Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
48
www.soundclick.com
#1
The New York Times
Thu Nov 6, 8:54 AM ET
By JAMES RISEN


WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.

The messages from Baghdad, first relayed in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi intelligence officers to open last-ditch negotiations with the Bush administration through a clandestine communications channel, according to people involved.

The efforts were portrayed by Iraqi officials as having the approval of President Saddam Hussein, according to interviews and documents.

The overtures, after a decade of evasions and deceptions by Iraq, were ultimately rebuffed. But the messages raised enough interest that in early March, Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to top Pentagon officials, met in London with the Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage.

According to both men, Mr. Hage laid out the Iraqis' position to Mr. Perle, and he pressed the Iraqi request for a direct meeting with Mr. Perle or another representative of the United States.

"I was dubious that this would work," said Mr. Perle, widely recognized as an intellectual architect of the Bush administration's hawkish policy toward Iraq, "but I agreed to talk to people in Washington."

Mr. Perle said he sought authorization from C.I.A. officials to meet with the Iraqis, but the officials told him they did not want to pursue this channel, and they indicated they had already engaged in separate contacts with Baghdad. Mr. Perle said, "The message was, `Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.' "

A senior United States intelligence official said this was one of several contacts with Iraqis or with people who said they were trying to broker meetings on their behalf. "These signals came via a broad range of foreign intelligence services, other governments, third parties, charlatans and independent actors," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Every lead that was at all plausible, and some that weren't, were followed up."

There were a variety of efforts, both public and discreet, to avert a war in Iraq, but Mr. Hage's back channel appears to have been a final attempt by Mr. Hussein's government to reach American officials.

In interviews in Beirut, Mr. Hage said the Iraqis appeared intimidated by the American military threat. "The Iraqis were finally taking it seriously," he said, "and they wanted to talk, and they offered things they never would have offered if the build-up hadn't occurred."

Mr. Perle said he found it "puzzling" that the Iraqis would have used such complicated contacts to communicate "a quite astonishing proposal" to the administration.

But former American intelligence officers with extensive experience in the Middle East say many Arab leaders have traditionally placed a high value on secret communications, though such informal arrangements are sometimes considered suspect in Washington.

The activity in this back channel, detailed in interviews and in documents obtained by The New York Times, appears to show an increasingly frantic Iraqi regime trying to find room to maneuver as the enemy closes in. It also provides a rare glimpse into a subterranean world of international networking.

The key link in the network was Imad Hage, who has spent much of his life straddling two worlds. Mr. Hage, a Maronite Christian who was born in Beirut in 1956, fled Lebanon in 1976 after the civil war began there. He ended up in the United States, where he went to college and became a citizen.

Living in suburban Washington, Mr. Hage started an insurance company, American Underwriters Group, and became involved in Lebanese-American political circles. In the late 1990's, he moved his family and his company to Lebanon.

Serendipity brought him important contacts in the Arab world and in America. An influential Lebanese Muslim he met while handling an insurance claim introduced him to Mohammed Nassif, a senior Syrian intelligence official and a close aide to President Bashar al-Assad.

On trips back to Washington last year, Mr. Hage befriended a fellow Lebanese-American, Michael Maloof, who was working in the Pentagon as an analyst in an intelligence unit set up by Mr. Feith to look for ties between terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iraq. Mr. Maloof has ties to many leading conservatives in Washington, having worked for Mr. Perle at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration.

In January 2003, as American pressure was building for a face-off with Iraq, Mr. Hage's two worlds intersected.

On a trip to Damascus, he said, Mr. Nassif told him about Syria's frustrations in communicating with American officials. On a trip to the United States later that month, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Maloof arranged for him to deliver that message personally to Mr. Perle and to Jaymie Durnan, then a top aide to the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Pentagon officials confirmed that the meetings occurred.

Continued
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
48
www.soundclick.com
#2
Mr. Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, is known in foreign capitals as an influential adviser to top administration officials.

After Mr. Hage told his contacts in Beirut and Damascus about meeting Mr. Perle, Mr. Hage's influential Lebanese Muslim friend asked Mr. Hage to meet a senior Iraqi official eager to talk to the Americans. Mr. Hage cautiously agreed.

In February, as the United States was gearing up its campaign for a Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq, Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, arrived in Mr. Hage's Beirut office.

But within minutes, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Obeidi collapsed, and a doctor was called to treat him. "He came to my office, sat down, and in five minutes fell ill," recalled Mr. Hage. "He looked like a man under enormous stress."

After being treated, Mr. Obeidi explained that the Iraqis wanted to cooperate with the Americans and could not understand why the Americans were focused on Iraq rather than on countries, like Iran, that have long supported terrorists, Mr. Hage said. The Iraqi seemed desperate, Mr. Hage said, "like someone who feared for his own safety, although he tried to hide it."

Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their people. There are no weapons of mass destruction."

Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled.

He said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant that Saddam Hussein give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years.

Mr. Hage said Mr. Obeidi made it clear that he wanted to get his message to Washington, so Mr. Hage contacted Mr. Maloof in Washington. "Everything I was hearing, I was telling Mike," he said.

A few days later, Mr. Hage said, he met Mr. Obeidi at a hotel in downtown Beirut, and Mr. Obeidi repeated the offers of concessions, which he said came from the highest levels of the Iraqi government. Mr. Obeidi seemed even more depressed. "The U.S. buildup was clearly getting to them," Mr. Hage said.

A week later, Mr. Hage said, he agreed to hold further meetings in Baghdad. When he arrived, he was driven to a large, well-guarded compound, where he was met by a gray-haired man in a military uniform. It was Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, who is No. 16 on the United States list of most wanted Iraqi leaders. Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush asked him if it was true that he knew Mr. Perle. "Have you met him?"

Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush began to vent his frustration over what the Americans really wanted. He said that to demonstrate the Iraqis' willingness to help fight terrorism, Mr. Habbush offered to hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, who has been indicted in United States in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Mr. Yasin fled to Iraq after the bombing, and the United States put up a $25 million reward for his capture.

Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush offered to turn him over to Mr. Hage, but Mr. Hage said he would pass on the message that Mr. Yasin was available.

Mr. Hage said Mr. Habbush also insisted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and added, "Let your friends send in people and we will open everything to them."

Mr. Hage said he asked Mr. Habbush, "Why don't you tell this to the Bush administration?" He said Mr. Habbush replied cryptically, "We have talks with people."

Mr. Hage said he later learned that one contact was in Rome between the C.I.A. and representatives of the Iraqi intelligence service. American officials confirm that the meeting took place, but say that the Iraqi representative was not a current intelligence official and that the meeting was not productive.

In addition, there was an attempt to set up a meeting in Morocco between Mr. Habbush and United States officials, but it never took place, according to American officials.

On Feb. 19, Mr. Hage faxed a three-page report on his trip to Baghdad to Mr. Maloof in Washington. The Iraqis, he wrote, "understand the days of manipulating the United States are over." He said top Iraqi officials, including Mr. Habbush and Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister, wanted to meet with American officials.

The report also listed five areas of concessions the Iraqis said they would make to avoid a war, including cooperation in fighting terrorism and "full support for any U.S. plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. In addition, the report said that "the U.S. will be given first priority as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights," and that Iraq would cooperate with United States strategic interests in the region. Finally, under the heading "Disarmament," the report said, "Direct U.S. involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq."

Mr. Hage's messages touched off a brief flurry of communications within the Pentagon, according to interviews and copies of e-mail messages obtained by The Times.

In an e-mail on Feb. 21 to Mr. Durnan, the Wolfowitz aide, Mr. Maloof wrote that Mr. Perle "is willing to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if it has clearance from the building," meaning the Pentagon.

In an e-mail response, Mr. Durnan said: "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold." In a separate e-mail to two Pentagon officials, Mr. Durnan asked for background information about Mr. Hage. "There is some interesting stuff happening overseas and I need to know who and what he is," he wrote in one e-mail.

Mr. Hage had impressive contacts, but there was one blemish on his record: In January he had been briefly detained by the F.B.I. at Dulles Airport in Washington when a handgun was found in his checked luggage. He said he did not believe it was a security violation because it was not in his carry-on luggage, and the authorities allowed him to leave after a few hours.

Senior Pentagon officials said Mr. Durnan relayed messages he received from Mr. Maloof to the appropriate officials at the Pentagon, but they said that Mr. Durnan never discussed the Hage channel to the Iraqis with Mr. Wolfowitz. (In May, Mr. Maloof, who has lost his security clearances, was placed on paid administrative leave by the Pentagon, for reasons unrelated to the contacts with Mr. Hage.)

Mr. Hage continued to hear from the Iraqis and passed on their urgency about meeting Mr. Perle or another representative of the United States. In one memo sent to other Pentagon officials in early March, Mr. Maloof wrote: "Hage quoted Dr. Obeidi as saying this is the last window or channel through which this message has gone to the United States. Hage characterized the tone of Dr. Obeidi as begging."

Working through Mr. Maloof, Mr. Hage finally arranged to meet with Mr. Perle in London in early March. The two met in an office in Knightsbridge for about two hours to discuss the Iraqi proposals, the men said. Mr. Hage told Mr. Perle that the Iraqis wanted to meet with him or someone from the administration.

Mr. Perle said he subsequently contacted a C.I.A. official to ask if he should meet with the Iraqis. "The answer came back that they weren't interested in pursuing it," Mr. Perle said in an interview, "and I was given the impression that there had already been contacts."

Mr. Perle now plays down the importance of his contact with Mr. Hage. He said he found it difficult to believe that Mr. Hussein would make serious proposals through such a channel. "There were so many other ways to communicate," he said. "There were any number of governments involved in the end game, the Russians, French, Saudis."

Nonetheless, Mr. Hage continued to deliver messages from the Iraqis to Mr. Maloof.

In one note to Mr. Perle in mid-March, Mr. Maloof relayed a message from Mr. Hage that Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush "were prepared to meet with you in Beirut, and as soon as possible, concerning `unconditional terms.' " The message from Mr. Hage said, "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance."

No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad.

"At least they could have talked to them," he said.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#4
Sorry Saddam, your were just about a decade to late. How is it that they are able to give us a man who was invloved in 9/11 if they had nothing to do with it?
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#6
Bush was seeking the liberation of Iraq, amongst other things such as Oil Supply, and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I never heard anything about Iraq links to 9/11 until it was posted on this board, I have yet to hear anything about it elsewhere.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#12
miggidy said:
Nah man the liberation part was added after the war began.
Bush's excuse was always an imminent threat of WMD's....
Perhaps we didn't have grounds to invade Iraq based on liberation (according to the united nations). You should know as well as anyone that what you hear, is not always what's real or whats happening. Take a police officer for example. He knows that Jack has 3 pounds of cocaine in the trunk of his car, but he has no reason to pull him over, so he notices that Jack's tail light is out. He might not care that Jack's tail light is out, but it's probable cause, and gives him the ability to pull him over. Weapons of Mass Destruction might have been real, we know that Saddam had them at one point (as he used them), and he was acting real shady come inspection time. But in any case, whether they were there or not, it gave us the opportunity to enter that country and rebuild it for the people that lived there..
 
Mar 15, 2003
751
0
0
#13
Bullshit. Saddam had little or no reason to use WMDs, especially against the U.S. If anything they would be used in a local territorial dispute or some such.

Bush's attack against Iraq was basically a roll of the dice among Middle Eastern totalitarian regimes. He, Rum Rum Rummy, and Powell sat around and asked, "Who can we topple in the Middle East without starting WW3?"

Something had to be done about 9/11, something more than just the strike on Afghanistan. Bush is a Texan, and a cowboy. He couldn't just let all that military spending go to waste, so he ran into the party with a blindfold on and hit everything but the pinata.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#14
Oh I see, he would only be using the weapons of mass distruction on his own people, that makes sense. It almost fits perfectly with the liberation in Iraq. Liberation has nothing to do with Iraq being a threat to the U.S., it's about freeing the people under evil ruling, so that they might have a better life.
 
Mar 15, 2003
751
0
0
#15
The WMD on his own people is nothing new or frightening in the Middle East. Countries such as Syria, Libya, and Iran break records for human rights abuses, yet, they weren't touched.

This war was really about Bush having a big gun and wanting to shoot it, and they picked the target that was easiest to take down without inciting a war.

People all over the Middle East need to be liberated. Where would it end?
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#16
When they are all liberated. The Iraq situation is different than those in surrounding countries. How is it that, with a population of 25 million, Saddam was able to build the 4th strongest army in the world. Consider the weapons of mass destruction and the way he treated people and you have a threat to everyone.
 
Mar 15, 2003
751
0
0
#17
Fucking world war 3, son.
Damn you stupid.
Sudan, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Tunisia, Egypt, are all run by autocrats. Even if they were elected, as they were in some cases, they come from bullshit elections.

Check out The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria for a great illustration on Democracy and Freedom worldwide, and especially in the Middle East. It's a book I'd highly recommend.

In any case, what about North Korea? What about half the countries in Africa? That "until they're all liberated" mentality will bring nothing but the imminent destruction of the entire world.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#18
already dead. said:
Fucking world war 3, son.
Damn you stupid.
Uhhhm, there is no need to turn your confusion into frustration and vent on me junior. I haven't insulted you. Oh yeah, make sense next time too.

already dead. said:
Sudan, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Tunisia, Egypt, are all run by autocrats. Even if they were elected, as they were in some cases, they come from bullshit elections.
Some of the countries that your thinking of do not need to be liberated, they need to be helped, they need food and shelter. Those countries arn't going through the same thing the people of Iraq were. There are places in the U.S. that need to be liberated, there are other countries in this world where systems are in place that conflict with ours, and there people might not have it as easy as us, but that doesn't mean they need to be liberated. There is only so much we can do at one time.

already dead. said:
In any case, what about North Korea? What about half the countries in Africa? That "until they're all liberated" mentality will bring nothing but the imminent destruction of the entire world.
How is trying to help free opressed civilians going to bring destruction to the world. If anything, it will further the process of world peace. There is already talks about going into North Korea, haven't you heard?