A little diligence makes for a long post, 1: Kahlili
Thus endeth my blog-epistle to Pundita, whose knowledge of many of the other moving parts in the wider geopolitical situation far exceeds my own.
**
I’ll follow up with part II of this essay, in which I’ll talk a bit about Glenn Beck and Joel Rosenberg, and some other significant ways in which Shi’ite eschatology is being misrepresented via popular media in the west.
For those following the development of my book / media project, I am hoping the project will include a section of longer essays such as this one, in which I pull apart some of the myths currently surrounding western understanding of Islam, while pulling together major strands of a more nuanced view.
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
Cheryl Rofer:
October 24th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Charles (and Pundita) –
.
I have seen the same sort of eye-rolling errors in Khalili’s writings. I can’t give specifics here, because I gave up reading him long ago for that reason and have forgotten them. What Stern quotes Khalili as saying about the 90% enrichment and fully working missiles is impossible to conceal. Khalili clearly doesn’t even know what is technically plausible.
Mr. X:
October 24th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
This is part and parcel of my earlier comment that ‘Gog Prince of Rosh’ was not associated with Russia until 19th century English Dispensationalist theologians ramped up the doctrine of the pre-Tribulation Rapture…just coincidentally around the period of the Crimean War and Anglo-Russian rivalrly in Afghanistan and Persia. I have yet to find any interpretation of Ezekiel 38 and the other Gog and Magog passages that mention Russia prior to the 19th century. If anyone can find it I’m all ears. 20th century Rapture enthusiasts like Hal Lindsey and his predecessors picked up where the British theologians left off, particularly after the Bolshevik revolution.
Pundita:
October 25th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Charles — I’ve been waiting for days for the other shoe to drop with Reza’s reporting on the Iran secret negotiations and it finally did last night. Hot off the Pundita press:
.
John Batchelor drops da bomb: Was Iran involved in Benghazi massacre? Plus Reza Kahlili and NYT reports on secret Obama-Tehran negotiations start uproar in Washington, Tehran and half the Arab world. Plus Benghazi Leak-a-Palooza.
.
And yes, that’s the actual title of the post.
.
Beyond forwarding the post I don’t want to make the time to educate you about Reza but I’ll close with two points:
First, I don’t rely on anyone when I’m following a story. I use sources, and I’ll take them from anywhere if I decide they’re useful. How do I know when to use a source and when to ignore it? Practice — long practice.
.
Second, it seems to me you’re trying to have it both ways: You write, “I’m not the person you’d want to ask whether Reza Kahlili was a CIA source, whether he was trusted, and if so, on what issues.”
.
That’s right, you’re not the person. But then you turn right around and quote Jeff Stern as your way of conveying that Reza shouldn’t be trusted on any intelligence matters.
.
In my book that’s a verbal drive-by shooting.
Charles Cameron:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:46 am
Hi Pundita:
.
Perhaps I should have said you’ve been “drawing on” rather than “relying on” Reza Khalili — I am certainly comfortable with your statement:
That’s as it should be. And I’m not actually trying to have it both ways, I’m very clear that my area of special interest is one of many feeders into the bigger picture, not the whole picture by any means.
.
When I said “I’m not the person you’d want to ask whether Reza Kahlili was a CIA source, whether he was trusted, and if so, on what issues” I was describing my own limitations. When I mentioned Jeff Stein’s opinion, I was quoting someone whose contacts and knowledge are very different from mine, and whose comments may be of value in an area outside my ken. And when Cheryl comments on Kahlili’s writings in the areas of her expertise, I take that into account too, just as I take into account your respect for him.
.
So my basic point is along the lines of “Kahlili doesn’t do well in an area I can personally check, there are other areas where I lack definitive competence to evaluate his contributions, his appearance at WINEP apparently left some Agency folks skeptical, and while Cheryl Rofer doesn’t find him credible on matters nuclear, Pundita finds him a useful source”.
.
In my book, that’s an attempt to give a nuanced view with indications of what I’m sure of myself, and what I’ve gathered and think worth passing along (with that qualification) from others.
.
Now I need to go and read your latest.
Romilly Hambling:
November 8th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
I’m suspicious too about Reza Kahlili, which is why I ended up here. But I don’t think that what you say is an indication of anything very much. Would one expect a middle class Iranian from Tehran to know the difference between hadith and aayaat? It doesn’t surprise me that he appears to confuse them. Second, the wild claims are typical of Iranian ex-pats, and Kahlili has been out of the (IRGC) loop for a long time.
Btw, the spelling of the name (pseudonym) Kahlili – as opposed to Khalili, which was what I expected – appears to be correct as that is how his name is spelled on farsi-language pages.
Thanks for the piece all the same. But I think one would have to pick up on much more telling errors to throw real doubt on his claims.