Michael Slackman has an interesting article in the NYT this morning (via PJ), detailing supposed dissension inside the Iranian regime. Daniel Drezner thinks this may be wishful thinking. I think it may be more than that. The problem is Slackman (as per the accepted method of his paper, despite their editorial denials) uses anonymous sources. This is particuarly troublesome with regards to Iran, a country known to have intelligence agents everywhere from Hong Kong to (especially) Los Angeles. Many of them talk to the press in different ways and from different “perspectives.” It’s impossible to know whom Slackman was really talking to, probably for the reporter hiimself as well. And what their agendas might be. What could just easily be going on here is that the mullahs want us to think there is dissension in their ranks when there is not. Or there might be some, but not as much as they wants us to think… or…. Does the New York Times know? Do you?
UPDATE: Much more real information here. (Apropos, isn’t it interesting that the WaPo and the NYT are suddenly flogging basically the same view on something that they cannot really know about?)