Iran's act of war?

[gotribe31]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/us/iran-n ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Long and short of it, the IRGC planned to blow up the Saudi ambassador to the US, in the US. Some, including NY Rep. Peter King, are calling it an act of war. Thoughts?

Iran has been killing US soldiers in Iraq pretty much since 2003. They've been progressing in their plans to build a nuke. But they've pretty much skated by since 9/11 because of our focus on AQ, AQ affiliates, and Iraq. Time for our focus to shift to a more dynamic threat? If you want state-sponsored terrorism, this is pretty much the definition.

I'm not saying invade Iran or anything, but maybe it's time to pay a little more attention to them before they try something really crazy. They've seen that they can get away with pouring weapons and people over the border into Iraq without us really doing anything about it, and now they're planning assassinations on US soil. What's next?

[Orenthal]

It's funny because my final project is a policy brief about border security alternatives and it involves the connection of drug cartels/organized crime in Mexico with Islamic terrorism. Isn't the Quds agent is still at large?

SecState Clinton says we will send a "very strong message." This has been said in the past, but I don't think the threat has ever been this blatant. First move is to galvanize allies, and move on diplomacy with China and Russia. I don't think we have the capacity to do anything militarily without it spiraling out of control, but I detest that hours after the plot is made public they take all military action off the table. Sometimes you need the threat of action to get things "real".

[danwismar]

They have been openly at war with America since the revolution in '79, and actively killing Americans as often as possible all that time...Beirut in 83 ('82?) and ever since as sponsors and funders of Hezbollah and Hamas (Shia or Sunni...they don't care, as long as the enemy is the Great Satan)

Bush never did develop a coherent or effective Iran policy, and Obama's strategy of engagement (while the Iranian citizen freedom fighters get shot down in the streets) has been a 3-year failure. Seems to me our first step ought to be trying to help bring down the Assad regime in Syria. That would weaken Tehran significantly, especially as regards Hezbollah. But Tehran remains the world capital of Islamist terror. They, and the NorK's are the world's most dangerous actors.

[gotribe31]

Per news reports, the indicted Quds agent is still at large. If the cartels ever decided that working with the terrorists would be good for business, we're in trouble. Lots and lots of trouble. Fortuneatly for us, they still see terrorism as something that would bring the hammer of God down on them and would disrupt their business model more than anything else. Both the drug and human smugglers use the threat of terror to dime out their competition. The worst thing that ever happened to them was 9/11 and the accompanying increased border security. No more big loads across the border, many more small loads and consolidation inland, which costs time which costs money.

I have to believe that Tehran has a very, very close eye on Syria. You know they are pumping $$ like crazy trying to prop that regime up. The Iranian people, by and large, hate their government and would welcome normalized ties with the west. But any pro-democracy, liberal shift by an Iranian regime would be met extremely harshly by the clerics, and in turn by IRGC, Quds etc. It's a delicate situation, no doubt about that. But the fact that they've been able to get away with as much as they have, for as long as they have, brings about shit like this...planning to blow up a foregin diplomat on US soil, and practically asking for collateral damage that includes US citizens.

[Erie Warrior]

Drones or Special Ops.

The last thing the US needs is another war, but this aggression will not stand, man.

I have zero issues with a remote control plane making the place a giant hole.

[Orenthal]

Carney told the White House Press Corps that no option has been taken off the table. Kudos, that is better policy IMO, even if logistics are impossible.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

NY Rep. Peter King, are calling it an act of war. Thoughts?

My thought is Peter King supported the IRA, a terrorist group that killed soldiers and civilians alike. His opinion on the subject doesn't matter...... at all. He can go fuck himself.

If the cartels ever decided that working with the terrorists would be good for business, we're in trouble. Lots and lots of trouble.

They are terrorist.. right now..... without a Koran and funny dress/hat. What else would call a group that kidnaps and tortures people then tosses them off an overpass? They're already capable of building bombs big enough to level a city block. They learned from the best, Pablo Escobar, his organization made AQ look like rank amateurs. And our ATF is arming them.... How Holder isn't in jail for that blows my mind.

Drones or Special Ops.

Which does what? Special Ops is too small scale to have an large enough impact. Drones would work if you're going after Mahmoud The Tiny or members of the RGC. But that would more than likely require firing missiles into civilian populations.

The last thing the US needs is another war, but this aggression will not stand, man.

Well that's exactly what you're going to get, another war. A war that could engulf the whole fucking region.

[Orenthal]

Expel their diplomats. Why isn't that happening right now?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I think this whole thing is a bunch of bullshit cooked up by the Obama Administration. It doesn't make any sense to me. What would Iran be accomplishing by killing a Saudi Ambassador on US soil? What's the upshot?

I think it's a cheap political move to force the GOP candidates to talk about it instead of the economy. Rattle the sabre and turn peoples' attention from the real problems with the lack of jobs.

[Erie Warrior]

But that would more than likely require firing missiles into civilian populations.

Time to show those men of will what will really is.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

But that would more than likely require firing missiles into civilian populations.

Time to show those men of will what will really is.

What?

[Erie Warrior]

Perhaps we could build a scale model of Iran and practice invading it.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Are we going to make a popsicle stick Tehran and invade it with mice in BDUs? Little wind up tanks and remote controlled aircraft.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

The more I read, the more this sounds like nothing more than a big steaming pile of bullshit to gain some approval rating points. Get the chicken hawks riled up......

A Quds agent wires 100K to a cartel member that turns out to be a DEA agent? The Quds force don't know that every transaction over 10k is monitored by the Feds? Bullshit.

It makes no fucking sense.

At all.

EDIT;

Iran has been killing US soldiers in Iraq pretty much since 2003

And so has Saudi Arabia, there was a CRS report outlining how certain elements of Saudi society were giving large sums of money to Sunni insurgents by breaking it up into small amounts that would go largely unnoticed and funneling it through Syria. Added all together, the Saudis would probably be the #1 financiers of insurgents who kill our guys.

[YahooFanChicago]

CDT, interesting point about the potential for this to be a lot of political BS cooked-up by Obama.

Most foreign media are pretty skeptical of the US conclusions about the plot which are being drawn. Typically US friendly UK and Asian media don't go as far as to say it is an Obama administration lead fabrication but they are very skeptical of Iran's direct involvement. These media outlets (UK Guardian, Arirang, etc.) point out that there does seem to be a real plot, there were real US$ 100k wire transfer(s) but that there is little no direct evidence it was Iran/QUDS. They also point out that Iran is expert at staying out of things like this while encouraging their terrorist partners to do acts like this. They also point out that Iran wouldn't benefit from the outcome and that in reality it would make things worse for them and their regional ambitions.

I normally don't buy into conspiracy theories but I must say that I watched Wolf Blitzer interview some Senator who heads a homeland defense committee and he was much less than convincing. On one hand he said the Iran involvement evidence was overwhelming but then when Blitzer followed-up the guy's responses were horrible and not convincing at all. Maybe he just didn't want to give up secret evidence and sources but he was stammering around like an idiot and if it was really the case he should have just said that the evidence and sources are classified.

The whole thing seems fishy and as much as it would be nice to see the Iranian gov't get a much deserved and well-needed ass kicking the US can not afford this at all.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I dismiss just about every conspiracy theory under the sun, I'm the anti Alex Jones.

This guy they caught already has a fraud conviction (also a used car salesmen), they expect me to believe that the Quds would use a guy who is already being tracked by the Feds and state of New York?

[gotribe31]

The more I read, the more this sounds like nothing more than a big steaming pile of bullshit to gain some approval rating points. Get the chicken hawks riled up......

A Quds agent wires 100K to a cartel member that turns out to be a DEA agent? The Quds force don't know that every transaction over 10k is monitored by the Feds? Bullshit.

It makes no fucking sense.

At all.

EDIT;

Iran has been killing US soldiers in Iraq pretty much since 2003

And so has Saudi Arabia, there was a CRS report outlining how certain elements of Saudi society were giving large sums of money to Sunni insurgents by breaking it up into small amounts that would go largely unnoticed and funneling it through Syria. Added all together, the Saudis would probably be the #1 financiers of insurgents who kill our guys.

1) I can promise, promise you that this is not something that was cooked up by either side for political gain.

2) Define "monitored by the feds." You really think anyone has time to fully investigate every transaction over 10k? One of the articles says it was broken up into 2 payments of 50k, and wired through a series of intermediaries to disguise it's true origin. If there isn't a big, obvious red flag for a particular transaction, it is logged and can be looked into later, but there's no investigation on the front end just becuase the transaction is over 10k.

Lots of stuff in this world doesn't make perfect sense. That doesn't mean it isn't true.

[gotribe31]

Most foreign media are pretty skeptical of the US conclusions about the plot which are being drawn. Typically US friendly UK and Asian media don't go as far as to say it is an Obama administration lead fabrication but they are very skeptical of Iran's direct involvement. These media outlets (UK Guardian, Arirang, etc.) point out that there does seem to be a real plot, there were real US$ 100k wire transfer(s) but that there is little no direct evidence it was Iran/QUDS. They also point out that Iran is expert at staying out of things like this while encouraging their terrorist partners to do acts like this. They also point out that Iran wouldn't benefit from the outcome and that in reality it would make things worse for them and their regional ambitions.

I normally don't buy into conspiracy theories but I must say that I watched Wolf Blitzer interview some Senator who heads a homeland defense committee and he was much less than convincing. On one hand he said the Iran involvement evidence was overwhelming but then when Blitzer followed-up the guy's responses were horrible and not convincing at all. Maybe he just didn't want to give up secret evidence and sources but he was stammering around like an idiot and if it was really the case he should have just said that the evidence and sources are classified.

With all due respect, why would foregin media and a US Senator who was probably briefed about the case for the first time yesterday be driving your interpretation of the facts? Why would the Guardian know what our evidence against this guy really is? So Arirang says that the Iranian govt probably wasn't involved, based on the info they got in the past two days. So what? Even for the trial, that sort of info won't come out. It doesn't have to in order to secure a conviction for this guy. Sources and methods won't be compromised, because the info won't be discoverable because it won't ever be needed in the trial. The media will go on saying that the plot had nothing to do with anything, and we won't be any more the wiser. That doesn't mean the intel isn't there. It just means we won't ever get to see it.

[mistero]

Wag the Dog?

What does it matter. Our response is all hot air. Either we go full out world war 3 or we do nothing. I don't see how any response in between has any meaning. I'm guessing we do nothing.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

The more I read, the more this sounds like nothing more than a big steaming pile of bullshit to gain some approval rating points. Get the chicken hawks riled up......

A Quds agent wires 100K to a cartel member that turns out to be a DEA agent? The Quds force don't know that every transaction over 10k is monitored by the Feds? Bullshit.

It makes no fucking sense.

At all.

EDIT;

Iran has been killing US soldiers in Iraq pretty much since 2003

And so has Saudi Arabia, there was a CRS report outlining how certain elements of Saudi society were giving large sums of money to Sunni insurgents by breaking it up into small amounts that would go largely unnoticed and funneling it through Syria. Added all together, the Saudis would probably be the #1 financiers of insurgents who kill our guys.

1) I can promise, promise you that this is not something that was cooked up by either side for political gain.

2) Define "monitored by the feds." You really think anyone has time to fully investigate every transaction over 10k? One of the articles says it was broken up into 2 payments of 50k, and wired through a series of intermediaries to disguise it's true origin. If there isn't a big, obvious red flag for a particular transaction, it is logged and can be looked into later, but there's no investigation on the front end just becuase the transaction is over 10k.

Lots of stuff in this world doesn't make perfect sense. That doesn't mean it isn't true.

1) You promise? Oh, well then, I have to buy it.... right?

2) Monitored by the Feds means exactly what it sounds like, especially if you've been convicted of fraud..... which would be a big red flag. That's how they've built RICO cases in the past. The Quds Force would know this, they aren't going to be wiring money through a goddamn NYC bank.

I'm not the only skeptic out there.

"It would be completely uncharacteristic for Iran to be caught red-handed," former CIA operative Bob Baer told CNN. "There are very few groups operationally better than Iran's Quds Force. They know what they are doing, The only proxies they use are ones they've vetted. They don't let their own citizens get involved."

"What we've seen unfold makes no sense in terms of Iran's national security strategy," says Hillary Mann Leverett, who was an adviser on Iran in former President George W. Bush's administration. "There's no benefit; there's no payoff in them pursuing this kind of hit against Adel Jubeir. And it runs contrary to their entire national security strategy."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/us/analys ... audi-plot/

And you're right a lot of shit doesn't make perfect sense.... but this makes NO sense. I ask again, what's the upshot to killing a Saudi Ambassador on US soil? Or bombing the Saudi and Israeli embassies? You really think Iran would risk war on 3 fronts for such a shitty payout? And they sure as hell aren't going to send Fuckup McGee to do their dirty work.

I don't, because it's not how they operate. This is the best time to score some political points, it takes the focus off the economy.

You know i'm not a conspiracy theory guy, I've wasted a lot of keystrokes on smashing holes in dumbshit "truthers" logic. But I cannot buy this story, it sets off my bullshit detector.

I love a good debate, but I'm heading to Tennessee for a friend's wedding, and I'll have to pick this back up Sunday (hell we might be launching Shock and Awe 2 by then) when I return. Sooooooo you bastards work out the details, and then i'll swoop back in and set you all straight. Like always.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Fuck you, Dan, for not responding sooner when I could retort.. I see you down there. typing away no doubt

[danwismar]

Some meat for the bones...

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ ... deadly.php

[danwismar]

You still here, CDT? Don't you have a wedding to go to or something?

Hurry up and set me straight, and then get the hell out of town.

[danwismar]

I respect Bobby Baer...but Hillary Mann Leverett is one of the least credible analysts on Iran...a consistent water-carrier for the mullahs' regime and for appeasement at all costs.

Few Americans are as knowledgeable about Iran as Michael Ledeen:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2 ... epage=true

Also, more from Thomas Joscelyn (he's the writer at Long War Journal link above) at the Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 95775.html

Edit: Seems to me the only question is whether or not the "top Iranian leadership" was involved. It seems beyond dispute that top RG people were involved, and we know how factioned and compartmentalized the Iranian government is. If operations like this are being carried out by the officials of the Revolutionary Guards, should the fact that the "top leadership" wasn't involved make us feel better...or worse about it?

Edit: Obama's continuation of sanctions against Iran represents (the?) one area of foreign policy that has been somewhat a success, but we need to do more. Some ideas:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ford-d-may

and Andy McCarthy (former Asst US Atty. who prosecuted Blind Sheik and 1993 WTC bombers) is always "must-read":

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 ... c-mccarthy

If McCarthy doesn't disabuse you of the conspiracy theory notions, I'm not sure what might.

Edit: A helpful timeline of the plot:

http://www.irantracker.org/analysis/zar ... er-11-2011

[YahooFanChicago]

Al,

The reason I also read news from international media outlets is because I like getting additional perspectives. Also after almost blindly trusting the US and US media reports on WMD's in Iraq I realize that at least some of the information we get is lets say a little bit "pre-spun" for us. I find that UK, Australian, Korean and Japanese news outlets being reasonably objective with maybe a slight lean towards being US friendly. Doesn't make them always right by any means but they were certainly a bit quicker to pick-up on and report the lack of WMD's and the real situation then the US media.

Why do you so strongly trust the Washington version of the events when there are some very valid questions about how Iran would benefit from this, why they would take such a big risk for so little upside and why they would chose to work through that bafoon?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

3 days later and still no discernible motive for Iran to launch such a sloppy plot with no real gain..... other than war with 3 countries.

[danwismar]

Lee Smith is another analyst saying we're giving these people way too much credit for being smart, based on their track record...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 95937.html


Even as the administration has shown its evidence to U.S. lawmakers, foreign diplomats, and the press, however, a contrary theory has been building among former Western intelligence officials and policymakers as well as in various media and academic circles. It holds that the plot is too far-fetched to be true. The administration is playing wag the dog, say some. A tenured Ivy League academic hints that perhaps someone with an interest in seeing U.S.-Iranian relations deteriorate is behind the plot—by which he of course means Israel.

The Iranians, this perverse notion holds, are too “smart” to get tied up in a keystone cops scenario managed by a clumsy oaf with a prison record like Arbabsiar, a dual U.S.-Iranian national. Yet the belief that losers don’t run terrorist operations tends to ignore the evidence that those who employ terror as a political tool are by and large not the most clever or interesting people. And that belief is also based on a quasi-Orientalist fantasy that Iran’s leaders are way too skillful to get caught red-handed. After all, the Persians invented chess; as a culture of carpet weavers, they are the very exemplum of subtlety and patience, etc. And so, says one former U.S. intelligence official, Iran’s past terror projects “were very professional operations that used cutouts and had few Iranian fingerprints.”

Yet Iranian fingerprints were all over the arms shipments that the Israelis interdicted in 2002 when they stopped the Karine A from reaching Gaza, and in 2009 when they boarded the Syria and Hezbollah-bound Francorp. Most recently, it was the Turks who stopped passage of a plane loaded with Iranian weapons destined for Tehran’s allies. How “subtle” is that?

[...]

The botched culture that the Islamic Republic has imposed on Iran does not produce deep thinkers and subtle strategists, but rather a nation in which drug addiction and alcoholism are rampant. The collapse of Iran’s birth rate over the last 20 years, from 7.0 to below replacement at 1.9, is the fastest decline ever recorded. The Islamic Republic is dying. And so is the supreme leader. We are witnessing a culture in its death throes, and its leaders mean to take as many people with it as possible—especially Americans. That’s why the Quds Force is zeroing in on the U.S. homeland.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Lee Smith is shill for Israel, his lame jabs at Baer and "A tenured Ivy League academic" shows his juvenile nature. You can lazily link all the shitty right wing hack articles you want. It still doesn't change my opinion. It still doesn't establish a motive. Something I asked for 4 goddamn days ago, and have yet to receive.... but these threads tend to go silent without me around.

[danwismar]

Typical name-calling, messenger-shooting, dude. He's "right-wing", therefore the substance of what he says need not be addressed, much less rebutted. His perspective is disqualifying, by definition. That's what you imply, CDT. It's lame and tired.

---

Here's a second post on the topic by Smith, in which he credits, by name, the opinions of three different ex-CIA analysts, including Baer, suggesting that they too may have self-serving motives. If he's wrong...as he freely admits...the conclusion has to be that our CIA and other intelligence apparatus are seriously incompetent. (There's plenty of evidence and history supporting that view, obviously, but..)

Of course, other explanations are possible...rival factions in Quds force/Rev. Guard...no one is saying they're not. You seem to be saying either Obama/Clinton/Holder are lying and it's a politically-inspired hoax...OR...CIA is grossly incompetent and giving flawed information....or they're in bed together??

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tho ... 96003.html

Point is, there are numerous examples of Iran doing stupid, blatant, incompetent terrorist shit, and getting flat out busted for it...with no other motive required than killing Americans, or embarrassing America, or sticking their thumb in our eye. There's your motive. Consider that you may be looking too hard, and giving them too much credit for being geniuses.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I don't think they're geniuses..... but I do think they're self preservationists, most totalitarian regimes are.

What i'm saying is the evidence doesn't make sense to me. I think it's better to be skeptical. This one of those situations that I just do not buy what the government is selling. I do not trust them. At all.

And no, i'm not someone who believes this was Israel and the Saudi's idea. That makes no sense either, since they HATE each other.

Maybe it's Gulf Of Tonkin 2 Electric Boogaloo. (that's a joke)

[danwismar]

I don't think they're geniuses..... but I do think they're self preservationists, most totalitarian regimes are.

Right...with the possible exception of this one...since believing that they are interested in self-preservation requires that we ignore everything we know, and everything they tell us about what they believe....you know...the return of the 12th Imam...amid chaos and destruction...glorious martyrdom for them and their people, bringing about a 1000-year rule of justice and peace..blah, blah, blah...

The mullahs welcome a possible nuclear conflagration with Israel, including the inevitable Israeli retaliation...as it would guarantee their martyrdom, and hasten the imam's return. Nuclear strategists have long doubted that the traditional doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) can even be applied to the Iranian mullahs for this reason. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

It's like them telling us for 32 years that they are at war with us...and then acting on that by killing us whenever they can, and financing and arming our enemies (i.e. making IED's for use in Iraq). It's a different example, but it might well teach us to start listening seriously to what they say they believe.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I like how you put mutually assured destruction in parentheses, like I had no possible frame of reference what those 3 words put together mean.

If Iran's going to go out, why would pick such a shitty boneheaded plot? Why not just launch an all out attack us or Israel and have their martyrdom?

To me it sounds like you're advocating war with Iran, if i'm wrong please correct me. The Saudis believe a lot of the same Islamatard shit as the Iran, they've killed our people and financed and armed out enemies. They wouldn't mind seeing Israel reduced to smoking rubble. Are they next, or do they get a pass? In hindsight maybe overthrowing Moasdeggh and installing Pahlavi was terrible idea, no?

I believe this plot is bullshit. I see the mess that's going on with country now, I see the trouble the inept Holder has himself in. This is the perfect distraction.

Did you hear Anthony Shaffer on Napolitano's show? I'm not the only one who doubts it. I can't see a single reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of what the government is telling us. I'd rather question it and be wrong than to not and see us get fucked in the end.

[danwismar]

To me it sounds like you're advocating war with Iran, if i'm wrong please correct me.

Consider yourself corrected. I advocate no such thing...at least not in terms of an invasion. But we are at war with them....it's just that there's only one side fighting and killing and scheming and conspiring right now. It's a one-way war. They continue to kill American boys in Iraq and Afghanistan while we generate strongly-worded resolutions at the UN. We had a chance to show our support for the democratic freedom fighters in '09, while they were getting shot down in the streets, but Barack didn't want to risk his chance to "engage" with the mullahs. That worked out.

I believe this plot is bullshit. I see the mess that's going on with country now, I see the trouble the inept Holder has himself in. This is the perfect distraction.

Hey, man...I'm all about skepticism of government's honesty and competence. I've been trying to give your man Obama (and the CIA) the benefit of some doubt.

I can't see a single reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of what the government is telling us.

Me neither. But I also don't believe we can treat the leaders of Iran like they're rational actors.

[danwismar]

Why not just launch an all out attack us or Israel and have their martyrdom?

Because they don't have their nukes yet. More than one Iranian cleric has said quite openly that when they do...they will.