QuoteWashington (CNN) -- U.S. agents have disrupted an Iranian assassination-for-hire scheme targeting Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday.
Elements of the Iranian government directed the alleged plan, Holder said. A naturalized U.S. citizen holding Iranian and U.S. passports and a member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard were directly involved, the FBI said in a statement.
"The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable," Holder told reporters.
A spokesman for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that the alleged plot was "a fabrication."
The Iranian government was awaiting details about the accusations, spokesman Ali Akbar Javanfekr said. He suggested U.S. authorities were attempting to distract American citizens.
"They want to take the public's mind off the serious domestic problems they're facing these days and scare them with fabricated problems outside the country," he said.
The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington issued a statement Tuesday thanking U.S. authorities for stepping in.
"The attempted plot is a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions and is not in accord with the principles of humanity," the embassy's statement said.
The Saudi ambassador was not the only intended target, U.S. officials said. Suspects also discussed attacking Israeli and Saudi embassies in Washington and possibly Buenos Aires, Argentina, a senior U.S. official said.
It is unclear why Iran targeted the Saudi ambassador, the senior U.S. official said, or how widespread knowledge or approval of the plot was within Ahmadinejad's government.
Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iran-based member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, began planning this spring to kill Saudi Ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir, an FBI agent's affidavit released Tuesday alleged.
Charges against them include conspiracy to murder a foreign official, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, the affidavit said.
Authorities unraveled the plot with the help of an informant posing as an associate of a Mexican drug cartel, Holder said.
Arbabsiar and the undercover informant allegedly discussed using explosives to kill the ambassador and possibly attacking a crowded restaurant, according to the affidavit.
Arbabsiar also told the informant he wanted to target additional government facilities associated with Saudi Arabia and a second, undisclosed country within and outside of the United States, FBI agent O. Robert Woloszyn's affidavit said.
The alleged plot read "like the pages of a Hollywood script," but the implications were real, FBI Director Robert Mueller said.
"This case illustrates that we live in a world where borders and boundaries are increasingly irrelevant -- a world where individuals from one country sought to conspire with a drug trafficking cartel in another country to assassinate a foreign official on United States soil," he said.
The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, told reporters Tuesday that the alleged $1.5 million plot was "well-funded and pernicious."
"Details of that murder plot are chilling," he said.
A U.S. official said Tuesday that the United States is likely to respond with additional sanctions against Iran. The United States will also be taking up the issue with the U.N. Security Council and other members of the international community, the official said.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that additional actions to further isolate the Iranian regime will be considered.
The U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions Tuesday targeting Arbabsiar, Shakuri and three others tied to the alleged plot.
In the affidavit, Woloszyn alleged the case involves a branch of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that is suspected of being involved in a number of foreign operations.
The branch, the Quds Force, is accused by U.S. officials of sponsoring attacks against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, and in October 2007, the Treasury Department designated it as "providing material to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations," the affidavit said.
Often considered regional rivals, the oil-rich Saudi Kingdom has been at odds with its Iranian counterpart.
The country's Sunni leaders have at times discussed directly intervening in Iraq following the U.S. military withdrawal, according to a Council on Foreign Relations report. Iran has largely supported Shiite militias in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/iran-saudi-plot/index.html
Are they insane? This is how wars get started. What the hell?
We've already ignored one thread about it. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hotflick.net%2Fflicks%2F1963_Cleopatra%2F963CLE_Roddy_McDowall_005.jpg&hash=c6be05bd00a26c998baddc907d419c160a31fd46)
All we need is Agrippa to stand up and yell WAR!
The more important question is: what wine does the ambassador prefer?
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 05:34:34 PM
We've already ignored one thread about it. :rolleyes:
I didn't notice it.
Don't worry, Tim will make another one because "it's important! :mad:".
At what point does the behavior of Iran and Pakistan mean that we can stop pretending that they a civilized countries deserving of westphalian respect for sovereignty?
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 06:05:17 PM
At what point does the behavior of Iran and Pakistan mean that we can stop pretending that they a civilized countries deserving of westphalian respect for sovereignty?
I was just on the verge of getting really pissed off when I remembered we've been offing Iranian nukular scientists by the bushelload.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 06:19:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 06:05:17 PM
At what point does the behavior of Iran and Pakistan mean that we can stop pretending that they a civilized countries deserving of westphalian respect for sovereignty?
I was just on the verge of getting really pissed off when I remembered we've been offing Iranian nukular scientists by the bushelload.
Prove it.
fight! fight! fight!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 06:19:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 06:05:17 PM
At what point does the behavior of Iran and Pakistan mean that we can stop pretending that they a civilized countries deserving of westphalian respect for sovereignty?
I was just on the verge of getting really pissed off when I remembered we've been offing Iranian nukular scientists by the bushelload.
I thought that was the Israelis? Plus weapon builders /= diplomats.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 06:27:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2011, 06:19:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 06:05:17 PM
At what point does the behavior of Iran and Pakistan mean that we can stop pretending that they a civilized countries deserving of westphalian respect for sovereignty?
I was just on the verge of getting really pissed off when I remembered we've been offing Iranian nukular scientists by the bushelload.
I thought that was the Israelis? Plus weapon builders /= diplomats.
Nobody knows who did it. The list of suspects is long. US, UK, Israeli, Saudi, etc.
If the Iranians actually pulled something like this off, there's a good chance it would mean military action. By both the US and Saudis. With a tough election coming up, Obama can't afford to look weak. He'd be forced to out-hawk the hawks. The situation is somewhat similar to Kennedy on Cuban Missile Crisis.
I've got a murder boner just thinking of B-2's bombing the Persians. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2011, 06:39:02 PM
I've got a murder boner just thinking of B-2's bombing the Persians. :)
here is some monc.e.pron for you
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmazinx.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F05%2F1210614249iran_economist_cover.jpg&hash=d73d8a31572583a8efcab2cff227baa396d8d7d2)
They are owed a punch in the balls for '79.
Hot.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2011, 05:49:10 PM
Don't worry, Tim will make another one because "it's important! :mad:".
He didn't make this one? The title could've fooled me.
I have no idea what you mean.
The outline of Obama's re-election campaign is becoming clear. :ph34r: :tinfoil:
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 05:34:34 PM
We've already ignored one thread about it. :rolleyes:
:cry:
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 08:00:14 PM
The outline of Obama's re-election campaign is becoming clear. :ph34r: :tinfoil:
Step 1: Bomb Iran.
Step 2: Bomb the RNC.
Step 3: Victory!
Might as well bump Raz's thread. :P
All 100 Senators have been called into an emergency intelligence briefing related to the plot. Don't know why and don't have a link yet.
Persia Delenda Est.
It would have caused war if they pulled it off.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 05:02:02 PM
It would have caused war if they pulled it off.
Not necessarily. The Chileans assassinated a guy back in the 1970s IIRC, and the Iranians bumped off an important dissident in DC in 1980. And some more around Europe I believe.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 08:23:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 08:00:14 PM
The outline of Obama's re-election campaign is becoming clear. :ph34r: :tinfoil:
Step 1: Bomb Iran.
Step 2: Bomb the RNC.
Step 3: Victory!
At first, I misread Step 2 as "Bomb the RCMP", which rather confused me.
Quote from: dps on October 12, 2011, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 11, 2011, 08:23:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2011, 08:00:14 PM
The outline of Obama's re-election campaign is becoming clear. :ph34r: :tinfoil:
Step 1: Bomb Iran.
Step 2: Bomb the RNC.
Step 3: Victory!
At first, I misread Step 2 as "Bomb the RCMP", which rather confused me.
That's part of step 4, invade Canada :ph34r:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 12, 2011, 07:16:09 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 05:02:02 PM
It would have caused war if they pulled it off.
Not necessarily. The Chileans assassinated a guy back in the 1970s IIRC, and the Iranians bumped off an important dissident in DC in 1980. And some more around Europe I believe.
Yes, but the Chileans who did that were our friends.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 05:02:02 PM
It would have caused war if they pulled it off.
No it wouldn't have. You guys don't have the strength to fight a war against Iran.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2011, 08:52:43 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 05:02:02 PM
It would have caused war if they pulled it off.
No it wouldn't have. You guys don't have the strength to fight a war against Iran.
Yes, but that isn't likely to stop us. It could easily lead to war between the Saudis and Iranians. Or simply an air campaign.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2011, 08:52:43 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 05:02:02 PM
It would have caused war if they pulled it off.
No it wouldn't have. You guys don't have the strength to fight a war against Iran.
:( It's like living in France after the Battle of Nations.
Soo, I can't see why the Iranian state would organize this. What's the edge? Or they can be so amateur that they thought their sponsorship was untracable? Or simply they want hostile action from the US to prop up their failing regime?
That said, I don't think this was a fabricated CB by the Amerikkans, they would have let the bomb explode in that case.
Dammit, not now. Every country I go to or plan to go to has gone down in riots or revolution the past year. :ultra:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 12, 2011, 07:16:09 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 05:02:02 PM
It would have caused war if they pulled it off.
Not necessarily. The Chileans assassinated a guy back in the 1970s IIRC, and the Iranians bumped off an important dissident in DC in 1980. And some more around Europe I believe.
If they killed a hundred civilians at the same time?
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2011, 01:56:06 AM
Soo, I can't see why the Iranian state would organize this. What's the edge? Or they can be so amateur that they thought their sponsorship was untracable? Or simply they want hostile action from the US to prop up their failing regime?
That said, I don't think this was a fabricated CB by the Amerikkans, they would have let the bomb explode in that case.
Because they are religious nutbags with crazy motivations who think that the USA is so pathetic that it would never ACTUALLY do anything regardless of what they do. The US and UK reactions to Iranian provokations for the last 10 years probably gives them good reason to think this.
The US has invaded two countries in the last ten years, and bombed three. That's an unwise calculation.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
The US has invaded two countries in the last ten years, and bombed three. That's an unwise calculation.
2002 - US bombs the shit out of Iraq and invades with 150 thousand men destroying the 4th largest army in the world making the fastest advance in military history.
2011 - US lends 80 tomahawks to the UK to shoot at Libya.
I can see a trend there.. can you. Just ask yourself, will the US invade Iran to depose the government?
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
The US has invaded two countries in the last ten years, and bombed three. That's an unwise calculation.
2002 - US bombs the shit out of Iraq and invades with 150 thousand men destroying the 4th largest army in the world making the fastest advance in military history.
I missed this one. :(
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
The US has invaded two countries in the last ten years, and bombed three. That's an unwise calculation.
2003 - US bombs the shit out of Iraq and invades with 150 thousand men destroying the 4th largest army in the world making the fastest advance in military history.
2011 - US lends 80 tomahawks to the UK to shoot at Libya.
I can see a trend there.. can you. Just ask yourself, will the US invade Iran to depose the government?
Libya barely had a military, invasion was completely unnecessary. 80 tomahawks got the job down.
I doubt we'd invade Iran, there'd be a massive air campaign though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:30:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
The US has invaded two countries in the last ten years, and bombed three. That's an unwise calculation.
2003 - US bombs the shit out of Iraq and invades with 150 thousand men destroying the 4th largest army in the world making the fastest advance in military history.
2011 - US lends 80 tomahawks to the UK to shoot at Libya.
I can see a trend there.. can you. Just ask yourself, will the US invade Iran to depose the government?
Libya barely had a military, invasion was completely unnecessary. 80 tomahawks got the job down.
I doubt we'd invade Iran, there'd be a massive air campaign though.
Meanwhile Iran; directly and through Iraqi minions; tries to screw up Iraq and Afghanistan as much as possible while Hisbullah creates serious problems with Israel trying to make the conflict USA and Israel vs Iran and Hisbullah in the arab mind. What makes you think that the USA would be willing to pay that cost just for the benefit of one murdered Saudi diplomat?
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:36:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:30:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
The US has invaded two countries in the last ten years, and bombed three. That's an unwise calculation.
2003 - US bombs the shit out of Iraq and invades with 150 thousand men destroying the 4th largest army in the world making the fastest advance in military history.
2011 - US lends 80 tomahawks to the UK to shoot at Libya.
I can see a trend there.. can you. Just ask yourself, will the US invade Iran to depose the government?
Libya barely had a military, invasion was completely unnecessary. 80 tomahawks got the job down.
I doubt we'd invade Iran, there'd be a massive air campaign though.
Meanwhile Iran; directly and through Iraqi minions; tries to screw up Iraq and Afghanistan as much as possible while Hisbullah creates serious problems with Israel trying to make the conflict USA and Israel vs Iran and Hisbullah in the arab mind. What makes you think that the USA would be willing to pay that cost just for the benefit of one murdered Saudi diplomat?
Who the hell cares about the diplomat? It's the hundred dead civilians (high class restaurant frequented by congressmen) that would cause a conflict.
I'm reminded of the classic boardgame Assassin. Oh the hilarity when your assassin picked weapon "bomb" at location "china store".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:44:35 AMWho the hell cares about the diplomat? It's the hundred dead civilians (high class restaurant frequented by congressmen) that would cause a conflict.
Which is why Iran thinks it can get away with shit like that.... It's not like there are anymore non-violent sanctions the US can impose without risk on Iran? What is the US gonna do... start murdering Iranian diplomats?
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:55:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:44:35 AMWho the hell cares about the diplomat? It's the hundred dead civilians (high class restaurant frequented by congressmen) that would cause a conflict.
Which is why Iran thinks it can get away with shit like that.... It's not like there are anymore non-violent sanctions the US can impose without risk on Iran? What is the US gonna do... start murdering Iranian diplomats?
:huh: If Iran kills a hundred civilians in D.C. in a terrorist attack there would be war. How can you possibly dispute it?
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2011, 01:56:06 AM
Soo, I can't see why the Iranian state would organize this. What's the edge? Or they can be so amateur that they thought their sponsorship was untracable? Or simply they want hostile action from the US to prop up their failing regime?
Yeah, I'd like some more details on this first. I'm suspicious of plots that read like Hollywood thrillers and especially ones that sound like a Tom Clancey novel in which the Iranian government and Mexican drug cartels start working together.
I'm sure the details'll be released but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bit of a lunatic trying to appear more important than he is, with some minor backup to that story.
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2011, 01:56:06 AM
Soo, I can't see why the Iranian state would organize this. What's the edge? Or they can be so amateur that they thought their sponsorship was untracable? Or simply they want hostile action from the US to prop up their failing regime?
That said, I don't think this was a fabricated CB by the Amerikkans, they would have let the bomb explode in that case.
I suspect it answer lies in the nature of the Iranian government. A combination of Byzantine bureaucracy and competing factions can create bizarre plots and contradictory policies. Nazi Germany was like that. They always had agencies at odds with one another coming up with stupid ideas. It may also relate to the recent covert attacks on Iran's nuclear program. You and I don't know who's behind it, but the Iranians are probably better informed. They may suspect it's a joint US-Saudi operation see this ambassador as an important player. Or at least some of them do.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 04:00:44 AM
:huh: If Iran kills a hundred civilians in D.C. in a terrorist attack there would be war. How can you possibly dispute it?
The Libyans killed more than that in the Lockerbie bombing, and there was no war.
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2011, 01:56:06 AM
Soo, I can't see why the Iranian state would organize this. What's the edge? Or they can be so amateur that they thought their sponsorship was untracable? Or simply they want hostile action from the US to prop up their failing regime?
"Rogue" operation.
Like Raz alluded to, you can't really view the Iranian government organs as part of a clear, hierachical organization controlled by established rules. Especially when one is dealing, as here, with people operating out the rambling, parastatal complex that is the Revolutionary Guards organization.
That's my guess as well. There's probably a lot of independent initiative on that guy and likely several others' parts. Probably some guy or guys high enough or connected enough to have access to that sort of money, but not endorsed from on high.
I'm skeptical that Ahmadinejad is connected. OTOH, he could have ordered it, or made some vague "orders" that others ran with, in order to boost his domestic popularity and attempt to increase his authority compared to the Supreme Council. He's not very popular at home.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:44:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:36:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:30:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2011, 03:24:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
The US has invaded two countries in the last ten years, and bombed three. That's an unwise calculation.
2003 - US bombs the shit out of Iraq and invades with 150 thousand men destroying the 4th largest army in the world making the fastest advance in military history.
2011 - US lends 80 tomahawks to the UK to shoot at Libya.
I can see a trend there.. can you. Just ask yourself, will the US invade Iran to depose the government?
Libya barely had a military, invasion was completely unnecessary. 80 tomahawks got the job down.
I doubt we'd invade Iran, there'd be a massive air campaign though.
Meanwhile Iran; directly and through Iraqi minions; tries to screw up Iraq and Afghanistan as much as possible while Hisbullah creates serious problems with Israel trying to make the conflict USA and Israel vs Iran and Hisbullah in the arab mind. What makes you think that the USA would be willing to pay that cost just for the benefit of one murdered Saudi diplomat?
Who the hell cares about the diplomat? It's the hundred dead civilians (high class restaurant frequented by congressmen) that would cause a conflict.
Maybe they were trying to improve American public opinion of Iran by killing Congressmen :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2011, 06:46:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2011, 01:56:06 AM
Soo, I can't see why the Iranian state would organize this. What's the edge? Or they can be so amateur that they thought their sponsorship was untracable? Or simply they want hostile action from the US to prop up their failing regime?
That said, I don't think this was a fabricated CB by the Amerikkans, they would have let the bomb explode in that case.
I suspect it answer lies in the nature of the Iranian government. A combination of Byzantine bureaucracy and competing factions can create bizarre plots and contradictory policies. Nazi Germany was like that. They always had agencies at odds with one another coming up with stupid ideas. It may also relate to the recent covert attacks on Iran's nuclear program. You and I don't know who's behind it, but the Iranians are probably better informed. They may suspect it's a joint US-Saudi operation see this ambassador as an important player. Or at least some of them do.
We all know this stuxnet thing will end up being a 4chan prank <_<
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 13, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
That's my guess as well. There's probably a lot of independent initiative on that guy and likely several others' parts. Probably some guy or guys high enough or connected enough to have access to that sort of money, but not endorsed from on high.
QuoteIran's supreme leader believed to be behind plot
Ken Dilanian, Paul Richter,Brian Bennett, Tribune Co.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Washington --
U.S. government officials, while initially skeptical that top Iranian government figures were behind a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, became convinced by the operation's money trail and now consider it likely that the plan was approved by Iran's supreme leader.
"This is the kind of operation - the assassination of a diplomat on foreign soil - that would have been vetted at the highest levels of the Iranian government," said a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive analysis. "We can't prove that, but we do not think it was a rogue operation in any way."
Law enforcement and intelligence officials penetrated the alleged plot from the start. But American officials said Wednesday that what convinced them they were tracking something much more than just idle talk between an Iranian American used car salesman and a Drug Enforcement Administration informant was the transfer of $100,000 from Iran in July and August as a down payment to set the assassination in motion.
It became clear, they said, that the plan really was being orchestrated by the Quds Force, a secretive unit of Iran's military.
"It's very difficult to explain that transfer, which also aligned perfectly with what the informant was telling us, any other way," the senior official said Wednesday.
Officials also said the United States picked up other intelligence that indicated the existence of the plot. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said after a Senate Intelligence Committee briefing that human and signals intelligence had played a role in unraveling the plot.
Feinstein also said that "the intelligence indicates there may be problems elsewhere," adding that there could be threats to Saudi, Israeli or American ambassadors in other countries. "There may be a chain of these things," Feinstein told reporters.
Iran has condemned the allegations as false and "politically motivated."
Iran has a complex government system in which different arms of the government are often in bitter conflict with each other. U.S. officials say the Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards, supplies arms and training to insurgents who have killed American troops in Iraq and carries out covert operations, which have included assassinations. The Quds Force reports directly to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, U.S. officials believe.
And a counterargument from an Iranian apologist:
QuoteIran's leaders would not have approved alleged plot
Editor's Note: Geneive Abdo is the Director of the Iran Program at The Century Foundation.
By Geneive Abdo - Special to CNN
Even if it turns out that rogue agents within Iran's Quds Force were behind the foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi and Israeli ambassadors in Washington, it is still highly unlikely that Iran's political leaders were behind this amateurish scheme.
Despite U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement two days ago that the two Iranian suspects behind the plot were "directed and approved by elements of the Iranian government, and specifically, senior members of the Quds Force," the United States government still has not made the link between the plot and either President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Why? Because it is highly unlikely any of Iran's top political leaders would be involved in such a foolish – not to mention completely counterproductive – attempt to commit violence on U.S. soil. Simply put, this is not how Iran conducts its foreign policy.
When it comes to the United States and Israel, Iran's political leaders remain in varying degrees of fear of a military attack. This plot, if successful, would have been a declaration of war – an act Iran would never initiate. The only significant cooperation Iran has shown over the last decade on its nuclear program, for example, was in 2003 when the country's leaders thought the United States planned to bomb Tehran after Baghdad.
One theory being advanced by some in Washington is that Iran's escalating tensions with Saudi Arabia, particularly in the wake of the Arab uprisings, is behind the plot. But this idea also seems implausible. If Iran wished to confront Saudi Arabia, it could do so over the Saudi's intervention in Bahrain, a country where the majority of people are Shiite Muslims. But despite the Saudi's March invasion, in which thousands of troops entered the tiny kingdom to crush an uprising being waged predominately by the Shias, Iran has remained on the sidelines.
The Saudis have made it clear in the diplomatic public sparring with Iran that any move against it would unleash the entire force of the other states in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Thus, Iran would be forced to face the militaries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. With all of this at risk, does it make sense to assassinate two ambassadors and kill an unknown number of Americans in Washington DC?
In all the alarm sweeping the country, particularly in Washington, it is important for Americans to understand that Iran's political and military apparatus is just as complicated as that of most countries. The Quds is a professional force which is highly specialized. It has a history of having the most sophisticated terrorism experts. Its commanders are directly under the command of Supreme Leader Khamenei, who has emerged more powerful than ever after a protracted power struggle with President Ahmadinejad and the rogue political faction he leads.
The only possible explanation – if indeed the Quds Force were involved in this plot – is that rogue agents decided to take Iranian foreign policy into their own hands. Such renegades should not serve as an excuse for military action against Iran or to punish Iran's political leaders for a plot that they most likely did not concoct.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Geneive Abdo.
It turns out that the Saudi Ambassador targeted was named in the Wikileaks cables about the Saudi attempt to convince the USA to bomb Iran.
Fuck you Assange.