NY Sun: White House helped free Iranian diplomat
posted at 12:44 am on April 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Watch this first. It’s from Tuesday’s press conference. Not even a minute long.
Now here comes the Sun.
The decision to release Jalal Sharafi on Tuesday was made at the White House, according to an administration official who asked to be anonymous because of the sensitivity of the information. The release took place over the objections of some commanders in the field. Mr. Sharafi, the second secretary of the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, is believed by American military intelligence also to be a member of the lethal Quds Force, the terrorist-supporting organization whose members have been fair game for American soldiers and Iraqi allies since a change in the rules of engagement was issued in December…
The release of Iranian nationals detained by America was one of the primary Iranian demands during the negotiations. “They think they won this round. They were able to take the hostages and suffer no consequences,” an American official said…
The administration official yesterday said that Mr. Sharafi’s capture was not ordered by American forces, but he was interrogated in a facility overseen by both Iraqi and American commanders.
“Had this guy been in Iraqi custody, we all know he would have been in Iran weeks ago,” an Iraqi diplomat said yesterday on condition of anonymity.
Did Bush lie about there being no quid pro quo? Maybe not. According to the Independent (whose credibility, it should be noted, is not at its zenith right now), Tony Blair himself had no idea the sailors were going to be released until Ahmadinejad uttered the words at this morning’s press conference. Which means Sharafi might have been sprung purely as a goodwill gesture, with no guarantee of receiving anything in return.
So if it wasn’t a quid pro quo, it was something much worse.
And that’s not all. Captain Ed was rightly skeptical this morning of a report from Iranian state news that the U.S. had agreed to let an envoy from the regime meet with the five Quds Force members captured in Irbil. But now, via WaPo, we find that his skepticism might have been misplaced:
The U.S. military has allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit five Iranian officials who were detained in Iraq nearly three months ago on suspicion of plotting against American and Iraqi forces.
A Red Cross delegation that included one Iranian citizen visited the detainees, and a request for a formal consular visit with them is “being assessed at this time” by the U.S. military, said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.
In a briefing for reporters Wednesday, Caldwell did not say when the visit took place or whether it was connected to the case of the 15 British sailors and marines detained by Iran on March 23; Iran subsequently announced that they would be released.
Ed thinks it’s not a big deal even if it’s true, but as a harbinger of the Quds Five eventually being sent home, it’s worrisome. Which leads us to our exit question: How long will Bush wait before letting them go so as to avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo? (Exit answer: Three weeks.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
This thread is going to turn into a slug fest. DU and HuffPo will be hitting the Diggbutton. I’m outta here.
Limerick on April 5, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Iranian diplomat was just released. Just a coincidence I am sure.
gmcjetpilot on April 5, 2007 at 12:54 AM
I think we can all agree that it’s at least a good thing Pelosi won’t get credit for this.
askheaves on April 5, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Why the hell would he do that? You don’t give handouts to terrorists! Starving people, yes, these monsters, not without an exchange. gmc, go crawl back into your little corner of hell.
Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Sure she will. . . Schumer will give it to her.
Texyank on April 5, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Well if we’re talking about a capitulation to the mullahs, isn’t it better if Pelosi could be credited for it? The alternative is…disturbing.
Bryan on April 5, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Spies should be shot or bartered. However, if the Iranians are going to start kidnapping in order to get back captured spies we can’t capitulate. It would be open season on our troops.
If the Bush administration is bargaining at this level I am apoplectic. It is stupid beyond measure. I haven’t bought into the mistakes in this war being a product of Bush’s incompetence. War is inherently unpredictable. But I would have to reevalute that position if they are willing to put a target on our soldiers backs.
Bill C on April 5, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Also, if this was coming from the NYT I wouldn’t give it a second thought but the NY Sun is a conservative paper.
Bill C on April 5, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Ah, Its OK guys; Nothing to get upset about here.
(I hope I don’t get in trouble for leaking this information. It IS President’s Eyes Only stuff, and I’m neither a Senator, Congressperson nor Bill Clinton’s ex-National Security Advisor, so I don’t have a ‘Get Out of Treason Free Card’.)
You see, A few nights ago, while he was sleeping, CIA surgeons secretly operated on Jalal, using a variety of nanotechnology and microsurgery techniques and implanted him with a variety of tracking and eavesdropping devices, including a homing beacon for a Cruise missile.
So, he will not only lead us to biger fish, he will broadcast every word he hears, every sight he sees, and at the time of our choosing, provide precise targeting to terminate his entire organization.
Strategery!
