The question of whether a foreign opponent may have caused the unexplained Havana syndrome ailments to American diplomats and intelligence professionals stationed abroad has caused a rift among U.S. intelligence organizations.
Two out of seven spy agencies now believe a foreign actor may have created or utilized a weapon that led to the unexplained health occurrences, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment issued Friday. First reported in Havana, Cuba, officials would not say which intelligence services had changed their assessment of the injuries.
In line with conclusions from 2023, five out of seven intelligence departments or agencies came to the conclusion that it was highly unlikely that a foreign actor was responsible for the physical symptoms, which include vertigo, hearing loss, severe headaches, ear discomfort, and impaired vision. According to the assessment, their judgments were partly supported by sensitive intelligence reporting that kept pointing away from foreign participation.
An official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told reporters in a teleconference that the intelligence reporting included information showing foreign enemies were either taken aback by the episodes or made it apparent in internal communications that they were not responsible.
However, two agencies suggested that a foreign force might be to blame. A small percentage of U.S. federal employees who reported the unexpected medical symptoms had a roughly equal probability of being harmed by a prototype technology or a novel weapon, according to one.
Additionally, the second unidentified intelligence agency came to the conclusion that the likelihood of a foreign actor developing a weapon that could have hurt them was about equal.
According to the study, the two intelligence agencies’ opinions were supported by intelligence reporting showing that foreign entities are advancing their technological and weaponry development.
However, the second agency warned that it was doubtful that any of the incidents connected to the Havana syndrome cases involved the use of such a weapon by a foreign opponent. The dissenting agencies both expressed a lack of trust in their evaluations.
Former and present government workers have repeatedly criticized the new report, claiming that the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence attempted to minimize the likelihood of a foreign culprit and that their medical situations were first disregarded or neglected. The charges have been denied by both spy services.
Sean Savett, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, stated on Friday that the report showed a change in some intelligence components’ key judgments and that it reaffirmed the importance of the U.S. Government carrying out important research, looking into credible incidents, and stepping up efforts to provide prompt care and long-term clinical follow-up.
National Security Council officials back victims
Havana syndrome victims claim that the White House statement’s divergent tone revealed a divide between some intelligence community officials and representatives from the National Security Council, other government agencies, and Congress.
Senior National Security Council officials told a group of Havana syndrome victims in November that prior intelligence assessments were no longer valid and that they thought a foreign actor was likely capable and responsible, according to two former government employees who were injured in connection with the unexplained health cases, who spoke to NBC News.
Marc Polymeropoulos, a senior CIA officer hurt in Moscow in 2017 and the first former intelligence agency official to speak out about his experience, claimed the NSC has been subtly supportive for years.
According to him, the NSC has promoted further study and investigative efforts, which reportedly resulted in a breakthrough. Despite the CIA and ODNI’s persistent analytical resistance and victim gaslighting, all of this was achieved.
In a December report, Republicans on a House intelligence subcommittee stated that there was growing evidence that some of the reported health episodes were caused by a foreign opponent. The intelligence community’s assessments, according to the study, also lacked analytical thoroughness and honesty.
The ODNI official who briefed reporters vehemently denied the legislators’ charge, stating that all analytical work was conducted with rigorous neutrality and a fact-based approach.
According to the official, integrity means acting honorably and truthfully against impossibly strong pressures. To be clear, the fundamental principle of analytical tradecraft is to set aside one’s emotions and use intelligence, reporting facts, and critical thinking to guide one’s judgments.
No one in the intelligence community questions the credibility or experience of individuals who reported injuries, the ODNI source continued. According to the official, these are our pals and coworkers.
Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, rejected such claims, claiming the new assessment was a cover-up by the Biden administration. According to him, new intelligence should fundamentally alter how the United States evaluates the capabilities of its foreign rivals.
According to Turner, this will not be good for the Biden administration in the long run.
A lawyer for some of the victims, Mark Zaid, also took issue with the new evaluation. He claimed that although the intelligence services are beginning to admit that a foreign force was responsible for the incidents, it shamefully still conceals the truth behind a curtain of secrecy.
Zaid claimed that in order to declassify the new intelligence assessment, he had previously submitted a freedom of information request on behalf of the victims. Next month, he also intends to sue to force its release.