Which Nation is the Greatest Illicit Drug Trading Threat to the United States/

I know that it has been a while but I've had other priorities in my life after spending over a decade blogging about various global issues.  That said, the recent American activities in Venezuela have brought me out of my blogging lethargy.

 

According to the United States, Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro was abducted from his home nation and brought to the United States largely because he was branded as a narcoterrorist by the Trump Administration.  Let's take a look at the 2025 edition of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA) and see which nations are responsible for the plague of illicit drugs in America:

The purpose of the NTDA is to provide "... a national-level perspective on the threats posed by deadly illicit drugs and the violent transnational criminal organizations responsible for producing the drugs poisoning our communities."

First, we find this letter from the DEA's Acting Administrator on the first text page of the document with my highlights:

Mexico and its cartels are mentioned four times in the opening letter alone. 

Here are excerpts from the opening paragraphs of the document with my bolds:

"Mexican cartels’ production, trafficking, and distribution of powerful illicit synthetic drugs, chiefly fentanyl and methamphetamine, represent a dire threat to public health, the rule of law, and national security in the United States. The Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation Cartels (CJNG), together with their procurement, distribution, and financial support networks stretching across Latin America, China, and other key global nodes, remain the dominant threats for the trafficking of these and other drugs into the United States. 

Fentanyl and other synthetic drugs, including methamphetamine, are the primary drivers of fatal drug overdose deaths nationwide, while other illicit drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, and diverted prescription opioids still contribute meaningfully to the drug threat landscape in the United States.  However, overdose and poisoning deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetic opioids caused more deaths than all other categories of drugs. This exceptionally deadly drug – often pressed into pills resembling legitimate medications and presented as authentic to customers or mixed into other drugs – creates a heightened risk of fatal overdose for unsuspecting or otherwise opioid-naïve users.

The production and trafficking of drugs by Mexican cartels has fundamentally altered the drug and criminal landscapes in North America. The cartels capitalize on the relative ease of synthetic drug production compared to the physical and environmental limitations of traditional plant-based drug production to generate immense revenues. The cartels maintain steady supply chains for obtaining the precursor chemicals, primarily from China and India, necessary to produce these synthetic drugs. The Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation Cartels, in particular, control clandestine production sites in Mexico, smuggling routes into the United States, and distribution hubs in key U.S. cities.  The cartels work with U.S. drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and violent gangs to distribute drugs throughout the country, all exploiting social media and messaging applications to extend their reach to a larger and younger customer base. The cartels’ extensive, complex, and adaptable networks present formidable challenges across the U.S. law enforcement, national security, regulatory, financial, and health and wellness sectors."

The NDTA goes on to detail the activities of the Sinaloa, Jalisco New Generation, Northeast, Michoacan Family and other cartels and their areas of operation within Mexico as shown in this example for the Sinaloa Cartel:

 

The document also outlines the volumes of various drug seizures along the Mexico - United States border  and the routes that the drugs take through the United States as shown here:

In total, the country of Mexico is mentioned 121 times in the entirety of the 2025 NDTA whereas  Venezuela is mentioned as a threat to the United States only six times as shown here:

So, this begs the question, which nation is the greatest illicit drug trading threat to the United States according to the DEA?

Americans' Support for Israel and Palestine

Gallup recently released its annual poll which tracks Americans' support for both the Israelis and Palestinians.  The poll found the following:

 1.) Only 46 percent of Americans support the Israelis, down from 51 percent in 2024, the previous low point, and the lowest level since 2001.  Peak support for Israel was reached in 2018 at 64 percent meaning that, over the seven year period, support for Israel has dropped by 18 percentage points.  In contrast, 33 percent of Americans support the Palestinians, up from 27 percent in 2024 and the highest level since 2001 as shown here:

2.) 40 percent of American adults approve of Donald Trump's handling of the crisis between Israel and Palestine with 51 percent disapproving of his handling of the situation.  Not surprisingly, there is a significant gap depending on respondents' political persuasion with 80 percent of Republicans approving of Trump's performance compared to only 33 percent of independents and 9 percent of Democrats. 

3.) Partisan Middle East sympathies are significant as shown here:

Republicans overwhelmingly sympathize with Israel (75 percent to 10 percent) whereas Democrats show more sympathy toward Palestinians (59 percent to 21 percent) but it is important to note that Democrat sympathies for Israel has hit a 25 year low, down from 51 percent in 2001 and a peak of 58 percent in 2014 whereas support for Palestinians is at a record high of 59 percent, up from only 16 percent in 2001 and 43 percent in 2024.  You will also note that Democrats generally sympathized with Israel until 2022 when the party faithful showed nearly equal support for both Israel and Palestine.

4.) When it comes to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in both Gaza and the West Bank (the two-state solution), 55 percent of Americans approve of the two state solution and only 31 percent disapprove.  The level of approval is at a near record, up from a low of 40 percent in 2000 as shown here:

Once again, opinion varies with political leaning with substantially more Democrats approving of an independent Palestine (76 percent) compared to only 41 percent of Republicans as shown here:

In general, the results of Gallup's poll shows that Americans are growing less sympathetic with Israel and more supportive of Palestinians and a two-state solution with a Palestine that is independent of Israel.  

Is Volodymyr Zelenskyy the Problem?

The recent and very public argument between Donald Trump, JD Vance and Vladimir Zelenskyy has drawn the world's attention and has led to a great deal of criticism by the left-leaning, anti-Trump media about how Donald Trump was disrespectful to a leader whose nation is fighting a critical war for the "freedom of the world".  You'd almost think that the media has forgotten this bit of history from June 2022:

Here's a quote from the story as covered by NBC News in October 2022:

"It’s become routine since Russia invaded Ukraine: President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speak by phone whenever the U.S. announces a new package of military assistance for Kyiv.

But a phone call between the two leaders in June played out differently from previous ones, according to four people familiar with the call. Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy he’d just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting. Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said. The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude."

Does this sound familiar in any way?

Here's more from NBC:

"Before the June 15 (2022) phone call, the president’s frustrations with Zelenskyy had been building for weeks, three people familiar with the call said. Biden and some of his top aides felt that the administration was doing as much as it could as quickly as it could but that Zelenskyy continued to focus publicly on only what wasn’t being done."

And, to close:

"After the pushback Zelenskyy got in their June phone call, his team decided to try to defuse tensions, concluding it wasn’t productive to have friction with the U.S. president, according to two sources familiar with the Ukraine government’s view, congressional aides and two European officials.

Zelenskyy responded publicly that day by thanking Biden for the promised assistance.

“I had an important conversation with U.S. President Biden today,” he said in videotaped remarks. “I am grateful for this support. It is especially important for our defense in Donbas.”

Here's the NBC News video which covers the story:

If you take this story into consideration, it would certainly appear that Zelenskyy has bought into his own press, believing that he is a rockstar world leader.  One would have to wonder, however, if he isn't the one with the behavioural problem?  It would seem, at the very least, that Zelenskyy believes that he is entitled to an unending supply of free arms from the United States, a nation that has already supplied him with over $120 billion in military, humanitarian and financial aid.

Isn't it fascinating how the 21st century mainstream media has become just like the media portrayed in George Orwell's 1984 where history is memory holed when it becomes inconvenient to the deep state's narrative, in this case, it's anti-Trump mantra?

Mark Carney, CBDCs and the United States Dollar - Dealing with Donald Trump

For some reason or another, Canadians believe that Mark Carney is best suited to negotiate trade issues with Donald Trump.  This is likely due to the non-stop coverage that Canada's left-biased media has deluged Canadians with since Carney entered the race for replacement Liberal leader/Prime Minister in December 2024.  If we look back at comments that Carney made at a speech in 2019 which get no coverage on Canada's mainstream media, it would appear that Carney might well have an uphill battle with President Trump.

