Iranian Revolutionary Guards

The assignment they gave me to undertake would have been dangerous for any Iranian. But I was not just any Iranian. I was a member of the dreaded Sepah-e-Pasdaran, the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards.

If they caught me I knew what would happen. I had seen what they did to spies and to those who opposed the government. The Guards drugged them, raped their wives and children in front of them, and gouged out their eyeballs, all in an effort to get them to talk. I thought of my wife, Somayam and shuddered.

As they did every day, the visions came to me of what I had witnessed in the infamous Evin Prison, where the government kept political detainees. They’d paraded teenage girls in front of me as they led them to their deaths. These girls were barely out of childhood, barely old enough to think for themselves, much less form thoughts against the state.

Agent Clark startled me out of my thoughts. “There is one other thing, and I don’t want you to take it personally. It’s just part of the procedure we have to go through.” He cleared his throat. “You’ll have to undergo a lie-detector test.”

“Is your name Reza Kahlili?”

“Yes.”

“Are you twenty-seven years old?”

“Yes.”

“Were you born in Iran?”

“Yes.”

“Are you married?”

“Yes.”

“Do you work for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards?”

“Yes.”

“Did they ask you to come here?”

“No.”

“Have you been inside Evin Prison?”

“Yes.”

“Do the interrogators rape virgins before they’re executed?”

“I…I didn’t realize Agent Clark would be telling you…”

“Yes or no, please”

I swallowed as memories tumbled one after the other. Parvaneh’s last look at me. Roya’s letter. “Yes. They rape the virgins before they are executed because they believe virgins are sent straight to heaven.”

Good book.

Oh snap. I will be picking this up for certain. No doubt it will infuriate me.

And they eat LITTLE BABYS!

WITH MUSTARD!!

Looks interesting.

And it looks like there is a fair amount of skepticism.

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

Some in attendance compared Kahlili with Ahmed Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile who helped convince the George W. Bush administration that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the claims were proved false.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano, who was not present, challenged the some of Kahlili’s implications.

?As our government as a whole has made clear, Iran?s nuclear program is a high-priority security issue. It would be wrong for anyone to suggest that the United States doesn?t recognize that.?

A U.S. counter-proliferation official, who would discuss the highly sensitive issue only on condition of anonymity, dismissed Kahlili?s uranium claims.

?We?ve had real successes in acquiring some of the Iranian government?s most tightly held secrets, including discovery of its concealed enrichment facility near Qom,? the official said. ?But things like 90-percent enrichment just don?t tally out.? [/i]

Dudes, calm your raging boners.

Chances are, it’s propaganda.

For what it’s worth, the other side enjoys reading similar books.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
And they eat LITTLE BABYS!

WITH MUSTARD!!

[/quote]

Well, they have over one thousand suitcase nukes all over Europe and America, ready to blow us to bits, I say they can eat all the babies they want.

And just imagine that a “think tank” established by AIPAC would draw the most deluded, foaming at the mouth lunatic in front of the curtain right about now…

The voices are getting a bit shrill right now, arent they?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

[/quote]

Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?

The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.”

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

[/quote]

Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?

The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.” [/quote]

Thousands of suitcase nukes!

THOUSANDS!!!

And a DEATHRAY on a DEATHSTAR, protected by an IMPENETRABLE FORCE FIELD which is projected from Endor I believe…

People need to grasp so hard for an excuse for mass murder these days, I blame mass media.

And as always, fluoride in the drinking water.

‘Eventually, I found one of Kahlili’s former case officers, who described him as “legit” and “a very brave guy.”’

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

[/quote]

Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?

The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.” [/quote]

Thousands of suitcase nukes!