LegendHasIt on April 5, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Google it!
ScottMcC on April 5, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Allowing the Red Cross a visit and one of their diplomats to see them doesn’t really mean much. We would demand the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.
This could be true, but it is a little murky. I don’t see what advantage an “administration official” would gain by saying this, true or false.
crosspatch on April 5, 2007 at 1:46 AM
Reading this story I can’t help but think of one guy who blamed “the left” for this loss. I knew I came here for laughs, but this…
Nonfactor on April 5, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Looks like all the liberal trolls are out. Just can’t help but gloat when there’s has a setback or badness goes down, huh? Who’s side are you assclowns on anyway, or haven’t you had the insight to decide yet?
Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 1:58 AM
I’m not gloating. I made fun of the comment before this article was published.
What does this article have to do with sides? And I’m not the one coming off as a partisan.
Nonfactor on April 5, 2007 at 1:59 AM
Here’s the thing. Both the Iraqis and the US said the guy that was released wasn’t under their control. That could well be as people are kidnapped all the time in Iraq. A Sunni group could have kidnapped the guy thinking he was a Shiite bigwig of some sort only to find out later he was Iranian. Then they eventually let him go figuring the heat was getting too much. They couldn’t ransom the guy because Iran probably wouldn’t play that game and if they killed him, there might be hell to pay for it. So they let him go.
crosspatch on April 5, 2007 at 2:04 AM
I say implant a tracer in his butt; all the better to guide the cruise missile with.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 5, 2007 at 2:29 AM
Good article on the subject over at Flopping Aces.
My gut feeling is that Iran blinked. Blair basically said he was going to give the diplomats 48 hours, after that a “harder” course would be taken. At about the same time, the US announced that Nimitz was leaving San Diego for the Persian Gulf. Within 48 hours, the hostages were on their way home.
crosspatch on April 5, 2007 at 2:35 AM
But the kidnapping was an attempt to get the Irbil 5 back. Probably not the first one Iran made (see Karbala).
John on April 5, 2007 at 2:42 AM
Do you think the returning Brits will contact Simon for a spot on American Idol? Or is a series already in production?
Anyone want to buy “Hostage Offsets”?
(I know, bad taste, serious stuff and all, but this just makes me want to get back into the “Vomit Bucket” business)
Follow up question, why does Iran still have their one (1) gasoline refining plant? Why are they still smiling? Why are they not back in the stone age? Don’t blame it on oil, if Al Gore can survive on “Green Energy”, we all can…..
PinkyBigglesworth on April 5, 2007 at 2:48 AM
A little off topic, but speaking of Al Gore … does anyone know of an additive that would make a gasoline or diesel generator (or vehicle for that matter) emit green smoke?
crosspatch on April 5, 2007 at 3:05 AM
“But the kidnapping was an attempt to get the Irbil 5 back.”
I don’t think so. I think the kidnapping was an attempt to rekindle the Spirit of ‘79 in Iran. When they could only manage 200 demonstrators at the British Embassy, they pretty much saw the writing on the wall. It wasn’t working. There were no huge spontaneous demonstrations as in 1979. At this point I think they began to realize there was really nothing in it for them aside from bumping up the price of oil a few bucks.
crosspatch on April 5, 2007 at 3:09 AM
Lurking Cheney, please weigh in
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/04/keith-richardss-manager-he-didnt-really-snort-his-father/
RightWinged on April 5, 2007 at 4:01 AM
Good Gawd, back to realism. Supporting terrorists who just happen to be against the Iranian regime, now capitulation. Iran now makes the decisions in US foreign policy: they act, we react -shamefully.
What’s next, another Nixonesque trip to Iran to formalize relations?
Free Constitution on April 5, 2007 at 4:18 AM
Sure, just as soon as that Ferengi is no longer President of Iran.
crosspatch on April 5, 2007 at 5:02 AM
Perhaps we got everything we needed from Jalal Sharafi and decided to show we can be generous?
I don’t see this as being a big deal.
DannoJyd on April 5, 2007 at 6:04 AM
In this long war, we are going to win some battles and lose some. If Bush did this to help the British in some way, we may get something in return from them. If we get nothing in return, then it’s a loss.
On the other hand, with the “defectors” in hand, we may not need the little fish any longer.
Zorro on April 5, 2007 at 6:54 AM
Am I the only one who gets the bigger picture? A few days ago, we were on the brink of entering into another long, vicious war in the Middle East that would have cost thousands of lives and taken years to sort out. As much as that would have perpetuated discussion in the blogosphere, a war against Iran could have had its downside as well.
John on April 5, 2007 at 7:44 AM
I thought that our stance was “we do not give in to terrorists”. Everyone in Iran is a friggin terrorist as far as I’m concerned and should be dealt with accordingly or we are finished here in the West. Time to remove heads from arses and see the big picture. Putting it bluntly, the future is looking bleak unless we level Tehran and all the Iranian terrorists living there. Period.
lynnv on April 5, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Not necessarily. The Democrats basically want the US to do that anyway. Look at Pelosi. She’s meeting with a state sponsor of terror, holding hands with a member of Hezbollah, and giving the wrong message to Syria.
If the Dems want this, Bush should get credit for it. The only one who his image would be hurt amongst would be the Republicans, and it will be a softer landing there.
amerpundit on April 5, 2007 at 8:24 AM
No, John, you’re not the only one who caught that. And this would be just a dandy situation,if something had been solved. Iranians now think they can take hostages, and get something in return. Iran is still enriching uranium. It’s still defying S.C. Resolution after resolution. The insane guy is still as insane as ever.
It would still be nice to find a peaceful ending to this whole thing, though. Then I’d be happy.
amerpundit on April 5, 2007 at 8:29 AM
You know, if Iran has been so kind, and such hospitable people, why did the sailors (literally) get on the first plane they could find?
amerpundit on April 5, 2007 at 8:31 AM
I’m not George Bush’s biggest fan for several reasons but IF he released Sharafi then I’ll assume that he had good reason given the much bigger picture available to him than to me.
Buzzy on April 5, 2007 at 8:36 AM
I still think there was a hidden sword in this thing. Neither Blair or Bush could afford an overt threat to Iran. The Seattle\Portland “street” would be ablaze in indignation and the various barbarian fishwraps would have a field day. I don’t know what the deal is with Britain but I know the “subjects” over there aren’t too thrilled with Britain’s involvement in the GWoT. Any call for a military strike on Iran would’ve gotten ugly before the strike aircraft left their hangers.
The President said there would be no quid pro quo. I’ll take his word for it. Perhaps this diplocritter we released wasn’t as big and bad as we were made out to believe. Who knows. I’m pretty sure the truth will come out eventually.
Pilgrim on April 5, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Hmmmm. That’s a good point. I guess I really never got to the point of considering all out war with Iran until the Brits exhausted many other options first. One of those senarios being Ollie Norths suggestion that Iranian ships carrying gasoline be stopped from delivering their cargo and the Iranians last refinery be put out of business.
csdeven on April 5, 2007 at 9:21 AM
And thank you for providing us so many of them.
Your brand of knee-jerk, obtuse trollery is supremely laughable.
docob on April 5, 2007 at 9:57 AM
We spring Iranians for British soldiers who wouldn’t even fight back? But between Iraqis and American forces near the Iranian border on land fought back instead of surrendering?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/30/time-mag-us-troops-killed-iranian-soldier-in-firefight-last-year/
Kokonut on April 5, 2007 at 10:10 AM
I don’t see how this is any great victory for Iran. Not a single country stood with them. They were able to amass a total of what, 200 protesters at the British embassy so their own citizens weren’t eager to get on the bandwagon. Other than some obscure “diplomat” that both the US and Iraq say wasn’t under their control (but we apparently had access to for questioning?) was set free (was he really being held by the British … was that the reason for all of this?).
Iran got several million dollars from increased oil prices but other than that, pretty much nothing and they reinforced their position as a reckless country with a reckless government that resorts to state sponsored kidnapping to get their way. Again exposing themselves as criminals running a country, they have not done a thing to advance their cause in the world.
Add on top of that the fact that they apparently backed down in the face of a British 48-hour ultimatum, and the Iranians look weak indeed. In this case the world can see Western restraint as just that. Restraint in the face of a criminal government of Iran. The problem is that government is holding their entire population hostage.
Now it should be Venezuela’s turn to get back in the spotlight. I have noticed that it sort of works that way these days. thHugo is going to do something in the next week or so to get the buzz going and keep oil prices up if they should drop below $60 a barrel.
crosspatch on April 5, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I’m sorry you can’t use the phrase “long war” anymore…
BadBrad on April 5, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I don’t know what I was thinking, I may have been distracted by General Pelosi’s head scarf… yikes!
Zorro on April 5, 2007 at 8:53 PM
On the news this morning, the UK sailors were given goody bag, a la the Oscars, as a send off gift.
Things are too weird for me. I think I’ll look into that hermit idea.
honora on April 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Comment pages: