Ex-CIA veteran warns US is 'dangerously wrong' on Iran accusation plot -- Used-car salesman as Iran
25 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-12/ex-cia-warns-us-dangerously-wrong-on-iran/3553704?section=world[/URL]
[h2]Ex-CIA warns US 'dangerously wrong' on Iran​[/h2]
[quote]The former intelligence analyst, Robert Baer, joins The World Today and warns the Obama adminstration to step back from blaming Iran for the foiled assasination plot against the Saudi ambassador in Washington. [B]The former CIA case agent says the attack doesn't appear to have been planned by Iran, and that the US may have got its assessment dangerously wrong[/B]. He says the US must open a direct diplomatic channel with the Iranian regime .. or risk igniting an uncontrollable war.[/quote]
Transcript:
[release][TABLE="width: 400, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD]"[B]You could have an individual claiming it's the Iranian government, an Iranian radical. You might actually have a radical in Tehran attempting to frame the government.”[/B]
-- Ex-CIA Vet[/TD]
[TD][IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/mosaic/60x50_quote_marks.gif[/IMG][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
ELEANOR HALL:[..] But a former CIA analyst with decades of experience studying Iran, says the US may have got this dangerously wrong.
Robert Baer spent 21 years working as a CIA case officer in the Middle East.
When he spoke to me this morning, he said this plot does not appear to him to be driven by the Iranian government and he says the US administration must now step back from its comments and open a direct diplomatic channel with the Iranian regime or risk igniting an uncontrollable war.
Robert Baer, were you surprised when you heard about this assassination plot?
ROBERT BAER: Oh absolutely. I mean right now is not the time for Iran to provoke the United States. We're on edge already vis-vis Iran and it came as a total surprise to me.
ELEANOR HALL: The Iranian authorities have dismissed this as US propaganda; is it credible that the Iranian government is behind it?
ROBERT BAER: [B]I don't think it's credible[/B], not the central government, there may be a rogue element behind it. This doesn't fit their modus operandi at all. [B]It's completely out of character, they're much better than this. They wouldn't be sending money through an American bank, they wouldn't be going to the cartels in Mexico to do this. It's just not the way they work.[/B]
[B]I've followed them for 30 years and they're much more careful[/B]. And they always use a proxy between them and the operation, and in this case they didn't. I mean it's the, either they're shooting themselves in the foot or there's pieces of the story, I don't know what they are.
ELEANOR HALL: Well the US attorney-general is alleging that it's the Iranian government and has warned that the US will take further action against Iran; what could he mean by that? What form could that action take?
ROBERT BAER: Well if they had gone through with this and set off a bomb in a Washington restaurant and attacked the Israeli embassy and the rest of it, that's a casus belli, they could have gone to war with Iran.
And will they move? Sanctions are not working, they've done all the sanctions they can, are they going to move to some sort of naval blockade, an embargo? I can't tell you.
But if they truly believe the central government was going to launch an attack inside the United States like this, they have to do something now that they're on the record.
ELEANOR HALL: Well they are on the record. They're now saying that they will take further action. It's surely not likely that they would launch a war?
ROBERT BAER: There could be retaliatory attacks or, you know, hit/bomb a Quds Force base in Tehran, any number of things of course which would lead to a huge escalation.
I just cannot get over the fact though, and I have to come back to this, the Iranians are not that sloppy to plan something like this and then call back to Tehran. So I can't explain what's going on here.
ELEANOR HALL: So are you suggesting that the US attorney-general is actually speaking out too soon in blaming the Iranian government?
ROBERT BAER: I think he is. [U][B]So I wouldn't be surprised if we see the administration sort of backing down from this in the coming days.[/B][/U]
On the other hand, if they increase the rhetoric, we are looking at an escalation which is uncontrollable.
ELEANOR HALL: And which could lead where?
ROBERT BAER: It could lead to a conflict in Iran. I mean, if we were to launch an embargo, there's a limited amount of troops in Iraq, would the Iranians retaliate against them? Would they retaliate against us in any number of places?
This is the problem, you know, Iran truly is the third rail of American foreign policy and no-one's done anything over the years to ameliorate relations with Iran.
ELEANOR HALL: If it's not Iran behind this assassination plot, what are the possibilities?
ROBERT BAER: You could have an individual claiming it's the Iranian government, an Iranian radical. You might actually have a radical in Tehran attempting to frame the government.
ELEANOR HALL: And to what extent should the Saudis be concerned about such a plot against their ambassador in the US, whether it's driven by the official authorities of Iran or not?
ROBERT BAER: I think that they should be worried about attacks inside Saudi Arabia, and again that goes back to escalation.
ELEANOR HALL: Well Iran and the Saudis have long been rival powers in the region, but are the various Arab Spring uprisings ratcheting up the tensions between the two?
ROBERT BAER: I think they are because if you look at something like Syria, Iran, no matter what they say, supports the minority regime. My contention is we're sitting on a volcano in the Middle East. But that's all could be ignited by this kind of tension. And people in the White House, that's exactly what they don't need going into an election.
ELEANOR HALL: So what's your advice right now to the president?
ROBERT BAER: Well I think he made a huge step in this press conference in the wrong direction. You know, now is the time we should have a back channel to Iran, figure out who these people are, a red line, like we used to have with the Soviet Union, and sort this out. We need a direct channel to the Iranians to talk this through.
ELEANOR HALL: And the way that you're speaking at the moment, this is a really serious point of crisis?
ROBERT BAER: I think it's an act of war. If that bomb had gone off, if indeed this was a real plot, it had gone off, it would have been an act of war and the United States would have been forced to respond with military... an attack. There would have been no question in my mind.
So were we that close to a war with Iran? I don't know.
ELEANOR HALL: But at this point you're saying actions need to be taken to step it back, from the United States?
ROBERT BAER: Absolutely. We could not control the consequences of a war with Iran, it's uncontrollable.
Look, all these scenarios are worst case, and fortunately they rarely come about and I hope we step back on this one.
ELEANOR HALL: Robert Baer, thanks very much for joining us.
ROBERT BAER: Thank you.
ELEANOR HALL: That's former CIA analyst Robert Baer. His most recent book on Iran is called Dealing with the Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower. And you can listen to a longer version of that interview on our website.[/release]
[h2]Used-car salesman as Iran proxy? Why assassination plot doesn't add up for experts.[/h2]
[URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1012/Used-car-salesman-as-Iran-proxy-Why-assassination-plot-doesn-t-add-up-for-experts"]Christian Science Monitor
[/URL]
[quote=The Christian Science Monitor]How careful is [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Iran"]Iran[/URL]'s [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Quds+Force"]Qods Force[/URL] when it comes to covert operations abroad?
This wing of the [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Revolutionary+Guard"]Revolutionary Guard[/URL] was accused by [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces"]US military[/URL] commanders in [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Iraq"]Iraq[/URL] in 2007 and 2008 of jeopardizing the efforts of more than 150,000 American troops on the ground, of backing militias of all stripes, and of exercising strong influence on [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Baghdad"]Baghdad[/URL]'s rulers.
Yet how many Iranian Qods Force operatives did that take? One US diplomat posted to Baghdad at the time had the consensus answer: There were just eight Qods Force men in all of Iraq.
[URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/Iran-s-military-might"]IN PICTURES: Iran's military might[/URL]
Indeed, the Qods Force has a reputation for careful, methodical work – as well as effective use of local proxies, and ultimately their pragmatic deployment by [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Tehran"]Tehran[/URL] as covert tools to expand Iran's influence across a region in flux. That explains why Iran experts are raising questions about fresh US charges of an Iran-backed bomb plot, this time to kill the Saudi ambassador to [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Washington%2c+DC"]Washington[/URL] and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies.
A criminal complaint filed by US prosecutors on Tuesday charge [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Mansour+Arbabsiar"]Mansour Arbabsiar[/URL] – a naturalized US citizen with an Iranian passport from [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Corpus+Christi"]Corpus Christi[/URL], [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Texas"]Texas[/URL] – and [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Gholam+Shakuri"]Gholam Shakuri[/URL], "an Iran-based member of Iran's Qods Force," with plotting to kill the Saudi diplomat on US soil in an operation "directed by factions of the Iranian government."
[B]Details of alleged plot[/B]
Those who know Iran well are skeptical, but do not rule out any possibility. Mr. Arbabsiar may have arranged for $100,000 to be transferred from Iran as a downpayment of $1.5 million for the hit, as US charges indicate.
Arbabsiar may also have boasted to one alleged accomplice in the plot – an associate of [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Mexico"]Mexico[/URL]'s Zeta drug cartel, who also happened to be an informant of the [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Drug+Enforcement+Administration"]US Drug Enforcement Administration[/URL] – that his cousin was a "big general" in the Iranian military.
While also describing a series of potential attacks to the associate, he may even have stated – apparently in secretly taped conversations – that mass American casualties as a result were not a problem: "They want that guy [the ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him f**k 'em," reads the legal complaint.
[B]Why the plot doesn't add up[/B]
But Iran specialists who have followed the Islamic Republic for years say that many details in the alleged plot just don't add up.
"It's a very strange case, it doesn't really fit Iran's mode of operation," says [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Alireza+Nader"]Alireza Nader[/URL], an Iran analyst at the [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/RAND+Corporation"]Rand Corp.[/URL] in [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Arlington+County+(Virginia)"]Arlington, Va.[/URL], and coauthor of studies about the Revolutionary Guard.
"When you look at Iranian use of terrorism, it has some very specific objectives, whether it's countering the [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States"]United States[/URL] in Iraq or [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Afghanistan"]Afghanistan[/URL], or retaliating against perceived Israeli actions," says Mr. Nader.
"This [plot] doesn't seem to serve Iran's interests in any conceivable way," says Nader. "Assassinating the Saudi ambassador would increase international pressure against Iran, could be considered an act of war ... by [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Saudi+Arabia"]Saudi Arabia[/URL], it could really destabilize the government in Iran; and this is a political system that is interested in its own survival."
[B]No apparent cost-benefit analysis[/B]
Iran has been trying to evade sanctions, strengthen relations with non-Western partners, while continuing with its nuclear program, notes Nader.
He says it is "difficult" to believe that either Qassim Soleimani – the canny commander of the Qods Force – or Iran's deliberative supreme religious leader, [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Ayatollah+Seyyed+Ali+Khamenei"]Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei[/URL], would order such an attack that "would put all of Iran's objectives and strategies at risk."
That view has been echoed by many Iran watchers, who are raising doubts about the assassination plot allegations.
“This plot, if true, departs from all known Iranian policies and procedures,” writes Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University and principal White House aide during the 1979 Iranian revolution and hostage crisis.
While Iran may have many reasons to be angry at the US and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Sick notes in a posting on the Gulf2000/Columbia experts list that he moderates, “it is difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all possible missions.”
Relying on “at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and US intelligence agents” appears to be sloppy, adds Sick. “Whatever else may be Iran’s failings, they are not noted for utter disregard of the most basic intelligence tradecraft.”
The odd set of details means that the usual cost-benefit calculation that experts often attribute to Tehran's decisionmaking does not apply here, says [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Muhammad+Sahimi"]Muhammad Sahimi[/URL], in an analysis for the [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Tehran+Bureau"]Tehran Bureau[/URL] website.
At a time when pressure is building on Iran over "gross human rights violations," sanctions are showing signs of working, Iran is "deeply worried about the fate of its strategic partner in [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Syria"]Syria[/URL] ... tensions with [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Turkey"]Turkey[/URL] are increasing ... and a fierce power struggle is under way within Iran," says Mr. Sahimi, "it is essentially impossible to believe that the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] would act in such a way as to open a major new front against itself."
[B]Previous assassinations only targeted Iranians[/B]
Sahimi also notes that, even at the height of the regime's assassinations of opponents in the past, it did not target non-Iranians.
"It is keenly aware that it is under the American microscope," says Sahimi, making even less likely Iran embarking "on such a useless assassination involving a low-level, non-player individual."
Such reservations are not the same ones given by Iranian officials when they dismiss the charges of a murder plot. But analysts suggest more information will need to be revealed before judgment can be made.
"Iran does have a history of terrorism, but they also like to go through proxies – and true and tested proxies, not necessarily just anybody," says Nader of Rand, citing [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Hezbollah"]Hezbollah[/URL] in [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Lebanon"]Lebanon[/URL], for example, or Iraqi Shiite insurgents trained in Iranian camps.
The man arrested by US law enforcement at [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/John+F.+Kennedy+International+Airport"]JFK airport[/URL] on Sept. 29 does not seem to fit that mold.
[B]Not your average proxy[/B]
Arbabsiar, a former used car salesman, would appear to have been a surprise choice of the Qods Force. Yet he apparently traveled several times to Mexico to recruit drug-cartel hit men, had $100,000 from Iran paid into a US account and promised much more, and discussed the plot on a normal telephone.
“The Iranian modus operandi is only to trust sensitive plots to their own employees, or to trusted proxies such as Hezbollah, Saudi Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadr faction in Iraq, Iran-friendly extremist Muslims in Afghanistan and other pro-Iranian Muslim groups,” wrote Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service on Gulf2000 on Wednesday.
“Are we to believe that this Texas car seller was a Qods sleeper agent for many years resident in the US? Ridiculous,” said Mr. Katzman, who authored a study of the Revolutionary Guard in the 1990s. “They (the Iranian command system) never ever use such has-beens or loosely connected people for sensitive plots such as this.”
And what kind of man is he? [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/The+Associated+Press"]The Associated Press[/URL] spoke to Arbabsiar's friend and former Texas business partner [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/David+Tomscha"]David Tomscha[/URL], who said he was "sort of a hustler." The Iranian-American, the AP reported, "was likable, albeit a bit lazy."
"He's no mastermind," Mr. Tomscha told the AP. "I can't imagine him thinking up a plan like that. I mean, he didn't seem all that political. He was more of a businessman."[/quote]
Additional reading from the UK 'The Independent': [B][URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-this-bizarre-plot-goes-against-all-that-is-known-of-irans-intelligence-service-2369657.html"]Patrick Cockburn: This bizarre plot goes against all that is known of Iran's intelligence service[/URL][/B]
Interesting article.
I wonder what the administration does about this. Will they really back down, or just keep going forward with their claim.
"The former CIA case agent says the attack doesn't appear to have been planned by Iran, and that the US may have got its assessment dangerously wrong. He says the US must open a direct diplomatic channel with the Iranian regime .. or risk igniting an uncontrollable war."
As an ex-CIA agent, he should know the US just won't do this.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32759566]"The former CIA case agent says the attack doesn't appear to have been planned by Iran, and that the US may have got its assessment dangerously wrong. He says the US must open a direct diplomatic channel with the Iranian regime .. or risk igniting an uncontrollable war."
As an ex-CIA agent, he should know the US just won't do this.[/QUOTE]
They have to snap out of it, eventually.
Right?
..Right?
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32759566]As an ex-CIA agent, he should know the US just won't do this.[/QUOTE]
Sure about that? because the US has done some p. stupid things in the past (Vietnam war for example)
[QUOTE=Van-man;32759764]Sure about that? because the US has done some p. stupid things in the past (Vietnam war for example)[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, that's my point.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32759566]"The former CIA case agent says the attack doesn't appear to have been planned by Iran, and that the US may have got its assessment dangerously wrong. He says the US must open a direct diplomatic channel with the Iranian regime .. or risk igniting an uncontrollable war."
As an ex-CIA agent, he should know the US just won't do this.[/QUOTE][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20070429_iran-memo-expurgated.pdf"]This is true. In 2003 Iran offer full transparency on WMD, aid on the war on terror including HAMAS hizbollah, and co-ordination on Iraq, normalisation of relations. Offer rejected by USA[/URL]
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22leverett.html"]An Iranian Op-ed by the Nytimes[/URL] also published an article regarding the Iranian-US relationship, which had a lot of the content in public domain censored by the U.S. government citing "security concerns" The New York Times published [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html"]an explanatory note[/URL] from its authors, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann. Leverett served in the Bush National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice, and is now affiliated with the Washington, DC-based Brookings Institution. Hillary Mann is an ex-foreign service officer who participated in US dialogue with Iran from 2001 to 2003.
Leverett and Mann made available a set of publicly-available sources of information which they had "provided...to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to [b][u]is already in the public domain[/B][/U]." However, as they noted, "to make sense of much of our Op-Ed article, readers will have to read the citations for themselves. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included [B]no classified material[/B], but that they had to bow to the White House."
No classified material, and all the events they were citing were in public domain. All it did was outline the Iranian-US relation. It is indisputably political censorship under the guise of 'security'
As the information was in public domain, the NYTimes provided citations for the events that were redacted, so you can fill them in yourself.
[URL="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_redacted_Iran_oped_revealed_1222.html"]The Raw story[/URL] then examined the citations provided by the NYTimes and did so themselves.
([URL="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_redacted_Iran_oped_revealed_1222.html"]On their website[/URL], the Raw Story gave a source provided by the NYtimes for each event they thought was redacted. If you see something that you believe was not redacted and was just made-up, click on the link to the left to see it's specific citation)
[B]The NYTimes Op-Ed:[/B]
[release]
The Iraq Study Group has added its voice to a burgeoning chorus of commentators, politicians, and former officials calling for a limited, tactical dialogue with Iran regarding Iraq. The Bush administration has indicated a conditional willingness to pursue a similarly compartmented dialogue with Tehran over Iran’s nuclear activities.
Unfortunately, advocates of limited engagement — either for short-term gains on specific issues or to “test” Iran regarding broader rapprochement — do not seem to understand the 20-year history of United States-Iranian cooperation on discrete issues or appreciate the impact of that history on Iran’s strategic outlook. In the current regional context, issue-specific engagement with Iran is bound to fail. The only diplomatic approach that might succeed is a comprehensive one aimed at a “grand bargain” between the United States and the Islamic Republic.
Since the 1980s, cooperation with Iran on specific issues has been tried by successive administrations, but United States policymakers have consistently allowed domestic politics or other foreign policy interests to torpedo such cooperation and any chance for a broader opening. The Reagan administration’s engagement with Iran to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon came to grief in the Iran-contra scandal. The first Bush administration resumed contacts with Tehran to secure release of the last American hostages in Lebanon, but postponed pursuit of broader rapprochement until after the 1992 presidential election.
In 1994, the Clinton administration acquiesced to the shipment of Iranian arms to Bosnian Muslims, but the leak of this activity in 1996 and criticism from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Robert Dole shut down possibilities for further United States-Iranian cooperation for several years.
These episodes reinforced already considerable suspicion among Iranian leaders about United States intentions toward the Islamic Republic. But, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, senior Iranian diplomats told us that Tehran believed it had a historic opportunity to improve relations with Washington. Iranian leaders offered to help the United States in responding to the attacks without making that help contingent on changes in America’s Iran policy — a condition stipulated in the late 1990s when Tehran rejected the Clinton administration’s offer of dialogue — calculating that cooperation would ultimately prompt fundamental shifts in United States policy.
The argument that Iran helped America in Afghanistan because it was in Tehran’s interest to get rid of the Taliban is misplaced. Iran could have let America remove the Taliban without getting its own hands dirty, as it remained neutral during the 1991 gulf war. Tehran cooperated with United States efforts in Afghanistan primarily because it wanted a better relationship with Washington.
But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, [sp]a U.N.-sponsored conference in Bonn led by Jim Dobbins[/sp] set the stage for a November 2001 meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan’s six neighbors and Russia. [sp]A draft document was established by these six nations and the US to create a broadly based democratic successor government to the Taliban, as well as to collectively support a democratic Afghanstan and jointly prosecute the war on terror.[/sp] Iran went along, working with the United States to eliminate the Taliban and establish a post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan.
In December 2001, [sp]the US asked[/sp] Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the brutal pro-Al Qaeda warlord, from returning to Afghanistan to lead jihadist resistance there. [sp]Iran agreed[/sp] so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists. But, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush did just that in labeling Iran part of the “axis of evil.” Unsurprisingly, Mr. Hekmatyar managed to leave Iran in short order after the speech. [sp]After hearing this speech the Iranians threw him out as quickly as possible because[/sp] the Islamic Republic could not be seen to be harboring terrorists.[sp]
Richard Armitage accused the Iranians of further harboring al-quaeda terrorists. Iran identified a group of less than 100 individuals operating in the NE region along the border with Pakistan operating in the drug smuggling operations of that region. They captured all of them and offered the complete list to the UN in 2002 and then offered to turn them over to the US in exchange for the Iraqi MEK terrorist group captured by the US that threatened Iran's governing powers. The US refused this exchange, and so Iran deported the detainees to the custody of their home governments of Saudi Arabia and post-Taliban Afghanistan.[/sp] This demonstrated to Afghan warlords that they could not play America and Iran off one another and prompted Tehran to deport hundreds of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives who had fled Afghanistan.
Those who argue that Iran did not cause Iraq’s problems and therefore can be of only limited help in dealing with Iraq’s current instability must also acknowledge that Iran did not “cause” Afghanistan’s deterioration into a terrorist-harboring failed state. But, when America and Iran worked together, Afghanistan was much more stable than it is today, Al Qaeda was on the run, the Islamic Republic’s Hezbollah protégé was comparatively restrained, and Tehran was not spinning centrifuges. Still, the Bush administration conveyed no interest in building on these positive trends.[sp]
After the May 12,2003 Saudi Arabian bombing by an internal Iranian group, all 3500 "members" of the organization, including many family and extended members not directly involved in the action were seized by the Iranians and offered to the US as proffer for the Iraqi MEK. Further a proposal for negotiations aimed at resolving all outstanding bilateral differences between Tehran and Washington, including the nuclear issue was offered directly to the President by Swiss diplomat. The proposal was described as having been endorsed by all the major power centers in Iran, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US reaction was to not even acknowledge the document and accuse the Swiss diplomat of being "out of line."[/sp]
From an Iranian perspective, this record shows that Washington will take what it can get from talking to Iran on specific issues but is not prepared for real rapprochement. Yet American proponents of limited engagement anticipate that Tehran will play this fruitless game once more — even after numerous statements by senior administration figures targeting the Islamic Republic for prospective “regime change” and by President Bush himself that attacking Iran’s nuclear and national security infrastructure is “on the table.”
Our experience dealing with the [sp]highest ranking and most serious and important[/sp] Iranian diplomats over Afghanistan and in more recent private conversations in Europe and elsewhere convince us that Iran will not go down such a dead-end road again. Iran will not help the United States in Iraq because it wants to avoid chaos there; Tehran is well positioned to defend its interests in Iraq unilaterally as America flounders. Similarly, Iran will not accept strategically meaningful limits on its nuclear capabilities for a package of economic and technological goodies.
Iran will only cooperate with the United States, whether in Iraq or on the nuclear issue, as part of a broader rapprochement addressing its core security concerns. This requires extension of a United States security guarantee — effectively, an American commitment not to use force to change the borders or form of government of the Islamic Republic — bolstered by the prospect of lifting United States unilateral sanctions and normalizing bilateral relations. This is something no United States administration has ever offered, and that the Bush administration has explicitly refused to consider.
Indeed, no administration would be able to provide a security guarantee unless United States concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities, regional role and support for terrorist organizations were definitively addressed. That is why, at this juncture, resolving any of the significant bilateral differences between the United States and Iran inevitably requires resolving all of them. Implementing the reciprocal commitments entailed in a “grand bargain” would almost certainly play out over time and in phases, but all of the commitments would be agreed up front as a package, so that both sides would know what they were getting.
Unfortunately, the window for pursuing a comprehensive settlement with Iran will not be open indefinitely. The Iranian leadership is more radicalized today, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, than it was three years ago, and could become more radicalized in the future, depending on who ultimately succeeds Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as supreme leader. If President Bush does not move decisively toward strategic engagement with Tehran during his remaining two years in office, his successor will not have the same opportunities that he will have so blithely squandered.[/release]
I think every person who can think for themselves knows what the US is trying to do with this.
False flag much?
There's not going to be a war. It is being treated as a criminal act, not as an act of war.
USA:
We dont like what IRAN is doing, lets make up a reason so the world hates them and we can go to war with them /Irak/Iran
[QUOTE=taipan;32760180]USA:
We dont like what IRAN is doing, lets make up a reason so the world hates them and we can go to war with them /Irak/Iran[/QUOTE]
USA:
Lets drown out other more important stuff using media blackouts and 'more important' news. Lets make it about Iran too so that we can get a common enemy going.
remember, no farsi
As much as this is being overhyped, this does kind of concern me, because this is something you'd really only expect in movies, but the fact that we just caught him means that this is perfectly capable of happening and us not being able to detect it.
Worse still, when you can't be sure that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or even our own government weren't behind the plot, it makes me worried about what lengths whoever is doing this (assuming it's not just one man) is willing to go.
I'm not sure what I believe yet but this just seems like a theory that doesn't really have any solid evidence supporting it.
Of course FP being fickle as they are, will change sides every time a new article comes up.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;32760464]
Of course FP being fickle as they are, will change sides every time a new article comes up.[/QUOTE]
No, not really.
Iran hasn't even commented or made a statement on the situation yet, right?
I do not believe that the US is looking for a war with Iran and, to some degree, why Iran would sell it's own death warrant with something like this is beyond me at this time.
Also, there is no indication that the US is going mobilize on anything with regards to this incident either. There is no definitive belief that the US in entirely convinced that Iran is even totally responsible.
This is starting to get blown up by the media more than anything and facepunch eats it up.
[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;32760733]Iran hasn't even commented or made a statement on the situation yet, right?[/QUOTE]
They already denied it yesterday.
[quote]"This is a prefabricated scenario to turn public attention away from domestic problems within the United States," Ali Akbar Javanfekr, the president's press adviser, told AFP.
"The U.S. government and the CIA have a lot of experience in diverting public attention from domestic problems in the United States. We have to wait now to know the details of this prefabricated scenario to know the U.S. government's objectives," he said.
A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry "strongly denied the false accusation of a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States," according to a statement quoted by the Fars news agency."[/quote]
[QUOTE=Falchion;32743120]Call me paranoid but I believe OTHER middle-eastern countries are actually conspiring against Iran themselves.
They were killing Iran's nuclear scientists for the last few years. (I'd say the US was possibly involved (Through Israel or directly) but I wont go that far in accusations.)
My point is, don't believe everything at face value.
Edit: Me saying this probably wont change shit but anyways.
This is basically two birds with one stone for Israel and Saudi Arabia. Their citizens will be infuriated by attacks towards their own ambassadors and US citizens will be infuriated because of the possible civilian casualties.
And now US probably wouldn't even give them a bad look if Israel or saudi arabia just marched their armies over the Iran border. (Exaggeration)[/QUOTE]
I smelled bullshit from miles away from the first article.
[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;32760733]
I do not believe that the US is looking for a war with Iran and, to some degree, why Iran would sell it's own death warrant with something like this is beyond me at this time.
[/QUOTE]
The goal is not war, it is getting more support for sanctions, etc. against Iran.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;32760535]No, not really.[/QUOTE]
Well that's what's already happened. In the original article about it, people took the US's word for it and as soon as another one comes up saying it's not true (even though it's just a theory), everyone is against them now.
[QUOTE=Falchion;32760868]The goal is not war, it is getting more support for sanctions, etc. against Iran.[/QUOTE]I doubt it's a false flag. Likely a lone wolf.
But judging from the White House's ambivalence, I think they already know it wasn't orchestrated by Iran. They're just not going to refrain from using this opportunity to capitalize on their agenda with Iran.
I think the US are looking for another opportunity to show off their power.
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32760313]remember, no farsi[/QUOTE]
'No Persian' sounds closer to 'No Russian'.
Alright guys, I admit it. I was lying about my uncle being a big shot in the Iranian military. The truth is, Iran had nothing to do with it. I've been working for the Canadians all along. :tinfoil:
This whole thing is looking really, really fishy. Is some alleged bragging to an accomplice really the only evidence of any link to Iran? And yeah, this totally doesn't seem like something the Iranian government would do, it reeks of complete amateurs. Why would Iran stand to gain anything by killing the Saudi's ambassador to the US, let alone on US soil? Since when do they work with Mexican drug cartels?
Crazy. I hope our leadership gets the facts straight before doing anything stupid, past presidents (*cough*Bush*cough*) would already be ordering a bombing campaign.
Wouldn't be surprised if the US lied about this in order to get more people to hate Iran.
While I do not think it was Iran that did, I do not think it was a set-up. A person acting on their own from inside the Guard Corps probably is around the answer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.