Published on: 2025-10-25

Intelligence Report: ‘We paid tens of millions in cash as rewards to the Pakistani intelligence service’ Former CIA officer – The Times of India

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The analysis suggests a complex and transactional relationship between the CIA and Pakistani intelligence, with financial incentives potentially influencing operations. The most supported hypothesis is that these payments were part of a pragmatic strategy to secure cooperation against common threats. Confidence level: Moderate. Recommended action includes reassessing the strategic value and risks of such financial engagements to ensure alignment with broader geopolitical objectives.

2. Competing Hypotheses

1. **Hypothesis A:** The payments were strategic incentives to ensure ISI cooperation in counterterrorism operations, particularly against Al-Qaeda.
2. **Hypothesis B:** The payments were primarily to maintain influence and leverage over the ISI, preventing it from aligning too closely with adversarial groups or nations.

Using ACH 2.0, Hypothesis A is better supported by the evidence of direct operational collaboration and the need for logistical support in Pakistan. Hypothesis B is less supported due to the lack of direct evidence of ISI’s shifting allegiances based solely on financial incentives.

3. Key Assumptions and Red Flags

– **Assumptions:**
– The ISI’s cooperation is primarily driven by financial incentives.
– The CIA’s payments are sufficient to influence ISI’s strategic decisions.
– **Red Flags:**
– Potential bias in the source, as John Kiriakou may have personal motivations.
– Lack of corroborating evidence from other intelligence sources.
– The complexity of ISI’s relationships with various groups is not fully explored.

4. Implications and Strategic Risks

– **Implications:** Continued financial transactions may foster dependency, complicating long-term strategic autonomy.
– **Strategic Risks:**
– Escalation of regional tensions if financial ties are perceived as favoritism.
– Potential backlash from domestic or international actors critical of such engagements.
– Risk of funds being misappropriated for activities counter to U.S. interests.

5. Recommendations and Outlook

• Conduct a comprehensive audit of financial engagements with the ISI to ensure alignment with strategic goals.
• Develop contingency plans for scenarios where ISI cooperation diminishes or ceases.
• Scenario Projections:
  • **Best Case:** Enhanced cooperation leads to significant counterterrorism successes.
  • **Worst Case:** Funds are diverted to activities undermining U.S. interests.
  • **Most Likely:** Continued transactional relationship with periodic tensions.

6. Key Individuals and Entities

– John Kiriakou
– Abu Zubaydah
– Lashkar-e-Taiba
– Al-Qaeda

7. Thematic Tags

national security threats, counter-terrorism, regional focus, intelligence operations