I am always leery of any story about Iran being up to no good in Iraq/Lebanon/Kansas... wherever, because part of me gets worried that the war (sorry, that's not specific enough anymore, our war in Iraq,) is about to expand from a tenuous occupation to a really bad-scene broad regional thing.
But that's the reactive part of me. The thinking part of me, which I believe to be the greater part (by volume?) is frankly more scared of the notion that I am reading propaganda; that I am expected to read and be fearfully titilated by these stories, so that when Cheney wants to invade Iran (next week, month, day before election, doesn't matter,) it can happen with a minimum of public outcry/debate/notice.
So read this with a grain of salt, as the chief source is our man in Baghdad, (and former Unocal exec, keep in mind. All our front guys were at one point or another,) Zalmay Kalilzhad.
U.S. Ambassador Says Iran Is Inciting Attacks - New York Times
But then there's stuff like this, the kind of important reporting they did during the Pentagon Papers era, and recently w/r/t domestic surveillance.
Which begs the question (in that phrase's informal sense,) How many masters can the Times serve while remaining of any quality whatsoever? And do they not owe a greater debt to their reader-masters than their power-broker-masters, or rather hasn't Judy Miller given the Neocons enough free play, and couldn't we just slide back to being the good old gray lady?