(Iranian) attempts to assassainate ambassadors

Great Debates
1

This story just broke a few days ago somewhat on the heels of the Iranian attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US and was quickly confirmed, at least by the Thai intelligence service. The reaction on the crankosphere was immediate and predictable, as “false flag” became one of the most common unsupported bits of innuendo casually tossed about in numerous blogs, opinion pieces and ostensibly ‘real news’ articles. For those who are curious, the “Israeli false flag!” accusation has a rich tradition of lunacy roughly comparable to anti-fluoride crusaders and 9/11 Troofers. Barring crank responses, there was still significant doubt in some quarters due to the rapidity of the bombers’ identification made as well as the fact that a national government like Iran’s would have to be bugnutz batshit insane to do something so stupid, especially since it is already under intense international scrutiny and pressure in the wake of the recent IAEA report which flatly stated that some of their nuclear activities are only consistent with weaponization. It turns out that The Argument From They Couldn’t Be That Stupid… Could They? was not the correct course of cognitive action. One would-be assassin in Bangkok… just blew his own legs off after attempts to murder a cab driver and some police officers. When the bomb-makers’ (rubbled) house was investigated, the cops found magnets and explosives, consistent with other recent attacks which saw magnetized ‘sticky bombs’ attached to cars prior to detonation.

The question for debate here is, unfortunately not “what the fuck where they thinking?!?” but what the ramifications of this will be. Nations have traditionally accepted that whatever the vicissitudes of war, attacking ambassadors is a big ol’ no-no. It is hard to think of an Iranian government which is more marginalized than it currently is, and it is highly unlikely that Russia or China will drop their support short of Ahmadinejad urinating in their breakfast cereal during a diplomatic summit. But the rest of the world will pay attention. Much more to the point, as recent wikileaks revealed, Arab powers were some of the strongest agitators for an Israeli/US strike against Iranian facilities.

Does this give the global community a bigger arm-twisting advantage? “Institute the Additional Protocols or these sanctions might not be the worst things that gets lobbed at y’all…” Does it make actual military strikes against Iran or their nuclear facilities more likely (I’d wager not)? Does it, instead, have little to no effect as not many observers are particularly surprised that the Iranian government isn’t playing with a full deck? What, if anything, is the international reaction from here on out?

2

Could it be that the Iranians were responding in kind to Israeli-sponsored terrorism (the bombing murders of Iranian scientists)?

I mean, I realize that undercuts your Them Iranians is evil, and Israel and the US ought to team up on 'em!!! narrative, but…

3

I think this is the key. Global sanctions and ostracism have created a situation where Iran is so cornered and out of options that even nutty things like assassinating foreign ambassadors looks like a good idea. And considering that someone, presumably the U.S., Israel, Russia, or China, is assassinating Iranian scientists within their own borders, I can see where assassinations on foreign soil looks like a rational choice to the Iranian government.

I think it gives the West more ways to browbeat China and Russia in the U.N., mostly. Violent behavior on foreign soil does make military action more likely, but I don’t think it makes it much more likely. For one thing, until Americans are being killed, I don’t think that Americans will put up with anything more than air strikes. The American populace is so sick of the wars we’ve already got that I simply think that anything more than airstrikes is a total fantasy, and even airstrikes will be incredibly unlikely.

What will the West do from here on out? I think that Obama’s hoping for another Green Revolution, where the Iranian people stand up to depose their leaders, and that in the face of Iran’s collapsing economy the Iranian military and police refuse to side with the government, at least in numbers large enough to really contain the uprising. In any case, ruining Iran’s economy throws a wrench in their ability to actually perform nuclear research.

4

Is that really the link you wanted to post? I mean, I’m as interested in how the 2008 election turned out as the next guy, but it doesn’t seem relevant. :wink:

5

I don’t resent the Iranians for what they’re trying to do. After all, there’s a war going on, and both sides are entitled to fight.

6

We might not agree on most things regarding this whole affair, but I honestly appreciate your candidness. It’s very refreshing.

7

Oops:

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News

(thanks for the heads-up)

8

I think that’s an outcome we could all get behind. Here’s hoping.

9

Exactly. This seems to be a tit for tat response for Israel blowing up Iranian scientists. Relatively speaking, this seems to be a measured and proportionate, albeit hilariously incompetent, response.

10

A response in kind would have been to attack civilian Israeli military industry employees.

An attack on diplomatic personnel is an escalation.

Look, instead of assassinating nuclear scientists, Israel could have much more easily blown up Iranian embassies and assassinated Iranian diplomats.

Why hasn’t Israel done so? Obviously it’s because Israel’s main goal is to blunt Iranian military capability. By contrast, Iran is simply trying to cause harm, destruction, and terror to its enemies.

That’s certainly how it seems.

11

It may be that Iran doesn’t have the ability to get at such people (and yet doesn’t want to be seen as not responding at all to the murder of its scientists).

12

If Iran confined itself to legitimate military targets, I would agree with you. I don’t think diplomats are legitimate military targets.

13

I’m pretty sure Iran would love to take out military targets or other high ranking ‘fair game’ targets. I’m assuming they can’t, and are striking back in one of the few ways they can.

14

“Eye for an eye!” “Tit for tat!” “Well, he started it!”

Lord, could you send us a disease that only takes out tough guys? War sorta works, but its kinda sloppy…

15

That may very well be true, but it’s not a valid excuse to engage in terrorism. Especially since Iran could easily end the conflict by sincerely abandoning its efforts to attack and undermine Israel.

16

I agree, but it’s not a valid excuse for their actions. The weaker side in a war is not excused from its moral obligations.

17

Spoke, you just linked to “national map of McCain-Obama presidential voting by county”. I doubt that this is, in fact, the break that the McCain campaign has been hoping for. Perhaps, instead, you meant to link to the anonymous, unsourced quote from US “government officials” of unknown veracity which states that Israel was being the recent assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists? On preview it seems that it was.
That raises two questions.

  1. Would you uncritically accept any and all anonymous, unsourced, unverified reports from the US government? If not, why would you accept this one and not others? In the future if someone posted a link to nameless US officials voicing unverified claims about Iran, would you cite it as gospel as you have done here with a similar report about Israel? Why or why not?

  2. Do you not agree that nations have traditionally avoided attacking ambassadors and attacks on nuclear personnel represent a valid military target while attacks against ambassadors do not? Do you truly not understand why a reasonable response would include attacking Israeli military targets, but attacking civilians, and consular civilians to boot, is not in fact equivalent to attacking military targets?

I will leave it open to readers to figure out where in this OP or any other post, ever, have I suggested that Iran is “evil” or that the US and Israel must “team up” on them. I will also leave it to readers what it implies about your argument that you have been unable to address the facts, immediately went with a poor tu quoque, and then finished with a strawman.

See, though, I can understand military responses. If they believe that Israel is behind the assassination of their scientists, then attacks on Israeli generals (or what have you) would be valid targets of war. But attacks on ambassadors simply seems, well, bonkers. There’s no possible military value in murdering an ambassador and only negative international relations can be the result of even a successful assassination attempt.

You may be right that we’ll be able to browbeat China and Russia, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Their stance seems to be fairly solid, especially after Libya. I also don’t see western nations invading Iran any time soon, perhaps ever. If America were to become involved it would be through air power only, although we are perhaps approaching the point where such strikes would be political viable within the American electorate.

I’d agree that a revolution in Iran would be ideal, but I’m not sure that Obama is hoping for it. At least, there doesn’t seem to be sufficient western aid aimed at the Iranian people to allow them to coordinate, organize and get their message out to the global stage. Perhaps however support is covert…
But yes, sanctions will, at least, hamper Iranian nuclear progress to a certain degree. But as NK has evinced, sometimes when your people are eating tree bark your military can still play with nukes.

Is this an cogently and consistently held position, or a rationalization? If a nation created a casus belli and their target nation did not feel secure in its ability to retaliate militarily, would you support civilian-targeted killings there, too? Or is this situation somehow different? Why or why not?

18

Israel is the most sanctioned country in the history of the UN, and also the country which has ignored (violated) the most resolutions. If any country in the region is a terrorism sponsor, it is Israel. Ambassador killings “linked” to Iran are small potatoes.

19

Your tu quoque fallacy is noted and will be entered into the circular filing cabinet post haste.

As Iran is provably and undeniably a sponsor of global terrorism, your statement of “if any country” is is a bit odd. Your uncited claim of Israel’s “terrorism sponsorship” is, however not the topic of this thread and I would invite you to re-read the OP if you are not clear on the subject under discussion.

20

As far as I am concerned, Israel and Iran are like two children fighting on the playground, and the US should have no part in that fight, except to discourage its escalation.