>>> Croda -5.4% on the last 7days - Spec. Chem. still interesting sector

Croda has perfect size for a quick deal...Orgnaic Growth interesting..helping the sentiment on valuation...see note from Credit Suisse today PT 3,200


CS : note attached.
Structural and Cyclical Tailwinds
■ We make minor earnings changes (<1%), retain our target price of
£32/share and reiterate our Outperform rating. We believe that Croda can
sustain the recent acceleration in organic growth supported by structural
and cyclical tailwinds. Importantly, these trends were reiterated during
our recent opportunity to spend time on the road with management.
■ Structural Tailwind: We believe the recent (above average) internal investment
in headcount (c500), infrastructure (capex 1.5x dep) and new product pipeline is
now yielding returns. Improving productivity, utilisation rates and product
launches should continue to drive growth 200-300bps above market. We
estimate this supports an average >5% EPS growth.
■ Cyclical Tailwinds: We estimate the growing market share of mid-tier personal
care customers (c50% rev) will help support innovation/formulation for Croda.
This should offset downtrading at branded multinationals (c20% rev) which
continue to push mass market (lower value) product. We forecast a net £10mn
EBIT benefit from oil and stabilising currency impact in 2015.
■ Shareholder Returns: We forecast robust cash flow generation (£130mn FCFF
2015E) after growth capex. This provides Croda the opportunity to return
>£150mn cash to shareholders while maintaining its new leverage target (1-1.5x
EBITDA) and optimal balance sheet gearing.
■ Room to rerate: Our warranted valuation for Croda is >15x EBITDA based on
our comparison of relative growth, returns and yield metrics to peers. We believe
Croda's product and formulation offering justifies a blended valuation of Specialty
Chemicals (10-12x) and HPC customers (18-20x). Above market growth and
sustained returns support a re-rating, in our view.
■ Valuation: Our TP is the average of our SOTP and DCF. Croda trades on a 9%
discount to its historical range vs peers.

>>> Croda -5.4% on the last 7days - Spec. Chem. still interesting sector

Croda has perfect size for a quick deal...Orgnaic Growth interesting..helping the sentiment on valuation...see note from Credit Suisse today PT 3,200


CS : note attached.
Structural and Cyclical Tailwinds
■ We make minor earnings changes (<1%), retain our target price of
£32/share and reiterate our Outperform rating. We believe that Croda can
sustain the recent acceleration in organic growth supported by structural
and cyclical tailwinds. Importantly, these trends were reiterated during
our recent opportunity to spend time on the road with management.
■ Structural Tailwind: We believe the recent (above average) internal investment
in headcount (c500), infrastructure (capex 1.5x dep) and new product pipeline is
now yielding returns. Improving productivity, utilisation rates and product
launches should continue to drive growth 200-300bps above market. We
estimate this supports an average >5% EPS growth.
■ Cyclical Tailwinds: We estimate the growing market share of mid-tier personal
care customers (c50% rev) will help support innovation/formulation for Croda.
This should offset downtrading at branded multinationals (c20% rev) which
continue to push mass market (lower value) product. We forecast a net £10mn
EBIT benefit from oil and stabilising currency impact in 2015.
■ Shareholder Returns: We forecast robust cash flow generation (£130mn FCFF
2015E) after growth capex. This provides Croda the opportunity to return
>£150mn cash to shareholders while maintaining its new leverage target (1-1.5x
EBITDA) and optimal balance sheet gearing.
■ Room to rerate: Our warranted valuation for Croda is >15x EBITDA based on
our comparison of relative growth, returns and yield metrics to peers. We believe
Croda's product and formulation offering justifies a blended valuation of Specialty
Chemicals (10-12x) and HPC customers (18-20x). Above market growth and
sustained returns support a re-rating, in our view.
■ Valuation: Our TP is the average of our SOTP and DCF. Croda trades on a 9%
discount to its historical range vs peers.

WWD : Johann Rupert Talks Robots, AI and Luxury in Monaco

Rupert controls the world's largest jewelry maker, Cie. Financiere Richemont, through a family trust. The Bellevue, Switzerland-based company's brands include Van Cleef & Arpels, Piaget and Cartier. The family also controls Stellenbosch, South Africa-based Remgro, which has investments in more than 30 companies, including Unilever South Africa, FirstRand, and Reinet Investments.

MONTE CARLO, Monaco — What keeps luxury titan Johann Rupert awake at night?

Plenty.

The advent of robots, artificial intelligence and the Internet of things threaten to tear the current social fabric and exacerbate what is already high structural unemployment.

“It’s going to be more important than e-commerce and clicks-versus-bricks,” the chairman of Compagnie Financière Richemont SA told the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit here Monday in a keynote address. “How is society going to cope with shrinking employment? I don’t know what kind of social pact we’ll have, but we better find one. Our clients will be targeted, hated. They’ll be despised. The people with money will not want to show it.

“That’s what keeps me up at night, not whether e-commerce is going to cause me problems,” he added. “Hopefully, we can survive it, because we’re planning for it.”

The outspoken executive, dressed in a blue linen suit and toting a brown alligator briefcase from Cartier, took issue with recent reports suggesting he is skeptical about online selling. “Of course, I believe in e-commerce,” he told about 380 attendees gathered in a mirrored ballroom at the Sporting Monte-Carlo.

Rupert also believes in scale, the rationale behind the recent merger of Richemont’s Net-a-porter business with Italy’s Yoox Group. “It’s too big a game so that any one company can try and dominate it,” he said, also dismissing speculation that Richemont was once in talks to sell Net-a-porter to Amazon.

“Amazon was never interested in buying,” he said. “It was a created rumor by someone who wanted to sell shares.”

Rupert also publicly invited his biggest luxury rivals to invest in the combined Net-a-porter/Yoox Group, along with a new platform to showcase artisanal luxury. While short on specifics about the latter project, he said he placed calls to Bernard Arnault, chairman and chief executive officer of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, and his counterpart at Kering, François-Henri Pinault.

“I told them, ‘I don’t want you to blame me afterward for not inviting you. I think it’s in your interest. It’s certainly in all of our interests. It’s run totally neutrally,’” he said. “I don’t think any of us on our own can do it. I just want it to be free for everybody. We need a platform that is big enough for the luxury industry that is neutral.”

Yoox already has a joint venture with Kering, and has partnered with a range of brands including LVMH’s Pucci as well as Giorgio Armani and Valentino, but none are yet stakeholders.

After the meeting, Rupert told WWD: “I’d rather be a small shareholder in a big growing business that’s really working.”

And he described the artisan corner as an offshoot similar to Outnet, the off-price arm of Net-a-porter.

Federico Marchetti, founder and ceo of Yoox, told WWD he shares Rupert’s view that size is everything, describing it as “one of the reasons we did the merger” with Net-a-porter. “To be on top of the game, you need to have scale,” he said, touting, for example, the combined investments of Yoox and Net-a-porter in infrastructure.

“Combined, we can push the accelerator and we can have better technology together,” he said. “In order to have the best platform, it’s better to be big.”

As part of the merger, Net-a-porter and Yoox are plotting a capital increase of 200 million euros, or $225.1 million at current exchange, in which Richemont’s luxury rivals could participate.

Spokesmen for LVMH and Kering declined to comment on Rupert’s invitation on Monday.

Set to be finalized in September, the merger will give Richemont a 50 percent stake in Yoox Net-A-porter Group, and 25 percent of the company’s voting rights. The new Yoox Net-a-porter Group, a fashion e-commerce behemoth with revenues of 1.3 billion euros, or $1.45 billion, is to be quoted on the Milan bourse.

It is unclear whether Rupert might be willing to tender any more of Richemont’s stake, should other European luxury players come knocking and wish to invest.

In a wide-ranging address that held the room rapt, Rupert touched on everything from the threat of the Apple Watch and France’s dire need for an economic overhaul to the outsized greed of landlords, especially in Asia.

He also recounted his early brushes with luxury in the Seventies, when he was working for Lazard Freres in New York, and went into business with an entrepreneur who sold plastic lighters with a special nonleaking valve.

“I remember those days. We had no Internet, no mobile phones, forget laptops,” he said, prompting chuckles in the room, given the conference theme of “Technology, Legacy and the New Consumers.”

At that time, “luxury goods were not sexy,” Rupert said. “In those days, you couldn’t fill up a room like this if you advertised for 10 years.”

He noted his family — Rupert is the eldest son of South African business tycoon Anton Rupert — were early importers of Apple computers back in the mid-Eighties, predating its investments in watch firms such as Officine Panerai and IWC that transformed Richemont, founded in 1988, into one of the industry’s largest players in hard luxury.

Rupert also founded an investment bank in South Africa dealing in promissory notes and commercial paper.

Dealing in such diverse businesses “gives me an insider, but also an outsider’s, view on luxury goods,” he said.

To gain further insights into how technology could lead to social upheaval, Rupert urged the audience to read “The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies,” a book by Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, and to watch the short Internet documentary film: “Humans Need Not Apply” to understand the potential impact of technology on how we live and how business is conducted.

“It changed my thinking and it has lead me into a different thought process,” he said. “We’re heading for a big change in society. Get used to it and be prepared.

“I don’t know what kind of social pact we’ll have, but we better find one,” Rupert added, describing a new age of abundance, thanks to automation and technology, that will collide with a widening wealth gap and disappearing middle class.

He said this wave of automation in the “second machine age” is the “single biggest thing that is going to hit us.”

“This is exponential, it’s digital, it’s combinatorial,” he said. “This is not science fiction, folks, it’s happening. Driverless cars? It’s happening. It’s going to put hundreds of millions of people out of work.”

“Hairdressers will be employed. Florists will be employed. Doctors who do diagnostic work will be employed,” Rupert said. “It’s not obvious who will lose their jobs.

“I think e-commerce is dwarfed by what’s going to hit the world with artificial intelligence and bots and the Internet of things,” he continued. “I read about it as much as I can, but it’s going so fast.”

Rupert lamented that Europe is not very competitive, with France at the top of the list, arguing the country “stopped improving” by strangling itself with a 35-hour work week and Byzantine legislation that takes years to get a company out of liquidation, for example.

“They need a Thatcher-like revolution,” he said of France, noting he’s only envious of the lifestyle, not the business climate.

Asked his opinion on the Apple Watch, a question lobbed frequently over the first day of the two-day gathering, Rupert said he’s refrained from commenting on it, given his friendship with Apple’s chief design officer Jonathan Ive and industrial designer Marc Newson, who contributed to the watch’s design.

“What I will say is that there’s a bit of confusion between technology and luxury in terms of value,” he said.

He described a plan for Cartier to introduce a mobile phone about eight years ago, which his son, then in a gap year during university, described as a folly, given that most people dispose of cell phones after a couple of years, and don’t think of getting it repaired.

“Are you mad? Cartier is not to be thrown away,” Rupert said, surmising that no luxury phone could be as peerless as a top-line Nokia. “Nor do you expect [a luxury client] to pay 17,000 and throw something away in two years. Don’t treat your clients like fools.”

Rupert said he expects Apple will do well, though he suggested that a Cartier or a Bulgari creation might rank as a more powerful anniversary present for a spouse, or even to a daughter graduating from college.

“That’s where I envy Patek Philippe ads so much,” he said, paraphrasing the sentiment that “you never really own it. It’s an investment.”

Despite some of his dire warnings, Rupert sounded sanguine, and noted that luxury goods have survived wars and depressions and are not apt to disappear. He said the best defense for luxury companies is to protect their brand DNA and brand equity, ensuring their pricing power.

While he said sly innovation is necessary in luxury goods, “one of the biggest compliments you can give me is that we don’t change at all,” he said. “If you don’t stay within your DNA, it won’t sell and it won’t keep its value.

“Luxury cannot be ubiquitous, it must be individual. We need style, we need desire, we need creativity,” he said, lauding the pivotal role of artisans capable of assembling fine watches and jewelry. “Hopefully these people will still be working in the second machine age.”

Rupert noted he shares his glass-half-full view with designer Ralph Lauren: “He said to me, ‘You are as paranoid as I am, aren’t you?’ I said, yes. If you have a healthy dose of paranoia, you’re going to survive.”

>>> Danone - CFO Talking at DBk Conf - see headlines --> BN -0.48%

*DANONE SEES DAIRY ACCELERATING IN 2H, CFO CABANIS SAYS
*DANONE CFO SAYS DIFFICULT ELN COMPARISON TO BE OFFSET BY DAIRY
*DANONE SEES BALANCED GROWTH BETWEEN 1H AND 2H, CFO SAYS
*DANONE CFO CABANIS SAYS CO. FOCUSED ON INTERNAL GROWTH
*DANONE CFO SAYS EUROPE DAIRY WILL PROGRESSIVELY IMPROVE
*DANONE CFO CECILE CABANIS SPEAKS AT DEUTSCHE BANK CONFERENCE

(BofA-ML) Waiting for the FED , FED rate increase likely in a few months

* Fed rate increase likely in a few months
We expect the Fed to begin raising rates in September, and to move slowly
compared to other tightening cycles. We expect the federal funds rate, now close to
zero, to be 1.5%-1.75% at the end of 2016. Our look at history finds few common
elements in how bonds performed during previous episodes of Fed tightening.
Events unique to the particular period appear to be much more important.

* Stocks can do well when the Fed raises rates
Our US Equity Strategy team concludes that higher rates are not necessarily a
negative for stocks. Years of debt restructuring and a wide gap between current
dividend yields and bond yields suggest that even higher yielding equities may
weather increases in rates better now than in prior tightening cycles.

* Small shift from cash to bonds
We are making a small allocation shift from cash to bonds, after the recent sharp
rise in bond yields. We have not turned bullish on bonds. Even after the change, our
allocation to bonds remains below our benchmark.

* Emerging markets shift from China to India
China has been one of our favorite equity markets and has performed strongly so
far in 2015. We suggest that investors take the price gains as an opportunity to pare
back exposure and re-distribute to India.

* Industrial strength Internet of Things (IoT)
Strategist Matthew Trapp summarizes an in-depth report that analyzes how the IoT
is making industrial companies more competitive, specifically with regard to
industrial automation, the smart factory and the Industrial Internet.

* America’s non-lethal weapon
In our guest column, Commodities Strategist Francisco Blanch discusses the
possible repeal of the ban on crude oil exports from the US. Blanch argues that the
collapse in domestic gasoline and crude oil prices, along with the prospect of lifting
crude oil export sanctions on Iran, increase the likelihood of repeal in the US.

(BofA-ML) Europe Strat: Markets getting oversold – risk of sharp rally on a deal

Greece lightning strikes again! (Full Note Attached)

* Equities being buffeted by risks of a Greek “accident”…
Three weeks ago we upgraded our stance on markets from tactically cautious to
cautiously constructive as the rise in bund yields and the euro had gone far enough. The
main reason for the ongoing caution was Greece, as we found few investors really
focused on it at that time. That has changed markedly in the past few weeks, as the
risks of a Greek “accident” have increased. Last week we saw a stand-off between the
EU authorities and Greece’s government. Our economist’s central case remains that a
deal is done but it is going to be a bumpy ride for markets in the near term.

