Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google

[SWJED]

11 December Washington Post - Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000959.html) by Dafna Linzer.

When the State Department recently asked the CIA for names of Iranians who could be sanctioned for their involvement in a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the agency refused, citing a large workload and a desire to protect its sources and tradecraft.

Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign Service officer to find the names another way -- by using Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

Policymakers and intelligence officials have always struggled when it comes to deciding how and when to disclose secret information, such as names of Iranians with suspected ties to nuclear weapons. In some internal debates, policymakers win out and intelligence is made public to further political or diplomatic goals. In other cases, such as this one, the intelligence community successfully argues that protecting information outweighs the desires of some to share it with the world.

But that argument can also put the U.S. government in the awkward position of relying, in part, on an Internet search to select targets for international sanctions...

[Jedburgh]

Sounds almost like another urban myth.

Hell, even after the Agency refuses an RFI from State, State has its own Bureau of Intelligence and Research (http://www.state.gov/s/inr/) staffed with professional analysts. They are just as good as any analysts at the Agency, although there is a significant difference in type, capability, and availability of collection resources.

I just don't see an RFI of consequence being filled by a cherry FSO in a cubicle when they have professional analysts on-hand. I see this story being leaked in this manner by someone at State as providing a public view of ongoing bureaucratic infighting.

[bismark17]

My understanding is that State's Intel Unit used to be the Open Source Unit for the OSS. Once the OSS was disbanded they were placed with the State Department.

[Steve Blair]

Sounds almost like another urban myth.

Hell, even after the Agency refuses an RFI from State, State has its own Bureau of Intelligence and Research (http://www.state.gov/s/inr/) staffed with professional analysts. They are just as good as any analysts at the Agency, although there is a significant difference in type, capability, and availability of collection resources.

I just don't see an RFI of consequence being filled by a cherry FSO in a cubicle when they have professional analysts on-hand. I see this story being leaked in this manner by someone at State as providing a public view of ongoing bureaucratic infighting.

I would tend to agree. This just sounds too "pat" to me. It could also be someone with the proverbial political ax to grind, since the Google spin would be a good way to discredit the accuracy of anyone's name who turned up in said memo.

[Tom Odom]

I can't speak to the OSS connection but my experience with State INR as a historian wading through the 1964 Congo Crisis, as an intelligence analyst in Gulf War 1, and as an intel operator in Zaire and Rwanda was that INR did first rate work.

In many ways that work was possible because INR operated semi-independently of the regional bureaus and was not subject to policy pressures as are the bureaus and the embassies.

Finally my associates at INR stayed in their roles longer and developed greater depth than the analysts at DIA or CIA.

Tom

[CSC2005]

It was not by accident that the new head of analysis under the DNI was the former head of State INR. Despite having fewer analysts then the CIA has lunchroom workers, INR has always prided themselves on long term deep analysis by analysts who cover an area for decades. Instead of playing 5-year old soccer "all the crowd the ball" intel or try to be a classified CNN, INR focuses on quality of analysis. A trait the 9/11 report said was "lacking" at CIA and DIA.

[AFlynn]

How has INR fared in the big intelligence shuffle of the past five years?

These guys sound like people I'd like to work for...

[CSC2005]

For what it is worth I think INR is the cream of the crop for intel analysis. They do not rely on billion dollar collection systems or having thousands of analysts, instead they focus on history, culture, language and in-country experience. Their products are focused toward the diplomatic leadership, but they are first rate for deep analysis. The only problem is that many foreign service officers, who run DoS, think they are better than intel analysts and INR gets second billing in the very political senior levels of the DoS.

Those are just my two cents from working with then. The big agencies have alot to learn form INR. I welcome any other thoughts.

[SWJED]

For what it is worth I think INR is the cream of the crop for intel analysis. They do not rely on billion dollar collection systems or having thousands of analysts, instead they focus on history, culture, language and in-country experience. Their products are focused toward the diplomatic leadership, but they are first rate for deep analysis. The only problem is that many foreign service officers, who run DoS, think they are better than intel analysts and INR gets second billing in the very political senior levels of the DoS.

Those are just my two cents from working with then. The big agencies have alot to learn form INR. I welcome any other thoughts.

Art,

Though I am now over 7 years removed from the IC, my impressions in the 80's and 90's echo your observations. Whenever an INR analyst spoke at a NIE or any other gathering of community analysts I listened because there was meat behind what they had to say - and like you said - based on history, culture, language and in-country experience.

Dave