In a recent post on Cheney, Iran, and the whole “British hostage” affair, I asked whether Cheney might not have sabotaged an Iranian-American quid pro quo that would have involved the release, by the United States, of the “Irbil Five”–Iranians held by the US in Iraq.
At first glance, the whole hostage affair seems to represent a loss for Cheney.
And he may, indeed, agree with Bolton that the whole deal was a victory for Iranian hardliners.
It is also possible, however, that Cheney is not quite finished.
The British have been release. But the Iranian “Irbil Five”?
No sign of them. At least not yet…
Is it possible that those are Cheney fingerprints on “the realpolitik of today’s Iraq”?
That was April 11th.
Yesterday, Michael Ledeen offered up some gossip that appears to confirm these suspicions, beginning with Ledeen’s discussion of a news story by Robin Wright in the Washington Post:
[A] story written… by one of Secretary Rice’s favorite journalists, Robin Wright of the Washington Post… said:
After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents (sic) captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.
I’ve been told that “intense internal debate” is exactly right–it was one of the most contentious debates in quite a while. Wright reports that Vice President Cheney led the charge against Rice’s position, and I am told that Secretary of Defense Gates was equally adamant. This is reinforced by a statement by General Petraeus, to the effect that we intended to keep them and keep interrogating them as long as we had food and they had things to say. Moreover, I am told that the intensity of the debate was due to the fact that Rice was not merely recommending the release of the Iranians, but had informed the mullahs that we would release them.
On the Iranian front, then, it certainly looks like Cheney and Gates leading the hawkish faction with Rice working to open diplomatic avenues.
The mystery here is Rice. In an April 22, 2006 analysis, the Financial Times (subscription required) suggested that Rice was looking increasingly “realist” in her positions.
Perhaps there is an underlying logic to all this, but it escapes me.