The Iranian Mexican Assassination Farce

The latest in a long line of supposed terror plots involves an Iranian special forces unit that almost never operates outside of the Middle East using a used car salesman middleman to pay Mexican cartel assassins to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the US. No, that's okay, go ahead and read that sentence again. That's the insane, lost episode of 24 that's been making the corporate news networks wet themselves today.

Here's the story, according to the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us/us-accuses-iranians-of-plotting-to-kill-saudi-envoy.html

It actually turns out the FBI likely played an active role in helping this idiot used car salesman, there were never any explosives, and no one was ever in any danger whatsoever.

And Eric Holder went on this moralizing tirade against Iran despite the fact not only is there no evidence they were involved, but the special forces unit supposedly involved, the "Quds Force", almost never works outside of the Middle East and mostly exists to assist Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. The CS Monitor did a good job of explaining why this doesn't add up: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...assassination-plot-doesn-t-add-up-for-experts

I see this as a part of a much larger pattern in the Global War on Derp, where the government, realizing that "wins" against terrorist organizations are not only hard to explain, but are often ultimately fruitless, create narratives that are super-easy to understand and that make it seem like we're winning against something. People don't want to hear that we're fighting dozens, probably hundreds of independent organizations, only one of whom had any connection to 9/11 and almost all of whom are only fighting us because our military is in the Middle East. Public opinion has already been against the wars for years.

What do you think?

 

I have to say that this is so far outside the norm for Iran (or any state beyond North Korea) that I find it difficult to believe. I think it will be an interesting trial.

 

Thanks for starting this thread, Will. I knew nothing of Qods before reading that article. When I heard the news on NPR, I found it quite odd; whether or not it was a legitimate threat (and I'm not making up my mind on that point yet), I was curious as to why the US would announce it in the way that they did. I'm interested in seeing more quality analysis of this subject.

 

According to Alex Jones and his sources, which are many and high-up, this manufactured assassination attempt is being used to start a war against Iran. I know a lot of you to write Jones off as a kook, but over the past 20 years he's become a very respected source for news and insight. Anyway, Jones claims that U.S. forces, including some of his relatives, are amassing forces in Kuwait and the Persian Gulf in order to assist Israel in a full on assault on Iran. This Israeli attack is supposedly going to take place within 2 weeks.

Perfect timing for Obama to start another war, what a nice distraction.

 

While the whole thing seems unlikely... ambassadors are absolutely sacrosanct in international relations since Genghis Khan's decimation of Samarkand over the killing of his ambassador. Even rogue states know that. On the other hand, given the political fiasco of the WMD justification for the invasion of Iraq, one would have to think that the current administration would be VERY careful about using this plot as a justification for anything more than international outrage. Realistically, if it can be proven, then it should be the Saudis who are moved to action, not the US.

 

what a crazy story! They could easily make this into a movie

 

Don't forget, starting the Iraq war got W re-elected.

 

No he hasn't, he's still a kook whose arguments involve shouting at people who disagree with him until they get tired of listening. Consolidation of power and the blurring of lines between business and government have helped to polarize moderates who don't hear the whole story behind his wackery.

Disagree on this point, too. Bush was reelected because the right wing in America has consistently been much better than the left at propaganda, and corporate media outlets tend to lean right because it makes them the most money. It wasn't the war that won Bush the election, it was the smear campaign against Kerry. It was classic propaganda. Combined with a fair amount of voter disenfranchisement, suppression, and possible fraud, it was a political machine that the Dems were unable to beat.

 

Dems, republicans...it's the same political machine, dude.

 

It isn't 2 weeks yet, but I would have expected a bit more noise about the assassination attempt if they were gearing up for an attack. It seems to have gone quiet this week.

I found an analysis on DEBKAfile (a pro-Israeli blog), I clipped a couple parts out:

 

I can see a mix of thought here. On one side a threat to their ambassador could win the Saudi favor for an American/Isreali retaliation. However, would Iran truly be that stupid, knowing IF it failed or came out they were responsible the only true support they have protecting them in Saudi would vanish? It's possible but I don't think probable.

I think that given the silence, suddenly, it may have been a feeler to see what general consensus as far as outrage and support to attack Iran would be. They didn't see any, and saw no support from the Sauds so backed off. This could very well have been some form of Obama trying to curry favor "behind closed doors" with Isreal.

And btw, I am a conspiracy nut and Alex Jones makes me look sane. I really like what Ventura was doing UNTIL he got all behind Alex Jones. Same with Noory and AM Coast to Coast, loved it loved Art Bell, Noory came in started giving that kook Jones more time and credit than he deserved and haven't listened since. Don't even know if it is still on anymore. I know the station it was on no longer carries it, it's Fox Sports overnight radio now. Or perhaps, Noory and Jones pissed Clear Channel off enough to be dropped from their stations. It's odd because the Coast to Coast website still advertises stations that don't carry them like WMAN, WTAM, and so on. Just really odd.

I digress though, easily taken off topic when his (Alex Jones') name comes up.

 

So a military strike against Iran is looming closer:
http://news.yahoo.com/israels-peres-says-iran-attack-more-more-likely-022212256.html

"Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Sunday that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely, days before a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear programme is due.
"The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.
"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.

 

While I think the will to do it is there, I have my doubts about the feasibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Flying over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq in F-15s and F-16s is a suicide mission and flying around Saudi Arabia into the gulf might give them a chance to hit Bushehr, but the Iranians would see that coming and have hours to prepare, especially at the sites farther inland. I have no doubt that the US would be willing to turn a blind eye to the attack, but I really don't see this succeeding without direct US support and I don't think we're going to provide it.

 

Wow, I've heard of people armchair quarterbacking on NFL Sunday, but you've taken it to whole nother level. I'm fairly certain that the Israelis have a plan of attack that takes into account all risks. And consider that Israel now has growing support from the UN regarding Iran's nuclear program. The west is setting up for a show of support. And of course, remember that there are 200,000 US troops over there in the middle east. It's on.

 

MSD, don't fall into the trap of thinking that the Middle East is a monolyth set against Israel. It's not. The Saudis, based on the OP of the thread, have a pretty legitimate beef with the Iranians, and they'd just as soon use the Israelis as a proxy for payback. The Jordanians are also not big fans of the Iranians, so I personally find it perfectly plausible that they'd allow an overflight - especially since they're currently the friendliest Muslim country towards Israel. American involvement/blind eyes depends entirely upon the route taken, and if they're going to in over the Red Sea and out of Iran, I can see US officials allowing a return flight home, especially if it means that we (or more likely our Iraqi proxies) to take a few shots at the Iranians in chase. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a missle and aircraft combination strike force, which would muddle any response.

 

Extremely risky game, if Israel goes for it.

I agree with Jazz's notion that Jordan and Saudi Arabia would most likely end up supporting the attack.

Don't forget the other countries in the region, though.

Syria is Iran's proxy neighbour. Turkey's been distancing itself more and more from the West and has recently drawn some very bad blood with Israel over the Palestine aid flotillas. Turks and Persians like each other very much.

Don't think Iraq would actively allow the Israeli plane to cross its territory into Iran. The Persians hate the Iraqis with a passion because of the war back in the 90s. If anything, the Americans would have to completely override any Iraqi objection, which would be uncovered quickly because the Iraqis would under no circumstances want to risk the possibility of war with Iran, or have the Persians believe that they helped. Not anytime soon, at least. Not as long Sadr can still cause havoc.

If Israel goes for it, would have to be via Saudi/Jordanian territory and over the Persian Gulf.

Then you have to consider that Iran's military power easily matches the Saudis and the Pakistanis. Not far behind Turkey, either.

Syria and Hezbollah's response in support for Iran would be obvious.

It gets dangerous and complex only when you consider Turkey's bad relations with Israel, and that Turkey is really playing the anti-Israel /pro-Palestine card lately which makes them naturally close to Iran. I know for a fact that trade relations between Turkey and Iran are very good, too.

Unless Israel can seal a deal with Turkey to keep itself out of this mess completely, I don't think Israel will attack Bushehr. Turkey's too powerful and unpredictable right now.

 

first off, there's nothing remotely like an international consensus that iran has a nuclear program that's geared toward weapons production and not domestic power production. quite the contrary.

in the states, what mitigates a coherent sense of the above is the fog produced by neo-conservatives. here's a summary of the state of this lunacy:

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/neoconservative-brinksmanship.html

what's shocking is that anyone takes these assholes seriously.

it's possible that the netanyahu/far right government in israel has fucked up so thoroughly and produced for itself such isolation---building on the glorious legacy of the massacre in gaza---that a rationale for undertaking an attack on iran could be cooked up along any number of lines. remixer gives a pretty good overview of the basic situation and the complexities that attend it. i think it would be a really really bad idea.

 

Here's a BBC article on the matter, depicting Israel's official standpoint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15662122

It is (and was) very clear to me that the Israelis are prepared to take collateral damage as a consequence of a pre-emptive strike on Bushehr.

Though that 5,000 number is a gross underestimation of the casualties Israel would suffer from a Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran team-up.

Iran is incomparable to the states that surround Israel. And the Israelis know that perfectly well.

 

Thing is that Iran is 500+ miles away with no direct route to any of the other participants. And a few folks with vested interest in keeping Iranian forces in Iran - Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq, just to name a few. The best case for putting Iranian boots on the ground is through the Red Sea, around Africa (because the Egyptians sure as shit aren't going to let an Iranian force through the Suez Canal) and through Gibralter. The logistics alone dictate that ground forces aren't really possible.

Air strikes, obviously, are very different, and could happen, especially if they're missle strikes, and the Iranians don't have to worry about getting planes and pilots home. I also am not sure that Syria will jump into the fray based on their current domestic difficulties. And if the Syrians aren't in, Hezbollah becomes less of a player, especially in terms of logistics.