. . . They weren't really from Siemens. And we're not sure whom you sent your payments to, either, but we're not showing a credit in your name on our books. No, we don't have an Agent K on our payroll.
Or maybe Siemens is playing a very deep game with Iran.
6 comments:
There are two elements here.
The original stuff came from Siemens, of course. It was sold to 'someone else' to provide plausible deniability for Siemens for obvious reasons surrounding the "embargo".
Remember that the list of companies selling stuff to Iran is very long, and includes a lot of US firms. They were caught, but may or may not have been fined.
The second element--the boom-stuff--well, that's another question entirely. It could have been emplaced by the re-seller, or during transit, or on Iranian soil by agents of almost any country, including Iranians unhappy with the Mullahs.
The fun part is, Iran doesn't even understand that they're screwing themselves with this announcement. All they accomplish by drawing attention to Siemens is to decrease the likelihood they'll get more equipment from them. Whether Siemens was selling it under the table, or someone was a straw buyer for Iran, that supply line has just dried up. What a bunch of maroons!
Is there something more underhand going on, with sabotaged equipment being sold with the secret approval of Western intelligence agencies?
Back in the 1980s, there was a lot of opposition to Western companies selling equipment and plans to the Soviet Union for construction of a gas pipeline.
The Feds finally OK'd selling to the Soviets. The plans were deliberatelyfaulty, resulting in a massive explosion in the pipeline.
Mike, perhaps the 'bombs' were left with just that intention... That would be pretty saavy.
Perhaps, but now we're straying into deep double-reverse psychology (or PSYOPS more like) that you'd see in a spy novel. Not to say it only happens in fiction (as truth, it has been noted, is often stranger), but that kind of deep planning is just a little too cute for most bureaucracies to deal in.
Ah, I don't think that subverting someone's trust in a covert connection is all that deep or convoluted. I'd think it would be a pretty desirable and realistic target. Especially with a slightly paranoid target.
Post a Comment