Hirsh: Let’s talk about some news this week. The new Saudi king will not be attending President Obama’s summit at Camp David. Isn’t that a terrible blow to Obama and an indication of a serious rift between the two countries?
Morell: I’d be a little careful in saying that this is an intentional snub. We may learn in next 24 or 48 hours that it’s really health reasons or something. … But having said that, there is deep, deep frustration on the part of our Sunni Arab allies in the Middle East with U.S. policy. They are deeply concerned about Iran and the challenges it poses. To them Iran is a much bigger threat than al Qaeda and ISIS. They’re worried about us from two perspectives. Are we taking Iran as seriously as we should? And are we as focused on Iran’s regional behavior as we are on the nuclear program? The deeper fear they have is that over time the United States sees Iran as a more natural partner than the Sunni Arabs. You see these deep concerns reflected in what they say and do. My view, strongly held, is that we should be helping them push back against the Iranian desire for dominance in the region.
Hirsh: You don’t think we’re doing a good enough job of that?
Morell: No, I don’t.
Hirsh: The investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is out with a new article in the London Review of Books that says the U.S. has been lying about the bin Laden mission—that in fact the Pakistanis knew all about it beforehand.
Morell: I read about a third of it, and then I actually put it down, because everything I read was wrong. His source has no idea what he’s talking about. … First of all it’s not true that we paid some Pakistani $25 million to tell us where Osama bin Laden was. It’s absolutely not true. The story of us following the courier to get to bin Laden is the true story. … I sat in the situation room when the president made the decision not to tell the Pakistanis.
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/michael-morell-interview-cia-impending-terror-attack-117821.html#ixzz3ZsBMnl8N
