The Post Submits Its 2009 Entry for ‘Worst Investigative Reporting’
The Washington Post concludes Iran isn't tinkering in Nicaragua because ... their embassy in Managua is too small.
Everyone knows terrorists have worked out of one-bedroom apartments. They’re almost famous for tinkering with bombs in hidden confined spaces. Heck, Timothy McVeigh used an old storage shed to build his fertilizer bomb. The Iranians’ Buenos Aires embassy was hardly a super mega-building when operatives posing as diplomats planned and executed huge bombings against a Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in 1992 and 1994.
In my own coverage, I quoted academics and security specialists opposing one another over what Iran was up to in Nicaragua. I showed that I at least tried to figure things out on the ground. I discovered the Nicaraguan government was allowing Iranian men in and out of the country without visas. I’ve reported that big Iranian development promises have come to naught.
But I work for a newspaper of relatively limited means and could only get 10 days in-country with a lot of ground to cover. In the end, I was only able to raise more questions.
Since filing my story in November 2007, I’ve craved to know what my press colleagues with more resources would find on their own subsequent trips that would surely follow.
I just assumed more serious inquiries were imminent because: Iran. Is. A. Big. Important. Story.
There’d been so much fuss over Iran’s expanding partnerships with South American regimes during ever noisier saber rattlings over its nuclear weapons program. International sanctions were mounting. The U.S. listed Iran as an enthusiastic sponsor of terrorist organizations in Latin America like Hezbollah. Argentina had just indicted scores of senior Iranian officials for the Buenos Aires bombings a decade earlier. A new American president had come to office with a fresh diplomatic approach to all of this.
But not one of my esteemed colleagues followed me down to Managua — until just now. And the best the Post could do was to show some American officials had used hyperbole to describe the Iranian presence?
Sigh. Such a squandered opportunity.
So as of today, still no one knows what the Iranians are really doing in a country too poor to benefit them in normal trade. The Post could have used its considerable resources to delve into that worthwhile question, producing answers of any sort, advancing the ball even a little bit more.
But instead the Post leaves the American people and an Obama foreign policy apparatus with nothing more than that the embassy isn’t big enough to project a threat. It’s a safe bet the dismissive tone of the story won’t incite more journalistic inquiry from the Post for a long time to come.
I called former FBI agent Jim G. Conway, who specialized in counter-terrorism programs in Mexico and was involved in the Argentina bombing investigations before his retirement last year. I ran the Post’s story by him, asking for an assessment about the proposition that embassy size means something. Here’s what he told me, in part:
My view is one of major concern regardless of the physical size of the embassy.
We know that Iranian missions, embassies, or consulates provide “cover” for the Iranian intelligence apparatus, be it MOIS or IRGC (Quds forces). That apparatus, as evidenced by the Buenos Aires attacks and subsequent investigations (of which I was involved), shows that Hezbollah in concert with Iran intelligence within the embassy can carry out attacks on “soft” Israeli or western targets.
In many of these countries we see the coalescence of four variables that make for a dangerous situation: 1) Iranian diplomatic presence, 2) Hizballah cells in place, collecting intel, raising money, doing target assessments, etc., 3) access to arms and explosives, and 4) weak, incapable and/or corrupt police and local intel services.
From a global perspective, and with the recent saber rattling we’ve seen with Iran and the West, should something push us beyond the tipping point with Iran or our ally Israel the Iranians could strike U.S. and/or Israeli targets quickly in Latin America.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep wondering what the Iranians are really up to down there.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Todd Bensman is an investigative reporter based in San Antonio. He can be reached at todd.bensman@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
14 Comments
1. David Thomson:The typical Washington Post journalist prefers to believe that Iran is not a threat to the United States. Their existential view of the world is essentially utopian. Enemies really don’t exist. They are people who only need to be understood. Our allegedly past imperialistic actions are the reasons why the Iranians are angry. Ignore them—and they will eventually get to like us. The elites who graduated from our “best” schools will not face reality until it’s too late. At this point in time, we can hope that the Post soon goes bankrupt and closes.
Jul 15, 2009 - 3:38 am 2. Meryl:Intellectually, it’s becoming apparent that liberals long ago surrendered the idea of the United States of America being a sovereign nation.
That accomplished, erstwhile enemies evaporate into nothingness and the smallest thing we may now do to protect ourselves or assert our own nationhood is considered hostile action against all those other NICE sovereign nations.
Jul 15, 2009 - 4:27 am 3. moron:I guess this also indicates that North Korea is not a nuclear threat—only one person there is allowed to pull the trigger!!!
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:32 am 4. Thomas L......:The embassy may not be big but you should see the safe houses! You can see where the Post was going with this. As Obamaphiles, they are convinced that the USA is the biggest threat to, well, everyone and the size of US embassies, everywhere, proves that. Couldn’t just be the simple fact that for every person that wants to emigrate to Iran, there are about billion times that many who would like to come to the USA and for every Iranian tourist who needs help, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans travelling. Plus, great nations tend to have great symbols. Nah.
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:56 am 5. AzB:The persians will get their feet burned in latin america. Jesus has many believers there. Soon America will have her hands severed, not my human hands, she will not be able to feed herself. Be prepared.. get your houses in order
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:57 am 6. Attila:This piece of investigative reporting will have strong competition for the worst of 2009. The WaPo investigation of their own pay-to-play salons was so bad their ombudsman had to expose it as a total lie.
At least this risible farce about small countries not posing a threat to the US can quote the Clown-in-Chief, Barack Obama, who agrees with them.
I wonder if small nuclear weapons are considered a threat by these blind fools.
Jul 15, 2009 - 6:28 am 7. dan:It’s so strange that the WaPo – presuming it pursues and publishes its stories in good faith – fails to see that Iran piggybacks on the Russian network of alliances. This is similar to the bizarre international community “see no evil” approach to the Iranian nuclear program: they seem to believe Russia, who is building their program, will veto that program. Why is there always so much public stupidity when it comes to Russia and its alliances? So much “just don’t look”?
Jul 15, 2009 - 6:43 am 8. "progressive"watch:This concept is nothing new with the former msm. It,including the Washington Compost,think it is a great media voice because of its size. Instead they are the voice of bafoons magnified.
Jul 15, 2009 - 7:15 am 9. The Skizzerd of Waz:Who ever said the WaPo did journalism?
Jul 15, 2009 - 7:15 am 10. Cindy Sue Causey:In this day and age, all it takes is one, ONE well-positioned Human being to change anything.. And that’s not talking about hierarchy, that just means right person, right place, right resources available to..
That Party of One.
As for your being in Nicaragua, impressive.. A friend and I drove to and said “hey” to the final border guard station to Nicaragua from Costa Rica’s side in the early 90’s just to be able to say we did.. Very, very somber completed bucket list item because of its ongoing (reported) history along with my memory being that of a very high presence of weaponry.. Can’t imagine the view from the country’s physical inside..
Cyber hugs from Talking Rock..
Jul 15, 2009 - 7:46 am 11. Sandra:Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Don’t ask questions. The One has it covered. All he has to do crank up the old teleprompter to allay all fears, put on a smile and the MSM swoons, with tingles running up their legs. Iran setting up a base in Nicaraqua? Not to worry. The One has told us it’s no big deal.
Jul 15, 2009 - 7:57 am 12. wc:I took a Spanish class with the Iranian ambassador and his son back in the early 90’s at Universario CentroAmerica in Managua shortly after Ortega had lost the election to Chamarro. They were a jovial pair, until one day our teacher suggested that he invite our class to his house which he bragged about quite a bit. Suddenly the ambassador’s Spanish ability deteriorated, and he became ‘confused’. I am not sure if this teacher was naive or just a ball buster. I just laughed being the only American in the room and said in English that they certainly weren’t free to do any such thing.
Jul 15, 2009 - 12:33 pm 13. locke:Come to think of it, the Soviet embassies in several Eastern block countries were not immense structures
Jul 15, 2009 - 2:08 pm 14. Chileno:either. Those countries had their own governments
military forces. Maybe the Post is on to something.
Embassy size may indicate large known national interests (e.g. the large Canadian embassy in DC, or the large US embassy in Iraq), but it bears no relation to those interests meant to be kept unknown. There’s a difference between overt and covert national interests. Who would draw attention to their covert ops by building a sprawling embassy compound? I’m sure many of our Cold War embasseis where covert ops were launched from were small precisely to keep as low a profile as possible.
The WaPo journalist was either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid to use such a simpleton argument to downplay this potential threat to America. Using his inane logic, we should’ve had nothing to worry about on 9/11, as there was no large army coming ashore in New York and Washington, just 19 guys on 4 separate planes.
Jul 16, 2009 - 9:07 pm