Tulsi's Choice

The Steady State | by James Petrila

The recent 60 Minutes presentation and accompanying article by The Insider has brought renewed focus on the victims of the Havana Syndrome, the likely perpetrators, and the analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency that found it “very unlikely” that a foreign power was behind the attacks that have resulted in serious injury to a number of government officers.

.Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has directed a review of the original CIA findings, and has promised to release the findings once that review is concluded. The CIA conclusion regarding the likelihood of no foreign involvement was released in March 2023 as part of an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). It was widely criticized both for its methodology and for its main conclusion that, while a relatively small number of officers had suffered brain injuries from an unexplained source, and the source of the attacks remained a mystery, it was “very unlikely” that the source of the attacks was a foreign power. Victims of the attack included officers who were on an official visit to Moscow, officers located in Central Asia and other parts of the former Soviet Union, and officers whose primary intelligence focus was Russia.

As both the 60 Minutes program and the more detailed Insider article make clear, ample evidence points to Russia as the culprit. This is not new. From the time the first reports from Havana were publicized a number of victims assumed it was the Russians based on a variety of factors, including the locations where they were hit and their own work histories. CBS reporting that Homeland Security Investigations, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, had purchased the weapon from a Russian organized crime group only confirmed what many of the victims believed – that the Russians were behind the attacks. In the face of this criticism, the Intelligence Community doubled down on its initial report, issuing an update in the last days of the Biden Administration. An unclassified meeting between National Security Council (NSC) officials and Havana Syndrome victims at the White House shortly thereafter showed that the NSC thought differently on the issue.

Tulsi Gabbard is now presented with a dilemma. She has never missed an opportunity to denigrate the Biden Administration, and seems to be spending much of her time gathering evidence to re-litigate the 2020 election even as military operations against Iran continue. The ICA and its nonsensical conclusion (we don’t know who did it, but it wasn’t the Russians) presents an easy target to criticize the Biden administration for a significant cover-up that came at the expense of the health of US intelligence officials. But if that easily refuted conclusion is rejected by the new assessment, will the DNI point out that these attacks very likely were carried out by the Russians? That is after all the choice: blame the Biden administration for an analytic cover-up that ignored substantial evidence that the Russians were behind at least some of the attacks, or protect Putin. This is not an issue where the DNI can both eat her cake and still have it.

This is a dilemma precisely because of the way in which the current administration has protected Putin, going back to the infamous first term scene in Helsinki in which Trump put his faith in Putin over the reporting of the US Intelligence Community. There is also the issue of reported Russian Military Intelligence (GRU) bounties being offered to the Taliban to kill US intelligence officers. The administration worked to denigrate those reports. During his second term, the United States has gone from supporting Ukraine, a democracy defending itself from an armed neighbor whose official position is that Ukraine is not a country, Ukrainians are not a people, and Ukrainian is not a language, to pressuring Ukraine to hand over significant territory to Russia that Putin’s forces have failed to capture. The United States has ended military assistance to Ukraine, agreeing only to sell weapons to NATO countries who then provide them to Ukraine. The current administration has pressured Ukraine to accept a lopsided “peace deal” that will only encourage future Russian aggression. The United States has even joined with Russia and China in voting against an IAEA resolution condemning Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. And recently, the administration seems unconcerned about reporting that the Russians are providing the Iranians with intelligence to attack our assets and personnel in the Gulf.

So this is Tulsi’s choice: issue a revised assessment that is more in line with the compelling reporting done by 60 Minutes and The Insider and face questions about what the Trump administration plans to do in response, or protect Putin by covering up the likelihood that the attacks on our officers have been perpetrated by his intelligence services.

James Petrila spent over thirty years as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community, working at the National Security Agency and, for most of his career,at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has taught courses on counterterrorism law and legal issues at the CIA at the George Washington University School of Law. He is currently a senior advisor to the Institute for the Study of States of Exception and is a member of The Steady State.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.