* …and a marked increase in bond volatility
Volatility in the bond market has added to investor nervousness, not helped by Mr
Draghi’s comments last week. Our economists think markets overreacted to this and
that the ECB has no desire to see bond yields significantly higher. Low rates and a
low euro remain key to the ECB QE programme’s success, so we see limited scope
for either to move markedly higher without the ECB coming in to calm things down.

* Markets getting oversold – risk of sharp rally on a deal
In April we said that markets were vulnerable because of the strong rally from
October of last year. With the DAX now 10% off its April high, we believe markets
offer a better risk-reward profile. Should an agreement be reached on Greece, we
would expect a sharp rally of the order of 5%. As we have said before, we see
downside risks being limited, even in the event of an “accident”, because the ECB is
able to intervene to limit the risk of contagion.

* Banks still our preferred overweight
Banks would probably be the sector to benefit most from the end to uncertainty.
Notwithstanding the drop in markets since our first note of mid-April, it has been the
best performing sector. We see it as the sector best placed to benefit from the
ongoing European recovery.

* Retain overweights in Industrials, Utilities and Oils
Industrials have also performed well since mid-April and we like it as a good value
way to play improving growth. Utilities have been mixed of late but we like the yield.
Oils have struggled since the end of April as oil prices have stalled but investors
remain heavily underweight and a rally in the sector would be a pain trade.

* Stay underweight Staples, Pharma and Autos
Our underweights in Staples and Pharma have worked, with the sectors starting to
suffer from the back-up in yields. We see them as ongoing candidates for rotation
as the recovery story manifests itself in better profit growth elsewhere. Investors
have started to wake up to concerns about over-exposure to China for German
autos and we feel the sector has more room to underperform.

(ZH) Ex-US Intelligence Officials Confirm: Secret Pentagon Report Proves US Comp

Link to Article : http://bit.ly/1QHtev9

Ex-US Intelligence Officials Confirm: Secret Pentagon Report Proves US Complicity In Creation Of ISIS

