FBI stops Iran assasination attempt on Saudi Amb. to US

[Alkaloid]

Why, Block's Tehran airborne porkdrop idea is another excellent thing, if not realistically (unfortunately).

While the mental image of a parachute rigger trying to strap a live pig int a parachute so he can hurl it out the back of an aeroplane amuses me, are we really sure that insulting muslims en mass is the wisest thing for the US to do? If this was a plot by say Ireland, would anyone even jokingly suggest air dropping desecrated crucifixes all over Dublin? This is literally a vase where someone has done something so stupid all anyone needs to do is play up their reaction slightly to make sure no one missed it.

[TheHammer]

No one is calling for a "shep solution". But a measured military response, say wiping a major airbase off the map, sinking some of their navy, cruise missile to the offending agency's HQ or whathave you would let them and anyone else with similar ideas know you really don't want to fuck with us.

So let me get this straight, some fuckwit conspires to blow up a dude in a restaurant and fails miserably in the planning stages... And "wiping a major airbase off the map" in your world qualifies as a "measured" response to that? What world of utter destructive insanity do you inhabit, precisely?

Do not attempt to minimalize this. This wasn't "some fuckwit". Again, assuming what we have told is in fact the truth, that the Iranian government approved the plan and backed it financially, this is actually worse than the Taliban's tacit support of Al Qaeda. The fact that they failed is irrelevent. The fact that they attempted to do it at all is what merits the level of retaliation I am proposing. As a lesson that they and no one else ever attempt to do so again. They failed, yay for us. What if they had succeeded? A slap on the wrist will tell them and any copycat regimes that "hey this time didn't work out, but try try again right?". Eventually they will succeed. At which point the response would be far worse than what I'm proposing here.

Ham did it because he's an American Power fanboy, and kind of a dim one. Shroom did it because he's trolling, and so was happy to mock-suggest things in bad faith which everyone knows would be disastrous. This isn't worse than being a warmongering dimwit, but it is more annoying, especially from the point of view of people who know damn well that a war with Iran would be a bad idea, and know Shroom knows this.

Fuck off

My first response was hyperbole in response to the idea that we should only respond with "sanctions". I know full well the implications of a war with Iran. Which is why I'm not calling for a war. I'm calling for a justifiable military response against an Iranian military target as a detterent to future terrorist plots by the regime. A successful terrorist attack by Iran on American Soil would almost certainly lead to war.

[TheHammer]

Failing to respond with force will only be viewed as weakness.

Yeah, god forbid a country
- which wasted tons of national resources in an aggressive war based upon bad fabrications
- which claimed to support the palaestinians in their peace process and then conveniently forgot said speech when it matters
- which is regularly schooled by Israel when it comes to the middle east
might look weak and foolish.

Looking foolish is one thing. Looking weak is another. Quite frankly, I don't see what any of your "points" has to do with the situation at hand. Past mistakes do not mean that we have lost the right to respond to a terrorist attack on our soil. Even a failed one.

[Thanas]

When the main argument is "we'll look weak" then pray tell me how the USA would accomplish that if it is already viewed as Israels poodle which lets its "colony" dictate how to act.

[CrateriaA]

When the main argument is "we'll look weak" then pray tell me how the USA would accomplish that if it is already viewed as Israels poodle which lets its "colony" dictate how to act.

I bet the reply will be something like "Well, they would have viewed us as the evil west anyway, so we've got nothing to lose."

[Siege]

The fact that they failed is irrelevent. The fact that they attempted to do it at all is what merits the level of retaliation I am proposing. As a lesson that they and no one else ever attempt to do so again.

Why? Will wiping major airbases off the map deter Iran from trying in the future? If so, how? How's killing hundreds of Iranians who had nothing whatsoever to do with this plot going to deter the hypothetical bozos in the Revolutionary Guard that are said to have orchestrated the entire thing? Do you think these people doubt the willingness of the USA to bomb the stuffing out of random countries after you did that exact thing to two of their neighbors? Do you think they don't know you're positively eager to come gunning for them after all the Axis of Evil rhetoric?

The fact is that if this was an Iranian plot then chances are the people behind it know very well what the US' military capabilities are, and they don't give a hoot about the potential ramifications because they know that at the very worst the USA will do exactly what you propose, and it won't hurt them a bit. In fact it'll probably bolster their position by discrediting the next wave of pro-democracy activists and giving the Iranian people someone to be angry at that's not their own election-rigging leadership.

But by all means go ahead, advocate the next in a long and sure to be continuing line of American military adventurist fuckups! After all, who cares about dealing with the myriad difficulties and problems of the region if you can just lob some more cruise missiles, right? I mean, USAF bombing campaigns have proven such a guaranteed problem-solver in the past!

They failed, yay for us. What if they had succeeded? A slap on the wrist will tell them and any copycat regimes that "hey this time didn't work out, but try try again right?". Eventually they will succeed. At which point the response would be far worse than what I'm proposing here.

Why? Countries have survived a lot worse than getting an ambassador blown up inside their borders without resorting to "far worse" than "wiping a major airbase off the map". Since when is a massive military response the metric for responding to what are in the grand scheme of things minor acts of petty terrorism? I'll tell you why: since you made it the metric. The only reason you're advocating what you're advocating is because you've bought into the utterly insane notion that terrorists are Bond villains with unlimited resources and ample time to try and try and try again until they find the weaknesses of the ridiculously massive national security apparatus the USA has in place. It's this absurd idea that justifies taking away freedoms, it's what justifies extrajudicial killings, and now apparently it justifies - at least in your mind - bombing random airbases for crimes in which none of the people in those airbases were involved.

It's absolutely funny to me that someone so ingrained with the stereotypical American bombing-is-the-answer, when-in-doubt-apply-missiles hee-hawing idiocy would dare talk about "past mistakes" but hey, I suppose I should encourage you to speak up whilst you still have the right to.

[TheHammer]

The fact that they failed is irrelevent. The fact that they attempted to do it at all is what merits the level of retaliation I am proposing. As a lesson that they and no one else ever attempt to do so again.

Why? Will wiping major airbases off the map deter Iran from trying in the future? If so, how? How's killing hundreds of Iranians who had nothing whatsoever to do with this plot going to deter the hypothetical bozos in the Revolutionary Guard that are said to have orchestrated the entire thing? Do you think these people doubt the willingness of the USA to bomb the stuffing out of random countries after you did that exact thing to two of their neighbors? Do you think they don't know you're positively eager to come gunning for them after all the Axis of Evil rhetoric?

The only repercussions Iran has experienced for its activities are "sanctions". Which they have flaunted with impunity. One must assume that they calculated that all we would be willing to do is sanctions in return for these actions. Or they thought that they wouldn't get caught. Failing to do anything of significance about this would only confirm their calculations and encourage them to make further attempts.

The fact is that if this was an Iranian plot then chances are the people behind it know very well what the US' military capabilities are, and they don't give a hoot about the potential ramifications because they know that at the very worst the USA will do exactly what you propose, and it won't hurt them a bit. In fact it'll probably bolster their position by discrediting the next wave of pro-democracy activists and giving the Iranian people someone to be angry at that's not their own election-rigging leadership.

See the above.

And quite frankly it wont make a damn bit of difference to Iranian election rigging. Things aren't going to change there anytime soon, so long as the Military supports the regime.

But by all means go ahead, advocate the next in a long and sure to be continuing line of American military adventurist fuckups! After all, who cares about dealing with the myriad difficulties and problems of the region if you can just lob some more cruise missiles, right? I mean, USAF bombing campaigns have proven such a guaranteed problem-solver in the past!

See, there is a key difference between "military adventurism" and responding to an attack on your nation. Your failure to see the difference tells me I'm wasting my time with most of this.

They failed, yay for us. What if they had succeeded? A slap on the wrist will tell them and any copycat regimes that "hey this time didn't work out, but try try again right?". Eventually they will succeed. At which point the response would be far worse than what I'm proposing here.

Why? Countries have survived a lot worse than getting an ambassador blown up inside their borders without resorting to "far worse" than "wiping a major airbase off the map". Since when is a massive military response the metric for responding to what are in the grand scheme of things minor acts of petty terrorism? I'll tell you why: since you made it the metric. The only reason you're advocating what you're advocating is because you've bought into the utterly insane notion that terrorists are Bond villains with unlimited resources and ample time to try and try and try again until they find the weaknesses of the ridiculously massive national security apparatus the USA has in place. It's this absurd idea that justifies taking away freedoms, it's what justifies extrajudicial killings, and now apparently it justifies - at least in your mind - bombing random airbases for crimes in which none of the people in those airbases were involved.

It's absolutely funny to me that someone so ingrained with the stereotypical American bombing-is-the-answer, when-in-doubt-apply-missiles hee-hawing idiocy would dare talk about "past mistakes" but hey, I suppose I should encourage you to speak up whilst you still have the right to.

Survival isn't the issue. The given reason we spend these billions of dollars on the military is with the thought in mind that if any other nation attacked our citizens that we would retaliate in kind. It is that thought that needs to be expressed now and again to let other nations know the consequences of orchaestrating attacks on the United States.

[TheHammer]

When the main argument is "we'll look weak" then pray tell me how the USA would accomplish that if it is already viewed as Israels poodle which lets its "colony" dictate how to act.

Whatever misconceptions exist, one I don't want to have is that the U.S. will allow foreign governments to orchaestrate terrorist attacks on our soil with no military consequences.

[Broomstick]

No one is calling for a "shep solution". But a measured military response, say wiping a major airbase off the map, sinking some of their navy, cruise missile to the offending agency's HQ or whathave you would let them and anyone else with similar ideas know you really don't want to fuck with us.

So let me get this straight, some fuckwit conspires to blow up a dude in a restaurant and fails miserably in the planning stages... And "wiping a major airbase off the map" in your world qualifies as a "measured" response to that? What world of utter destructive insanity do you inhabit, precisely?

Do not attempt to minimalize this. This wasn't "some fuckwit". Again, assuming what we have told is in fact the truth, that the Iranian government approved the plan and backed it financially, this is actually worse than the Taliban's tacit support of Al Qaeda.

Oh, please - the US, like every other country on earth, has always had to deal enemies that wished to attack it, agents, spies, provocateurs, and yes, terrorists both potential and successful. This is nothing new. At least it's not Iran setting up nukes in Cuba like in the 1960's... hey, we didn't respond with bombs then and it worked out much better than letting the warbirds fly. Maybe the UK should have bombed the piss out of Russia for that assassination involving polonium in a sushi bar which actually DID kill someone as well as affecting some of their citizens? In fact, that really is the closest analogy I can think of.

The target here was a Saudi ambassador, any Americans killed would have been collateral damage. No comfort to the bereaved left by the dead, or the hypothetical maimed survivors, but Americans actually weren't the primary target here, surprise, surprise. At least not in the immediate sense. Taking out a few Americans and screwing up international relations might well be a pleasing addition to the organizers of this, but (from what little we know) they would have happily killed the man if he had been the sole inhabitant of the location. American deaths weren't required in this plan, just very likely.

Given how often Americans have dismissed the deaths of innocents as collateral damage why should we be surprised when our enemies regard our own citizens as expendable? Isn't that how we have, at times, treated their people?

The fact that they failed is irrelevent.

Untrue. Any part of a US response should include multiple references to the fact they failed, with strong implications that they are incompetent.

The fact that they attempted to do it at all is what merits the level of retaliation I am proposing. As a lesson that they and no one else ever attempt to do so again.

Oh, please - any nation has other nations opposed to it. No one who is an enemy of the US is going to simply give up. If bombing people actually worked that way the history of the 20th Century would have been far different. Bombing campaigns can actually increase the resolve of an enemy to endure and strike back.

What if they had succeeded?

We would have had a dead Saudi ambassador and probably a score of innocent bystanders dead or maimed as well. Seriously, this is a question?

A slap on the wrist will tell them and any copycat regimes that "hey this time didn't work out, but try try again right?". Eventually they will succeed. At which point the response would be far worse than what I'm proposing here.

Of course, killing people by bombing them in retaliation for a scheme that didn't succeed, when no one was harmed, isn't going to cost us anything, right? Oh, maybe just flush more international good will down the toilet, make other nations reluctant to deal with us, that unstable homicidal pack of idiots. Step back - is bombing Iran for something that harmed nobody an actual proportionate response or not?

I don't think it is. If we made a habit of such kneejerk reactions it wouldn't surprise me if other nations choose to enact sanctions against the US. Or do you think we would somehow be indefinitely immune to such tactics? If the rest of the world gets pissed at us and teams up no, we can't stand against them. I'd prefer my country not be seen as a danger that needs to be isolated.

My first response was hyperbole in response to the idea that we should only respond with "sanctions". I know full well the implications of a war with Iran. Which is why I'm not calling for a war. I'm calling for a justifiable military response against an Iranian military target as a detterent to future terrorist plots by the regime.

You're calling for a limited war, which is still a war. Or do you think that Iran would simply meekly take such punishment without an attempt to retaliate in some way? I do think some in the Iranian government want war (just as some in the US do) and are hoping that the US is stretched enough that it can't successfully engage yet another nation in an exchange of gunfire. A foolish notion - while it would be painful, the US actually does have the resources to war with Aghanistan, Iraq, and Iran all at the same, what it lacks right now is the WILL to do that, to pay the necessary cost. The US ably conducted military operations on three continents in WWII, fighting multiple enemies at once, ramping up from even worse economic straits than we currently have, and US military power and capabilities have only grown since then. Yes, some are in potential at the moment, but if the US decided to it could certainly ramp up its military capabilities significantly, far faster and to a greater degree than anyone in the Middle East. Frankly, the boom in required jobs would be welcomed by about 14 million unemployed people right now, just as wartime jobs were welcomed during the Great Depression. I'm not sure that is a "jobs plan" that would be beneficial in the long run, though.

I'd rather not take the chance of getting into a situation where increasing the US military looks like an attractive option. Really, think about it - a sudden increase in the US military due to escalating violence with Iran, then next general election a Tea Party batshit crazy gets into office.... this would not be at all pretty. That doesn't mean such a scenario would result, just that the potential for it is there.

A successful terrorist attack by Iran on American Soil would almost certainly lead to war.

A successful terrorist attack involves actual death and destruction. I am assuming - and I'd certainly like some feedback from the non-US crowd here - that a violent retaliation in response to actual death on US soil would be seen as something at least potentially justifiable in the eyes of the world. I'm pretty sure violent retaliation in response to a failed plan is not seen as justified.

It's a bit like the difference between invading Afghanistan after 9/11 to go after bin Laden and the Taliban - an action that I seem to recall was OK'd by most nations in response to a successful attack, even if other nations weren't exactly happy about it - and the invasion of Iraq, based on a potential to attack that turned out to be smoke and mirrors. Iraq cost us far more than we've gained by it, if you ask me. We lost the goodwill of the rest of the world, and because it distracted from Afghanistan/Pakistan it has prolonged that war considerably. Oh, and a lot of people dead and maimed on both sides, let's not forget that.

Yes, there is a risk with not using violence. There is a risk either way, really, but dropping bombs (of any sort) now guarantees violence and death in the short term. Refraining from a killing response and biding our time might allow for a regime change - and outcome like the end of the Cold War, where decades of uneasy stand-offs and provocations between the US and USSR did NOT end in open warfare. It would be a very different world if either the US or USSR had been more hasty to get violent after something like the Gary Powers shoot down or the Cuban missile crisis, to name just two very touchy incidents. There were others. There can be benefits to restraint as well as display of strength.

For TL:DR - a successful attack that resulted in dead bodies might be a justifiable reason to attack, a failed plan is not.

[Shroom Man 777]

I am sure the American military response to events like the USS Cole bombing, such as those cruise missile strikes into the Asian nation holding those responsible for those attacks, were very apt in demonstrating that the USA is not "weak" and were successfully able to deter America's enemies from launching even far worse attacks.

The US' resounding military actions in the 2000s were certainly crucial in deterring more attacks on Americans, and were vital in ensuring the security of the USA, the safety of Americans working at home and abroad, the prosperity of the US economy, and the lessening of American deaths at the hands of terrorists and other enemies of the state.

[MarshalPurnell]

Iran has a long history of assassinating dissidents on foreign soil. In particular very blatant incidents on European soil, such as the assassination o Shapour Bakhtiar in Paris in 1991, or the assassination of Kurdish dissidents in the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin in 1992, have led to the indictment of Iranian agents and a 1997 judicial finding by a German court that Supreme Ayatallah Ali Khameni, then President Hashemi Rafsanjani, and the Intelligence Ministry of Iran had direct operational responsibility for authorizing such attacks. The pace of assassinations slowed in 1997, after the European Union withdrew its diplomatic presence temporarily, and after the election of the moderate President Khatami led to a greater normalization of Iran's behavior. The assassinations never completely stopped, especially in states of the Middle East where diplomatic consequences were limited, or in the case of Turkey where the tacit cooperation of authorities against Kurdish parties could be counted on. The election of Ahmadinejahd shifted the political balance back in favor of the hardliners, particular the Revolutionary Guard, which has only consolidated its power since. There have been renewed "disappearances" of dissidents in Iran proper, so a return to the policy of carrying out assassinations abroad is thus presaged by internal political developments in Iran.

In the earliest post-revolutionary period Iran frequently sub-contracted its assassinations out to other terrorist groups. Palestinians were particularly favored for operations in Europe given the relatively more established infrastructure of radical Palestinian terrorist groups in the area. In the United States there are no serious pre-existing terrorist networks, but the reach of the drug cartels could come close. More importantly the participation of cartel networks would obscure responsibility for the attack and lead American intelligence down a false trail. Especially if factions of the Revolutionary Guard were acting alone it might have been the only way to get their agent the resources necessary to carry it out. Thus far there is no evidence linking the plot to the higher echelons of Iranian government beyond the Revolutionary Guards and no such evidence is likely to be forthcoming.

Iran halted its prior pattern of assassinations in Europe because they (finally) imposed an unacceptable political cost. The trial of the Mykonos attack aborted Iranian efforts to draw closer to the EU and followed a tightening of Iranian credit access in Europe. The US lacks the ability to impose a similar level of cost itself, but it can certainly pressure regional allies to take action. The Saudis will be inclined to press the Gulf region governments and other Arab countries to resist Iranian influence anyway, and Europe is already slowly moving toward imposing greater sanctions thanks to the nuclear issue anyway. A public humiliation of the Iranian regime through an exhaustive trial, preferably also documenting the level of corruption involved in the Revolutionary Guard and reported extensively by dissident media, might help boost the domestic opposition. In any case diplomatic actions are sufficient as long as it can be communicated to the Iranians that their state sponsorship of terrorism will impose ongoing costs that can only be mitigated by ending the policy. Even if it doesn't work as such, isolating Iran from everyone except Russia, China, and various Third World regimes of equally dubious character would still be a considerable advance for American foreign policy.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ill-conceived American bombings of Iran, on the other hand, might stymie the anti-regime factions trying to gain common support in the country itself.

In light of all those aforementioned assassinations, and the already sour KSA-Iranian relationship, how would this change matters? I'd imagine the USA is already trying to isolate Iran from the rest of the world. What difference would one poorly conceived assassination plot make, when the US and company are probably already doing what you are saying?

[MarshalPurnell]

Ill-conceived American bombings of Iran, on the other hand, might stymie the anti-regime factions trying to gain common support in the country itself.

In light of all those aforementioned assassinations, and the already sour KSA-Iranian relationship, how would this change matters? I'd imagine the USA is already trying to isolate Iran from the rest of the world. What difference would one poorly conceived assassination plot make, when the US and company are probably already doing what you are saying?

The Iranians stopped assassinating people so blatantly, and on European soil, followed by a serious EU response. Relations with the rest of the world greatly improved under Khatami and have only been deteriorating under Ahmadinejahd. It does suggest that coordinated responses will be able to impact the Iranian regime and deter a return to its prior unacceptable behavior. The fact that we did foil the attack provides a greater impetus to act against the Iranians and an excuse to do so. It is, basically, a fresh provocation, a troubling threat, and a rallying point all in one.

[Broomstick]

See, there is a key difference between "military adventurism" and responding to an attack on your nation. Your failure to see the difference tells me I'm wasting my time with most of this.

It is you who can't see the difference between an attack and a plan.

People make plans all the time. Very few come to pass.

Survival isn't the issue. The given reason we spend these billions of dollars on the military is with the thought in mind that if any other nation attacked our citizens that we would retaliate in kind.

Funny, though - I referenced 20 years and more of attacks against US citizens that resulted in little or no retaliation. Apparently, no, the military isn't for responding to any and all attacks against citizens. The only reliable way to get a military response out of the US is to kill citizens on its home ground.

It is that thought that needs to be expressed now and again to let other nations know the consequences of orchaestrating attacks on the United States.

If anyone had forgotten, or not been informed of, the US response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the state of Japan by mid August 1945, I would think the consequences of September 11, 2001 would have either refreshed their memories or enlightened them. I don't think anyone really doubts that the US can rain down death from the skies on any target anywhere in the world and on rather short notice. The death of bin Laden 10 years after 9/11 shows that even if we go for a more subtle approach than a bomb from above we can be persistent even as our government leaders change. The consequences of a successful hit on US soil are well known at this point. Even if you escape immediate bombing youll never be safe. Waiting out a regime change won't change the fact that the US will still be after your ass. I wonder if the rest of the world finds it reassuring that it takes that much to lead to such a response, or frightening to think some little cabal of troublemakers can provoke that response.

So ask yourself - IF some nutballs in Iran wanted to provoke sort of response... why? Do they think they would gain something by it? And if so, should we give them what they want... or withhold their "prize"?

We shouldn't do what our enemies want merely because such action makes us feel tough or whatever, we should do what is in our own best interests - which might, in fact, mean do nothing in this instance because the alternatives might lead to unpleasent consequences out of proportion to what actually occurred.

[Broomstick]

I am sure the American military response to events like the USS Cole bombing, such as those cruise missile strikes into the Asian nation holding those responsible for those attacks, were very apt in demonstrating that the USA is not "weak" and were successfully able to deter America's enemies from launching even far worse attacks.

There was no military response to the attack on the USS Cole. Nor was an Asian nation held responsible.

The US held the Sudanese government responsible (Sudan being an African nation, of course) for providing support to the suicide attackers and wanted a cash payment of $8 million to go to the families of the deceased. The Sudanese government has said it would appeal the court decision. Allegedly, all suspects in the bombing held by Sudan have been released, and also allegedly one is currently in Guantanamo Bay. Well, it's messy - but no missiles involved, and no shooting.

The US' resounding military actions in the 2000s were certainly crucial in deterring more attacks on Americans, and were vital in ensuring the security of the USA, the safety of Americans working at home and abroad, the prosperity of the US economy, and the lessening of American deaths at the hands of terrorists and other enemies of the state.

Although it also got a few thousand Americans killed in two wars. More than have actually been killed in terrorist attacks, actually. I don't know if it "secured" anything.

[Broomstick]

I'd imagine the USA is already trying to isolate Iran from the rest of the world.

We've been doing that since 1979, actually. The downside to such tactics is, of course, the length of time required.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Honest question:

Shroomie repeated exactly what thehammer said in page one of this thread. Shep came in on page four and essentially repeated what Shroomie and thehammer said. Why is it that Shroomie was the only one who got an admin warning? Why isn't this thread HoS'd because of the things Shep and thehammer said? Do the words somehow gain magical power when a Philipino nurse says it as opposed to an American mailman?

[Edi]

Just standard US administration scaremongering. For some perspective on the case, Glenn Greenwald. Haven't read a whole lot of news regarding this, but if even this single quote is true, then it's just a pretext to start beating on Iran, with about as much substance behind it as Saddam's WMD.

To begin with, this episode continues the FBI’s record-setting undefeated streak of heroically saving us from the plots they enable. From all appearances, this is, at best, yet another spectacular “plot” hatched by some hapless loser with delusions of grandeur but without any means to put it into action except with the able assistance of the FBI, which yet again provided it through its own (paid, criminal) sources posing as Terrorist enablers. The Terrorist Mastermind at the center of the plot is a failed used car salesman in Texas with a history of pedestrian money problems. Dive under your bed. “For the entire operation, the government’s confidential sources were monitored and guided by federal law enforcement agents,” explained U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and “no explosives were actually ever placed anywhere and no one was actually ever in any danger.’”

But oh no, the US government said it was the Evil Iranians! Therefore it must be so! Commence immediately running about like headless chickens and screaming "The sky is falling!"

Morons.

[Shroom Man 777]

A successful terrorist attack involves actual death and destruction. I am assuming - and I'd certainly like some feedback from the non-US crowd here - that a violent retaliation in response to actual death on US soil would be seen as something at least potentially justifiable in the eyes of the world. I'm pretty sure violent retaliation in response to a failed plan is not seen as justified.

This is correct.



MarshalPurnell, the idea of Revolutionary Guard factions opting to try and contact the cartels due to working alone/lacking access to other Iranian resources sounds plausible. Some of the news report I read did take care to mention "factions" of the Iranian government.

The idea of Iran being like Pakistan in regards to control over its intelligence agencies is very unsettling.

Your ideas of the USA and Saudi Arabia using soft-power and diplomatic encirclement/isolation are also more workable than Hammer's ill-conceived notions that are only worth ridicule.

I am sure the American military response to events like the USS Cole bombing, such as those cruise missile strikes into the Asian nation holding those responsible for those attacks, were very apt in demonstrating that the USA is not "weak" and were successfully able to deter America's enemies from launching even far worse attacks.

There was no military response to the attack on the USS Cole. Nor was an Asian nation held responsible.

I'm sorry, I was confused with the embassy bombings that did see cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan (which did have AQ bases in it). I kind of got my Al-Qaeda attacks mixed up.

The US also bombed a chemical factory in Sudan. Here

The US' resounding military actions in the 2000s were certainly crucial in deterring more attacks on Americans, and were vital in ensuring the security of the USA, the safety of Americans working at home and abroad, the prosperity of the US economy, and the lessening of American deaths at the hands of terrorists and other enemies of the state.

Although it also got a few thousand Americans killed in two wars. More than have actually been killed in terrorist attacks, actually. I don't know if it "secured" anything.

I know. 4,477 Americans killed in Iraq at the hands of terrorists and other enemies of the USA, that thousands of people ended up dying in attacks in the Middle East rather than in the USA is small consolation. Your rights got limited. Your economy got shitted on. Again, I was being facetious in that statement. But, yeah. Retaliating and acting tough and not looking weak hasn't really been all that good for the US of A either, sad to say.

[MarshalPurnell]

Just standard US administration scaremongering. For some perspective on the case, Glenn Greenwald. Haven't read a whole lot of news regarding this, but if even this single quote is true, then it's just a pretext to start beating on Iran, with about as much substance behind it as Saddam's WMD.

To begin with, this episode continues the FBI’s record-setting undefeated streak of heroically saving us from the plots they enable. From all appearances, this is, at best, yet another spectacular “plot” hatched by some hapless loser with delusions of grandeur but without any means to put it into action except with the able assistance of the FBI, which yet again provided it through its own (paid, criminal) sources posing as Terrorist enablers. The Terrorist Mastermind at the center of the plot is a failed used car salesman in Texas with a history of pedestrian money problems. Dive under your bed. “For the entire operation, the government’s confidential sources were monitored and guided by federal law enforcement agents,” explained U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and “no explosives were actually ever placed anywhere and no one was actually ever in any danger.’”

But oh no, the US government said it was the Evil Iranians! Therefore it must be so! Commence immediately running about like headless chickens and screaming "The sky is falling!"

Morons.

http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releas ... ted-states

The Alleged Plot

The criminal complaint alleges that, from the spring of 2011 to October 2011, Arbabsiar and his Iran-based co-conspirators, including Shakuri of the Qods Force, have been plotting the murder of the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Arbabsiar allegedly met on a number of occasions in Mexico with a DEA confidential source (CS-1) who has posed as an associate of a violent international drug trafficking cartel. According to the complaint, Arbabsiar arranged to hire CS-1 and CS-1’s purported accomplices to murder the Ambassador, and Shakuri and other Iran-based co-conspirators were aware of and approved the plan. With Shakuri’s approval, Arbabsiar has allegedly caused approximately $100,000 to be wired into a bank account in the United States as a down payment to CS-1 for the anticipated killing of the Ambassador, which was to take place in the United States.

According to the criminal complaint, the IRCG is an arm of the Iranian military that is composed of a number of branches, one of which is the Qods Force. The Qods Force conducts sensitive covert operations abroad, including terrorist attacks, assassinations and kidnappings, and is believed to sponsor attacks against Coalition Forces in Iraq. In October 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the Qods Force for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.

The complaint alleges that Arbabsiar met with CS-1 in Mexico on May 24, 2011, where Arbabsiar inquired as to CS-1’s knowledge with respect to explosives and explained that he was interested in, among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia. In response, CS-1 allegedly indicated that he was knowledgeable with respect to C-4 explosives. In June and July 2011, the complaint alleges, Arbabsiar returned to Mexico and held additional meetings with CS-1, where Arbabsiar explained that his associates in Iran had discussed a number of violent missions for CS-1 and his associates to perform, including the murder of the Ambassador.

$1.5 Million Fee for Alleged Assassination

In a July 14, 2011, meeting in Mexico, CS-1 allegedly told Arbabsiar that he would need to use four men to carry out the Ambassador’s murder and that his price for carrying out the murder was $1.5 million. Arbabsiar allegedly agreed and stated that the murder of the Ambassador should be handled first, before the execution of other attacks. Arbabsiar also allegedly indicated he and his associates had $100,000 in Iran to pay CS-1 as a first payment toward the assassination and discussed the manner in which that payment would be made.

During the same meeting, Arbabsiar allegedly described to CS-1 his cousin in Iran, who he said had requested that Arbabsiar find someone to carry out the Ambassador’s assassination. According to the complaint, Arbabsiar indicated that his cousin was a “big general” in the Iranian military; that he focuses on matters outside Iran and that he had taken certain unspecified actions related to a bombing in Iraq.

In a July 17, 2011, meeting in Mexico, CS-1 noted to Arbabsiar that one of his workers had already traveled to Washington, D.C., to surveill the Ambassador. CS-1 also raised the possibility of innocent bystander casualties. The complaint alleges that Arbabsiar made it clear that the assassination needed to go forward, despite mass casualties, telling CS-1, “They want that guy [the Ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him f**k ‘em.” CS-1 and Arbabsiar allegedly discussed bombing a restaurant in the United States that the Ambassador frequented. When CS-1 noted that others could be killed in the attack, including U.S. senators who dine at the restaurant, Arbabsiar allegedly dismissed these concerns as “no big deal.”

On Aug. 1, and Aug. 9, 2011, with Shakuri’s approval, Arbabsiar allegedly caused two overseas wire transfers totaling approximately $100,000 to be sent to an FBI undercover account as a down payment for CS-1 to carry out the assassination. Later, Arbabsiar allegedly explained to CS-1 that he would provide the remainder of the $1.5 million after the assassination. On Sept. 20, 2011, CS-1 allegedly told Arbabsiar that the operation was ready and requested that Arbabsiar either pay one half of the agreed upon price ($1.5 million) for the murder or that Arbabsiar personally travel to Mexico as collateral for the final payment of the fee. According to the complaint, Arbabsiar agreed to travel to Mexico to guarantee final payment for the murder.

Arrest and Alleged Confession

On or about Sept. 28, 2011, Arbabsiar flew to Mexico. Arbabsiar was refused entry into Mexico by Mexican authorities and, according to Mexican law and international agreements; he was placed on a return flight destined for his last point of departure. On Sept. 29, 2011, Arbabsiar was arrested by federal agents during a flight layover at JFK International Airport in New York. Several hours after his arrest, Arbabsiar was advised of his Miranda rights and he agreed to waive those rights and speak with law enforcement agents. During a series of Mirandized interviews, Arbabsiar allegedly confessed to his participation in the murder plot.

According to the complaint, Arbabsiar also admitted to agents that, in connection with this plot, he was recruited, funded, and directed by men he understood to be senior officials in Iran’s Qods Force. He allegedly said these Iranian officials were aware of and approved of the use of CS-1 in connection with the plot; as well as payments to CS-1; the means by which the Ambassador would be killed in the United States and the casualties that would likely result.

Arbabsiar allegedly told agents that his cousin, who he had long understood to be a senior member of the Qods Force, had approached him in the early spring of 2011 about recruiting narco-traffickers to kidnap the Ambassador. Arbabsiar told agents that he then met with the CS-1 in Mexico and discussed assassinating the Ambassador. According to the complaint, Arbabsiar said that, afterwards, he met several times in Iran with Shakuri and another senior Qods Force official, where he explained that the plan was to blow up a restaurant in the United States frequented by the Ambassador and that numerous bystanders could be killed, according to the complaint. The plan was allegedly approved by these officials.

In October 2011, according to the complaint, Arbabsiar made phone calls at the direction of law enforcement to Shakuri in Iran that were monitored. During these phone calls, Shakuri allegedly confirmed that Arbabsiar should move forward with the plot to murder the Ambassador and that he should accomplish the task as quickly as possible, stating on Oct. 5, 2011, “[j]ust do it quickly, it’s late . . .” The complaint alleges that Shakuri also told Arbabsiar that he would consult with his superiors about whether they would be willing to pay CS-1 additional money.

That is what the government alleges. Greenwald's allegations that this a case of entrapment are without foundation, and there is (at least according to the criminal complaint) considerable evidence connecting Arbabsiar to Iranian officials.

Also LOL at the continued "Bush lied people died" narrative. Plenty of evidence has since come out to provide a true picture of how and why American intelligence failed. The unspoken assumption of intelligence agencies around the world that he had to have WMD, the Iraqi obstructionism of inspectors and failure to comply with disarmament procedures, Hussein's own admission of deliberate bluffing to deter Iran, the desire to "drain the swamp," even the cognitive dissonance of believing in a conspiracy that would lie America into war for oil and yet not bother to take elementary steps to "find" confirmation of WMD in Iraq. And yet there are posters on this board who pride themselves on nuance and have no more sophisticated a view of what happened with Iraq than the people who watched FoxNews and thought we had to take Hussein out for 9/11. There's a bitter irony in that to be sure.

[Thanas]

Also LOL at the continued "Bush lied people died" narrative. Plenty of evidence has since come out to provide a true picture of how and why American intelligence failed. The unspoken assumption of intelligence agencies around the world that he had to have WMD, the Iraqi obstructionism of inspectors and failure to comply with disarmament procedures, Hussein's own admission of deliberate bluffing to deter Iran, the desire to "drain the swamp," even the cognitive dissonance of believing in a conspiracy that would lie America into war for oil and yet not bother to take elementary steps to "find" confirmation of WMD in Iraq. And yet there are posters on this board who pride themselves on nuance and have no more sophisticated a view of what happened with Iraq than the people who watched FoxNews and thought we had to take Hussein out for 9/11. There's a bitter irony in that to be sure.

This is what a whitewash of history looks like. How about you remember the session of the UN security council? "Excuse me, I am not convinced".

[Shroom Man 777]

I can dig that the whole affair was more complicated and nuanced than "Bush lied, people died", a mess that ended up causing a war that in turn led to the deaths of countless of people would most certainly be all sorts of convoluted.

Doesn't change the fact that they fucked up and went to war due to shit intelligence, and a whole load of people ended up dead because of that. Okay, the US fucked up in a more nuanced way, and all those poor shmucks are all more sophisticatedly dead.

Yeah.

[Samuel]

The idea of Iran being like Pakistan in regards to control over its intelligence agencies is very unsettling.

In 1998 members of their intelligence agency murdered a bunch of dissidents and the government claimed it was the work of rogue elements. The first thing that comes to mind is ass covering, but maybe they were telling the truth.

This is what a whitewash of history looks like. How about you remember the session of the UN security council? "Excuse me, I am not convinced".

Is this a rebuttal? Because saying not everyone bought into a delusion doesn't mean there was no delusion.

[TheHammer]

See, there is a key difference between "military adventurism" and responding to an attack on your nation. Your failure to see the difference tells me I'm wasting my time with most of this.

It is you who can't see the difference between an attack and a plan.

People make plans all the time. Very few come to pass.

This was a plan in motion Broomstick. Simply because the attack was foiled doesn't mean it wasn't an attack. If the bombs had been planted or failed to go off, or went off prematurely when no one was in the building. Poor execution doesn't excuse the act in the first place.

Survival isn't the issue. The given reason we spend these billions of dollars on the military is with the thought in mind that if any other nation attacked our citizens that we would retaliate in kind.

Funny, though - I referenced 20 years and more of attacks against US citizens that resulted in little or no retaliation. Apparently, no, the military isn't for responding to any and all attacks against citizens. The only reliable way to get a military response out of the US is to kill citizens on its home ground.

And I rebutted by saying those attacks weren't perpetrated by a sitting government. And quite frankly our failure to mount an appropriate response likely lead to the audacity of planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. Regardless, Its one thing for a rougue band of terrorists that are operating outside of government control, and it is another for a major nation to back them and for us to allow them to come out unscathed.

It is that thought that needs to be expressed now and again to let other nations know the consequences of orchaestrating attacks on the United States.

If anyone had forgotten, or not been informed of, the US response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the state of Japan by mid August 1945, I would think the consequences of September 11, 2001 would have either refreshed their memories or enlightened them. I don't think anyone really doubts that the US can rain down death from the skies on any target anywhere in the world and on rather short notice. The death of bin Laden 10 years after 9/11 shows that even if we go for a more subtle approach than a bomb from above we can be persistent even as our government leaders change. The consequences of a successful hit on US soil are well known at this point. Even if you escape immediate bombing youll never be safe. Waiting out a regime change won't change the fact that the US will still be after your ass. I wonder if the rest of the world finds it reassuring that it takes that much to lead to such a response, or frightening to think some little cabal of troublemakers can provoke that response.

You are correct. Most nations would see how we responded to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and realize that provoking us to conflict is not a smart thing to do. On the other hand, its clear that it does still happen on occaision. As you well know, the most recent precedent is the one that will stick in peoples minds. We let this slide then other countries that previously had been deterred might start to think they could get away with it too.

So ask yourself - IF some nutballs in Iran wanted to provoke sort of response... why? Do they think they would gain something by it? And if so, should we give them what they want... or withhold their "prize"?

Well obviously we should withhold their "prize" of getting an asskicking from the U.S. military. Let them try to come over and bomb all the restaurants and kill all the ambassadors they want! We'll just keep slapping on sanctions that don't work. Rather than make them feel any real pain we'll "Embarass them". That'll show em.

We shouldn't do what our enemies want merely because such action makes us feel tough or whatever, we should do what is in our own best interests - which might, in fact, mean do nothing in this instance because the alternatives might lead to unpleasent consequences out of proportion to what actually occurred.

Its not about feeling tough. Its about providing an appropriate deterent to future endeavors of this nature.

Say they had succeeded. My personal standpoint is that it doesn't matter if they "succeeded or not", but for the sake of argument lets say they had succeeded in blowing up a restaurant, killing oh say 40-50 Americans, the Saudi ambassador and his security detail. What would have been the appropriate response?

[Broomstick]

I am sure the American military response to events like the USS Cole bombing, such as those cruise missile strikes into the Asian nation holding those responsible for those attacks, were very apt in demonstrating that the USA is not "weak" and were successfully able to deter America's enemies from launching even far worse attacks.

There was no military response to the attack on the USS Cole. Nor was an Asian nation held responsible.

I'm sorry, I was confused with the embassy bombings that did see cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan (which did have AQ bases in it). I kind of got my Al-Qaeda attacks mixed up.

Quite understandable, there have been a number of them over the years. Al Qaeda had been picking at the US for a couple decades before they finally hit us on the home soil and got the response they wanted.

The US also bombed a chemical factory in Sudan. Here

Correct. But to clarify, those were in response to the bombing of embassies in Africa, not the strike at the USS Cole.

If I have to explain the difference reactions, well, I guess it's Americans feel that the military is a legitimate target. We don't like having our military people blown up or shot, but we recognize it's an occupational hazard. We get much more upset at having our embassies attacked or our cities/citizens at home. I suspect it's a common viewpoint of many nationalities. Regardless, attacking our military isn't likely to start a war, even if that might seem odd.

Retaliating and acting tough and not looking weak hasn't really been all that good for the US of A either, sad to say.

True. Which is why I'm not at all sure that a violent response is in our best interests here, either.