This articulates my feelings on the issue. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/12/a_tangled_tale
the Saudis did it they're afraid we're gonna cut them off and this is their attempt to keep us in the game
MeK might be behind it. They're on Saudi payroll , and are tactically supported by the Israeli lobby in the states. Where else do you think they get their millions of dollars to pay their lobbyists and "speakers" ? http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2096747,00.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-...ngerously-wrong-on-iran/3553704?section=world
Whoever did it, I guarantee the GOP will say we don't have enough money to go illegally to war, and then accuse the President of weak leadership and no conviction. Who wants to lose a $10 bet to me?
This story is simply ridiculous and I am glad that most posters here have been wise enough to realize as much. The real question is who is trying to frame Iran? And whether the US is involved as well? If its the latter, then regrettably this story will find some leg. Otherwise, I think this story will quickly fade as its premise is absurd and nothing about it adds up, except pointing to an attempt to frame Iran. To frame Iran, what was needed in this ridiculous plot was some greedy but clueless fellow (not unlike the used car salesman that was used here) to dupe him into believing that he was being recruited for some operation like this. That part is easy. Whoever was trying to frame Iran would also need to have the ability to recruit an agent with enough authority to transfer $100,000 from accounts allegedly linked to Iran. That part suggest a bit more sophistication, which ordinarily would disqualify the Saudis although you can purchase sophistication with money. At the end, what makes finding out who is behind type this attempt to frame Iran a bit complicated is the fact that unfortunately there are more than a few states and organizations who would have the requisite motive and resources. These could even be working together. My own guess is that this is either an Israeli or a Saudi plot, using the MEK, with the big question mark being whether the US is involved? If the US is involved, the purpose would be to strengthen efforts to add to sanctions against Iran, not to go to war with Iran which is an asinine idea that hardly has any sane backers even in the US government. On the other hand, if this is an Israeli plot, they would be hoping that it would at the very least lead to more sanctions and they might even hope it could lead to war against Iran. The Saudis would be stupid to wish for a US war with Iran, but that is not something that they can't be accused of either. The Saudis are both stupid and apparently have in the past wished the US to go to war against Iran as well.
Given the complex the Hollywood-like nature of this story, FBI should enlist the help of Donny Chicago to solve this crime. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k86No1dDHI4"]Omid Djalili " Donny Chicago " - YouTube[/ame]
Hillary Mann Leverett's take on this: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj8NvFw-7P0"]Leverett on U.S. Charges of Iran Terror Plot - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXp30ONoIQ"]Hillary Mann Leverett, YouTube[/ame]
My theory FWIW I do not think it was that big a deal. The suspect was probably talking loudly amongst friends for a while. Most Iranians living in the US are exiles with little love for the current regime. So one or more informed on him to the US government. The FBI decided to follow him to see what developed. There were connections with a small time Iranaian drug dealer who liked to talk big, and maybe some money came from someone with connections to the Iranian government. I do not think there was any real danger, and once it reached a certain point, the FBI decided to roll the whole thing up. Anyway, here is a secret FBI photo of the plotter in Colorado.
Yes because a country that has a national slogan of "Death to America" would certainly never use violence or terrorism against anyone else. That's preposterous.
Well if their slogan was "death to Iran," I'd understand why blowing up a restaurant in the middle of Washington DC would be considered a good state policy to follow. Seeing as the likelihood is that would be the result, not the other way around. Although death to a lot of Americans would certainly be applicable side by side.
The factors that make even many ardent Iran-bashers skeptical are as follows: 1- A total lack of balance between any "rewards" for Iran from the success of such an operation, versus the risks and costs involved. 2- Complete lack of professionalism in the manner this operation was supposedly being handled and directed, e.g., the operative allegedly used (as suggested by one news account, more a Mr. Bean than a James Bond type), the notion that the alleged discussions with him about the plot were open and came with no precautions in case of eaves dropping, the notion that money is transferred via bank accounts linked to Iran to a bank account in the US when such transfers even for normal business transactions are almost impossible in light of sanctions and considering that it is not the normal modus operandi of any intelligence organization to leave such a paper trail, and many other factors... 3- The clear benefits to those trying to isolate and weaken Iran from coming up with such a plot in Iran's name... To be sure, none of what I have written here is to suggest the plot to frame Iran was amateurish as well. That frame up might have benefited from agents within Iran or associated to Iran, and might have had the benefit of other resources to lend credence to these preposterous allegations. Allegations that simple minded folks such as "Mr. Bandwagon" would be ready to accept, as anything alleged against Iran would appear credible to such people.
4 months ago my dad was saying that the IRI is going to start becoming a lot more aggressive. It looks like he was right. US officials were AT FIRST skeptical of the plot but it looks like multiple sources have corroborated the fact that portions of the IRGC were IN FACT involved in this assassination attempt..presumably after Saudi Arabia entered Bahrain. If it's true that the IRI was attempting to bomb an Israeli embassy, then you can expect Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Many Israelis fear that the first thing that the IRI will do if Iran goes nuclear is drop a nuke on them...in that perspective, it almost becomes grossly irresponsible for Israel not to do everything necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. I do not believe anyone is trying to "frame" Iran. The desire/capability for the United States to enter another war is about zero. Even neoconservatives are trying to get OUT of Afghanistan..mostly due to the poor economy. The US simply can't afford another war. The only way the US will invade Iran is if Iran bombs a target on US soil. As far as isolation, the IRI WANTS isolation. If it didn't want to be isolated, it would react much differently.
It's almost grossly irresponsible of Israel not to attack Iran since "many Israelis fear" Iran might nuke them??
No. From the perspective of " Country X is DEFINITELY going to nuke me once Country X gets a nuke" and "Country X has a nuclear program"....I definitely would do everything I could to prevent Country X from developing the nuclear program (including massive military action).
Country X is DEFINITELY going to nuke me once Country X gets a nuke*... is geopolitical idiocy. *where x is Iran and me is Israel. you don't need to be a genius in order to understand that would be the dumbest agenda ever. it's not like iran having a nuke would have the effect of causing the hundreds or thousands nukes in other's countries arsenals to disappear. the quick following step would be Israel and USA heavily nuking Iran into oblivion so Iranianfooties would never have a freed place to return to. Iran having military nuclear capacity would just suggest a more cautious approach, and that's geopolitically bad enough for Israel, the US and most of all Saudi Arabia. p.s. not to mention how palestinians would welcome that kind of help. ie, for example, Jerusalem being nuked.
Well, nuking Jerusalem would kill a substantial portion of the Palestinian population. My theory for dealing with Iran is the same. We do not help them get nuclear weapons but recognise that it is likely, maybe inevitable. So we make it clear that any use by Iran or one of tehir proxies will be met by disproportionate response -- Iran will cease to exist 30 minutes after they use a nuke.
What to do about Iran? First of all, how about we the people stop believing the hogwash that the presidential administrations of the United States give us about why we should invade them? While many people on this forum are informed and not easily deceived by the war propaganda of the war party (currently, the war party is the Democratic Party), a lot of people do believe whatever their politicians tell them. A convoluted plot implicating Iran attempting to assassinate a Saudi Arabian diplomat, with ties to the Mexican drug cartels. Just when you think you've seen it all, with yellow cake. Mr. Iraqi Curveball, the sitting Secretary of Defense stating on national tv that we know where Iraqi WMDs are, that the sitting VP knows there is no doubt Iraq is manufacturing WMDs, that the American public, much of which "has absolutely no historical memory" (Premier Chou En-Lai of the People's Republic of China), conflated all "cloth-heads" and actually thought that Saddam Hussein of Iraq was an ideological ally of Osama bin Laden (when in fact the latter hated the former, denounced him as an infidel, and condemned his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and when the former's Baath government tortured and killed Islamic extremists in Iraq at will)... What to do about Iran? Well first of all why don't we educate ourselves and realize that since 1745 Iran has not waged aggressive war against nation? Why don't we take account that the reason the Iranian leadership isn't too fond of America is that in 1953 the CIA collaborated to depose their democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh? And why don't we stop and think that perhaps Ron Paul is right and that a sound foreign policy is not policing the world but rather defending America's borders? We need to realize that a belligerent, invasive US foreign policy is not going to go without blowback, a nifty term coined by the CIA. The Iranians loved America until 1953. The current historical spat between Washington and Tehran did NOT begin in 1979, when the Islamic revolution exploded and the US Embassy was taken by protesters. We need to realize that history does not happen in a vacuum. As I wrote above, when American intervention contributed to the deposition of a sitting, democratically elected leader and to the ascension of a tyrannical dictator whose government brought about a reign of terror with US-trained and US-funded secret policemen (SAVAK), do we really expect the victims of these thugs not to resent the United States? Do we really think that peoples in foreign countries are simpletons without feelings and ideas, thoughts and pride, that they all aspire to nothing else in life other than to become Americans? We need to wake up and realize that there is a lot of complex history in these regions of the world, and imposing what WE think is right because WE are America is not going to fly. Many of these countries already had established cultures and languages before the first English settlers even LEFT England. Alternatively, we can go ahead and invade Iran and prompt a wave of death and destruction and reap the deaths of thousands of Iranians, many of whom secretly resent their leaders and want democracy. We can prompt the Iranian military to strike back, and to have its proxies in Iraq and near Israel to strike as well. We can throw a wrench in the world's oil markets and see oil spike to record highs at a time inflation is eating away at the savings and incomes of Americans who are struggling to get by. We can spend hundreds of billions at a time the United States' debt-to-GDP ratio has exceeded 100%, when the United States owes more dollars than are actually in circulation on planet Earth, when we are already engaged in two prohibitively costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can then forcefully stop Iran from getting the nukes they've never even had, all the while our ally in the war on terror, Pakistan, has them and has recently been accused by the US of assisting Islamic extremists in striking US forces and of attacking them directly themselves. We can overstretch an already overstretched US military and lose more US troops to death and injury. We can fool ourselves into thinking we can occupy and pacify a nation 3 times the size of Iraq, whose military is far bigger and stronger, and who will not go down without a fight. And we can thusly generate a great new wave of anti-Americanism in the region and do what many Americans, including politicians, have tried to do - we can make allies of Al-Qaeda and the Iranians. Al-Qaeda are Salafist Sunnis; Iran is a Shiite theocracy. They are ideological enemies. Al-Qaeda is a loose union of extremist Arab Muslims. Iran is, well, Iranian - they're Persians. They are not natural allies. But we do this, and we'll again be seen as aggressors against Islam. And if we think we saw horrible strikes on US troops by Iraqi insurgents, what do you think we'll see after the Iranian army goes "underground" and adopts similar tactics, especially given their country is huge, the terrain unwelcoming, and that we simply do NOT have the manpower to occupy Iran? Sure, let's go for it. Let's attack Iran.