Two weeks ago, courtesy of the investigative work of Nafeez Ahmed whose deep dig through a recently declassified and formertly Pentagon documents released earlier by Judicial Watch FOIA, we learned that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad. In his words: "According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.
Now, in a follow up piece to his stunning original investigative report titled "Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion", Nafeez Ahmed reveals that according to leading American and British intelligence experts, the previously declassified Pentagon report confirms that the West accelerated support to extremist rebels in Syria, despite knowing full well the strategy would pave the way for the emergence of the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS).
The experts who have spoken out include renowned government whistleblowers such as the Pentagon’s Daniel Ellsberg, the NSA’s Thomas Drake, and the FBI’s Coleen Rowley, among others.
Their remarks demonstrate the fraudulent nature of claims by two other former officials, the CIA’s Michael Morell and the NSA’s John Schindler, both of whom attempt to absolve the Obama administration of responsibility for the policy failures exposed by the DIA documents.
This is Nafeez Ahmed's follow up story, originally posted in Medium
Ex-intel officials: Pentagon report proves US complicity in ISIS
Renowned government whistleblowers weigh in on debate over controversial declassified documen
Foreseeing ISIS
As I reported on May 22nd, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document obtained by Judicial Watch under Freedom of Information confirms that the US intelligence community foresaw the rise of ISIS three years ago, as a direct consequence of the support to extremist rebels in Syria.
The August 2012 ‘Information Intelligence Report’ (IIR) reveals that the overwhelming core of the Syrian insurgency at that time was dominated by a range of Islamist militant groups, including al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It warned that the “supporting powers” to the insurgency?—?identified in the document as the West, Gulf states, and Turkey —?wanted to see the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria to “isolate” the Assad regime.
The document also provided an extraordinarily prescient prediction that such an Islamist quasi-statelet, backed by the region’s Sunni states, would amplify the risk of the declaration of an “Islamic State” across Iraq and Syria. The DIA report even anticipated the fall of Mosul and Ramadi.
Divide and rule
Last week, legendary whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the former career Pentagon officer and US military analyst who leaked Pentagon papers exposing White House lies about the Vietnam War, described my Insurge report on the DIA document as “a very important story.”
In an extensive podcast interview, he said that the DIA document provided compelling evidence that the West’s Syria strategy created ISIS. The DIA, he said, “in 2012, was asserting that Western powers were supporting extremist Islamic groups in Syria that were opposing Assad…
“They were not only as they claimed supporting moderate groups, who were losing members to the more extremist groups, but that they were directly supporting the extremist groups. And they were predicting that this support would result in an Islamic State organization, an ISIS or ISIL… They were encouraging it, regarding it as a positive development, because it was anti-Assad, Assad being supported by Russia, but also interestingly China… and Iran… So we have China, Russia and Iran backing Assad, and the US, starting out saying Assad must go… What he [Nafeez Ahmed] is talking about, the DIA report, is extremely significant. It fits into a general framework that I’m aware of, and sounds plausible to me.”
Ellsberg also noted that “it’s pretty well known” in the intelligence community that Saudi Arabia sponsors Islamist terrorists to this day:
“It’s kind of a deal that the Saudis will support various Islamic extremists, all around the world, and the deal is that they [extremists] will not try to overthrow the corrupt, alcohol-drinking clique in Saudi Arabia.”
Ellsberg, who was a former senior analyst at RAND Corp, also agreed with the relevance of a 2008 US Army-commissioned RAND report, quoted in my Insurge story, and also examined in-depth for Middle East Eye.
The US Army-funded RAND report advocated a range of policy scenarios for the Middle East, including a “divide and rule” strategy to play off Sunni and Shi’a factions against each other, which Ellsberg describes as “standard imperial policy” for the US.
The RAND report even confirmed (p. 113) that its “divide and rule” strategy was already being executed in Iraq at the time:
“Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used a tactical level, as the United States now forms temporary alliances with nationalist insurgent groups that it had been fighting for four years… providing carrots in the form of weapons and cash. In the past, these nationalists have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces.”
The confirmed activation of this divide-and-rule strategy perhaps explains why the self-defeating US approach in Syria is fanning the flames of both sides: simultaneously allying with states like Turkey who have continued to covertly sponsor ISIS, while working with Assad through the Russians to fight ISIS. Ellsberg added:
“As Assad is the main opponent of ISIS, we are covertly coordinating our airstrikes against ISIS with Assad. So are we against Assad, or not? It’s ambivalent… I think that Obama and everybody around him is clear that they do not any longer as they’ve been saying want Assad to leave power. I don’t believe that that is their intention anymore, as they believe anyone who succeeds Assad would be far worse.”
If true, Ellsberg’s analysis exposes the deep-rooted hypocrisy of the previous campaign against Assad, the current campaign against ISIS, and why both appear destined for failure.
Frankenstein script
Coleen Rowley, retired FBI Special Agent described my report on the DIA document as “excellent.”
Rowley, who was selected as TIME ‘Person of the Year’ in 2002 after revealing how pre-9/11 intelligence was ignored by superiors at the FBI, said of the document:
“It’s like the mad power-hungry doctor who created Frankenstein, only to have his monster turn against him. It’s hard to feel sorry when the insane doctor gets his due. But in our case, that script is constantly repeating. The quest for ‘full spectrum dominance’ and blindness of exceptionalism seems to mean we are doomed to keep repeating the ‘Charlie Wilson’s Frankenstein War’ script… The various neocon warmongers and military industrial complex, most of them inept Peter Principles, just don’t care.”
Also commenting on the declassified Pentagon report, former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake?—?the whistleblower who inspired Edward Snowden?—?condemned “the West’s role in ISIS and threat of ‘violent extremists’, justifying surveillance and libercide at home.”
Wedge strategy
Alastair Crooke, a former senior MI6 officer who spent three decades at the agency,said yesterday that the DIA document provides clear corroboration that the US was covertly pursuing a strategy to drive an extremist Salafi “wedge” between Iran and its Arab allies.
The strategy was, Crooke confirms, standard thinking in the Western intelligence establishment for about a decade.
“The idea of breaking up the large Arab states into ethnic or sectarian enclaves is an old Ben Gurion ‘canard,’ and splitting Iraq along sectarian lines has been Vice President Biden’s recipe since the Iraq war,” wrote Crooke, who had coordinated British assistance to the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s. After his long MI6 stint, he became Middle East advisor to the European Union’s foreign policy chief (1997–2003).
“But the idea of driving a Sunni ‘wedge’ into the landline linking Iran to Syria and to Hezbollah in Lebanon became established Western group think in the wake of the 2006 war, in which Israel failed to de-fang Hezbollah,” continued Crooke. “The response to 2006, it seemed to Western powers, was to cut off Hezbollah from its sources of weapons supply from Iran…
“… In short, the DIA assessment indicates that the ‘wedge’ concept was being given new life by the desire to pressure Assad in the wake of the 2011 insurgency launched against the Syrian state. ‘Supporting powers’ effectively wanted to inject hydraulic fracturing fluid into eastern Syria (radical Salafists) in order to fracture the bridge between Iran and its Arab allies, even at the cost of this ‘fracking’ opening fissures right down inside Iraq to Ramadi. (Intelligence assessments purpose is to provide ‘a view’?—?not to describe or prescribe policy. But it is clear that the DIA reports’ ‘warnings’ were widely circulated and would have been meshed into the policy consideration.)
“But this ‘view’ has exactly come about. It is fact. One might conclude then that in the policy debate, the notion of isolating Hezbollah from Iran, and of weakening and pressurizing President Assad, simply trumped the common sense judgment that when you pump highly toxic and dangerous fracturing substances into geological formations, you can never entirely know or control the consequences… So, when the GCC demanded a ‘price’ for any Iran deal (i.e. massing ‘fracking’ forces close to Aleppo), the pass had been already partially been sold by the US by 2012, when it did not object to what the ‘supporting powers’ wanted.”

