
Handout via Reuters file
The arrest of Suleiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, has focused new attention on secret talks in 2002-03 between the U.S. and Iran in which a swap of al Qaeda members detained by Tehran for Iranian dissidents under U.S. control was discussed.
The arrest of Suleiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, has led to a fresh examination of a little-known chapter in George W. Bush’s “War on Terror’ -- secret talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in 2002 and 2003 aimed at working out an exchange of al Qaeda leaders detained in Iran for Iranian dissidents under U.S. control in Iraq.
The proposed deal fell apart when Washington balked at sending the Iranian dissidents -- members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, best known by the acronym MEK -- to what they believed would be certain death at the hands of Iranian authorities, current and former U.S. and Iranian officials told NBC News.
Ghaith, who is being held in a New York jail cell after spending a decade in Iran among the al Qaeda group, pleaded not guilty last week to charges of conspiring to kill Americans.
Ghaith has provided an account of his travels to U.S. law enforcement officials, included in a 22-page statement that has yet to be released. He was arrested in Turkey after leaving Iran, transferred to U.S. custody in Jordan and then flown to New York, according to U.S. officials, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity.
The U.S. has never had a clear idea of the conditions under which members of al Qaeda’s “management council” were held in Iran, but one former U.S. official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said last week that they were hidden "in the blackest of the black boxes" inside Iran's intelligence apparatus. Iranian officials have told NBC News the al Qaeda officials were "in jail" in the Islamic Republic.
While U.S. officials believe the al Qaeda leaders were initially allowed to contact other members of the terrorist organization as they continued to plot attacks against the U.S. and its allies, Alireza Miryousefi, spokesman at the Iranian mission to the United Nations, said that was never the case.
“Our position about al Qaeda is clear," he said Thursday. "Iran has never permitted al Qaeda to have any activity or operation from or inside Iran.”
The al Qaeda leaders detained after fleeing Afghanistan as the Taliban regime collapsed at the end of 2001 also had family members and bodyguards with them, bringing the total number in the group into the hundreds.
Among the terror group’s leaders taken into custody were Ghaith, Saif al Adel, al Qaeda’s military leader, Saad bin Laden, the deceased son of the late al Qaeda leader, and liaisons with other Sunni terrorist groups, including Chechen rebels in Russia.
U.S. and Iranian officials say that the group -- armed "with a ton of cash," as one U.S. official put it -- bribed their way across the Iran-Afghanistan border and hoped that Iran would treat them as "the enemy of my enemy," as another former U.S. official said. But they were rounded up not long after their arrival.
The former U.S. officials say the CIA did not learn of the group's presence in Iran until the middle of 2002, at which point the U.S. used back-channel communications to arrange secret talks with representatives of Iran. This was months after President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address, described Iran as part of an "axis of evil" – along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Kim Jong Il's North Korea – presenting a "grave and growing danger" to the U.S.
The talks have been reported before, though previous accounts received little media attention.
In a passage in his memoir, "At the Center of the Storm," then-CIA Director George Tenet, wrote, "In mid-2002 we learned that portions of al Qaeda’s leadership structure had relocated to Iran. This became much more problematic, leading to overtures to Iran and eventually face-to-face discussions with Iranian officials in December 2002 and early 2003. Ultimately, the al Qaeda leaders in Iran were placed under some form of house arrest, although the Iranians refused to deport them to their countries of origin, as we had requested."
Tenet didn't detail what went on during the discussions, but in another passage said that at the same time the U.S. was meeting with Iranian officials, the CIA learned that the al Qaeda group was not only communicating with Saudi-based leaders of the terrorist group on operational matters, but also trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
Related: Abu Ghaith trial may illuminate Iran's treatment of al Qaeda leaders it detained
A senior Iranian official, U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif, also told NBC News and others in 2007 about the discussions with U.S. officials.
In the 2006 book, "Losing Iraq: Inside the Post-War Reconstruction Fiasco," Columbia University Professor David L. Phillips quoted Zarif as saying Iran was reluctant to turn over the al Qaeda officials to the U.S. or other governments, as the US requested, until and unless the U.S. repatriated high-ranking officials of the MEK -- an acronym derived from the group’s Farsi name, Mojahedin-e-Khalq.
The MEK opposed the Iranian regime and was housed, trained and armed by Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. After the U.S. defeated Iraq in April 2003, the MEK came under U.S. control.
While confirming that the U.S. and Iran discussed trading the MEK leaders for the al Qaeda group, two former U.S. officials told NBC News that the proposal came from the Iranian side and was essentially a non-starter.
"The Iranians told us, 'We will only talk if you do something about MEK,' the most preferred option was giving them up," said one senior intelligence official at the time. "But someone would have to be a really bad person for us to turn him over to Iran. We could have done something to rein them in, yeah, but as bad as the agency thought these guys (the MEK) were, and we did, it would have been a Draconian step ... and we weren't prepared to do that."

Brennan Linsley / AP file
A member of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, an Iranian opposition group in Iraq better known as the MEK, guards the road leading to its main training camp near Baqubah, Iraq, in this May 9, 2003, file photo.
That wasn't the only reason for the Bush administration's reluctance, said the former official.
"There were interests in the Pentagon, (neo-conservative members of the Bush administration) who thought the MEK could be the vehicle that would overthrow the government of Iran," the former official said, adding sarcastically, "the same way they had such great success with Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq."
Over CIA objections, Pentagon officials had fostered a relationship with Chalabi in hopes that he could establish himself as a leader of Iraqi dissidents in post-Saddam Iraq . Chalabi, however, was unable to deliver on his promises to unite the many dissident factions.
At the same time, Iran had its own reasons for holding onto the al Qaeda members, according to one U.S. counterterrorism official. Many in U.S. intelligence believe that Iran wanted to keep them as bargaining chips -- and not just with the U.S. They were in effect hostages. If al Qaeda or allied Sunni terrorist groups carried out attacks in Iran, as had occurred in the 1990s, the group could face harm.
Whatever chance the talks had of succeeding ended in May 2003. Just days after Zarif met with Zalmay Khalilzad, then the Bush administration's special envoy to Afghanistan, al Qaeda attacked a residential compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing 31 people, including nine Americans, according to the former U.S. officials. It was the largest number of U.S citizens killed by al Qaeda since the 9-11 attacks.
After the Riyadh attack, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the U.S. had intercepted phone conversations implicating al Qaeda members in Iran in the bombings. The CIA was uncertain how much the Iranian government knew about the planning for the attack, but as one former U.S. official said, "It was hard for us to believe that a government as controlling as Iran didn't know" what was happening "in their country when we knew what was going on in their country. It was an article of faith."
At that point, the former official said, the Bush administration shut down communications with Iran and encouraged the Saudis to tell the Iranian government that it would not tolerate any further attacks, noting that U.S. officials also suspected Iran played a role in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, an American military residence outside Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. That attack killed 19 U.S. servicemen.
"The Saudis were encouraged to confront Iran," said the official. "We also pointed out that al Qaeda's long-term goal was to decapitate the Saudi regime. We reminded them of that."
A national security official within the Bush administration said the U.S. believed that following the protest, Iran did put additional restrictions on the al Qaeda officials. The former U.S. official said that during the latter half of the 2000s, no operational communications were detected between the al Qaeda leaders in Iran and what is known in the intelligence community as "al Qaeda Central" – bin Laden and his then-deputy and current al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri.
"Every once in a while, we would intercept non-operational communications from them to relatives back home. That was it," said one former high-ranking U.S. official.
Why has Abu Ghaith been released, or as one current U.S. official reported, "expelled" from Iran? Little is known publicly, but one of the former U.S. officials speculates that with bin Laden dead and al Qaeda Central operations near moribund, he and the other members of the “management council” have little value as leverage or as hostages.
Abu Ghaith is unlikely to have any operational information because he has been in Iran for so long. Now, the current and former U.S. officials say, his intelligence value may be more about his captivity in Iran and whether he was released or escaped.
Abu Ghaith will be back in court early next month for a preliminary hearing, at which point a trial date will be set. At that point, either the prosecution or defense is likely to reveal a bit more about what is one of the last remaining mysteries of the 9-11 aftermath.
Where are they now?
The U.S. is uncertain as to the whereabouts of many of the other al Qaeda leaders who were held by Iran.
At least one other high ranking official of al Qaeda found his way out of Iran in recent years. Mahfouz Ould al-Walid, known by his nom de guerre “Abu Hafs the Mauritanian,” was released from jail in July 2012 by Mauritanian authorities after reportedly being extradited by Iran. Officials in the West African nation said they freed the former senior adviser to bin Laden after he renounced al Qaeda.
There have been reports over the last several years that Al-Adel, the former al Qaeda military leader, also has left Iran, but U.S. officials say none has been verified.
Saad bin Laden was inadvertently killed in July 2009 in a Predator drone strike in Pakistan directed at another suspected terrorist, U.S. officials say.
Al Qaeda’s chief financial officer, Sheik Saeed, whose real name was Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, also was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan on May 21, 2010, according to NBC News terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann, also a senior partner with the Flashpoint Partners consulting company. There is no indication of when or under what circumstances Saeed left Iran.
Other former Iranian captives whose whereabouts are unknown include Thirwat Shihata, former head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad; Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, deputy chair of the management council; and Abu Dahak, a Yemeni who reportedly acted as a facilitator with Chechen rebels
More from Open Channel:
ID thieves target hospital patients to steal tax refunds, investigators say
Accuser in Air Force sexual assault case 'frustrated' at overturned verdict
Authorities in US, Jamaica team up to tackle persistent phone scam
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
operation gladio
It wasn't the apology; it was the $1.9 billion that got them forgiven. Remember, money talks and bull@!$%# walks. In the case of HSBC, both apply. The laws don't apply to both the rich and poor the same way. You can see that everyday in the news.
Bush and his team did not know the differences between them.
"George W. Bush’s “War on Terror’ -- secret talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in 2002 and 2003 aimed at working out an exchange of al Qaeda leaders detained in Iran for Iranian dissidents under U.S. control in Iraq."
For Bush, Pakis and Saudis (fountainheads of Islamic extremism and on rampage all over the world) were "strategic allies" on War on Terror!
The article plainly shows Bush protected leaders of a known terrorist group (MEC) and miss an opportunity to capture known members of al-Qaeda, in order to please Israeli factions that hoped to use the terrorist group to overthrow Iran's government.
"There were interests in the Pentagon, (neo-conservative members of the Bush administration) who thought the MEK could be the vehicle that would overthrow the government of Iran," the former official said, adding sarcastically, "the same way they had such great success with Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq."
Over CIA objections, Pentagon officials had fostered a relationship with Chalabi in hopes that he could establish himself as a leader of Iraqi dissidents in post-Saddam Iraq . Chalabi, however, was unable to deliver on his promises to unite the many dissident factions.
Those neo conservatives were all Israeli/Americans, led by Paul Wolfowitz, who were only interested in Israel's interests. America could have killed 2 birds with one stone. Had we made the exchange, we would have the members of al-Qaeda and the Iranian's would have dealt with the MEK terrorists. It was another case of the tail wagging the dog.
America has to divorce itself from the Israeli/Zionist power structure. They are bankrupting America.
So .. let me get this straight, Bush proposed to give Iranian despots dissidents that they wanted to kill and torture in exchange for AQ members who were already prisoners in Iran, and thus getting dealt with already.. Iran being no friend to AQ. We would get people we'd have to treat better than the Iranians were already treating them and, in return, we would help strengthen the odious Iranian regime. Please explain to me how this even remotely makes sense.
Oh.. but it's a Bush project, of course it doesn't make sense.
Uh California first - These despots were terrorists, who had killed Americans. Get it? We could have let Iran deal with the people who killed Americans, so we could get the al-Qaeda leaders and learn from them, as well as punish them.
The moron, Bush, wasn't interested in punishing al- Qaeda. He wanted to kow tow to the neocon/Jews and let al-Qaeda go.
I see a true antisemite can not even bash Bush without blaming it all on Jews.
When will they learn? If you release the Guantanamo detainees, they are fighting us again and killing Americans. obama and the dems showing how ignorant and incompetent they are again, along with the people who voted them back in. They all need to go.
Most of the politicians are after monies or favors from oil rich Sunni rulers, oil companies, Jewish right, Christian right for their election campaigns!
The above article is on Iran's role and it is a partial story. The worst role was played by Pakistan.
In Afghanistan, Pakis have backstabbed the US and NATO forces big time. Half of NATO forces deaths are due to ungrateful and backstabbing Pakis.
When the NATO forces were entering Kandahar in 2001, Pakis airlifted key al-Qaida, Taliban, ISI and others militants by back door from Kandahar.
This includes Mullah Omar, Osama and many including Paki Haqqani militant network leaders.
Hope people remember about Pakis sheltering Osama.
With Iran's WMDs and oil price manipulations to higher levels as before and during Iraq wars (invented ones), I have doubts that some will ever learn!
The article is about Bush and not Obama.
mark
The only one showing there ignorant here is you. Well maybe lee and ido also. You three are the only ones who doesn't seem to know who was in office in 2002 and 2003. Or just can't read.
And who did you vote for Romney? Let's face it, both republicans and democrats have been incompetent for years. At least I voted to try something new. Gary Johnson.
Interesting that NBC quotes members of The Liar Group -- Rumsfeld!! and Tenet!! -- like they have some sort of credibility. HA!
Like NBC has credibility. HA!
Remember when Rumsfeld told us of all those al Qaeda super-bunkers?! Here is the illustration our propaganda services displayed. HA! http://thesinosaudiblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mountain-fortr.gif
I don't know man, we have entered some new strange world-HNBC, MSNBC Once is happenstance, twice is enemy action.
One might consider Iran's recent 'sucking up to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt' as certainly a probable place to dump off has-been al-qaeda people when the Jihadists there who Obama is giving arms to will gladly accept them. Especially since the Muslim Brotherhood we are so anxious to support in Syria is also allied with Al-Qaeda. It's little wonder Al-Qaeda has lots and lots of cash. They get it thru proxy of the Muslim Brotherhood courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
operation
You forgot Project Gunrunner (operation wide receiver) and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
No prisoners, no problem. obama, what a joke........idiot libs.
I see a budding and blooming romance between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. So far our answer has been to give them F-16's helicopter, tank parts, 1.5 billion to the Egyptian MB and 60 million to the Syrian MB. Pretty soon, Al-Qaeda won't need Boeing 737's. They can just use F-16's. I can't help but wonder what Iran has done to get a "pass" from Al-Qaeda. What do we need ? Hagel to say, "Al-Qaeda is out there." ?? We might need that now that we know we're at war - still.
Bush couldn't even screw things up this bad.
@Perry
Want to make a cash bet on that? Bush DID screw things up worse. And what are the GOP and their low informed base of lap dogs so scared of having people, terrorists or not, tried in criminal courts in the US?
So far, not one of the lap dogs posting here will give a coherent answer to that question. The blind shiek was tried in a criminal court, found guilty, and is serving a life sentence in solitary confinment. In Gitmo, the prisoners get time together, can play soccer, and enjoy the weather, etc etc. Is it because Obama wants it done that way? And thus, it's an automatic NO from the lap dogs and their masters? Sure seems like it.
Everyone (including myself) loves to bitch about the problem. But, how many of us are prepared to offer solutions ? Since part of my formula requires that our politicans become born-again patriots instead of self-indulgent and self-serving scumbags and corrupt, and actually start showing leadership, it might be a non-starter. However, I suggest we pull all assets from the middle-east and from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Move every military asset totally out of the region. After that, make it known that if we're messed with, we'll be sending them a clear message. From Missouri. We do not have to be centrally located anymore to reach out and touch someone like Ma Bell. If we are totally out of the region, then, the Jihadists have no cause for action. Let it implode !
'Bush screw up'. carter and obama....two idiots that made the US look like a joke.
I just don;t understand how we as a nation can even think about talks with a terroriest group that is intent to kill any American or westerner... these terrorists are cowards at most with guns... talks are not going to change their murderous mindsets... they must be dealt with extreme prejudice...
Obama Bin Laden. Keep in mind our president is not an American born citizen. His Muslim brothers back him all the way.
@xsvenom
Maybe he wasn't born here. But then again neither was Mitt born here. And keep in mind that means neither are American born citizen. And neither was McCain born here.
Now, just how stupid are a birther are you? Even the normal lap dogs are laughing their butts off at you. Go kiss Oily Taint's taint, will you?
Bill Cassey from the Regan campaign talk to Iran about holding the American hostages until after the 1980 election.The Hostages were released as Reagan took the oath .The president of Iran at that time ,wrote about this meeting in the christian science monitor .Bill Casey later became head of the CIA.Talk about treason .The Reagan sold weapons to Iran.
