Fuzzy Math

There's something wrong with this Chalabi story. The sum of the parts just don't seem to come out to the whole of the story...

First, let me just restate the facts as they appear to stand.

1. Americans break the Iranian code, allowing them to eavesdrop on their communications. This information is highly classified.


2. Somebody with access to the information and knowledge of Ahmed Chalabi divulges this fact. He is possibly drunk at the time.


3. Chalabi - who does not have clearance and may or may not be aware of the information's classified nature, passes it along to an Iranian diplomat he knows.


4. This diplomat sends a wire in code to Tehran warning them that he's heard that the code he is sending the message in has been broken. Anonymous sources claim that the diplomat claimed that Chalabi claimed that the American who told him the secret was drunk. (this is what we call "telephone")


5. Americans intercept this missive, decode it (natch!), and realize this sensitive information is now compromised.


6. Eager to stem the intelligence losses of this embarrasing leak, we...
   
   
   • Storm Chalabi's offices and home
   
   
   • Divulge the entire backstory of the fiasco to the press
   
   
   • Provide regular updates of progress in the investigation.

Am I the only one who thinks there's some major holes in this narrative?

Assume for a moment that the entire story is literally true. How credible could the Iranians have found this story? "Well, I heard from Ahmed, who heard it on good authority from an American who was drunk (no name, mind you) that our codes are compromised! Let's get a new system." Did they take that as strong information? I would imagine they would take such sourcing with at least a grain of salt, in which case, launching a high profile investigation of Chalabi seems like it would reveal our hand. I suppose if they changed the whole code overnight, then there's no real reason to worry about giving away the game... except that the whole investigation completely undermines plausible deniability. By handling this case in such a high-profile manner, doesn't this indicate a willingness to not only alienate, but actively antagonize our newest quasi-hostile neighbor?

Also, if it is literally true, then on what basis can we assume that Chalabi has any specific culpability? This would explain why he STILL remains free. Certainly, active sabotage of the United States would merit some sterner response than what we've seen so far. It seems like even accepting all the facts as literally true, Chalabi actually comes out with a clean nose. I'm presuming that even if he was acting as an Iranian intelligence source, he still wasn't a double-agent plying neocons with high-grade Scotch... it sounds like Chalabi could've actually been getting played by the Iranians, rather than working for them... So, given the known facts, Chalabi's role is still quite ambiguous. It seems like it can be anything from accidental channel to active undercover agent...

But what if it's not literally true? What if we accept the known facts - the Iranian report coming down the wire - but speculate that it were Iranian disinformation. Say, they suspected the codes were breached, so they passed a "test message" down the line which was designed to prey upon certain known fault-lines in the C.P.A./I.G.C. It hurts a lot to consider that we got played like total fools, but it's hard to think of a more "convenient" way to pick up the information that the Iranians knew about the codebreak. Could this really have been an accident that they would send such a nakedly incriminating message down a presumably compromised channel? Wouldn't we have to assume that any such message would have been delivered with at least an awareness that the Americans were likely to be listening? I can't imagine that we'd be that Keystone Cops... except I CAN... but I can still assume that's too fucking unlikely to be possible even if I have disquieting doubts about that particular article of faith...

So, turn it around. What about an American intel-op? This one actually gets really interesting, and I welcome any and all speculation about it. If we assume the shocking publicity of the investigation in this case is driven by some tactical interest rather than a commitment to complete transparency within our intellectual apparatus, what could be the submerged agenda? Are there any ways that this scenario could give us leverage over Iran? Or to provoke Iran into doing or not doing some action? Could it really be a case of partisan infighting spilling over into the criminal justice apparatus (a scary thought, if true)? Could it just signify a complete lack of seriousness among our top policy-makers (not a real leap of faith)? Or am I missing some intuitive way in which this apparent circle can be squared?