 |
|
Franklin, Flipped: Why are Larry Franklin's defenders trying to portray him as a desk grunt?
Here's a good bio of Larry Franklin, the Pentagon Iran analyst who is under FBI investigation for allegedly passing classified US Iran documents to the lobbying group AIPAC. Franklin is reported by the New York Times and Newsweek to have been cooperating with the FBI since earlier this month. The bio is from Ha'aretz's Nathan Gutman:
Franklin, a religious Catholic in his late 50s, lives in Kearneysville, West Virginia . . . [with] his wife Patricia and their five children . . . Franklin has a doctorate in East Asian studies from St. John's University . . . and speaks Farsi, Arabic, French, Spanish, Russian and Chinese . . .
In conversations about Franklin with his colleagues, one of the words that comes up again and again is "naive." He is described as an ideologue who believes wholeheartedly in the neo-conservative approach . . .
The thesis that this is an ambiguous case, and that Franklin may not have known the seriousness of what he was doing, is gaining traction in articles in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the New York Sun. Several media are reporting today that Franklin, if charged at all, is likely to get charged with a lesser crime than espionage, most likely that of mishandling classified information.
Juan Cole is skeptical that a PhD, veteran DIA analyst, Office of Special Plans insider could be so naive. And Cole is extremely correct that the portrayal of Franklin as a "low level desk grunt" is ridiculous: Franklin is the Pentagon's top Iran analyst, he was specifically brought into the Office of the Secretary of Defense because he shared the neocon worldview of Feith, Luti and Wolfowitz, and he was very much part of the inner circle. He was also part of a rogue Pentagon Iran intelligence back channel that I have researched intensively.
[But the encounter Cole recounts of his own experience with Franklin surely does suggest a degree of naivete on LF's part.]
Most interesting to me is the question, which I raised over the weekend. Why was the FBI already monitoring a lunch between AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat when Franklin stumbled into the picture a year ago? The NYT reports that not only did the FBI obtain a FISA warrant to wiretap Franklin, but that the Bureau only did so after Franklin walked into a lunch meeting that the FBI had already been monitoring:
Newsweek magazine reported that the bureau first learned of Mr. Franklin when agents observed him walking into a lunch in Washington between a lobbyist for the American Israeli group and an Israeli embassy official.
So, what was the origin of that, pre-Franklin alleged FBI espionage investigation? The NY Sun's Eli Lake suggests that the origin of that probe was a request by Rumsfeld to the FBI to investigate who in the Pentagon leaked Iraq war plans to the New York Times:
A senior law enforcement official and administration sources told the Sun that the Franklin investigation stems from a two-year FBI probe into who leaked top secret war plans for Iraq published by the New York Times on July 5, 2002. . . In a memo circulated to the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld condemned the improper disclosure of classified information and encouraged staff members to put an end to the practice.
Also unclear: if Franklin had been cooperating with the FBI, why did this leak now, seemingly, from the FBI NY field office where the investigation is headed?
The left has its theories; the right has its.
I don't know the answer as to why this would leak now, except that sources I was meeting with in the past few weeks on an entirely different issue were hearing of an FBI investigation into possible Israeli espionage by an official in Doug Feith's office. Indeed, one source had been visited by the FBI in August asking about Franklin. In other words, sometimes, a leak is just a leak; it's a small community of Iran experts in DC, and they were starting to hear things.
One thing I am curious to know is if there is a grand jury investigation seated on this case. A friend says tonight that Franklin's bosses, including Wolfowitz and Feith, were only interviewed by the FBI in the past few days, e.g. post-leak. They were reportedly asked if Franklin has been authorized to pass such a document [the draft National Security Presidential Directive on Iran] to AIPAC. My friend suggests that the fact Franklin's own bosses weren't interviewed 'til now indicates an indictment against Franklin could not have been soon forthcoming. But it could also seemingly suggest something else: that the FBI did not want Franklin's bosses to know about the investigation.
Now that we all know about it, it remains to be seen if the investigation can continue.
Update: I should say, I've met Franklin, and am aware that he is part of a small network of Iran specialists both in and outside of government, that, like all such networks, does a lot of intensive formal and informal information sharing. For instance, Franklin has until recently been a member of a bipartisan Iran task force at the Atlantic Council headed by Brent Scowcroft, where people in and out of government debate what US policy to Iran should be over the course of months. Some but not all members of the Task Force, as I understand it, hold security clearances. And it's true that not just the neocons but many others point out that a lot of the Iran specialist community in DC was aware of the deliberations that were in the draft NSPD on Iran that Franklin is accused of giving to Aipac. For what it's worth, I would tend to agree there is an element of ambiguity in the Franklin case itself, at least as it's been reported. But does it go beyond Franklin?
Update II: Sources confirm today the leak about the Franklin investigation came from the FBI itself. Therefore, these headlines that "FBI is furious over leak" seem mistaken.