Thread: Possible Iran terror attack against Saudi Arabia abassador foiled

Originally Posted by ABC

FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a “significant terrorist act in the United States” tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.

The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C.

Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.

The stunning allegations come against a backdrop of longstanding tensions between Iran and the United States and Saudi Arabia. In the last year, Saudi Arabia has attempted to build an anti-Iran alliance to push back against perceived aggression by Iran in the region.

U.S. Says Iran-Tied Terror Plot in Washington, D.C. Disrupted - ABC News

If true, would that not be an act of war? We’re presently using drones in Pakistan and Yemen against al-Qaeda terrorist networks for plotting similar attacks, thanks to the AUMF from October 2001, even though we’re nominally allied with both nations. If the government of Iran plotted attacks on American targets, that should require a response from the US, should it not or do we send a signal that even attacks from actual nation-states fall under the rubric of law enforcement?

Originally Posted by ABCNews

Arbabsiar and a second man, Gohlam Shakuri, an Iranian official, were named in a five-count criminal complaint filed Tuesday afternoon in federal court in New York. They were charged with conspiracy to kill a foreign official and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, a bomb, among other counts.

The complaint also refers to another Iranian official but does not name him.

If we’re charging an official of the Iranian government with complicity or worse in this plot, then it ceases to be a law enforcement issue and becomes a military and political issue instead. This isn’t a case of espionage but of sabotage or worse, which would be an act of war by anyone’s definition

This is definitely iffy. But I don't think it's enough to warrant any sort of counter-attack, especially since it didn't work. Even then, we can't be 100% certain it was sanctioned by the Iranian government. While it was probably concieved by members of the government, that does not mean it was supported by the rest of them. In short, it's just not enough to strike back and cause yet another war, in my opinion.

I would assume through the various phone calls they know how high up in the Iranian Government this goes. If it was a planned attack by Iran, then it should be considered a act of war, and by the very least be responded with by targeting Iranian military assets much like we did to al Qaeda pre 9/11.

Originally Posted by Human_Umbreon

This is definitely iffy. But I don't think it's enough to warrant any sort of counter-attack, especially since it didn't work. Even then, we can't be 100% certain it was sanctioned by the Iranian government. While it was probably concieved by members of the government, that does not mean it was supported by the rest of them. In short, it's just not enough to strike back and cause yet another war, in my opinion.

An attack doesn't have to be successful to warrant a counter-attack: deterrence should make the cost of attempt high, not just the cost of success. (Not that "counter-attack" is the general response to "attacks". And not that I'm rushing to call this an attack or to label it as one against America; but, rather, I'm just going to call it emboldened behavior.)

Otherwise, Iran wars by proxy. The benefit of such is that apologists will deny the direct command of the highest officials, and that it gives states deniability... meh, I may have more on this later. I'm currently swamped with too many links to handle on this one subject!

If I can though, I'll get a pdf in here detailing Iran's many political assassinations around the globe.


Quick Question: How large can a pdf file Attachment be? I may have to parse a [relatively new] file of mine.

Originally Posted by League

An attack doesn't have to be successful to warrant a counter-attack: deterrence should make the cost of attempt high, not just the cost of success. (Not that "counter-attack" is the general response to "attacks". And not that I'm rushing to call this an attack or to label it as one against America; but, rather, I'm just going to call it emboldened behavior.)

I agree that an attack does not have to be succesfull to deserve backlash, but I was just saying that the attack would not have been enough to convince me that a counter-attack along the lines of Afghanistan or so would be a justified response, even if it had been successfull, which it wasn't.

Otherwise, Iran wars by proxy. The benefit of such is that apologists will deny the direct command of the highest officials, and that it gives states deniability... meh, I may have more on this later. I'm currently swamped with too many links to handle on this one subject!

If I can though, I'll get a pdf in here detailing Iran's many political assassinations around the globe.

If it was sanctioned by the vast majority of Iran's government, then that would certainly be cause for alarm. But we can't be sure at this point. I don't think so, anyway. It could very well have been a conspiracy on Iran's part, but I think this should be given a little more time, so we can get our cards straight and get all the evidence and backround together. We have time.

Originally Posted by Big Lutz

I would assume through the various phone calls they know how high up in the Iranian Government this goes. If it was a planned attack by Iran, then it should be considered a act of war, and by the very least be responded with by targeting Iranian military assets much like we did to al Qaeda pre 9/11.

Precisely what I was thinking. It all depends on whether or not this really was a conspiracy pre-planned and supported by the majority of Iran's cabinet. If it was, then something along the lines of what you gave as an example would be appropriate. If this wasn't a conspiracy among Iran's government, then, well, it wasn't. I'm certain it was planned by some members of the government, but those individuals should be dealt with accordingly and not have the blame put on all of Iran's government. But this is just in the case of it being a conspiracy among a couple people in the government and not the majority of it. And it seems we agree on what should happen if it was conspired by the majority of the Iranian government

Originally Posted by Human_Umbreon

[...]

If it was sanctioned by the vast majority of Iran's government, then that would certainly be cause for alarm. But we can't be sure at this point. I don't think so, anyway. It could very well have been a conspiracy on Iran's part, but I think this should be given a little more time, so we can get our cards straight and get all the evidence and backround together. We have time.

[...]

Uh, well, let's not suppose too much as to how Iran "works."

Anyway, I've decided as to some of the links I'd share: one regarding Iran's structures, Khamenei, and, more generally, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard; and one titled, from the site that sponsored the report, "Iran's Global Assassination Campaign". Within that last link is a gigantic PDF report that you have to download to view. I couldn't attach it because it's enormous.

Your thoughts are generally addressed within the first link.

Originally Posted by League

Uh, well, let's not suppose too much as to how Iran "works."

Anyway, I've decided as to some of the links I'd share: one regarding Iran's structures, Khamenei, and, more generally, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard; and one titled, from the site that sponsored the report, "Iran's Global Assassination Campaign". Within that last link is a gigantic PDF report that you have to download to view. I couldn't attach it because it's enormous.

Your thoughts are generally addressed within the first link.

I only did a brisk read of it, but what I generally got from it is that Iran's government is extremely shady. I did say that it could've very well been a conspiracy on Iran's part, but I'm just saying that I think the government (the US government) should just get everything straight before they start making verdicts. It's pretty much undoubtable that this is the work of Iran and is yet another criminal act to go on its already squalid record, but I think the US should just go over it a little, (like I said) get the cards straight, so to speak, and then start making decisions. With all this evidence and Iran's shady history involving things like this, it's not so much a matter of whether Iran did it now as it is what to do about it.

It'd be hard to see it as a declaration of war (explicit obviously isn't there, but not even implied) against the United States--US citizens weren't the targets, nor was the target military in nature. It was state-sponsored terrorism, but that's not war per se.

But how much does this seem like a really bad popcorn flick plot? You've kind of got everything. Dashing, undercover US government agents. Greedy Mexican drug cartels. Scheming Iranians. An oil power. It's perfect!

Good article for sense of narrative: US Accuses Iranians of Plotting to Kill Saudi Envoy.

Those darn Iranians!