Given the timing of this over-the-top nearly unbelievable (and I mean almost completely NOT believable) tale of a bumbling and fumbling rendition operation that turned into a grisly ‘rendering’ epic, one must look at the specific timing of the event, the credibility of the video related to it, the authenticity  of the sound recordings in relation to the specific locale where the event was claimed to have been recorded, and many other factors. The whole scenario looks like a poorly written B-movie script. 

Could it have happened as reported in the press so far, as improbable as it may appear? Yes, of course.  Does it appear highly unlikely? Yes to that, also.

Right now, all we know from published reports is 

1) the journalist is missing; 

2) there is video of him apparently entering a building; 

3) there is a report of person waiting for him outside of the building; 

4) there is a report of the journalist using a smartwatch to send sound of his movement back to the person waiting outside (we do not know for certain if the watch used bluetooth or some other transmission method); 

5) it is reported that the person outside ‘heard’ sounds of a violent scuffle; 

6) it is reported that the identities of some of the other people who entered the building are known and the ‘roles’ have been mentioned; 

7) it is also mentioned that the nation-state, where the building is situated, was apparently surveilling the building with some level of comprehensive audio monitoring;

8) It is also known that the nation-state, where the building is situated, has had some significant disagreements with the current US administration; and

9) It is also known that officials of the previous US administration have remained in communication with officials of the nation-state, where the building is situated. 

An intelligent layperson can make reasonable ‘guesses’ about the identities of specific officials of the former administration who might have ‘chatted’ with high level officials the nation-state, where the building in question is situated.

Could there be credible and deep motives by actors who might have allegiances to a former administration, or by actors from other nation-states whose interest have been disrupted by the current US administration, and could those motives drive such actors to create a disruptive international situation prior to a US election cycle?

That is a reasonable question and it remains unanswered.

Also, we should not forget the cultural factors that often drive the formation of transient purpose driven alliances among otherwise antagonistic actors within the region where the disappearance of the journalist occurred (i.e., the old Sanskrit proverbial saying: ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend‘).