Reagan should have stayed out of it and iran iraq eliminate each other.
.
Please allow me to explain something to those of you who may not realize this but are certainly smart enough to comprehend. The difference between our active military members and veterans can be simply described. Once you become a veteran, you suddenly have re-inherited the right to free speech. You transcend over time and use your wisdom, experiences and knowledge to better understand the problems and the 'dark side' of our congressional leaders. Few people listen to the veterans. They'd rather listen to the 'suits.' There's a vast difference between having your ass in the grass and doing it and living it and suffering the consequences from war than being a 'suit' and propagandizing our citizens with rhetoric. Our leadership could care less about the soldier. Despite what they preach. It is the veterans they fear. We are wise to them. But, they know people will not listen to us. We as a people have failed, because we allow our politicians to use our military like pawns and for political and personal agendas. As a people, we prefer to be in denial and hope they can do better some day. Despite the fact they might get us all killed. Most veterans will tell you that the entire middle-east and especially Afghanistan and Pakistan is a lost cause, and we should be thinking about America first and quit fooling ourselves. I hate war worst than my ex-wife. But, I one day realized I needed, yes, to finish what I started. So, I divorced the bitch. And, moved on. And, yes, I lost. Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you. Being a 100% disabled combat veteran after 23 years in the army, I've chosen foreign affairs as my study and hobby. Being a Vietnam Vet especially gives me the ensight of why few normal human beings should never make the same mistake twice. We got bin Laden. Now, we need to go home. How hard is that to get ?
In 2002 and 2003 Al Qaeda and the Taliban escaped into Iran was on the news, there were theories then that Osama Bin Laden had also gone to Iran, as well as Iraq. There were talks that were on the news of the Bush administration talking with Iran on releasing the al qaeda that fled to their country. During that period I am sure that MSNBC has those storys in their archives, as well.
Wars make strange bedfellows. I read about Reagan orchestrating the release of Hostages this is true, in world war II Franklin Roosevelt nd Joe Stalin plotted together behind Winston Churchhills back on overthrowing Adolph Hitler and who would get what. History is full of this, we find out more about it as it becomes declassified.
AL Qaeda has long been reported in South America, working with the Cartel we hear little about that now, but later it will come as a big surprise by the media.
Colombia rebels, al Qaeda in "unholy" drug alliance
www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/04/us-drugs-colombia-qaeda-interview-idUKTRE6034L920100104
08/21/2004 Latin America on alert for terror
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-08-21-terror-lamerica_x.htm
01/15/2010 Air Al Qaeda: Are Latin America's drug cartels giving Al Qaeda a lift?
www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0115/Air-Al-Qaeda-Are-Latin-America-s-drug-cartels-giving-Al-Qaeda-a-lift
03/09/2010 Venezuela linked to terror groups
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/9/venezuela-linked-to-terror-groups/?page=all
@cit liberty
Al Qaeda has been involved in S. America for several years, and it has been reported a time or two. A lot of people do know this, but a lot more DON'T know this. Most of South and Central America is Catholic, and they do not like Muslims.
Sooner or later, most likely later, the countries south of us will take matters into their own hands and destroy most of the al Qaeda there. And yes, war does make strange bedfellows.
Saudi Arabia doesn't want to get their hands dirty & risk the bombing of their holy cities of Mecca & Medina; so they want their GOP Friends to "man handle" Iran and the former leaders of Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, & soon to be Syria. Osama bin Laden (Saudi born hero) was armed, trained, & financed by the CIA during the Afghanistan War with the USSR. The Saudi Royals are pulling the strings on the U.S. Government to have their way in the Middle East, & have been doing it for decades.
Obviously its not so secret if the talks reached the media?
I wouldn't believe an Iranian if I were up to my knees in sand and surrounded by camels, and they said I was in the desert.
"Curious" George W. still needs to be charged with war crimes.
We are the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. We make all others look like three stooges!!! Come on you SHEEPLE there is no such a thing as democracy, it is only a vague theory used to manipulate the masses. It is only the bread and circuses that they want you to think about!!!!All we want is the masses to work and pay their taxes, drink some BUD, watch some football and half naked girls prancing around in our heads!!!
If you really want to understand what is going on watch Zietgiest the movie, there are 3 movies. it explains the world domination plan pretty well