Iranian Agent Admits Plot to Kill Saudi Ambassador in Washington, D.C.
Perhaps you remember an incredibly sensational story from October 2011 that after a brief period in the headlines disappeared completely: the U.S. government arrested an Iranian-American citizen in Texas and charged him with being an agent of the Iranian government who planned — at Tehran’s behest — to hire a Mexican drug gang to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in a fiery terrorist attack in Washington, D.C.
It would have been another September 11, albeit on a far smaller scale. Knowing about such an operation should have been a real game-changer for U.S. Middle East policy.
Now that man, Manssor Arbabsiar, arrested in September 2011, has pleaded guilty to these charges in a Manhattan court. The trial is scheduled for January.
The case is so important because the U.S. government was officially claiming that the Iranian regime planned an act of war on American soil. Talking to journalists, U.S. officials insisted that the very top leaders in Iran must have authorized the attack, though they admitted they didn’t have hard proof.
Nevertheless, the highest officials in the United States threatened retaliation. President Obama said:
Even if at the highest levels there was not detailed operational knowledge, there has to be accountability with respect to anybody in the Iranian government engaging in this kind of activity.
Notably, however, the Obama administration policy attitude toward Tehran — already involved in sanctions, of course — was not altered further by this new revelation.
The government says it has impressive evidence, based on the fact that the Mexican “drug lord” Arbabsiar was propositioning with was a secret U.S. agent. It includes tapes of the accused speaking with intelligence officials from the Quds Force inside Iran, and his withdrawing $100,000 as down payment for the hit.
We do know that Iran has sponsored terror attacks against Americans in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet an assassination in the heart of Washington, D.C., with passersby and restaurant patrons being blown up, would have marked a considerable escalation. Some argued that the plot was too strange to believe: Iranian intelligence delegating a used car salesman to contract with Mexican drug lords.
It is understandable that some are incredulous about this story. I have no idea what the truth is, but note that the U.S. government says it has strong evidence, and that the Obama administration — not known for its boldness in challenging America’s enemies — stuck its neck out in this case. They must be convinced that the plot was real.
Isolationism is a key element in the Ron Paul contingent as it is in much of OWS movement. In this guest blog, Phillip Smyth traces the intellectual history of what he calls the Paulbots. http://clarespark.com/2012/09/14/ron-paul-anarchist-in-chief/.
Why is Tehran so comfortable working with a Mexican drug lord on such a sensitive operation?
“Hezbollah is working throughout Latin America, including Mexico, which poses a very significant and imminent threat to the United States of America.” -Mitt Romney
“Why is Tehran so comfortable working with a Mexican drug lord on such a sensitive operation?”
I would say that the better question would be, “what does the Iranian choice of partners tell us about their government”? IMHO, the answer is that the fact that the Iranians were willing to work with Mexican drug traffickers demonstrates that the Khomeini-ists are an aggressive and radical regime willing to take risks to find a partner with the placement and access to hurt and humiliate the United States and Saudi Arabia .
Iran’s Hitlerite regime understands the psyche of America’s leftist bent leadership, particularly under the Islamist-in-Chief and his henchmen.
Instead of placing the fear of America’s military power into them, he has allowed them to march forward with their killing machine. Not only that, but he thwarted all harsh sanctions, up until he had no choice but to give in to Congress’s demands. Why?
Reports are circulating that he is begging the mullahs (via a female rep) to announce a halt to the enrichment, thus allowing him to gain a leg up on Romney, but signaling that he will leave them alone in a second term. Most significantly, he has thwarted all of Israel’s leverage to take the WMD’s out, almost as if Israel is the problem, and not the other way wround.Again, why?
Here’s why?http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/10/fusing-the-islamist-in-chiefs-hostility-towards-israel-morphing-it-with-irans-nuclear-drive-his-secret-channels-exposed-addendum-to-warning-iranian-war-update-commentary-by-adina-kutni/
Adding to the people’s indictment, Barack HUSSEIN Obama has allowed Huma Abedin,(Hillary’s Deputy COS) the highest level Muslim Brotherhood Mafia operative, to facilitate/cement Brotherhood power throughout the US & beyond. Yes, he has. Again, why?
BTW, the Muslim Brotherhood is the progenitor of Al Qaeda….
“A major priority for U.S. policy should be to battle Tehran’s influence everywhere, notably in Lebanon, Syria, and Bahrain.”
Battle Tehran’s influence in Syria? The only way to do that now is to fund al Qaeda. Why not let them destroy each other in Syria and leave the Islamic world with no one to blame but one another for the blaze.
“Battle Tehran’s influence in Syria? The only way to do that now is to fund al Qaeda”.
Both Dr. Rubin and his associate, Dr. J. Spyer, are authentic experts on Syria (ex. Rubin’s book, “The Truth About Syria”). They have made the case for the existence of relatively “moderate” groups in Syria with which the West should explore mutually beneficial arrangements. An example would be how the U.S. worked with the Sunni Arab tribes of Western Iraq (Al Anbar) to defeat Al Queda in 2007/08.
You recognize don’t you, that your “example” for Syria of arming Sunnies in Iraq was in conjunction with 8 years of up to 200K US troops, killing 4K of them and disabling tens of thousands more at a cost of over $1.3T and counting.
Or should we depend on Syrians for ground troops. A 2008 poll by gallop showed that only 4% had a favorable view of the US. How did our support of a similar ratio of “moderates” to islamists in the Egyptian and Libyan revolutions work out? With our help, we’ve enabled Muslim Brotherhood Islamists to take over two governments without having to expose the violent jihad core. How is it to our advantage to do it again?
Since I never mentioned sending the U.S. Army to Syria, you are making a straw man argument.
My point should have been clear, Arab/Muslim societies are not monolithic and it is in the interest of the U.S. to, when possible, seek out and support groups whose interests align with ours and who oppose Radical Islamists. Iraq in 2007/08 is an example of traditionalist Sunnis realizing that their interests aligned more with the US than with AQI. Too bad we left them in the lurch post-2010.
Finally, I never supported (and don’t believe that Rubin or Spyer did ether) the recent US anti-regime efforts in Libya and Egypt. If you care to actually read my post I am in favor of aligning with ‘relatively “moderate” groups’, in the case of miserable Egypt, that was Mubarak.
A plague on both their houses!
Read about the founder of the world’s fastest growing religion in “The Innocence of Infidels” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
“Manssor Arbabsiar, arrested in September 2011, has pleaded guilty to these charges in a Manhattan court. The trial is scheduled for January.”
Barry, I think you ment to say that the sentencing is scheduled for January. If he pleaded guilty, there is no trial, only a sentence for punishment.
The best way to deal with Iran is through regime change, and the best way to obtain regime change is to fully support all of the many rebellious elements within Iran with every means possible. Supply these groups with money, weapons, political support, anything they need to overthrow the regime. We missed our golden opportunity to overthrow the mullahs back in 2009 after the Iranian “elections.” Obama was either too spineless or too stupid to take advantage of the situation and support the rebels. We could have had regime change right then and there with little or no cost to us, letting the Iranian people literally do all the work, and we blew it. Opportunities like that don’t come along too often. Maybe, with a little help, we can make it happen again. Maybe. But the first order of business is to have a president that is willing to do something like that, and not sit back and take whatever the Iranians “give” us, which will be a Middle East filled with nuclear weapons if we don’t do something soon.
That may accomplish nothing… out with the old Islamists, in with the new…
We need rapid energy independence, the destruction of Islamist nukes, EMP hardened infrastructures and standards regarding who we trade with. Islamists can then self-destruct on there own with no one to blame but themselves.
It should be pointed out that the prospect of a Mexican DTO/ Cartel providing material and logistical support to an Islamic terrorist organization is unlikely. Mexican cartel operators understand very well that, to involve themselves (in any capacity) in a plot to kill Americans on U.S. soil would be disasterous for business. The U.S. Government (which goes a long way toward turning a blind-eye to drug trafficking) would come down on the cartels SO hard in the aftermath of a cartel-supported terrorist attack, that they would stand to lose untold millions of dollars in drug profits. Cartel operators may be extraordinaily vicious and capable killers, but they are also astute business people and will generally act in their own long-term best interest.
I don’t doubt that sensible people in the Administration would be mighty unhappy if the Mexican drug cartels helped with overt terrorism on US soil but what action could they plausibly take against the cartels that they aren’t taking already?
They already try – however half-heartedly – to interdict drug traffic across the border and, even more half-heartedly, human traffic. I can’t picture them interning all Mexican-born people in the United states. They can’t launch open warfare in Mexico without it being an act of war unless the Mexicans invite them in and ask for assistance. Will the Mexican government do that? Seems unlikely to me. They could provide more weapons to the Mexican government but the Mexican government is already using its army against the drug cartels to no great effect. How will giving them more or bigger guns really change anything, especially given the notoriously corrupt infrastructure in Mexico?
On a related note, http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=288520 shows that Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran, show they are still in business.
The narcos are incredibly paranoid. There is no way they would agree to blow up an ambassador in Washington DC. If this idiot had actually met a narco they would have eaten him alive.
The fact that the Persians even thought this scheme was remotely possible absolutely astounds me. I would think that it would be the job of Iranian Intelligence to have some idea of facts on the ground in Mexico before you wire $100,000 to a car saleman turned political assassin.
The Russians stumbled and bumbled in Latin America because they did not understand the history, poliics, mentality of the region. Maybe the US stumbled and bumbled in Iraq/Afghanistan because we do not know what is going on there.
Gov. Romneys’s 2nd cousins live in a near Casas Grandes right in the middle of hardcore narco country. Mitt could have told the Persians that this affair was a fool’s errand.
What do we expect? A head of state obtained his incumbency through deceit and lies, these are all in the game, the irony, the paradox of his foreign policies, let alone party politics, subservient to his religious convictions,subsequently, opening means for his “people’s” takeover. All in the name of buddy-buddy diplomacy.
Game changer? Have you reviewed the administration’s record when it gets proof their policies have been wrong? They double down. That’s what Saul Alinsky taught them to do. Admit they’re wrong? Change directions? Hell no! They double their efforts to prove they’ve always been right.
IOW they are ideologues incapable of learning, incapable of admitting new contrary evidence to their world view.
Perhaps this and fast and furious are related, do the drug lords need $3000 50 caliber sniper rifles to kill each other in street shootings? Was obama arming terrorists or drug dealers?
President Obama said:
Even if at the highest levels there was not detailed operational knowledge, there has to be accountability with respect to anybody in the Iranian government engaging in this kind of activity.
change the word “Iranian” to Obama, reference Fast and Furious, and run this by us again…..
hypocrite, liar, schemer…….
Why is everyone suprosed that the Islamic-terrorists are able to work with Narco-terrorists? Islam forbids alcohol not drugs. Hence the extensive opium and hashish trades in Lebanon and Afghanistan. Furthermore, despite decafdes of the war on drugs, the narco terroists have been able to smuggle their wares into our country. Why wouldn’t the Khomenists want to utilize that expertise?