Billmon and Josh Marshall weigh in today on that very subject.
Update 3:00 pm: A commenter at Billmon has come up with what seems like a good answer:
Perle is full of shit for spinning it backwards, I laughed when I saw it. That was classic spy vs spy stuff...The Iranians not only find out if what Chalabi says is true, they throw him to the wolves at the same time. He is no longer needed.
That would explain why they'd use the same code to talk about the fact that it had been broken.
And then another commenter throws a wrench in for good measure:
The idea that Iran would suddenly abandon Chalabi is also not credible. There is always the chance that Chalabi would in fact become more powerful in some unknown future world. Why burn that bridge NOW when there is so much uncertainty about lies ahead? Handing the US a Chalabi head is not something I'd do using a code I know the US has broken. I'd find another way down the road, if I chose to do so at that time. That way I get to keep my knowledge of the fact that they've broken the code... at least for a little while.
This whole thing is just one of several situations we have going right now that has the potential to still be unanswered in 50 years.
