OK, I read it.
Now explain it. Because it still doesn't seem compelling to me.
It is you versus a group:
You know the group would never admit to anything shady to everyone or even a signke other party.
Each member of the group knows the other is capable of committing certain acts based on history / current technology / etc.
Each member of the group deny involvement but at the same time wonder if their allies did it due to the previously established abilities.
Each member of the group would be able to come up with strategic reasons why their allies would do it.
All of that would lead to a heavy dose of acceptance one of your allies did it based on their own conclusions. The more parties involved in the group the easier it becomes.
Those conclusions lead to members of the group feeling guilty they did something sneaky and will in turn give more concessions in negotiation.
Sounds crazy but I could see it working. It only takes one to plant the seeds of doubt/ probability in the group