CIA Analyst Sentenced To Prison For Releasing Documents On Israel's Plans To Strike Iran

The following article was made possible by paid subscribers of The Dissenter. Become a subscriber with this discount offer and support journalism that stands up covers whistleblowing, press freedom, and government secrecy.

As United States embassies and military bases across the Middle East braced for a potential Israeli strike against Iran, friends and family of Asif Rahman gathered inside the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, for his sentencing. 

The former CIA analyst had pleaded guilty to disclosing two top secret documents detailing a U.S. ally's "planned kinetic action,” a thinly veiled reference to Israel’s October 2024 strikes against Iran. While Rahman's actions did not prevent the strikes, prosecutors said at an earlier detention hearing that he forced Israel to delay its military strikes.

Those seeking to attend the hearing were greeted by a bailiff standing outside the courtroom and a sign announcing the hearing was “under seal.” Around 11:30 a.m. when the hearing was slated to begin, a bailiff indicated that members of the public not only could not be in the courtroom during the classified portion, but also had to wait on an entirely separate floor altogether. 

Originally, it was estimated the classified portion would take twenty minutes. It was over two hours later when it was announced the court would adjourn for lunch before finally opening the courtroom doors to the public. 

At the unclassified portion of the hearing, Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles sentenced Rahman to three years and one month of prison time and two years of supervised release. She also imposed two $25,000 fines. 

The sentence was shorter than what the government had requested but longer than the 13-month sentence sought by the defense. It was ultimately a shorter sentence than those imposed on drone whistleblower Daniel Hale and CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling. Like Rahman, both were convicted under §793 of the Espionage Act in the Eastern District of Virginia. 

Rahman’s prosecution was the first Espionage Act prosecution during the Gaza genocide, a vicious campaign of extermination waged by the Israeli government and backed by the U.S. government that has repeatedly threatened to spiral into an even wider regional war.

Yet at least during the open part of the hearing, little if any of this context made its way into the proceeding. In fact, as a potential Israeli strike on Iran dominated the headlines, the court proceedings seemed divorced from the outer world. 

'In Furtherance of Peace and Saving Lives'

While §793 of the Espionage Act requires a defendant have reason to believe that their actions will harm the U.S., it leaves little room for motives. There is no public interest defense. As a result, public servants aware of very real wrongdoing by the U.S. government are faced with a dilemma: in order to effectively alert the American people they serve about what their government does in the dark, they often must break the law. 

But while motives may not come into play as a defense, they often take center stage during sentencing as the defense tries to show an employee or contractor's actions were  guided by altruism, a desire to inform the public, or prevent some harm.

Rahman’s attorney Amy Jeffress, a former national security prosecutor, stated to the court that it was certainly difficult to understand how a law-abiding individual who gave up a lucrative career in finance to serve in the CIA made the choice that he made. However, Jeffress explained to the court that the defense had consulted a psychologist who produced an evaluation of Rahman that was submitted under seal. 

According to Jeffress, Rahman’s actions were the result of traumatic world events and past personal trauma. 

In a sentencing memo submitted earlier by Jeffress, the defense mentioned trauma from a threat to his personal safety during his time working with the CIA in Iraq, arguing that “events in the Middle East that began in the fall of 2023 revived his traumatic experiences in Iraq in a profoundly destabilizing and unforeseeable way.”

Jeffress told the court that the former CIA analyst acted out of “misguided compassion” and “in furtherance of peace and saving lives.” But immediately after mentioning Rahman’s attempts to achieve peace and save lives, Jeffress stressed that his actions were “irrational.” 

The defense sought to explain Rahman’s solely action in psychological terms, eschewing any descriptions of them as whistleblowing or politically motivated.

After the hearing, The Dissenter asked Jeffress if she wished to expound on how her client viewed his actions as being in furtherance of peace and saving lives, but she declined to do so (though she thanked this reporter for noticing she had made that remark). 

Whistleblowers Hale and Chelsea Manning both made statements at their sentencing stressing how the brutal toll of war on civilians inspired their actions. When Rahman spoke, he apologized to his family and stated it was an honor and privilege to serve with the CIA. He said he was sorry for harming the reputation of the CIA and stressed the important work that his former colleagues do, much of which we will never know about due to its secretive nature.

Rahman's Cooperation With the Government

Much of Rahman’s arguments for leniency centered on his cooperation with the government.

Although the government took a hardline stance against granting bail to Rahman— arguing to the court that he posed a danger and a flight risk, it has since been revealed that almost immediately Rahman began cooperating with the government.

Such cooperation included giving the government access and passwords to encrypted devices, and in the words of Assistant U.S. Attorney Troy A. Edwards Jr., he told the government “what he had done, who he had done it with, and how he did it.”

Also, according to a government filing, Rahman “provided truthful information related to others,” however, that information was unlikely to result in their prosecution. 

This cooperation initially produced a plea deal in which the government and defense agreed on a guidelines range for sentencing. However, on May 6, one week before the original sentencing hearing date, the prosecutors under instruction from the main Justice Department sought a dramatic sentence of 108 months. 

Prosecutors also filed a last-minute classified sentencing memo, as well as an unclassified letter from CIA Deputy Director Michael J. Ellis. The defense argued the court should not admit any of this into evidence at sentencing. As a result of the standoff, the judge postponed the sentencing hearing repeatedly. 

Incredibly, by the hearing, Jeffress noted that the prosecution no longer stood by the request for a 108-month sentence. Edwards also told Giles that the government did not object to striking the portions of Ellis’s letter dealing with actual harm, as opposed to potential harm. 

Giles ultimately refused to allow any part of the high-ranking CIA official's letter to be considered, stating that the letter alleged actual harm was caused by Rahman’s disclosure when the classified portion made clear there was only evidence of potential harm.

While the prosecution backed away from the 108-month sentence, they continued the bizarre move of seeking both a downward departure and an upwards variance from the sentencing guidelines. (Departures and variances refer to sentences outside the guideline range, but they are based on different statutes. In other words, the government asked for a higher and a lower sentence than the guidelines, which is both weird and nonsensical.)

While Rahman was indicted over two disclosures, the plea agreement revealed for the first time earlier disclosures of classified information, as well as the role of third parties in these disclosures. 

The prosecution insisted that this conduct was more egregious than what was described in the initial indictment. Giles agreed stating that the indictment failed to capture the full seriousness of this conduct, which was discussed in the classified session. (To date, those earlier disclosures or who the third parties were remains a complete mystery.) 

Giles pushed back on the government for arguing Rahman’s conduct was akin to offenses under §794 of the Espionage Act, which covered in the words of the prosecution "traditional espionage." A §794 offense carries a potential death sentence. 

This move followed a similar bait-and-switch in the sentencing of convicted Vault 7 leaker Joshua Schulte. Like Rahman, Schulte was charged under §793, but the government invoked those convicted under the more severe statute when seeking a harsh prison sentence. 

An important distinction between the government’s positions in both cases is that in the Schulte case the government alleged Schulte intended to injure the U.S., whereas in Rahman’s case the government conceded he had no such intent. Giles insisted it was wrong for the government to have someone plead to a lesser charge and then try to sentence them based on a more serious one. She also noted that there were no facts to sustain a charge under §794 against Rahman.

Where Rahman Will Serve His Sentence

While Giles pushed back against the government at times, she also showed an immense reverence for national security secrecy. She continued to stress the allegedly dangerous nature of what Rahman had done, accusing him of both endangering the American people and breaching their trust. Giles noted that the documents were so secret she could not have them in her chambers, yet they were “floating around in the ethers” and on the internet. She called Rahman’s actions “reckless, yet calculated.”

Ultimately, Giles rejected the government’s request for an upwards variance at sentencing. And she granted an even greater downward departure than the government requested. Rahman's defense requested that the judge recommend Rahman be placed in Federal Correctional Institution Petersburg, a medium-security facility in Virginia. 

While Edwards was unsure if the Justice Department would  request Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), if they did that would limit where Rahman could be sent. 

One prison was "ADX," which most likely was a reference to the maximum-security prison in Florence, Colorado. The other was a medium-security prison in Maryland. Edwards stated if SAMs were requested, he would recommend the Maryland prison. Ultimately, the decision of where to house Rahman is entirely up to the federal Bureau of Prisons. 

After the sentencing, Rahman’s family was clearly relieved. They were in tears as they hugged Jeffress. 

Israel's genocide has sparked levels of dissent within the U.S. government that have not been seen since the Vietnam War. As Israel's backers in both the Republican and Democratic Parties lose control of the narrative, they've sought to reestablish control by shredding the First Amendment. 

It was predictable that the government would wield the Espionage Act as part of this crackdown on freedom of expression. Yet this political context was absent at Rahman's sentencing.

While there was a smattering of hints that he had a political motive, they were left largely unexplored. Instead, the defense attributed the leaks to his mental state while emphasizing his cooperation with the U.S. government to secure a shorter prison sentence.