As He Later Acknowledged, That Evidence Was “Flawed”

Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003 claimed that Iraq was holding stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. Mario Tama/Getty Image

What follows is a story that anyone who knows me, and lots of people who don’t, have heard many times in the past 23 years.

On 20 March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq. That invasion was called “Shock and Awe,” and was characterized by the use of overwhelming military force against a Mideast country with an army not as technologically advanced as our own. The goal, at least as announced at the time, was to dismantle the existing regime, and while no one publicly put forward what/who would replace that toppled government, it seemed clear that the United States hoped to replace Saddam Hussein with a more US friendly leader.

At least that rationale was clear if you took the Bush Administration’s word for it. I had a different take on the Bush administration rationale. I was not in the military, not in the U.S. Department of State and nowhere near senior enough to be part of any strategy session. I was, however, at a pivotal place as the Bush Administration began putting together the reason we were going to spend blood and treasure to “liberate” Iran from Saddam. I was the Chief of a group at the Central Intelligence Agency’s Operations Directorate that oversaw operations and work with the intelligence bureaucracy of the German government AND the German government had an emigre Iraqi source who claimed to know that the Iraqis had developed biological weapons.

In the fall of 2002, the most senior officers in the Operations Directorate, decided that we ought to have a review of that source; the individual who provided detailed information about how and where and what the biological weapon was. Because that source had emigrated (not defected, emigrated) to Germany, it fell to me to vet the source and his access, and determine the truth (and value) of his story and his information.

It took about a month for us to gather the 100 plus pieces of information that he had provided, and during that month, we looked for, but could find only very little information on the source himself. It did not appear that anyone, either in the US or German government, had collected much biographic data on this source, or if it had been collected, no one saw fit to forward it with his intelligence product.

The bottom line, as everyone who’s ever had any contact with me at all knows, is that I, with the help of officers assigned to my group, determined that this source was lying. There was no information on where he’d been educated or which subjects relating to biological (or any other sort) weapons. There was no information on where he obtained the information he provided us, and there was no information on how he left Iraq. A person with his claimed access should have found it difficult to simply walk out of Iraq, which was, according to everything the Germans or we understood, was exactly what he had done.

Without going into detail which is widely available, the officers who were reading his reports and putting them out as intelligence argued against our conclusion, and senior management chose to ignore the conclusion that we had come to, at their request.

Colin Powell made the argument that Iraq had mobile biological weapons at the UN on 5 February 2003, and it seemed clear that the Bush Administration was going to invade Iraq, with or without a believable reason for doing so. For months after the actual invasion the rationales for war included Iraqi-sponsored terrorism, Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with Osama bin Laden, Bush Jr. avenging Bush Sr., to grab Iraqi oil, and in response to other perceived threats, which were never very clearly explained. I never read or heard, a good rationale for taking the United States, several allied countries, and some 150,000 to 250,000 US troops into Iraq, and for accepting hundreds of thousands of casualties, allied and enemy.

(In late April, 2003, the allies found the mobile trailers that had, allegedly, carried Iraqi biological weapons through Iraq. In fact, the trailers carried equipment to manufacture hydrogen gas for artillery balloons. These balloons have been used for battlefield observation and reconnaissance. The stated reason for the United States to invade and begin a 20 year war was clearly incorrect. And the real reason justifying that war was never adequately explained.)

On February 28, 2026, some 23 years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu jointly led an invasion of Iran. That invasion was called Epic Fury and was characterized by the use of overwhelming military force against a Mideast country with an army more technologically advanced than Iraq’s in 2003.

The reasons given for that invasion are as disjointed and often as questionable as those that were given for Iraq. Whatever the rationale, it was and will be used to justify the invasion to the citizens of the United States and the citizens of Israel who face direct consequences, and the citizens of the rest of the world, who will face less direct, but still difficult consequences.

And, whatever the rationale, in 23 years or 7 more days, it will not make any more sense than it does right now. Lives will be lost and treasure will be spent on the sides of the combatants as well as nations that are bystanders. The lives of civilians, worldwide, will be negatively impacted by loss of access to oil, and the resulting trade issues will have extensive consequences. For what, exactly?

And, so it begins again.

Margaret Henoch served in the Clandestine Service of the CIA for 25 years, at Headquarters and in the field as Chief of Station, focusing on operations and counterintelligence and retiring as a Senior Intelligence Officer. She is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.