THOUSANDS!!![/quote]

He made no such claim. If you go to the actual speech and read it in context you will see he was talking hypothetically and about the strategy. There was never any suggestion that he was talking literally about the numbers. It’s clearly a figure of speech - he said:

‘Now to a lot of people here in the West think this is crazy talk. But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it? The other side of the coin is that, let’s say that they have a rational mind, let’s say that they are interested in survival, let’s say they just want to use it as a source to protect their government, to become untouchable. The proliferation is going to become a disaster, and I was at the front row seats of Mohsen Razaei when they brought out the new strategy which was numbers - meaning a thousand small groups of small boats is going to cause a threat. A thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the US is going to pose a threat. You are not going to get a handle on the proliferation. They are going to be untouchable. They are going to pass it on to Hezbollah, to Syria, to Venezuela. It is going to become a nightmare.’

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

[/quote]

Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?

The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.” [/quote]

Thousands of suitcase nukes!

THOUSANDS!!![/quote]

He made no such claim. If you go to the actual speech and read it in context you will see he was talking hypothetically and about the strategy. There was never any suggestion that he was talking literally about the numbers. It’s clearly a figure of speech - he said:

‘Now to a lot of people here in the West think this is crazy talk. But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it? The other side of the coin is that, let’s say that they have a rational mind, let’s say that they are interested in survival, let’s say they just want to use it as a source to protect their government, to become untouchable. The proliferation is going to become a disaster, and I was at the front row seats of Mohsen Razaei when they brought out the new strategy which was numbers - meaning a thousand small groups of small boats is going to cause a threat. A thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the US is going to pose a threat. You are not going to get a handle on the proliferation. They are going to be untouchable. They are going to pass it on to Hezbollah, to Syria, to Venezuela. It is going to become a nightmare.’[/quote]

[/i] You know the whole “But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it” spiel was complete bullshit from the getgo.

Yes, there is a chance that the Martians might land in Monaco which will subsequently rise to world domination due to its awesome multiphasic laser Mechs, but in the end it just makes you paranoid, and broke, and paranoid, and a police state, and very, very paranoid.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

[/quote]

Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?

The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.” [/quote]

Thousands of suitcase nukes!

THOUSANDS!!![/quote]

He made no such claim. If you go to the actual speech and read it in context you will see he was talking hypothetically and about the strategy. There was never any suggestion that he was talking literally about the numbers. It’s clearly a figure of speech - he said:

‘Now to a lot of people here in the West think this is crazy talk. But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it? The other side of the coin is that, let’s say that they have a rational mind, let’s say that they are interested in survival, let’s say they just want to use it as a source to protect their government, to become untouchable. The proliferation is going to become a disaster, and I was at the front row seats of Mohsen Razaei when they brought out the new strategy which was numbers - meaning a thousand small groups of small boats is going to cause a threat. A thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the US is going to pose a threat. You are not going to get a handle on the proliferation. They are going to be untouchable. They are going to pass it on to Hezbollah, to Syria, to Venezuela. It is going to become a nightmare.’[/quote]

[/i] You know the whole “But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it” spiel was complete bullshit from the getgo.

Yes, there is a chance that the Martians might land in Monaco which will subsequently rise to world domination due to its awesome multiphasic laser Mechs, but in the end it just makes you paranoid, and broke, and paranoid, and a police state, and very, very paranoid.

[/quote]

Very possibly true. On the other hand, I believe you have to have at least a small paranoid streak to work in national security intelligence these days, no matter your country. Besides, if there were one subject to be paranoid about, I’d probably pick nuclear bombs proliferated by rogue states. Just sayin, that’s kind of a bang-for-your-buck subject after all.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Looks interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040903638.html[/quote]

There’s one thing in this article that makes me question Kahlili’s account. Ignatius mentions that he spoke to several CIA officers who “ran operations” in Iran and were unaware of any penetration of the Guard of this magnitude. Now, Ignaitus may have used a poor choice of words in “ran operations” and “should have known”, but if they DID run operations in Iran and they were aware of penetrations in general then that means the officers’ “operations” consisted of running agents. They were either the agents’ handlers or the handlers’ superiors. Either way, if this is the case, then they would definitely have been aware of a penetration of the Revolutionary Guard. It would probably only be them, the Chief of Station, and whoever analyzed the intelligence take that would be aware of ANY penetrations, so if they worked outside of those realms (perhaps they ran black ops) they would not have known anything.

That being said, there is one other thing that makes me skeptical. The CIA exercises strict control over anything that is published in the U.S. or elsewhere from a former agent or officer. Not only that, the standard contract for any prospective agent includes a confidentiality clause that further erodes the amount of truths and accuracies a former employee can put in a memoir of any kind, even if the info is by this time available to the public thru Freedom of Info Act requests. So I’d have to think that this book is either so sanitized and the facts/chronology so distorted in pursuit of confidentiality, or the book is being released now at such a critical point in American intelligence efforts in Iran, that it serves an ulterior motive.

In other words, why publish a book that will already undergo a thorough vetting process before being published no matter when it’s released due to who the author is at a time when the current situation in Iran mandates that the book be even further watered down than normal? What is it about the book that can’t wait until a time when it would be more appropriate to allow more “secret” info in it that is allowed now that would (presumedly) enhance the story? I can’t help but suspect that this is part of an attempt to provide propaganda for war with Iran to the American people. We’ve all known for decades now that the CIA has done exactly this sort of thing in the past. They’ve spent millions and millions on publications of all sorts, from books to newspapers and everything in between, that advance their cause. Why would this be any different?

This says nothing about the actual severity of the situation in Iran though. Unless Kahlili’s account is a gross exaggeration, the basic gist of the book still makes clear that this is a dangerous regime who should be treaded around lightly until we can really gain a strong foothold within the country from an intelligence standpoint. The situation is such there that we cannot afford any sort of protracted military conflict without having a very, very solid base of intelligence-gathering that guides our foreign policy there.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.

[/quote]

Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?

The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.” [/quote]

Thousands of suitcase nukes!

THOUSANDS!!![/quote]

He made no such claim. If you go to the actual speech and read it in context you will see he was talking hypothetically and about the strategy. There was never any suggestion that he was talking literally about the numbers. It’s clearly a figure of speech - he said:

‘Now to a lot of people here in the West think this is crazy talk. But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it? The other side of the coin is that, let’s say that they have a rational mind, let’s say that they are interested in survival, let’s say they just want to use it as a source to protect their government, to become untouchable. The proliferation is going to become a disaster, and I was at the front row seats of Mohsen Razaei when they brought out the new strategy which was numbers - meaning a thousand small groups of small boats is going to cause a threat. A thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the US is going to pose a threat. You are not going to get a handle on the proliferation. They are going to be untouchable. They are going to pass it on to Hezbollah, to Syria, to Venezuela. It is going to become a nightmare.’[/quote]

[/i] You know the whole “But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it” spiel was complete bullshit from the getgo.

Yes, there is a chance that the Martians might land in Monaco which will subsequently rise to world domination due to its awesome multiphasic laser Mechs, but in the end it just makes you paranoid, and broke, and paranoid, and a police state, and very, very paranoid.

[/quote]

Very possibly true. On the other hand, I believe you have to have at least a small paranoid streak to work in national security intelligence these days, no matter your country. Besides, if there were one subject to be paranoid about, I’d probably pick nuclear bombs proliferated by rogue states. Just sayin, that’s kind of a bang-for-your-buck subject after all.[/quote]

I don’t think you need to HAVE a paranoid streak to work in intelligence, but I think you inevitably end up acquiring one the longer and deeper you get into it. Paranoia is something that the CIA tries not to encourage at all. It’s a detriment to otherwise sound judgment and can be used against not only a single agent or officer, but against an entire intelligence station if paranoia is allowed to proliferate.

James Jesus Angleton is a perfect case study in the dangers of paranoiac thinking within an intelligence agency. In the end, intelligence agencies need to think dispassionately at times. Obviously, an agent or officer has to be committed to the cause or he becomes a security risk. But within that framework, one needs to be able to look at things with as much objectivity as possible, and from all angles. Paranoia tends to focus the intensity on a particular angle or line of thought. If one is convinced that the enemy is after them at all times then the evaluation of any action or intelligence is tainted by that prejudice.

Vigilance is imperative, but paranoia is to be avoided. It’s a fine line, but one that the CIA is aware of and tries to walk safely. Although I will say that their entire counter-intelligence wing DOES demand a path much closer to the edge of that line than the rest of the CIA.

Counter-intelligence, whose father in the CIA was Angleton, necessarily involves looking inside your own agency and at your own people to determine if you’ve ever been penetrated. In essence, what happened to Angleton is that he became convinced that EVERYONE was a possible mole due to the info provided by a Soviet defector who took advantage of Angleton’s latent paranoia. This ground the entire counter-intelligence wing to a halt because Angleton soon became convinced that any intelligence gathered was simply disinformation from the Soviets BUT that the opposite wasn’t necessarily true either since Angleton felt the Soviets would be too smart for something that simple, so there was a third plan they always had and the ACTUAL intelligence AND its theoretical opposite were almost always eliminated as possible scenarios by him right from the start. Angleton was further fortified with reasons for paranoia because he was also close friends with Kim Philby at a time when Philby was a highly-active Soviet double-agent who may have gleaned a lot of info from Angleton during their infamous marathon drinking bouts in Washington.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

There’s one thing in this article that makes me question Kahlili’s account. Ignatius mentions that he spoke to several CIA officers who “ran operations” in Iran and were unaware of any penetration of the Guard of this magnitude. Now, Ignaitus may have used a poor choice of words in “ran operations” and “should have known”, but if they DID run operations in Iran and they were aware of penetrations in general then that means the officers’ “operations” consisted of running agents. They were either the agents’ handlers or the handlers’ superiors. Either way, if this is the case, then they would definitely have been aware of a penetration of the Revolutionary Guard. It would probably only be them, the Chief of Station, and whoever analyzed the intelligence take that would be aware of ANY penetrations, so if they worked outside of those realms (perhaps they ran black ops) they would not have known anything.

[/quote]

Ignatius concedes that a spokesperson currently within the CIA with whom he spoke confirmed that this guy is ‘legit.’ That doesn’t mean his story is beyond scrutiny. What it does mean is that the CIA have given an unofficial acknowledgement that he is a source that they consider ‘legitimate.’

Ignatius mentions that his work was vetted by an unnamed government department before publication. But I agree that he cannot be considered an unbiased source.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

There’s one thing in this article that makes me question Kahlili’s account. Ignatius mentions that he spoke to several CIA officers who “ran operations” in Iran and were unaware of any penetration of the Guard of this magnitude. Now, Ignaitus may have used a poor choice of words in “ran operations” and “should have known”, but if they DID run operations in Iran and they were aware of penetrations in general then that means the officers’ “operations” consisted of running agents. They were either the agents’ handlers or the handlers’ superiors. Either way, if this is the case, then they would definitely have been aware of a penetration of the Revolutionary Guard. It would probably only be them, the Chief of Station, and whoever analyzed the intelligence take that would be aware of ANY penetrations, so if they worked outside of those realms (perhaps they ran black ops) they would not have known anything.

[/quote]

Ignatius concedes that a spokesperson currently within the CIA with whom he spoke confirmed that this guy is ‘legit.’ That doesn’t mean his story is beyond scrutiny. What it does mean is that the CIA have given an unofficial acknowledgement that he is a source that they consider ‘legitimate.’

Ignatius mentions that his work was vetted by an unnamed government department before publication. But I agree that he cannot be considered an unbiased source.[/quote]

I disagree with what the govt official said regarding Kahlili’s legitimacy. First of all, what sort of govt official is this? Does he work for the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, or is he a politician who sits on an intelligence committee. If the case is the latter, then he has no real credibility. Senators and congressmen sitting on intelligence oversight committees have no fucking clue what is going on from a purely operational standpoint. They’re security risks. But aside from that, all this official confirmed was that there was an intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Kahlili. It’s an ambiguous quote from a dubious source that says nothing about the actual role Kahlili had. It doesn’t confirm anything.