
In Espionage and War, Secure Communication Is Key. Just Ask These Spies.
But consider the career highlights of some of the world's most noteworthy spies in these three new books.
The Determined Spy
The biggest surprise in Waller's lively biography of Frank Wisner, THE DETERMINED SPY: The Turbulent Life and Times of CIA Pioneer Frank Wisner (Dutton, 645 pp., $36), is how stunningly naïve U.S. covert and martial operations have been at times. As Waller shows, Wisner's tenure provides one of the harsher lessons of the world of espionage: What appears to be a success at the time may not prove so over the long run.
Wisner was a major figure at the C.I.A. in the 1950s, when the agency toppled the governments of Iran and Guatemala. Washington was so pleased with those results that it contemplated doing the same in Cuba. That's how, in 1961, we ended up with the fiasco known as the Bay of Pigs.
That leads to a second harsh lesson that intelligence agencies don't like to talk about much — how frequently their people in the field are incompetent. For example, during part of World War II, the chief of American spying in the continental crossroads city of Istanbul — perhaps the most fruitful location for spies at the time — was Lanning 'Packy' Macfarland, a former savings and loan executive from Illinois who was fond of wearing a trench coat and slouch hat. This 'dangerous buffoon,' as Waller calls him, had two lovers: One worked for the Germans, the other for the Russians.
Waller, the author of several books on national security, reports that when Wisner replaced Macfarland in Istanbul, he had almost as little experience, but apparently a great deal more native intelligence and drive. Wisner even stood a good chance of becoming the head of the C.I.A. until he suffered a series of manic highs caused by bipolar disorder. He left the agency and, in 1965, killed himself. The results of his coup in Iran live on even today, with the government there regarding the United States as 'the Great Satan.'
Iran's Ministry of Intelligence
Today's C.I.A., trying to adjust to the mixed directions that come from President Trump, Elon Musk and the president's other assorted appointees, likely would get a bit of quiet sympathy — but not much — from Iran's Ministry of Intelligence. As described by Ward in IRAN'S MINISTRY OF INTELLIGENCE: A Concise History (Georgetown University Press, 195 pp., paperback, $26.95), Iranian intelligence has frequently found itself torn between the country's unelected supreme leader and its elected president. In 2011, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tried to push out the intelligence minister Heydar Moslehi, supposedly for wiretapping the president's chief of staff. The supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's displeasure bubbled up through the media, and the chief spook went back to work while Ahmadinejad pouted at home for a week. Two years later, Moslehi was in trouble again, allegedly for spying on a legislator.
The country also has intense interagency rivalries, much like the well-documented one that has long persisted in America between the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. The Iranian intelligence ministry, which conducts foreign operations but mainly focuses on suppressing internal dissent, is frequently overshadowed by Iran's more ideological and militaristic Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In 2016, for instance, there was squabbling over who ran better background checks as each agency independently vetted parliamentary candidates ahead of that year's election. By 2023 the tension between the two organizations was so persistent that Khamenei told them in writing to be more cooperative with each other.
Overall, Ward's book is thin gruel, featuring only a few interesting tidbits, such as the fact that the details of the Iran-contra scandal — that is, the astonishing report that the Reagan administration was sending weapons to Iran in exchange for American hostages held in Lebanon — were first leaked to a Beirut magazine by a senior Revolutionary Guard official who was unhappy with the shadowy deal. (This dissenting hothead was executed for his intervention, Ward notes.)
But the single biggest revelation for me in this book was the author's mention — in an aside — that despite having been a C.I.A. analyst for nearly 30 years specializing in Iranian security issues, he neither speaks nor reads Persian. Imagine an Iranian trying to be an expert on the United States without being able to watch American television and movies, read its books and magazines, and converse with its officials and citizens. Have we learned nothing from the exploits of Packy Macfarland?
Watching the Jackals
In intelligence, sometimes the most illuminating information comes from unexpected quarters. Of several recent books on covert operations, the most enlightening is WATCHING THE JACKALS: Prague's Covert Liaisons With Cold War Terrorists and Revolutionaries (Georgetown University Press, 350 pp., paperback, $39.95). Richterova, a political scientist at King's College London, lived a researcher's dream: 99 percent of the existing files of the intelligence agencies of Communist Czechoslovakia have been released — and, what's more, without any redactions. She describes how she was the first to read many of these 'freshly declassified files and sift through them as they were brought into the archive reading room on heavy-duty trolleys.'
The odd factoids alone are worth the price of admission, demonstrating just how minutely detailed and vivid these documents can be. In 1966, when Che Guevara visited Czechoslovakia for three months as he prepared for his ill-fated mission to Bolivia, he and his companions had only two records to listen to, one by the South African singer Miriam Makeba and the other by the Beatles. In 1977, Abu Daoud, one of the planners of the Munich Olympics massacre five years earlier, checked into Prague's Hotel Intercontinental just as the International Olympic Committee was meeting there — apparently just a macabre coincidence. Two years later, when the volatile Venezuelan terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal accidentally locked himself out of his room at the same hotel, he angrily walked the hallways of the establishment brandishing a large revolver.
The heart of Richterova's surprising work lies in the uneasy relationship between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the 'plodding' Czech intelligence services. Czechoslovakia's relationship with the P.L.O. began uncomfortably and worsened with time. 'It was characterized by dissonance — a mismatch in expectations, objectives and preferred tactics,' she writes. Among other things, she adds, this tends to emphatically disprove the allegations made by the journalist Claire Sterling and others in the 1980s that there was extensive cooperation between the Communist Warsaw Pact states and terrorist organizations.
The Palestinians, their skills honed by their ongoing fight with Israeli intelligence, ran circles around Prague's operatives. Richterova notes that the Arabs were veterans in espionage tradecraft, using multiple disguises and passports. Some, working for Carlos the Jackal as bodyguards in Prague, were so bold as to detain and question a Czech intelligence officer who was tailing them.
The P.L.O. did try to please Prague, partly by proposing a variety of risky operations. Among these was an offer to kill or kidnap Czech exiles who were critical of the Communist regime, including a former chief of the country's state-run television network. The P.L.O. also said that it could attack the Munich headquarters of Radio Free Europe. Prague listened, but was wary of carrying out such schemes, given the potential blowback from the West.
The country's leaders might have had other concerns as well: Czech spies deemed P.L.O. agents especially weak on clandestine communications. At one point in 1983, they suggested a course in cryptology. As Trump administration officials have learned lately, communications security may seem like a minor issue — until it blows up in your face.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Buzz Feed
11 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Marjorie Taylor Greene Just Dropped A Truth Bomb About The Republican Party
Marjorie Taylor Greene is NOT happy with the Republican Party. She was pissed about the attack on Iran. She broke ranks with Republicans and called the crisis in Gaza a "genocide." And she won't stop talking about how Republicans won't deal with the national debt. Now, she's talking about breaking up with the Republican Party. In an interview with the Daily Mail, the Congress member said: "I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to Republican Party as much anymore. I don't know which one it is." She also said: "I think the Republican Party has turned its back on America First and the workers and just regular Americans." And finally, she criticized the way Republicans treat women: "I think there's other women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women." Those anti-GOP quotes are going viral in a tweet by Brian Tyler Cohen: People in the replies are, like, duh: "What if she switches parties and becomes a normie dem," one person asked. "I really never thought i'd see that day she was saying shit like this and uttering the word 'genocide'…" another person said in disbelief. And then the Lincoln Project invited her to the party: "Welcome to the resistance, Marge." As this person said, "Trumps presidency is so goddamn bad that it wokeified marjorie taylor green."


The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why you're getting debanked, and how lawmakers can stop it happening
For two decades, I have worked with policymakers and law enforcement in North America and Europe to strengthen the financial safeguards that keep state sponsors of terrorism, violent extremist groups, weapons proliferators and criminal networks from exploiting the U.S. banking system. I have supported tough sanctions. I have pushed to close loopholes that hindered enforcement. And I have worked to hold those who enable illicit finance and trade, wittingly or not, to account. From the beginning, banks have been essential partners in these efforts. Through 'Know Your Customer' procedures and the anti-money laundering laws that followed the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, financial institutions have supplied the data and intelligence that help law enforcement uncover illegal activities such as human-trafficking rings, fentanyl supply chains and terror-financing networks. These frameworks played a critical role in safeguarding the country. Unfortunately, some of the tools intended to identity and stop criminal activity are now targeting and unjustly driving lawful customers lawful customers out of the financial system — a phenomenon widely known as 'debanking.' Most Americans are unaware that any cash transaction over $10,000 triggers the creation of a Currency Transaction Report that is filed with the federal government. That dollar amount threshold was set when Lyndon Johnson was in the White House and, incredibly, has never been updated to account for inflation. In today's economy, $10,000 might barely cover the cost of a used car. Yet banks are still required to flag such transactions, regardless of context, producing millions of reports every year that offer little value to law enforcement. Suspicious Activity Reports are yet another layer of government scrutiny. Banks filed more than 4 million Suspicious Activity Reports just last year, according to the Treasury Department. Former officials concede this avalanche of paperwork does little to improve public safety. In fact, it can create a burden for investigators seeking to identify and separate the truly suspicious activity from the mundane. When enforcement cannot separate the signal from the noise, it becomes dangerous. Meanwhile, regulators continue to pressure banks to apply broad risk labels to entire industries simply because they involve cash-heavy businesses, serve overseas clients or operate in unfavored sectors — all in the name of keeping our financial system 'safe and sound.' This isn't theoretical. Religious charities, international aid organizations and countless immigrant-owned businesses have all faced the threat of debanking. They are not terrorists or criminals. They are fellow Americans being pushed to the financial margins by a system that confuses bureaucracy with vigilance. Congress is beginning to address the problem through the Financial Institution Regulatory Modernization Act. This legislation would increase transparency and accountability in how agencies issue guidance and conduct examinations of financial institutions and their customers. It would help ensure that banks are not penalized for serving lawful customers in politically sensitive sectors. It's an encouraging start, but it will not be enough by itself. The single most effective step policymakers could take today to address the unintended debanking of lawful citizens is to modernize the anti-money laundering framework. Modernization should ensure banks provide relevant and actionable information that truly helps investigators and allows financial institutions to replace box-ticking alerts and reporting with data analysis that spots real patterns of abuse. Banks would still verify identities, monitor accounts and file reports the moment they see suspicious activity. These reforms would sharpen these responsibilities and make our country and the banking industry safer. Further, clear standards would let financial institutions maintain relationships with lawful customers while giving authorities faster access to data when real dangers emerge. The U.S. led the world in building a financial system hostile to terrorist financing and illicit finance. That leadership depends on a financial system that is both secure, credible and widely accessible. When honest actors are pushed out incorrectly, arbitrarily, and without transparency, and financial access is treated as a privilege rather than a right, the foundation of that leadership begins to erode. Policymakers do not need to choose between security and fairness. A modernized anti-money laundering regime would strengthen both. It would allow regulators and institutions to focus attention on those posing a real risk and reduce the burden on both law-abiding financial institutions and their customers I have spent much of my life trying to make America safer by making our financial system harder to exploit. That mission still matters. But the tools we built decades ago are not suited to today's challenges. Without reform, the anti-money laundering regime will continue to fail in its most basic duty: distinguishing between friend and foe. Congress and the administration should act now. The stakes are too high to allow inertia to carry the day. regulations.


Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Budget's Tax Cuts On Tips And Overtime Are Popular But Few Benefit
A recent Wall Street Journal poll reported widespread support for three of President Trump's campaign ideas that Congress added to the budget bill it passed on July 3rd. While respondents generally opposed the overall law, new tax deductions for tip and overtime income and for older adults were quite popular. But respondents may have been unaware of one key fact: Few will gain from these tax changes. The Tax Policy Center estimates: All three tax breaks will be available from 2025 through 2028. Tips and overtime pay still will be subject to payroll taxes. TPC estimates about 30 percent of households would benefit from all of Trump's add-ons combined, including deductions for OT, tips, auto loans, and seniors. For all households, these provisions will cut taxes by an average of about $300 in 2026. On the campaign trail, President Trump framed his policies in simple and bold terms: No taxes on tips. No taxes on overtime. No taxes on Social Security. While headline writers still describe the changes in the same vivid terms (here and here), the reality is far different. And much less generous. There are two big reasons. First, most workers don't get tips or overtime pay. Second, low-income workers and retirees already pay no federal income tax simply because they make so little money. If you pay no income tax now, all these extra deductions do you no good, no matter how generous they sound. For example, more than 99 percent of households making less than about $35,000 (the lowest-income 20 percent) gain nothing from the deductions for tips and overtime. Nearly 99 percent of low-income older adults get no help from the senior deduction. More than that, Congress's final design of each of these tax cuts further shrinks the number of beneficiaries. The Tip Deduction The budget law allows workers to deduct no more than $25,000 in tips. Self-employed workers can deduct only up to their net income from the business where the tips were earned. The deduction starts phasing out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income over $150,000 ($300,000 for joint filers). In addition, only those in occupations where workers 'customarily and regularly' received tips in the past will be eligible. How many tipped workers will benefit from the new deduction? About 60 percent among households that report tipped income from workers who are not dependents. Two-thirds live in households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000. However, the share of households that benefit falls to about half once you the many dependents who report tipped income, such as students who work part-time. Keep in mind that TPC analyzed tax benefits only. Many low-income tipped workers may lose Medicaid benefits or Affordable Care Act premium subsidies due to other provisions of the budget law. The Center for American Progress estimates, for example, estimated that more than 500,000 tipped food service workers receive Medicaid. The Overtime Deduction The overtime law comes with its own limits. A worker can deduct no more than $12,500 in overtime pay ($25,000 if married). The deduction applies only to the portion that exceeds their regular pay. In other words, if a worker gets time-and-a-half pay, they can only deduction the extra 'half.' The work must meet the Fair Labor Standards Act definition of overtime. And like the tips provision, the OT deduction phases out for taxpayers starting at $150,000 ($300,000 for joint filers). Even with the phase-out, the biggest beneficiaries of the OT deduction are those making between about $217,000 and $460,000. Their taxes will be reduced by $500-$600, or about 0.2 percent of their after-tax income. The OT deduction will come with other still-unwritten guardrails to prevent employers and employees from gaming the system by designating regular pay as overtime. The Senior Deduction The tax break for seniors is entirely different from what Trump proposed when campaigning. Instead of exempting Social Security benefits from tax, it gives some older adults a special deduction against all income. Overall, TPC estimates fewer than half of older adults will benefit at all. And the average tax cut for all seniors will be about $450. Not nothing, but hardly life changing. Among seniors, the biggest beneficiaries will be those making between about $130,000 and $190,000 (the highest-income 80 percent to 90 percent). More than 95 percent will benefit from the higher deduction. By contrast, about 99 percent of those making $24,000 or less would get no benefit from the higher deduction. Estimates of who benefits from the tips and overtime deductions are uncertain, since it ultimately will depend on rules the Treasury Department and the IRS have yet to write. Still, TPC's analysis provides a good estimate of the number of people who will benefit from Trump's tax ideas. And there are a lot fewer than people seem to think.