Updates on the Quds Force plot
The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration didn’t believe at first that iran was behind the plot to assassinate the ambassador to the Saudi embassy because it was so “crudely constructed”;
Although the Justice Department eventually linked the plan to Iran’s elite Quds Force, almost nothing in the case bore the hallmarks of the notorious military unit that has trained and equipped terrorists and assassins around the world, the officials said.
A wire transfer two months into the uncover probe–$100,000 in cash, moved in tell-tale fashion from Iranian bank accounts to an undercover agent in Mexico–finally persuaded American investigators that the assassination plan had high-level backing. And still, questions remained about who in Iran knew of the plot and at what level it was approved.
It seems to me that “crudely constructed” would have tipped them off it was an Iranian government operation. I mean they can’t even launch some missiles without some crudely constructed photoshopped pictures. Isn’t their electric grid still powered by goats?
Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports that Peter King is urging the Obama Administration to boot out iranian intelligence officers from this country;
“While I intend to support the president’s ultimate decision, I believe that he should consider expelling Iranian officials, especially known intelligence officers, from the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York, and the Iranian Interests Section in Washington,” said Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, in a statement.
Mr King said that if the terror plot — in reality an elaborate sting put together by a paid DEA informant — had succeeded, it would have been “an act of war” by Iran against the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, that’ll happen. This Administration isn’t capable of mustering the testicular fortitude required for a stern gaze at our actual enemies. Now, if it was israel or England, that’d be a different story altogether.
In the vicinity of the same subject, someone sent me an email that asked why we’re so outraged that Iran planned to kill a foreign citizen on our soil, yet we did the same thing in regards to bin Laden. Why is one an “act of war”, yet the other is a “gutsy call”? Just something to chew on.
Category: Terror War
Cracks me up.
Correction; their power grid is based on the friction of Iranian penis in goat vagina, commonly known as ‘nannytechnology’.
I’d be wary of assuming Iran is backwards. They’ve shown to be on the cutting edge of next-gen IED technology. Perhaps their kinetic tech and foreign intrigue experts reside in separate departments.
But with Iranian lethal aid acknowledged in Iraq since 2004, why is it only the current Administration that gets the snipes about ‘fortitude’?
Hmmm…timing seems dubious at best…
Think the perp got rolled up a week or so ago…lame stream media won’t touch that…
False flag…?
Convenient distraction for Holder and Barry Sotero since the economy is so shitty and now that Fast and Furious (aka Gunkwalker) is knocking on their marxist door…
Retired Navy, spouting off.
Jeff #4: There it is. It really is sad that yer analysis makes sense.
With our military leaving Iraq, and in the process of leaving Afghanistan, the POTUS needs someplace to keep the military occupied.
If they were home, they may act and react in ways that support the Constitution against all enemies, including the domestic ones.
Besides: the 1st Law of Progressives: accuse the other side of doing something detrimental, while doing it yourself. The Progs accused Bush of getting us into two campaigns without provocation, so it makes sense POTUS will do the same. Libya was #1, and he got away with it.
“why is it only the current Administration that gets the snipes about ‘fortitude’?” The answer to that question is so easy, I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on it, CI. The current administration is the current administration. They’re the ones in power today, not the previous administration.
#4 – I brought up that possibility with my parents this evening. My dad said he saw an interview with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was asked that question (re: the timing of the public disclosure); He said no, it’s just how things fell out, that they’ve (the committee?) known about this case (or whatever you want to call it) for a while.
the timing may seem fishy, but as things go Washington is like that.
My problem is Iran is getting seriously BALLSY if they’re trying to do shit like this. It’s galling because for YEARS they’ve been screwing with Iraq/Afghanistan (they DO share boarders) and we as a nation have remained willfully blind to that fact. Is there going to be any blow back on them? doubt it.
In regards to the last paragraph, I would say that the Saudi diplomat, for all intents and purposes, was a goodwill ambassador… a welcome guest in your home. If someone from any foreign nation were to enter your house and murder the Rotary exchange student that was visiting from another country, would you not also be so outraged? Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist, welcomed by a cadre of terrorists. He was an ambassador of Islamic extremism, complicit in crimes against your country. Therein lies the difference.
#3 Iran’s first strength has always been its excellent proxies. They provide plausible deniability, whether we believe their excuses or not or not. As regards to IEDs, that technology is not revolutionay in anyway and is relatively inexpensive. The Taliban have made even cheaper, nearly undetectable IEDs, which unlike Iraq’s version tend to be antipersonel in nature. I’d hardly say the Taliban are on the technological cutting edge! My point being, that Iran’s cunning has always been its primary asset of influence. “But with Iranian lethal aid acknowledged in Iraq since 2004, why is it only the current Administration that gets the snipes about ‘fortitude’?” Well, I think because this was conducted(admittingly sloppily) on our own soil and not internally in Iraq. Reconcillation between proxies and the government was used as a justification to issue many questionable pardons. The Saudis and the Iranians have a regional geographic feud thats getting hotter, but the idea that they would attempt to kill a possible adversary of their’s on our own turf is an affront. This if successful, would have been an act of war! #4 & #5 This false Flag crap is gotta stop! Really! I’m no fan of Obama, but there are real enemies out there who make decisions indpendent of our domestic politcal players. Carter was in office when this got started, I’d hardly say he had anything to do with commanding or conspiring with our enemies. “Convenient distraction for Holder and Barry Sotero since the economy is so shitty and now that Fast and Furious (aka Gunkwalker) is knocking on their marxist door.” The FBI and the DEA were the primary agencies who uncovered this, not the ATF. It confirms something we’ve all known for a long time, our adversaries are using our unsecured southern border as a corridor to sneak into the country. We knew Al Qaeda was looking to use Mexican drug cartels to sneak in. Now we have an actual nation state doing this. What is it going to take to secure the God Damn border!? #9 “Is there going to be any blow back on… Read more »
“[S]omeone sent me an email that asked why we’re so outraged that Iran planned to kill a foreign citizen on our soil, yet we did the same thing in regards to bin Laden. Why is one an “act of war”, yet the other is a “gutsy call”? Just something to chew on.”
Perhaps there would not be any difference IF the target were the mastermind behind the mass murder of a couple of thousand Iranians and we were giving him sanctuary. And perhaps if OBL had been in an embassy on Pakistani soil and we blew up the entire embassy to take him out, there wouldn’t be any difference either. But the fact that neither of these ifs is operative means the question shouldn’t be chewed. It should be spat out.
@11 – You might be surprised at the IED tech Iran has and what they haven’t allowed to be proliferated into AF/PAK.
I agree with the rest of your post.
Cedo in #11: Well said!
As for the IED thing……..in consideration that at the time in Iraq, you had Iranian backed Mookie running around and it was obvious to everyone that he was getting a lot of support from Iran. No different than when we supplied Stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance in the 80’s to shoot down Russian aircraft (which they did to great effect). Did the Russians consider that an “act of war” by us? It’s been a proxie fight, in some measure, since the beginning.
As for the difference between the Bubbles Bin Laden op and this; it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know the difference and anyone posing such a stupid question should be dismissed out of hand.
#13 I think your Iranian IED point has more to do with deniability again, though I also think it may have something to do with what the IEDs in Afghanistan target.