37 months in prison for ex-CIA analyst who leaked docs on Israeli strike
A former CIA analyst who leaked top secret US intelligence documents about Israeli military plans for a retaliatory strike on Iran was sentenced to 37 months in prison on Wednesday, the Justice Department said.
Asif Rahman, 34, who worked for the Central Intelligence Agency since 2016 and held a top secret security clearance, was arrested by the FBI in Cambodia in November.
In January, Rahman pleaded guilty at a federal courthouse in Virginia to two counts of willful retention and transmission of national defense information.
He faced a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
Iran unleashed a wave of close to 200 ballistic missiles on Israel on October 1 in retaliation for the killings of senior figures in the Tehran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah militant groups.
Israel responded with a wave of strikes on military targets in Iran in late October.
According to a court filing, on October 17 Rahman printed out two top secret documents "regarding a United States foreign ally and its planned kinetic actions against a foreign adversary."
He photographed the documents and used a computer program to edit the images in "an attempt to conceal their source and delete his activity," it said.
Rahman then transmitted the documents to "multiple individuals he knew were not entitled to receive them" before shredding them at work.
The documents, circulated on the Telegram app by an account called Middle East Spectator, described Israeli preparations for a possible strike on Iran but did not identify any actual targets.
According to The Washington Post, the documents, generated by the US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, described aviation exercises and movements of munitions at an Israeli airfield.
The leak led Israeli officials to delay their retaliatory strike.
cl/jgc
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge invokes monarchy talk while mulling Trump's National Guard deployment
A federal judge warned at a Thursday hearing that accepting the Trump administration's assertion he has no authority to review the president's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles is a slippery slope. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said he hoped to rule later in the day on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) request to immediately restrict the troops' power on the ground, suggesting federal law at minimum required Trump to alert the governor. The judge repeatedly emphasized that Trump is exercising presidential authority — not a king's — and the role comes with limitations. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George,' U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and then it becomes it. It's a question of is a leader, a president or the governor, following the law as set forth in both the Constitution and statutes,' he continued. 'That's what a president, a governor or any leader must act under. Otherwise, they become something other than a constitutional officer.' Breyer seemed willing to agree with Newsom that Trump's deployment was legally defective, but it's still a question as to whether the judge will enjoin the president's directive or give the administration a chance to institute it the proper way. At the same time, Breyer appeared skeptical about blocking at this stage the 700 Marines sent to assist the several thousand guardsmen deployed. The Trump administration argues Breyer has no authority to review Trump's deployment of the National Guard because it is in the president's sole discretion. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that Trump was not required to seek approval from Newsom in mobilizing the guard, calling the governor 'merely a conduit.' The president does not have to call up a governor and 'invite them to Camp David' for a negotiation summit to call up the National Guard in their state, he said. 'There is one commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and when the president makes a decision, the states are subservient to the president's decision,' Shumate said. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) contend that Trump was required to receive Newsom's consent before deploying the National Guard. 'They suggest, your honor, that there are no guardrails,' Nicholas Green, a lawyer for the state. Amid the legal battle, Trump said Thursday that he 'doesn't feel like a king.' He was responding to questions about 'No King' demonstrations expected around the country this weekend set to coincide with a military parade marking the U.S. Army's 250th birthday. 'I have to go through hell to get stuff approved,' Trump said. Breyer during the hearing kept returning to monarchy talk, trying to determine how he could side with Trump without giving him unchecked power. 'What makes America great, different, is our Constitution and our robust discussion of views of the citizens,' the judge said.
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Greta Thunberg's a vapid leftist — and a useful idiot for terror
Professional leftist Greta Thunberg was brought to Israel this week after the 'selfie yacht' she was traveling on attempted to break through the naval blockade of Gaza. Her boat, the 'Madleen,' was part of a flotilla pretending to deliver aid to alleviate an imaginary famine. The 22-year-old was given food and shelter and sent home by the Israeli government, which she accused of 'kidnapping' her. All the usual suspects went along with this predictable framing. Advertisement If Thunberg really wanted to better understand the concept of an abduction, she might have asked Hamas to visit the Israelis still being tortured in a dank basement somewhere in Rafa. But the 'human rights activist,' which is how the legacy media unironically describes her, has never once called for the release of the hostages taken by Islamists. Advertisement Indeed, the flotilla effort was reportedly organized by a 'Hamas operative.' '[The Israelis] tried to make us watch all kinds of propaganda videos,' Thunberg told reporters after landing in Paris, 'but I didn't watch. This is nothing compared to what is happening in Gaza, which is in desperate need of humanitarian aid.' Referring to GoPro videos made by Palestinians that document the gleeful slaughter of women, children and the elderly as 'propaganda' is a bold accusation coming from a cosplay revolutionary whose biggest problem was getting a vegetarian meal from her hosts. Advertisement As this was all going on, incidentally, Israel has been sending hundreds of aid trucks into the Gaza Strip. Hamas opposes this effort, as it uses food and aid to control the Palestinian population. On the day Thunberg was whining to reporters in Europe, at least five aid workers were murdered by Hamas trying to bring food to the population. The real question is: Why is she in the news at all? Advertisement Thunberg was named Time's Person of the Year in 2019 after dropping out of high school and 'raising awareness for climate change.' It was quite a historic accomplishment: No one was talking about global warming before Greta came around, apparently. Me? I tend to think the kid who stays in school and learns a thing or two about biology before lecturing me about science is the real hero. But we live in a time where emotionalism and vapidity are often confused with decency and wisdom. Thunberg is the embodiment of this trend. Thunberg's most infamous moment was a frivolous emotional outburst at the United Nations, where she screamed at those who had bequeathed her with unprecedented wealth, safety, and freedom. 'You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,' she claimed. Advertisement But really, her dream was to be famous. Or, maybe, it was first the dream of exploitative parents who persuaded their child that the world was on the precipice of Armageddon. Since her Time magazine cover, Thunberg has achieved nothing. Her native Sweden has turned back to fossil fuels. Europe, as well. The Earth, however, is still here. Advertisement Subsequently, Thunberg has moved on to champion other trendy leftist causes, such as Black Lives Matter and now 'Free Palestine.' The only thing she understands less about than climate science seems to be the Middle East. As far as I can tell, Thunberg has never once said anything remotely compelling or witty or smart. There are millions of young people far more worthy of attention. For years, youth shielded Thunberg from criticism. Even now, journalists fail to ask her any serious, in-depth questions about the issues she champions. Advertisement The chances she could answer one are incredibly slim. Well, Thunberg is now a young woman, and so we can freely point out that she's always been an extraordinary imbecile. But now, she's also a useful idiot for terrorists. For that, there is no excuse. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
