is receiving military spares for U.S. equipment from Israel). It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd."

The redacted version – with those two paragraphs blacked out – was released by the George H.W. Bush presidential library after the "talking points" went through a declassification process. The release was in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that I had filed in connection with the so-called October Surprise affair, in which the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 was alleged to have conspired with Iranian officials and Israeli intelligence officers to delay the release of the 52 American hostages held in Iran to ensure President Carter's reelection defeat.

In 1991, Congress began an investigation into the 1980 issue, suspecting that it may have been a prequel to the Iran-Contra scandal which had involved Reagan's secret arms-for-hostage deals with Iran in 1985-86 (also with Israeli help). The George H.W. Bush administration collected documents possibly related to the 1980 events and shared some with the congressional investigation, including the Haig "talking points."

But Bush's operatives – trying to protect his reelection chances in 1991-92 – engaged in delays and obstructions of the congressional inquiry, which finally agreed after Bush's defeat by Bill Clinton in November 1992 to say that it could find "no credible evidence" that Reagan and Bush had orchestrated a delay in Iran's release of the hostages. The hostages were finally freed on Jan. 20, 1981, immediately after Reagan was sworn in as president.

Subsequent disclosures of evidence, however, buttressed the long-held suspicions of a Republican-Iranian deal, including documents that the Bush-41 White House had withheld from Congress as well as other documents that the congressional investigation possessed but ignored. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Second Thoughts on October Surprise" or, for more details, Robert Parry's America's Stolen Narrative.]

_________

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+36 # Activista 2015-05-12 20:33
Great article with a deep analysis of US thinking/polici es on the Middle East. Lot of relevant facts are censored in our "free" society. And information flow to the people is getting worse and worse. Oligarchs rule, AIPAC controls US foreign policy - not a good prospect for our future.
 
 
+13 # rhgreen 2015-05-13 07:46
Very good article. Also read Trita Parsi's "Treacherous Alliance: the Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S."(2008).
 
 
+4 # beardog 2015-05-16 00:37
Neocons screwed Carter and American hostages in 1979, all of America with the wars in Iraq and are now pressuring for war with Iran. Republicans stop at nothing to win the ends of Israel and the oligarchs.
 
 
+38 # Radscal 2015-05-12 20:34
Another nice summary of the Carter/Reagan/B ush/Bush roles in the Iraq/Iran/Israe l crimes by Mr. Parry. We must not forget these events when evaluating current events.
 
 
+22 # Farafalla 2015-05-12 22:00
And to think that Reagan was already seriously demented by the time the later parts transpired. Bush was in charge, like Cheney was for his evil spawn, W. The GOP comes up with such great leaders.
 
 
+9 # dickbd 2015-05-13 13:50
It may have been difficult to tell with Reagan, as so many people, Nixon and Ford being two, thought that Reagan was a dumb SOB (their words), and I remember clearly that the great Isaac Asimov wrote, "We have a president who is clearly stupid."

I think the best description of Reagan was that he was "likable and lucky," but he was surrounded by neocons, and he was clearly a willing tool of the one percenters.
 
 
+2 # CelticNavigator 2015-05-15 18:01
Agreed, dickbd. When I learned in TIME magazine 3 months after his election that Reagan (like FDR, I learned to my horror later) refused to read a report longer than ONE page, I went on a 3-day drunk. Then I learned that every admin since Wilson's has had about 400 members of the Council on Foreign Relations in it, controlling the U.S. Aircraft Carrier of State.

Remember when Reagan was shot and Al Haig told everybody that he was in charge? As former NATO Supreme Commander he was well versed in nuclear emergencies / war games and the president's briefcase with nuclear codes, so he very probably WAS in charge for a few hours, and was ultimately canned because he told the truth, the legal presidential line of succession be damned.

I don't approve - merely explain.
 
 
0 # Helen Marshall 2015-05-24 12:27
We can at least be grateful that he was willing to work with Gorbachev at the end of the USSR. Later presidents, beginning with Clinton, reneged on all the commitments made by Reagan and Baker, and began the drive to effectively destroy Russia, which may well lead to a nuclear confrontation.
 
 
+15 # jpmarat 2015-05-13 00:00
I'm pretty sure Carter & Hillary are Democrats. Carter wanted US in Afghanistan, also. Hillary wants US in Syria.
Her top foreign policy advisor is engaged to a former advisor to McCain & Lieberman. Keeps Mideast war for oil, gas, aquifer access, & Israeli expansion all in the family.
 
 
+7 # James Marcus 2015-05-13 00:05
Hilarious, and extremely sad, simultaneously. Concern over 'redacting' that which was never 'true', to begin with, is a real tail chaser; hardly a resolvable riddle. Nor leading anywhere but unto distraction and further confusion. Please understand ...'History, is but a Fable, agreed upon.' (Napoleon) .The 'Facts', of most all controversial Events (wars, conflicts, assassinations, Heists, Romantic Betrayals, etc have been distortions, both unintentional and Deliberate, from time immemorial.
'State Secrets', are no more than back-room deals amongst Highly Ignorant, Selfish, pathetic Sociopaths (self-appointed 'Leaders'), whose words and whims ('Agreements') are so Obviously Immoral as to necessitate Hush-hush (with Pathetic excuses for 'secrecy'), lest they be found-out, routed, and 'burned at the stake' (likely, a Just fate). They also vote 'No Audits' (on themselves) so they can steal with equal impunity.
 