On August 23, 2019, Mark Carney in his role as Governor of the Bank of England gave this speech to the Jackson Hole Symposium, an annual gathering of central bankers, finance ministers and other economic experts from around the world:

In this rather mind numbingly boring and very technical speech, he delves into the international monetary and financial system (IMFS), focusing on how the current system challenges monetary policy.  He notes that the world economy is being reordered (thanks to the growing impact of the BRICS nations on the global economy) with the U.S. dollar remaining as important as it was when other currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar which was pegged to the price of gold ($35 per ounce) at the Bretton Woods meeting in 1944.  This was the case until 1971 when President Richard Nixon announced his New Economic Policy, suspending the conversion of the U.S. dollar into gold.

Carney states that there is a growing "destabilizing asymmetry" at the heart of the IMFS and, with the U.S. dollar's continuing importance to the economy, it is having a significant spillover into trade performance and financial conditions of emerging economies.  This makes it difficult for central bankers to provide the stimulus necessary to achieve their objectives and, as a result, there is a growing risk of a global economic slowdown. To summarize his comments, the near-zero interest rate policies adopted by the central bankers of the United States and other advanced economies made it nearly impossible for them to lower rates further. 

 Here is a quote:

"Today, the combination of heightened economic policy uncertainty, outright protectionism and concerns that further, negative shocks could not be adequately offset because of limited policy space is exacerbating the disinflationary bias in the global economy.

What then must be done? In the short term, central bankers must play the cards they have been dealt as best they can."

He then states that central bankers need to "change the (reserve currency) game" in the new multipolar  international monetary and financial system and that (with my bolds):

"When change comes, it shouldn’t be to swap one currency hegemon for another. Any unipolar system is unsuited to a multi-polar world. We would do well to think through every opportunity, including those presented by new technologies, to create a more balanced and effective system."

Note the use of the words "new technologies".  We will see what those are later in this posting.

Now, let's see what he has to say about the U.S. dollar (again with my bolds):

"The dollar represents the currency of choice for at least half of international trade invoices, around five times greater than the US’s share in world goods imports, and three times its share in world exports.  The resulting stickiness of import prices in dollar terms means exchange rate pass-through for changes in the dollar is high regardless of the country of export and import, while pass-through of non-dominant currencies is negligible. As a result, import prices do not adjust efficiently to reflect changes in relative demand between trading partners, in part because expenditure switching effects are curtailed, and global trade volumes are heavily influenced by the strength of the US dollar....

Huge network effects mean the dollar has remained dominant in the IMFS despite the transformation of the global economy. At the time of the Latin American debt crisis, EMEs made up a little more than one third of global GDP. Since the last Fed tightening cycle, their share of global activity had risen from around 45% to 60%. By 2030, it is projected to rise to around three quarters.

As well as being the dominant currency for the invoicing and settling of international trade, the US dollar is the currency of choice for securities issuance and holdings, and reserves of the official sector. Two-thirds of both global securities issuance and official foreign-exchange reserves are denominated in dollars. The same proportion of EME foreign currency external debt is denominated in dollars and the dollar serves as the monetary anchor in countries accounting for two thirds of global GDP.

Basically, Carney blames the U.S. dollar for the woes in the global economy.    You'll note that he stated that in "changing the game" when it comes to new reserve currencies to replace the U.S. dollar, new technologies must be considered.  What are these new technologies?  Here you go:

"The Bank of England and other regulators have been clear that unlike in social media (and its attempts to create new payment systems like Facebook and Libra/Diem), for which standards and regulations are only now being developed after the technologies have been adopted by billions of users, the terms of engagement for any new systemic private payments system must be in force well in advance of any launch.

As a consequence, it is an open question whether such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) would be best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies.

Even if the initial variants of the idea prove wanting, the concept is intriguing. It is worth considering how an SHC in the IMFS could support better global outcomes, given the scale of the challenges of the current IMFS and the risks in transition to a new hegemonic reserve currency like the Renminbi.

An SHC could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade."

He also notes that the most likely candidate for a replacement reserve currency is China's Renminbi but that it still has a way to go before it becomes truly a global reserve currency.  This is very noteworthy given that the Trump Administration appears to be viewing China as their "foe of choice".

So, given that Mark Carney believes that the issuance of central bank digital currencies (aka a Synthetic Hegemonic Currency) are necessary to reduce the global reliance on the U.S. dollar as the "hegemonic reserve currency" and that China's Renminbi is the heir apparent in a multi-reserve currency world, I wonder how Donald Trump will view a Prime Minister Carney, particularly given that one of his Executive Orders banned the development and use of a central bank digital currency in the United States and that his core belief is to make America the great sole superpower that it was prior to the rapidly developing multipolar reality of today.

Americans and Their Trust in Doctors and Hospitals

A paper from August 2024 in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined the results of a survey taken of Americans over the period from April 2020 (at the beginning of the COVID pandemic) through to January 31, 2024.  The paper by Dr. Roy Perlis et al attempts to answer the following question:

 

"How did trust in physicians and hospitals change during the COVID-19 pandemic?"

 

The 24 wave survey was conducted among 443,455 unique respondents residing in the United States aged 18 and older and consisted of 582,634 responses.  The mean age of the respondents was 43.3 years with 65 percent being female and 71.1 percent being White.  The study was undertaken to determine whether trust in physicians and hospitals had changed over the course of the pandemic

  

Throughout modern history, physicians have been highly regarded for their trustworthiness with a 2022 survey reporting that American adults had greater trust in physicians and nurses than any other institution or occupation.  A Gallup poll found that in 2019, medical doctors were trusted to be either very highly or highly honest and ethical by 65 percent of Americans (third highest among all professions) and nurses were trusted to be either very highly or highly honest and ethical by 85 percent of Americans (highest among all professions).

 

Let's go back to the study.  The authors of the JAMA study entitled "Trust in Physicians and Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a 50-State Survey of US Adults" found the following:

1.) the proportion of adults that reported a lot of trust for hospitals and physicians decreased from 71.5 percent in April 2020 to 40.1 percent in January 2024.  Decreased trust was associated with certain demographics including those aged 25 to 64 years of age, female gender, lower educational level, Black race and living in a rural area.  Surprisingly, self-reported political affiliation did not have a meaningful impact on trust levels.

 

Here is a graphic showing the decline in trust in hospitals and physicians over the nearly four year period by gender, race and ethnicity and age:

 

2.) Higher levels of trust in hospitals and physicians was associated with a greater likelihood of being vaccinated for COVID-19.

 

3.) Higher levels of trust in hospitals and physicians was associated with a greater likelihood of being vaccine boosted for COVID-19.

 

Here is a summary graphic showing the association between various demographic features of respondents and how these demographics either do not favour trust or favour trust:

 

Note the following:

1.) respondents between the ages of 25 and 34 tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than their older counterparts.

 

2.) female respondents tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than their male counterparts.

 

3.) respondents with lower educational levels tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than their more educated counterparts.

 

4.) black respondents tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than other races and ethnicities.

 

5.) rural respondents tend to trust hospitals and physicians less than suburban and urban counterparts.

 

Despite the decreased trust in physicians over the pandemic, other studies have discovered that the general public still found physicians and hospitals to be more trustworthy when it came to receiving health care information than all other United States institutions (i.e. government).

Here is a closing quote with my bolds:

 

"Our results cannot establish causation, but in the context of prior studies documenting associations between physician trust and more positive health outcomes, they raise the possibility that the decrease in trust during the pandemic could have long-lasting public health implications. If so, effective interventions aimed at restoring trust could have benefits, not only for future pandemics, but for health in the US more generally, at least in terms of vaccination. In examining reasons for low trust, financial conflicts of interest, a longstanding area of academic investigation in medicine, remain a major factor associated with mistrust, concerns that may have been amplified during the pandemic."

 

From the results of this study, it would appear that the medical profession has a long way to go to regain the trust of the American public after its shameful behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic.  A significant and growing proportion of Americans no longer trust the health care system to look after their best interests, suggesting that governments will have their work cut out for them if they hope to get the public to buy into a wide scale vaccination rollout in the future as they did during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The Canada - United States Border - Canada's Potential Terrorist Problem

With the trade war over border issues between Canada, Mexico and the United States now on temporary hiatus, I wanted to take a look at some little reported enforcement statistics from the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

  

Customs and Border Protection is the federal government agency that is responsible for securing America's borders and has the following mission statement:

 

"Protect the American people, safeguard our borders, and enhance the nation’s economic prosperity."

 

It undertakes its mission through the following responsibilities:

 

1.) keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the United States.

 

2.) facilitating lawful international travel and trade.

  

CBP combines customs, immigration, border security, and agricultural protection into one coordinated and supportive activity.

 

Now, let's look at President Trump's Executive Order "Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border" which was signed on February 1, 2025 which focuses on the flow of illegal drugs across the northern and southern borders of the United States.  The Executive Order also states this:

 

"The challenges at our southern border are foremost in the public consciousness, but our northern border is not exempt from these issues.  Criminal networks are implicated in human trafficking and smuggling operations, enabling unvetted illegal migration across our northern border....

 

...Pursuant to the NEA, I hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in that Proclamation to cover the threat to the safety and security of Americans, including the public health crisis of deaths due to the use of fentanyl and other illicit drugs, and the failure of Canada to do more to arrest, seize, detain, or otherwise intercept DTOs, other drug and human traffickers, criminals at large, and drugs."

 

Note the "enabling unvetted illegal migration" and "failure of Canada to arrest...criminals at large".

 

Now, let's look at some statistics from Customs and Border Protection.  Here is a table showing how many encounters CBP had with individuals who are on the U.S. terrorist watch list for both the southern and northern borders by year:

 

 

Here is the text that accompanies the table with my bolds:

 

"This table provides a summary of CBP encounters of all persons at ports of entry with terrorism-related records at the time of their encounter and non-U.S. citizens with terrorism-related records at the time of their encounter between U.S. ports of entry.  Terrorism-related records may include records from the U.S. Government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset. As such, the information is protected from public disclosure and provided only to persons who have a need to know, such as federal law enforcement officials, for their authorized screening and vetting functions.

 

Though terrorism-related encounters at our borders represent an extremely small portion of total border encounters, the screening process to identify such individuals is an example of the critical work CBP Agents and Officers carry out every day on the frontlines. DHS works tirelessly to secure our borders through a combination of highly trained personnel, ground and aerial monitoring systems, international collaboration, and robust intelligence and information-sharing networks.

  

Noncitizens who match to a terrorism-related record that are encountered by the CBP Office of Field Operations at land ports of entry are most commonly found inadmissible to our country and immediately repatriated or removed. They may also be turned over to another government agency for subsequent detention and law enforcement action, as appropriate. When encountered by the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) after entering the country without inspection, these noncitizens are most commonly detained and removed or turned over to another government agency for subsequent detention and law enforcement action, as appropriate."

 

Since and including fiscal 2022, there have been far more individuals with terrorism-related records attempting to cross into the United States from Canada than from Mexico.  In fact, between fiscal 2022 and fiscal 2025 (so far), 220 individuals with terrorism-related records have attempted to cross into the United States from Mexico compared to 1260 individuals who crossed into the United States from Canada, nearly 6 times as many.

  

This begs the question; how did so many individuals who appear on the United States terrorist watch list end up in Canada?  While not all of them are "terrorists", one could easily assume that at least some of them are.  Is it because of Canada's open arms policy toward immigrants under the Trudeau "post-nation state" government and the inefficiency of its Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Ministry?  Or is it Canada's haste to grow its population by immigration as shown here:

 

In any case, given the statistics from the United States Customs and Border Protection, one can understand why the Trump Administration is more than a bit concerned about who is crossing from Canada into the territory for which it is responsible.

Comparing Vladimir Putin's Popularity to Western Leaders

In a previous posting, I looked at how Canada's Ambassador to Russia, Sarah Taylor, viewed Russians' sentiment toward their leader, Vladimir Putin and how he was just a short step from being tossed out of office.  In this posting, I want to compare President Putin's popularity to that of some key Western leaders and see who is really admired by their citizenry. 

 

Recent polling from Russia's  non-politically aligned Levada Center shows us that Vladimir Putin is still highly regarded by Russians: 

 

In December 2024, Putin's approval rating among his fellow Russians was 87 percent.

 

Now, in sharp contrast, let's look at the popularity of Justin Trudeau, Canada's Prime Minister (for now) and Ambassador Taylor's boss:

 

Currently, only 22 percent of Canadians approve of Justin Trudeau's performance, an all-time low.  By party, Trudeau's Liberals would receive only 16 percent of votes, another all-time low which would result in the party garnering only 6 out of the 338 seats in Canada's House of Parliament.

 

Here's a summary of polls showing Joe Biden's approval rating:

 

 

Just over 37 percent of Americans approve of Biden's performance.

  

Here is a graphic showing the popularity of France's President Emmanuel Macron:

Only 23 percent of France's voters approve of Macron's performance, a near-record low.

Now, let's look at the approval rating of U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer:

 

Only 27 percent of Brits are satisfied with Starmer's performance and only 21 percent are satisfied with the performance of his government.

While I don't have a graphic to show, polling in September 2024 showed that only 18 percent of Germans were satisfied with the performance of their Chancellor Olaf Scholz as quoted here:

One might almost think that the nations leading the battle against Putin's Russia find themselves with leaders that they wish to rid themselves of on a permanent basis.  I'm guessing that many of the West's leaders, many of whom are of the Neo-liberal persuasion, would kill for the very high approval numbers that Vladimir Putin is receiving from his fellow Russians.

Jimmy Carter, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Iran Hostage Crisis

With the passing of former United States president Jimmy Carter, I thought that it was pertinent to look at a key part of Carter's legacy, the Iran hostage crisis.

  

On November 4, 1979, a group of armed Iranian university students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and captured 66 American citizens.  A total of 52 United States diplomats and other U.S. citizens were held hostage 444 days and were finally released them on January 20, 1981, the day that President Ronald Reagan took office.  The crisis was precipitated by the departure of the U.S. puppet dictator Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi who had been placed into his leadership position after the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in August 1953 as punishment for his nationalization of Iran's oil industry.  As a "gift" to the people of Iran, in 1957, intelligence officers from the United States and Israel assisted the Shah of Iran with the establishment of Sazeman-i Ettelaat va Amniyat-i Keshvar (the National Organization for Intelligence and Security) better known in the West as SAVAK or the Shah's Secret Police.  SAVAK's purpose was to provide intelligence for the Shah, providing him with information on his opponents and any opposition movements within Iran.  SAVAK had the power to investigate, arrest and indefinitely detain Iranians deemed guilty of opposition to the Shah's rule.  SAVAK also payed the role of hearing examiner, remanding prisoners to trial with many trials being held in secret and without the use of witnesses and defense lawyers.   According to 1979 testimony from Hassan Sana, a 23-year veteran of SAVAK, the Israelis wrote SAVAK's operational manuals and the CIA trained SAVAK agents in the use of both physical and psychological torture techniques including the use of electrodes and heated needles.  At its peak, SAVAK is believed to have had as many as 60,000 agents serving in its ranks.  Following the Revolution of 1979, many former members of SAVAK were executed by Iran's new leadership.   

 

What is little discussed about the hostage-taking is that the Iranian students in the U.S. embassy found thousands of pages of shredded and unshredded documents belonging to the CIA and the State Department.  Some Iranians had long believed that the U.S. Embassy was being used as an intelligence base by the CIA.  Staff at the U.S. Embassy had been busy shredding these documents in an attempt to prevent them from falling into the "wrong hands" as the nation fell into chaos during the early days of Ayatollah Khomeini, however, the thin strips of paper that the students found were reassembled into useable documents by Iranian carpet weavers as shown here:

 

 

These documents were then released to the public in 1982; the 54 volumes were published under the title "Documents from the U.S.Espionage Den".   By 1995, the number of volumes had risen to 77.  This inadvertent "security leak" is widely viewed as one of the most damaging intelligence breaches in history and predates the much discussed WikiLeaks Department of State and Edward Snowden breaches by decades.

 

Here is one of the more interesting documents that shows the lengths that Embassy staff went to to provide cover for the CIA officers living in their midst:

 

 

Here is the text:

 

"1. S - ENTIRE TEXT

  

2. I concur in assignments Malcolm Kalp and William Daugherty as described Reftels.

  

3. With opportunity available to us in the sense that we are starting from a clean slate in SRF coverage at this mission, but with regard also for the great sensitivity locally to any hint of CIA activity, it is of the highest importance that cover be the best we can come up with. Hence there is no question as to the need for second and third secretary titles for these two officers. We must have it.

 

4. I believe cover arrangements in terms of assignments within embassy are appropriate to present overall staffing pattern. We should however hold to the present total of four SRF officer assignments for the foreseeable future, keeping supporting staff as sparse as possible as well, until we see how things go here.

 

5. We are making effort to limit knowledge within emb of all SRF assignments; that effort applies particularly to Daugherty, pursuant to new program of which he is a product and about which I have been informed.

  

6. I suppose I need not mind the Department that the old and apparently insoluble problem of R designation for SRF officers will inevitably complicate and to some degree weaken our cover efforts locally, no matter how much we work at it. 

  

LAINGEN BT
#8933
NNNN
SECRET
TEHRAN 8933"

  

Embassy Charge d'Affairs Bruce Laingen was concerned about cover arrangements fro CIA officers Kalp and Daughterty.  The "R" designation is the Foreign Service Reserve status that flagged CIA officers that were operating under the cover of the State Department.  

  

Here is a document that provided the cover details for Thomas Ahern, the CIA's station chief in Tehran:

 

 


Here is the text:

 

"S E C R E T

  

Page 1

 

Cover Considerations

 

According to personal data in your passport, you are single, were born in Antwerp, Belgium 08Jul34, have blue eyes, have no distinguishing characteristics, and are approximately 1.88 meters tall. Your cover occupation is that of a commercial business representative.

 

It is not uncommon to find a Belgian whose native language is Flemish living in a nominally French-speaking section of Belgium, such as Jette. You can say that you were born in Antwerp, began work with a company with a regional office in Antwerp, then was transferred to the main offices in Brussels. Despite the fact it is only about 90 minutes driving time between Brussels and Antwerp, you decided to live in one of the suburbs of Brussels, Jette. This would explain the issuance locale of your documentation. Working from your Brussels base, you have travelled in Europe on business in the past (as reflected in your passport) and are now assigned to the Middle East section of your company. Your non-backstopped address in Jette is 174 Avenue de Jette, Jette, Belgium.

 

S E C R E T"

 

Here is a document from the U.S. Ambassador in Tehran, Laingen, to the Secretary of State seeking conditional entry or refugee status and visa clearances for former members of the Shah's regime, including members of SAVAK, the nation's dreaded secret police, formed under the guidance of the United States and Israel in 1957.  Note that the embassy files for this subject had already been destroyed or moved to Washington:

Incidentally, after the Iranian Revolution, SAVAK was dissolved by Ayatollah Khomeini and 61 SAVAK officials were executed between 1979 and 1981.  While the exact number of SAVAK's victims is unknown, the organization is estimated to have tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents.

 

In general, I admired President Carter, particularly his post-presidency acts of charity, and realize that the blame for the 1979 hostage crisis cannot be laid solely at his feet, however, thanks to his interactions with the Shah of Iran, he did represent Washington's meddling in Iran's internal affairs that was done solely to benefit the United States and not the people of Iran.  Thanks to the release of these documents, we now have a good sense of why Iran's leadership and many of its citizens do not trust the West given their lengthy history of unwanted interference in Iran.