What’s the deal with Havana Syndrome?

A minor theme to U.S. national security concerns in 2021 is that they are defined by radical uncertainty. Did covid-19 emerge from nature or from a lab accident in Wuhan? I don’t know, and neither does the U.S. intelligence community. Are UFOs actually extraterrestrials? The Defense Department cannot rule out that possibility.

Is Russia using directed-energy attacks on U.S. diplomats and spies overseas? This depends very much on whom you read on the subject. Having read up on it a little bit, I will confess to being somewhat skeptical that it is real — and yet, I have little confidence in my skepticism.

What is not in dispute is that beginning in late 2016, diplomats in Havana reported symptoms that included hearing a loud ringing sound and serious headaches. As the New Yorker’s Adam Entous reports, “what began with several dozen spies and diplomats in Havana now encompasses more than a hundred and thirty possible cases, from Colombia to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to Austria, in addition to the United States and other countries. At least four of the cases involve Trump White House officials, two of whom say they had episodes on the Ellipse. The C.I.A. accounts for some fifty cases. The rest are mostly U.S. military and State Department personnel and their family members.”

This seems pretty disturbing. A National Academy of Sciences report released in late 2020 concluded that “among the mechanisms the committee considered, directed, pulsed radio frequency energy appears to be the most plausible mechanism in explaining these cases, especially in individuals with the distinct early symptoms.”

According to Politico’s Andrew Desiderio and Lara Seligman, U.S. intelligence officials are showing greater confidence about the what and who of Havana Syndrome: “The U.S. government’s investigation into the mysterious illnesses impacting American personnel overseas and at home is turning up new evidence that the symptoms are the result of directed-energy attacks.” That is the what. As for the who: “Lawmakers are also growing increasingly confident that Russia or another hostile foreign government is behind the suspected attacks, based on regular briefings from administration officials — although there is still no smoking gun linking the incidents to Moscow.”

Well, it sure seems like that’s that! Except that maybe it is not. The New Republic’s Natalie Shure recently expressed deep skepticism about the plausibility of intentional directed-energy attacks causing these cases. She cites Robert Bartholomew and Robert Baloh pointing out the lack of physical or medical evidence beyond vague symptoms. (MRI scans of 21 affected people found only three with appreciable changes, all of which could be explained by alternative causes. There is also a 2018 State Department report concluding that the initial wave of incidents in Havana attributed the loud noise victims hear to the Indies short-tailed cricket.)

She cites chemist Cheryl Rofer writing in Foreign Policy rubbishing the scientific validity of the NAS report and concluding, “The evidence for microwave effects of the type categorized as Havana syndrome is exceedingly weak. No proponent of the idea has outlined how the weapon would actually work. No evidence has been offered that such a weapon has been developed by any nation.”

Shure concludes her article by warning that no one has more than moderate confidence in the evidence saying that Russia is behind all of this, noting: “[the U.S.] invaded Iraq with ‘medium confidence.’ And the case that ‘Havana Syndrome’ is caused by any ‘attacks’ at all is infinitely thinner than the one Colin Powell made for WMDs before the U.N., which at least involved weapons that adhered to the laws of physics.”

I have less than moderate confidence that Russia possesses the capabilities that are being posited by some hawks. The lack of physical evidence is troubling, as are Rofer’s points about the physical implausibility of all this. Also, one would expect to have heard about some collateral damage among civilians. And why would Russia launch such attacks on Chinese soil, as has been alleged?

It is also hard not to point out that the most vocal proponents of Russia being behind a directed-energy attack do not have a lot of credibility. Entous’s sources are Trump White House officials. Politico quotes Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) accusing skeptics of being “influence agents that are being paid and or encouraged to write these on behalf of those — foreign government or whatever — that don’t want this to be discussed out there and want to cast doubt about it.” That kind of smear degrades Rubio’s reputation way more than those he attacks.

So I have serious doubts that this is anything more than a psychogenic illness. But I have only moderate confidence in those doubts and could be persuaded otherwise. Such persuasion, however, cannot be assertions of U.S. intelligence officials or members of Congress. There will need to be more.