Thread by @FrankJannuzi

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 So much about this State Dept event is troubling. Short thread, as a former State intel officer who once had to prepare teams to meet the press.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 First - this should never have been “not for attribution.” When US mounts an operation like this, officials normally speak on the record. David Schenker is the assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. This is his account. He should speak on the record.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Second -“planning imminent attacks” is oxymoronic. This is not a small point. Official didn’t say — “about to launch attacks” or even “attacks were imminent.” They said “planning imminent attacks.” I know what this likely means, because I have had to debate the point in the past

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 In intel and national security circles, there is a running debate about warning times. What do we do when an enemy is so capable of launching attacks with little or no warning? Do we say to policy makers, “attacks are EFFECTIVELY ‘imminent,’ because we won’t be able to warn you”?

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 In essence, if the Iranian Quds force proxies in Iraq and Syria could launch attacks within 24 hours, and we might not get additional warning, are ALL such attacks “imminent”?

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 As a practical matter, intel community has obligation to tell policy makers, “this might be the last warning we can give you...you should consider us living on the knofe’s edge.”
But this does NOT mean attacks are actually imminent. (Think North korea...right now....).

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 It just means we have limited ability to detect the final preparation Ms for attack and promise more warning. As a legal matter, this condition situation also does NOT constitute “imminent” attack. For that, one needs specific, credible warning of attack(s).

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Which brings me to third criticism. State briefer says “planning” was underway for “imminent” attacks across Middle East — no specifics even on which country(ies). Unless we have specific intel of a region-wide general offensive (???), wth are they describing?

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Fourth concern: false attribution. State browder says Suleimani has killed “608 Americans in Iraq alone.” This attributes to a commanding officer in Iran all of the casualties inflicted by units under his direction (however tenuous the command and control lines may be).

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 I am fine with accountability. I used to work at Amneaty International. I am 100% down for justice and accountability. If one convened war crime tribunal, one might accuse Suleimani of war crimes and price chain of command. But in this instance, the official appears to be...

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 ...trying to make listener believe that Suleimani personally killed 608 Americans. Suleimani is a senior commander in the Iranian security forces. On his orders, many Americans have died. But one could just as easily hold Iran’s supreme leader responsible. Why not execute him?

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Fifth issue - when questioned about evidence, briefer responds, “Suleimani was traveling in region.” And when pressed, he says in essence, “well, Iranians THEMSELVES are now saying they will launch attacks” which is a ridiculous answer, since that threat FOLLOWED assassination.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Sixth concern - if the “imminent attacks” being planned were as widespread in the region as alleged by the briefer, against both diplomats and USA armed forces, why were none of our allies briefed? Were they all safe? Why wasn’t Congress briefed? Why only Lindsey Graham?

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Seventh worry: State Dept official alleges Suleimani was “indispensable man” and goes on to claim that Iran will have difficulty organizing attacks on scale and lethality of the past now that he is dead. I predict the State Dept will deeply regret making this claim.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Eighth point: one State Dept briefer is strangely personal in his attacks in Suleimani, saying “he (S) put a rocket through my roof.” I hope such understandable personal animus did not influence US policy.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Nine: this duesy.
State Dept Official #3:
“Whether the specific plots that he has unleashed were so far advanced that they may be able to carry them out, I don’t know, but my strong impression is that right now, everybody in his little foreign legion is scurrying for cover.”

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 If the attacks had truly been “imminent” then this statement makes no sense at all. By definition, an “imminent” threat is far advanced. This statement basically says, “the attacks were being planned, but were not imminent.”

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 State Dept official #3 follows up his duesy admission with this:
“It slows it down. It makes it less likely. It’s shooting down Yamamoto in 1942. Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?”
Putting arrogance of his question aside, the simple answer is “Yes, you do.”

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 They have to explain because we live in a democracy. Going to war with Iran is something that must be explained and justified to American people.
same official then mocked a journalist by implying that killing Suleimani was equivalent of shooting down Yamamoto’s plane in 1943.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 The official tells the journalist to “look it up,” assuming the journalist wouldn’t understand the reference. This arrogant, elitist, snide remark is beneath the dignity of the State Dept. Moreover, the journalists in the room - folks like josh Rogin - are well educated.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 All State Dept official #3 did was to underscore he is mistakenly equating WWII and killing of Admiral Yamamoto with current conflict with Iran (a nation with which we are not at war) and the assassination of Suleimani. It says more about his delusions than journos ignorance.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 Oh, and btw, State Dept Official #3 got the date for Yamamoto’s death wrong....while lecturing a journalist to “look it up!”

End.

@DanLamothe @jdawsey1 typo....State "briefer" not "browder" -- hate auto correct....