Unanswered questions over alleged Iranian assassination plot

Scofflaw

More people than just conspiracy theorists are dubious about the supposed plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/12/unanswered-questions-iranian-assassination-plot

even the senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation admitted to journalists that the alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US did not fit with what was known about the methods and practices of the supposed perpetrators, the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards. But $100,000 was clearly transferred by someone as a downpayment on the assassination. Washington is taking the case seriously enough to make unprecedented allegations against Tehran and threaten further isolation. The affair leaves several questions unanswered:

Another questionable casus belli by the US?

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

I just assumed it was another Gulf of Tonkin, the yanks want war.

Scofflaw

RichieC wrote: »

I just assumed it was another Gulf of Tonkin, the yanks want war.

I doubt they can afford one, though. More likely just to be a distraction for the home market.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

Scofflaw wrote: »

I doubt they can afford one, though. More likely just to be a distraction for the home market.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course they can afford it. It will make all their super rich even more rich... yea it might take food out of a childs mouth and end the lives of countless teenagers but since when does the US government care about it's worst off?

Son Of A Vidic

RichieC wrote: »

I just assumed it was another Gulf of Tonkin, the yanks want war.

Or perhaps justification for an preemptive Israeli surgical strike?

CptMackey

RichieC wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

I doubt they can afford one, though. More likely just to be a distraction for the home market.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course they can afford it. It will make all their super rich even more rich... yea it might take food out of a childs mouth and end the lives of countless teenagers but since when does the US government care about it's worst off?

Doesn't the American economy perform better in a war situation. I suppose that they are looking for a reason to change things in Iran. Would cost too much in lives tho surely ?

RichieC

CptMackey wrote: »

Doesn't the American economy perform better in a war situation. I suppose that they are looking for a reason to change things in Iran. Would cost too much in lives tho surely ?

Welcome to earth! on this planet Governments don't care about human casualty rate unless it's good for propaganda, especially fascist states like the US and Israel.

jonsnow

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Or perhaps justification for an preemptive Israeli surgical strike?

That is exactly what I thought.Lay some groundwork so that when the israelis go in they have some cover.(not that they really care that much anyway).I don,t think the yanks will take any military action though.

Scofflaw

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Or perhaps justification for an preemptive Israeli surgical strike?

That seems reasonably likely. After all, despite the great love Israel and the US have for each other, and despite the trenchant criticism of countries like France for their failure to join the 'coalition of the willing', Israel isn't engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan, and has its hands free for a little surgery. The US, on the other hand, is already suffering from military overstretch...although I haven't heard that said for a while.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

Gone are the days when people just accepted the word of the US in a case like this. The US often seen as a paragon of good vs evil, but now many see the US is prepared to do anything to further its own causes, invasion, war and dirty tricks. Its always been there but people were trusting or naive in the past perhaps. One could surmise that the upcoming Presidential elections next year is perhaps Obama rattling the sabre in an attempt to garner support and show he is as good as the Republicans at going to war, as the bounce in getting Osama has waned.

Einhard

I think people see conspiracy theories behind the drapes at this stage. I don't think any of the supposed ulterior motives stand up to scrutiny. There's a suggestion that this is a casus belli, yet as has already been pointed out, the US is in no position financially to fight another war. Especially against as formidable opponent as Iran. As for providing an excuse for Israel- since when has Israel taken the opinion of the rest of the world into account when launching military strikes? To propose that Israel, of all countries, were involved in dreaming up a fiction to provide them with cover for a strike seems ludicrous to me. If they wanted to hit Iran, they'd do so. I'm not so sure that they even want to.

Apart from all that, I don't see how such elaborate plots could possibly be contained. Everything leaks. Washington is like a sieve in that regard. The idea that such a plot could be conceived and then foisted on the world, and that nobody would spill the beans or let it slip seems presposterous to me. Especially if it were a joint deception, planned and executed by two governments, and involving two administrations. How could that possibly be kept secret?

I await now for the evidence which will no doubt soon follow to show I am entirely wrong in this regard!:D

Scofflaw

Einhard wrote: »

I think people see conspiracy theories behind the drapes at this stage. I don't think any of the supposed ulterior motives stand up to scrutiny. There's a suggestion that this is a casus belli, yet as has already been pointed out, the US is in no position financially to fight another war. Especially against as formidable opponent as Iran. As for providing an excuse for Israel- since when has Israel taken the opinion of the rest of the world into account when launching military strikes? To propose that Israel, of all countries, were involved in dreaming up a fiction to provide them with cover for a strike seems ludicrous to me. If they wanted to hit Iran, they'd do so. I'm not so sure that they even want to.

Apart from all that, I don't see how such elaborate plots could possibly be contained. Everything leaks. Washington is like a sieve in that regard. The idea that such a plot could be conceived and then foisted on the world, and that nobody would spill the beans or let it slip seems presposterous to me. Especially if it were a joint deception, planned and executed by two governments, and involving two administrations. How could that possibly be kept secret?

I await now for the evidence which will no doubt soon follow to show I am entirely wrong in this regard!:D

I'd accept the whole "leaks like a sieve" thing in the case of those things that require massive conspiracies (Moon landings, global warming, etc), but I don't think it really holds water in the case of fairly standard covert ops, because if we follow that logic through to its conclusion, we discover that there has never been such a thing as a covert operation, or at least not a US one. Since there have been, the logic can't hold.

As for Israel taking the opinion of the world into account - it certainly does, otherwise it wouldn't mount PR offensives in parallel with its wars - but, again, it certainly does. More to the point, so does the US, and America's willingness to indulge the Israelis has come under increasing pressure in recent years even within the US, so the idea that the US might assist in the provision of an Israeli casus belli isn't bizarre - it's not for the Israelis as such, but would be more to prevent further strain on Israel's public image within the US.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

After the WMD fiasco in the Iraq war its no surprise that the USA is rather lacking in credibility but it is kind of funny that people aren't looking at what Iran may be up to.

1. The Iranians have form for bombing embassies, the Israeli one in Argentina being a case in point. The saudi's recently informed the argentinians that the Iranians were targeting the Israeli embassy in buenos aires again. The Saudi's are no great friends of the Israelis so why would they broach this if there was nothing to it http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-saudi-officials-warned-of-iran-plot-to-attack-israel-embassy-in-argentina-1.389877

2. The Iranians are in a bit of a bind, they can't convince Hezbollah to attack Israel, not only because of the losses they'd take but Hezbollah's syrian backers are dealing with the almost civil war in their own country at the moment. Then Hamas won't attack Israel because of what happened in Cast Lead and also Hamas and Iran are at odds over the Syria situation so what can Iran do to draw away attention from the nuclear issue and from the Syrian issue?....

3. Iran had taken a leading role in the middle east but because of the problems with the parties in point 2 (Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria) it leaves the way open for Saudi Arabia to re-establish influence in Lebanon, Palestine and with Egypt and the iranians don't want the Sauds taking over the leading role in the middle east again.

nacho libre

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The saudi's recently informed the argentinians that the Iranians were targeting the Israeli embassy in buenos aires again. The Saudi's are no great friends of the Israelis so why would they broach this if there was nothing to it [.

Because The House of Saud, Israel and America are singing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to Iran.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting a proxy war during so-called arab spring.
Saudi Arabia recently intervened in Bahrain to counter Iranian influence in that country.

While it might suit Iran to blame the west for concocting a plot to divert from their own insidious activity, it's equally plausible this was actually a western plot to justify further punitive sanctions on Iran.
Saudi Arabia certainly wouldn't shed a tear about such outcome.

Victor

RichieC wrote: »

I just assumed it was another Gulf of Tonkin, the yanks want war.

But whose Gulf of Tonkin? Surely you can't go to war to defend somebody else's ambassador?

RichieC wrote: »

Of course they can afford it. It will make all their super rich even more rich... yea it might take food out of a childs mouth and end the lives of countless teenagers but since when does the US government care about it's worst off?

When there is an election coming up.

CptMackey wrote: »

Doesn't the American economy perform better in a war situation.

Only for some. They will make lots of money, while the other grind away and pay higher taxes.

During a war, a government will spend lots of money. However, there is often little tangible economic benefit when the war is over, when all that debt has to be repaid. Its like a drunk getting some money, getting trollied and waking up in the gutter the next morning and calling it the 'good times'.

Contrast spending money on a war with spending it on infrastructure. With a war, money gets spent on things that get blown up - after a short time, you no longer have your expensive asset, thereby making a loss. Spend the money on transport, communications, utilities, factories, etc. and you are making the economy run that little bit smoother, thereby making a profit.

Nodin

A pair or Iranians thinking it was a good idea to blow up the Saudi Ambassador to the US in the US I can believe. The state of Iran doing so I find it hard to, particularily when it involves using a mexican drug gang as 'muscle'. I'm made more suspicous by the fact that the US informant was in fact the supposed representative of the mexican drug gang.

Logically, the place that Iran can cause the most trouble to the US with the least effort is Iraq. The whole thing with regards to the ambassador strikes me as spin over substance.

Border-Rat

The Israelis own and control America. Everyone knows this. They'll bomb Iran when told just like Iraq. The only difference is Iran is capable of defending itself.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

After the WMD fiasco in the Iraq war its no surprise that the USA is rather lacking in credibility but it is kind of funny that people aren't looking at what Iran may be up to.

1. The Iranians have form for bombing embassies, the Israeli one in Argentina being a case in point. The saudi's recently informed the argentinians that the Iranians were targeting the Israeli embassy in buenos aires again. The Saudi's are no great friends of the Israelis so why would they broach this if there was nothing to it http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-saudi-officials-warned-of-iran-plot-to-attack-israel-embassy-in-argentina-1.389877

2. The Iranians are in a bit of a bind, they can't convince Hezbollah to attack Israel, not only because of the losses they'd take but Hezbollah's syrian backers are dealing with the almost civil war in their own country at the moment. Then Hamas won't attack Israel because of what happened in Cast Lead and also Hamas and Iran are at odds over the Syria situation so what can Iran do to draw away attention from the nuclear issue and from the Syrian issue?....

3. Iran had taken a leading role in the middle east but because of the problems with the parties in point 2 (Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria) it leaves the way open for Saudi Arabia to re-establish influence in Lebanon, Palestine and with Egypt and the iranians don't want the Sauds taking over the leading role in the middle east again.

None of that actually suggests a particularly good motive for assassinating the Saudi Ambassador, though. It's more of a kind of "hey they've done bad things in the past, this is a bad thing, so they might have done it". Ambassadors are - in their professional capacity - easily replaced.

cordially,
Scofflaw