 
+13 # walt 2015-05-13 07:07
This sentence may sum it all up succinctly:

The Persian Gulf War's demonstration of U.S. military prowess – combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 – also encouraged the neocons to envision a strategy of "regime changes" for any government that showed hostility toward Israel. Iraq was listed as target number one, but Syria also was high on the hit list."

And the same continues to the present day. Anyone up for serious change?
 
 
+11 # Gordon Berry 2015-05-13 07:33
from #walt: also encouraged the neocons to envision a strategy of "regime changes" for any government that showed hostility .
It used to be called colonialism (European style) - a big part of the reason for the American Revolutionary War of 1776-
 
 
+11 # danireland46 2015-05-13 09:45
Robert Perry continues to provide the kind of information so lacking in the Mainstream Media, but so crucial to the American public. Look at the accompanying picture of Ronnie with his moronic smile reaching for another jelly bean. Reagan is the patron saint of the GOP, but his tenure, with union-busting, and Trickle-Down, was the start of our decline as a nation. Thanks Perry for making us aware of this background info.
 
 
+7 # reiverpacific 2015-05-13 11:53
I'll never forget the arrogant, appalling Alex' Haig's comment, which encapsulates the US's foreign policy to a nicety.
QV, "Let them march in the Streets, as long as they pay their Taxes!"
Nothing has changed since then except the various, limiter in scope species of "Leadership" figureheads under the thrall of the true steering powers of the prevailing perpe-traitor's Oligarchy/ Corporate/Milit ary/Owner-media ship.
 
 
+9 # Linda 2015-05-13 12:37
That picture of Reagan shows the face of a man already in the grips of dementia . Same kind of smile with a lost look in his eyes that I have seen in patients suffering from dementia ! It shows that Reagan is disengaged while Haig conducts the official business !

I do find it very interesting that ,"the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 was alleged to have conspired with Iranian officials and Israeli intelligence officers to delay the release of the 52 American hostages held in Iran to ensure President Carter's reelection defeat,". Maybe Carter wasn't ruthless enough for those pulling the strings or maybe they didn't have his blessings afterall ?
 
 
+8 # Linda 2015-05-13 12:42
I love my country but people like those mentioned are turning it into an evil empire hated by the east.
Israel as it seems here can't be trusted not to turn on their so called allies once they get what they want . That was pretty obvious when Netanyahu addressed Congress. Netanyahu saw himself as the power behind the US government not the President and that is pretty scary !
 
 
0 # Helen Marshall 2015-05-24 12:38
I no longer know what it means to "love my country." Love the beautiful land, seized by violence and deceit from the first occupants? Love the wars that we fight? Love your neighbors? What are we now?
 
 
+7 # Floridatexan 2015-05-13 14:28
"...By the early 1990s, Israel had grown alienated from cash-strapped Iran, which had withdrawn from the lucrative arms bazaar that Israel had been running for that Shiite government through the 1980s. Gradually, Israel began to realign itself with the Sunnis bankrolled by Saudi Arabia.

The 9/11 attacks in 2001 were an expression of the anti-U.S. outrage among Sunni fundamentalists , who were funded by the Saudis and other Persian Gulf oil states, but the intricate realities of the Middle East were then little known to the American people who didn't much know the difference between Sunni and Shiite and who lacked knowledge about the hostilities between secularists like Hussein and fundamentalists like bin Laden..."

With all the discussion of the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission Report, which apparently implicate the Saudis, there is almost no discussion of the Israeli/Saudi alliance in the media, nor of the dual US/Israeli citizens highly placed within our government, including Dov Zakheim, then-comptrolle r of the Pentagon...reme mber the missing $2.3 trillion reported by Rumsfeld on 9/10/01? Nor is much attention paid to the close financial ties of the Bush family with the Saudi royals. And let's talk about the "failure" of our major defense systems, including Cheney's presence in the war room prior to the attacks (according to Minetta). No one wants to believe...yet the evidence of a false flag is compelling, to say the least.
 
 
+10 # Secret Squirrel 2015-05-13 21:23
Excellent from Robert Parry, as usual. Yet much of the perversity of the U.S.–Saudi–Isra eli machinations makes sense if placed in the context of the Yinon Plan, articulated in the early ’80s as Israel's grand design to subvert Middle Eastern régimes. The U.S, as I have shown, is no longer a republic; it is a zionist satrapy that serves Israeli interests, even to the extent of making Americans suffer. (see: http://www.gregfelton.com/satire/2015_03_12.htm)

The conduct of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya and Obama must be understood in this context if Parry’s history is to make any rational sense.
 
 
+3 # dickbd 2015-05-14 13:57
I agree with much of what you say, but could it not also be argued that Israel is a tool of the one percenters' desires in foreign policy? They want the oil in the Mid-east (Isaac Asimov once joked that Moses must have been an idiot, as he took the Jews to the only land that didn't have oil!), and Israel serves as an outpost there

Also, it helps further the military-indust rila complex because the U.S. government gives tons of money that Israel uses to buy war machines from our manufacturers.
 
 
+5 # kalpal 2015-05-14 14:57
Maybe someone should ask Ollie North about who negotiated sales of arms to Iran during the Reagan years. Even better ask about why the diplomats were not released till Reagan took the oath of office. Look at the Bush and his CIA cohort.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN