BBC: "On the face of it, the Iranian version now sounds a lot more credible"

It is hard to follow the reasoning here of the BBC's "Tehran correspondent." Perhaps it is odd for a defector to ask to go home, but it is also odd for an abductee simply to be released:

There are two diametrically opposed versions of the story. Iran says Shahram Amiri was kidnapped. American sources said that he defected and was giving them high-grade information on the Iranian nuclear programme.

On the face of it, the Iranian version now sounds a lot more credible, as Shahram Amiri has made his way to the Iranian diplomatic mission in Washington, apparently of his own accord.

However the United States continues to insist that Mr Amiri came to them freely, and has now left them freely.

And despite all the American actions over recent years, including the use of extraordinary rendition, and the existence of Guantanamo Bay, the seizure of a foreign scientist would surely be something of a different order.

The article goes on to spend several paragraphs discussing the fact that "Iranian exiles" are often threatened by the Revolutionary Guards, but concludes "Nevertheless there is no evidence of any such pressure on Mr Amiri." Like what, for instance? Meanwhile, at PressTV, Amiri's statements seem to fit right in with the usual offerings of the Iranian press.

[...] "While I was being interrogated by US intelligence agents, they urged me to announce that I carried a laptop containing important information and applied for asylum," he said.

He further added that he had resisted pressure by the US government and Western media.

The Iranian scholar said the US agents had threatened to "transfer me to prisons of the Zionist regime if I refused to cooperate with them." [...]

And we're supposed to believe he wasn't terrified into instant submission?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad