Yes, like you I watch Iran with anxiety. You’ve given me detailed descriptions which portray your extensive knowledge of what is going on. Such knowledge rarely reaches the pages of our newspapers. Your words showed an almost corrosive, cynical pessimism and your speculations will possibly become hard reports. The potentiality of certain things are always present. Much, I suspect, is suppressed by the Governments in question. Those you have recently spoken to have frighteningly intense, fanatical aspirations and such fanaticism will continue to stir such forces within the Middle East. There is no doubt that Iran gently stirs a simmering pot; an insidious process which coalesces the discontents and gropes further into the masses who are filled with discontent and impatience. Time is playing on their side.
Regarding Iran, yes I have seen new reports regarding the Saudi bombing. There is little doubt in my mind that Iran was involved but how deep that commitment was remains unknown. Getting the evidence is the problem. Iran has increasingly extended their range of activities across the region and they have become discriminating in their dealings.

You’ve brought a unique perspective to the assessment concerning Saudi. The result of which illustrates the challenge of the increasing impact of such activities not only in Saudi but in the ME generally. What you’ve written mirrors my own views. Nothing in the analysis would indicate a more pessimistic outlook. The convergence of the groups mentioned can be regarded as raising their potential and increased activity can be expected in the areas I’ve highlighted on the regional map. If what you have written evolves as expected, it will become increasingly difficult to gain an unequivocal assessment of Iran’s capabilities. Is such a response as you’ve mentioned appropriate for responding to what is to be an operation of aggression and which also runs the risk of raising the prospect that may sew the seeds for significant instability in the region? Personally, I do not believe that it is an effective response and would contain further risk. There is nothing inherently wrong in advocating reprisal attacks but we should not endorse such action for the sake of it.

Your second point should provide some room for manoeuvre. The analysis indicates that there will be an increase in acts of terrorism. You’ve emphasised the risks but such action as you’ve recommended would entail a higher level of risk? Surely the key is to avoid introducing something that increases the risk of further outbreaks of violence? In order to assess whether such an event will be repeated it would be useful to consider the forces underlying the problem. Regarding your fifth point such factors may be offsetting the fact that there is more equipment available which would theoretically maximise the potential for further incidents. Regarding your tenth point, the development echoes an important trend that has prevailed for sometime and enhanced capability combined with changes previously cited in the assessment are behind their more aggressive moves.

In the time available it’s not possible to provide an full overview of all the issues, but I have mentioned a few above and I attach more details separately. In assessing the separate reports , I found that there were a number of fundamental questions. For example, to what extent do the reports contain a balanced assessment? How comprehensive is the analysis? Are the Saudis seeking to reinforce their own interests? (It is not too difficult to understand the Saudi reaction or why they may be anxious to protect and perhaps enhance US involvement). There is a lot to encourage the idea that there must have been a master plan behind the bombing but there is no real supporting evidence that Iran gave the order. I believe the bombing involves a much wider conspiracy than the single group which actually executed it. It is more than possible that the group moved from the realm of ideas to the realm of action though such an order would have to have come from a higher position of authority.

I found the Estimate to be overly complicated and perhaps a little too dynamic and in general I have been a little disappointed in what I have read. (It is a little disappointing that it focussed on action rather than attempting to address the likely future course of events.) I also found though in many ways plausible the theory does not stand up and there are many weaknesses in the report. It would seem that some aspects of the official Saudi version require a good deal of explanation.

There’s no doubt that the Saudis need to improve their transparency and ensure that the US have greater access to all the necessary information and those involved. It would seem that the Saudis are putting a case for reprisal action to be taken without attempting to adopt a more forward looking perspective which I believe is necessary if the various issues are to be assessed properly. In my view the Saudis need to accept more responsibility for the conditions that currently prevail. I attach further notes for your review.

Do you recall the above? The past becomes today even though the past was as before - nothing has changed