I'm not accusing them of lying, I'm accusing them of incompetent data collection and analysis. The CIA was largely responsible for the intelligence given to Carter and Brzezinski, assuring them that the best way to counter the Soviet threat in Afghanistan was to adopt, train and fund a third-rate militia that turned into the Taliban. In the wake of 9/11/2001 the CIA admitted that it still had a huge staff of Russian translators but very few who knew Mideastern languages, and with their five-year backlog for all they knew they might have a PowerPoint presentation detailing the entire 9/11 operation sitting in the bottom of somebody's in-basket. As for WMDs, I don't necessarily think they lied about them, I think they just once again did their job incompetently and drew an erroneous conclusion. The CIA is a classic example of government grown too big for its britches with an enormous budget but no effective oversight, and I don't trust a word they say. You can look those three countries up for yourself on Wikipedia which, imperfect as it is, is a more reliable source than the CIA because it undergoes continuous peer review. The population of Afghanistan is 32 million. Tajikistan 7 million, Uzbekistan 27 million. That's a total of about 70 million. Half of those people do NOT speak Farsi! An older dialect of Persian was the language of government, commerce and education in those countries under the Mughal Empire, but most of the population were nomads living on the fringe of civilization, so the percentage of citizens who had any reason to bother learning Persian was tiny. Once the Mughals faded away and the Ottoman Empire took its place, Turkish became the language to learn. You'd be far more likely to run into people who know Turkish there. How many do you suppose there are? The Tajiks and the Uzbeks both had Russian imposed on them within our lifetimes. Do you see any signs that they're going to keep the language of those conquerors alive after Perestroika? When I was in Czechoslovakia in 1973 I found that most people slightly older than me spoke fluent German, because they were occupied by Germans during WWII and forced to learn it. Very few Czechs born after WWII have chosen to study German. The language of a hated conqueror is forgotten as quickly and deliberately as possible. It's probably closer to 99.9%. Iran has a good educational system and everyone is taught Farsi. There are a few ethnic minorities who speak languages such as Kurdish and Aramaic, but they also speak fluent Farsi, just like the Welsh all speak fluent English, the Basques all speak fluent French, Spanish or Catalan, and the Gypsies all speak fluently the languages of their host countries. It's hard to find good information on this subject without the resources of a professional scholar in the field. I wonder about Tajik too because of the Tajiks being the descendants of a stray tribe of Persians, but I don't know much more about it than you do. I don't know how long they've been separated. Two languages can diverge considerably in only a thousand years. Look at Spanish and Portuguese or Danish and Swedish. Based on the few sentences on this subject in the Wikipedia articles, I'd say that Pashto and Tajik are not sufficiently similar to Farsi to be construed as dialects. But I will defer to anyone who has better information. Then this is not Pashto, which AFAIK is the most widely spoken language in Afghanistan. Pashto is a modern language descended from Old Persian like Tajik or perhaps it split off even earlier than that.