Intel shills
Crooke’s analysis of the DIA report shows that it is irrelevant whether or not “the West” should be included in the “supporting powers” described by the report as specifically wanting a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria. Either way, the report groups “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey” as supporting the Syrian insurgency together?—?highlighting that the Gulf states and Turkey operated in alliance with the US, Britain, and other Western powers.
The observations of intelligence experts Ellsberg, Rowley, and Drake add further weight to Crooke’s analysis. They come in addition to comments I had previously received on the DIA document from former MI5 counter-terrorism officer, Annie Machon, and former counter-terrorism intelligence officer, Charles Shoebridge.
The comments undermine the recent claims of disgraced US national security commentator, John Schindler, a retired NSA intelligence officer, to the effect that the August 2012 DIA report is “almost incomprehensible,” “so heavily redacted that its difficult to say much meaningful about it,” “Nothing special here, not one bit,” “routine,” “a single data point,” and so on.
Schindler cites the DIA’s use of ‘Curveball’?—?the Iraqi informant who fabricated claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?—?as evidence of the agency’s “less than stellar reputation.” But this misrepresents the fact noted by the CIA’s Valerie Plame Wilson that “it was widely known [in the intelligence community] that CURVEBALL was not a credible source and that there were serious problems with his reporting.”
As I’ve documented elsewhere, the WMD threat mythology was not the outcome of an ‘intelligence failure’, as Schindler and his ilk like to claim, but a consequence of the corruption and politicization of intelligence under the influence of dubious vested interests.
Also contrary to Schindler’s misinformation, an IIR provides raw intelligence data from human sources (HUMINT), not simply rumour, gossip or opinion. Before wider distribution, the IIR is vetted to determine whether it is worthy of dissemination to the intelligence community. IIRs then provide a source basis for evaluation, interpretation, analysis and integration with other information.
Far from justifying the dismissal of the relevance of the declassified DIA documents, this shows that urgent questions must be asked:
What happened to this raw intelligence data, described by six US UK intelligence experts as providing damning confirmation of how Western strategy led to the rise of ISIS?
And why did it not lead to a change in policy, despite DIA analysts’ clear warning of the outgrowth of an ISIS-entity from Western allies’ desire to see a ‘Salafist Principality’ in the region?—?a warning which was, in hindsight, quite accurate?

Are intel critics traitors?
Schindler previously characterized NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a traitorand “pawn… of America’s adversaries.”
He now declares that those who cite the DIA report as proof the intelligence community “knew more about the rise of the Islamic State than they let on” are at best “fools; at worst, they’re deceivers who have lied to the American people.”
On the contrary, six decorated former senior US and British intelligence officials, many with direct experience of IIRs and their function, agree that the DIA report provides significant insight into the kind of intelligence available to the US intelligence community at the time.
Yet for Schindler, it seems, Ellsberg, Drake, Rowley, Crooke, Machon and Shoebridge are all, effectively, traitors simply for lending their expertise to public understanding of the newly declassified documents.
As Marcy Wheeler points out in Salon, the large corpus of secret DIA documents obtained by Judicial Watch demonstrates, at the least, that:
“The Intelligence Community (IC) knew that AQI had ties to the rebels in Syria; they knew our Gulf and Turkish allies were happy to strengthen Islamic extremists in a bid to oust Assad; and CIA officers in Benghazi (at a minimum) watched as our allies armed rebels using weapons from Libya. And the IC knew that a surging AQI might lead to the collapse of Iraq. That’s not the same thing as creating ISIS. But it does amount to doing little or nothing while our allies had a hand in creating ISIS. All of which ought to raise real questions about why we’re still allied with countries willfully empowering terrorist groups then, and how seriously they plan to fight those terrorist groups now. Because while the CIA may not have deliberately created ISIS, it sure seems to have watched impassively as our allies helped to do so.”
However, Wheeler overlooks that the reliance on foreign allies is a standard proxy war strategy?—?as Ellsberg explained in his interview?—?used by the covert operations arm of the US government to guarantee ‘plausible deniability.’
As I noted in my Middle East Eye analysis of the DIA document, there is extensive evidence against which to contextualize the DIA report’s assertions. This evidence shows that the CIA did not merely watch “impassively” as the Gulf states and Turkey supported violent extremists in Syria, but actively supervised, facilitated and accelerated this policy.
The August 2012 DIA document further corroborates this by repeatedly pointing out that the support to the Syrian insurgency from its allies was itself backed by “the West”?—?despite awareness of their intent to establish an extremist Salafi political entity.
While the DIA document was, indeed, just one data-point, analyzing it in context with the other DIA reports along with incontrovertible facts in the public record, establishes that the Pentagon was complicit in its allies’ support of Islamist terrorists, despite recognizing this could create an “Islamic State” in Iraq and Syria.
These revelations show that the real traitors are not the courageous whistleblowers who sacrifice everything to speak out on behalf of the public interest, but shameless shills like Schindler and Morell who willfully sanitize a dysfunctional and dangerous ‘national security’ system from legitimate public scrutiny.



Dr Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. A former Guardian writer, he writes the ‘System Shift’ column for VICE’s Motherboard, and is also a columnist for Middle East Eye. He is the winner of a 2015 Project Censored Award, known as the ‘Alternative Pulitzer Prize’, for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian work, and was selected in the Evening Standard’s ‘Power 1,000’ most globally influential Londoners.

Nafeez has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist, Counterpunch, Truthout, among others. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010), and the scifi thriller novel ZERO POINT, among other books. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest.