
"FBI: Saddam told us he lied about having nukes to deter Iran
"Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.
"He believed Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself, the report said.
I had always assumed that Saddam would want the world to think he didn't have nukes-- so as to not give the U.S. a pretext to attack. But it turns out that while he was afraid of being attacked-- his real fear was of an attack by Iran, not the U.S....so he wanted to fool the world into thinking that he actually did have nukes!
FBI special agents carried out 20 formal interviews and at least five "casual conversations" with the former Iraqi leader after his capture by U.S. troops in December 2003, according to the documents.
Saddam, identified as "High Value Detainee #1," shared Bush's hostility towards the "fanatic" Iranian mullahs, according to the FBI records of conversations from February through June 2004 between Saddam and Arabic-speaking agents in his detention cell at Baghdad International Airport.
It's pretty common knowledge. If he let on that he didn't have them, he probably would of been overthrown withing a few years by people in his own country; either those loyal to Iran (more then likely) or ones wanting just to get rid of him so they can take the reigns of power (lesser chance of success.) Iran was the most direct threat to Saddam, and it may of been easier to fabricate information to say he had begun to stockpile it again then it would of been to actually start producing them. Considering he had no problem using them against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and used them again against his own people when they rebelled shows he already had the know how on how to make them and the will to use them. And most toxic agents can be easily made with simple everyday chemicals and doesn't need all that much space to produce a decent amount (mostly for storage till you can move the finished bomb, shell, mortar, or pressure tanks holding it.)
The media seems to have it in their head that you need large facilities to manufacture chemical weapons due to the sizes the US, Russia, Britain, and other countries that used to produce it until either eliminating them from their arsenal or reducing their stockpiles to the bare minimum. If you have refineries in your country, and the ability to produce a container to hold the agent, then any country has the possibility of being able to produce chemical agents. It wouldn't be hard to let false information slip to your enemies saying you have the ability to produce and are producing, it sure beats some alternatives. I'm willing to bet he miscalculated on the US's response (with more fears of worse case scenarios brought on by 9-11 in the US government and its intelligence agencies) and was playing towards keeping Iran uncertain of his response to an attack or attempted overthrow.
I'm willing to bet he miscalculated on the US's response
Yes-- I think that's exactly what happened.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |