(Bolding mine.) http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/11/official-fbi-dea-disrupt-terror-plot-in-u-s-involving-iran/?hpt=hp_t1
Not sure if this is a true debate. Then again, no telling where the points/counter-points may carry here. Seems to me the US can make considerable political hay over this, even escalating the rhetoric to a potential act of war against the US. Coming from the Democratic administration, should one assume the Republicans will use this as a pretext not just to step up their own anti-Obama rhetoric, but push for military intervention in Iran itself?
Of course, Iran will deny any involvement and step up their own finger-point and name calling (“Israel is behind this!”). Would the Iranian clerics be behind the plot, or just the Iranian president? Assuming the latter, I think the clerics might use it as their own pretext to dump Ahmadinejad.
I would think the Saudis might be even a bit more peeved than the Americans, no?
What type of military action would Republicans be calling for?
Foreign policy is more in the realm of the Council of Guardians (mullahs) and the president is more of a domestic guy (notwithstanding the blatherings of the current president).
I don’t know that it would be considered an act of war against the United States. Might have been an act of war against Saudi Arabia if they’d actually killed the target.
I think/hope that both parties have enough sense to not get into yet another war. We’ve been “at war” far too long already. We need to end the ones we’re in, and get our own house in order.
Trying to assassinate the Saudi ambassador isn’t quite the same thing as a terror plot. An act of war, maybe, but not terror. The NYT is reporting that there may also have been a plot to bomb the Saudi embassies in the US, which might be actual acts of terrorism.
Assuming that one of the conspirators was actually linked to the Quds Force, it would be reasonable to question whether Ahmadinejad had any role in it at all. It is widely reported that the Quds Force is directly commanded by the Supreme Leader, Khamenei.
But I do find it a very alarming story.
ETA:
Huh? Killing a person isn’t terrorism, but bombing a building is?
On the “true” side, it is incredibly stupid, kind of thing people do when they expect God to bail them out. And the other hand, Iran has lots and lots of enemies, any of whom would be tickled pink to see Iran in a war with America/Israel. And those are interconnected, the very fact that it is so plausible makes it more believable, even if it isn’t true. Is there any form of evidence that cannot be fabricated by someone dedicated and sophisticated?
Eh. Killing a representative of a foreign government on U.S. soil arguably isn’t terrorism against the U.S., and blowing up buildings on U.S. soil might be even if they are foreign embassies. There’s a great chance U.S. citizens get killed in the second case. If the plot involved both, it’s sort of moot.
Assassination isn’t necessarily terrorism. Terrorism is violence against uninvolved people in an attempt to terrorize them into acting differently. I don’t see any evidence that simply killing the Saudi ambassador would do that. Bombing foreign embassies on American soil would probably be terrorism, though, by involving innocent bystanders.
Whatever hair you’re trying to split, it’s irrelevant. US law defines terrorism as acts “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”
The Saudi royals rule SA with a cooperative, if uncomfortable, arrangement with a particularly virulent branch of Sunni called wahabbist, a stern and unyielding enemy of Shia Islam, similar to the way some more fanatical Protestants view Catholicism.
Most of the Arab world is ruled and dominated by Sunni Muslims. In many cases, this little or no problem, Shia and Sunni mix, work together, even intermarry. But Iran is just about the only Shia state, and regards itself as the protector of the Shia minority in most of the Arab world, rather like Russia used to think of herself as the Rome of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are not good. This is further irritated by Saudi royal support for the wahabbists programs against Shia Muslims. Iran accuses the Saudi royals of being sybarites corrupted by western luxury, which is largely true, and with siding with the USA on matters like Israel, which is more dubious.
Al Queda is said to be largely inspired by wahabbist doctrine, and the hostility between Iran (Shia) and AlQ (violently Sunni) is of long standing. Reports and rumors of Iran’s willingness to assist the US against AlQ are rife, but remain, to my eye, uncertain.
Sounds like something Ahmedinejad would post on Facebook rather than serious attempt to even speculate on why.
However, considering that most people believe 9/11 happened for the same reason (they hate us), if it worked once it should work again.
But, I got to admire the “complexity” of the plot - Iranian agent hires Mexican cartel for a hit that they themselves cannot do. A high profile covert act via most respected organization in the business. The only explanation is that Iranians are pretty stupid.
If I hate Bob, then I walk up and punch Bob in the nose. I don’t fly across the country to punch his cousin. Similarly, why exactly attack the US ambassador? Surely there’s more direct targets.
The Saudi ambassador to the US is apparently a close adviser to the Saudi royal family, more so than an ordinary ambassador.
From what I’ve heard lately, the plotters considered detonating a bomb in a restaurant frequented by the ambassador, which would presumably have killed or injured at least a roomful of Americans as well.