Iranian Terror Plot Foiled

Two men have been arrested recently, both members of the Iranian Quds Force, for plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador while he was visiting the US. The two had planned to use a bomb to blow up the embassy where the ambassador resides. They planned to cross the border from Mexico and make their way to Washington DC from there. FBI contacts who were posing as Mexican drug cartel members arrested the pair on September 29. Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri have since been charged in federal court in New York, and two other members of the plot remain at large. Arbabsiar has since confessed their involvement in the plot and have admitted it was backed by the Quds.

The US Treasury has imposed economic sanctions on Iran in a move to freeze large asset pools the group had access to, and to stop anyone else from being able to do business with them. Congress has also issued a stern condemnation of the act, with Rep. Michael McCaul calling it an act of war on the part of Iran.

Unfortunately, as is typical when Democrats are in office, nothing more seems to be planned as a response. Sanctions and stern finger wagging at the Iranian government are not going to get the job done. A president who had the interests of the US and her allies in mind would have ordered an immediate military response to this obvious act of aggression. The usual talking heads among Democrats are saying this was a criminal act and should be treated as such. Obviously nobody has learned a thing since 9/11.

Naturally the Iranians are denying their involvement, but with a confession on hand I think we can pretty safely say that they're full of crap. They need to be taught a serious lesson and it needs to be done now, not on January 20, 2013 when Obama is kicked out of office and replaced with a leader that has the balls to deal with this. Talking them to death using the Swiss as intermediaries will accomplish exactly nothing and continue to make us a laughing stock in the Middle East.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« RIP: Steve Jobs
Windows Woes »

Posted on Oct 12, 2011 12:32 am by Samson in: | 46 comment(s) [Closed]
Typical Iranian dickheads. Enough said.

EDIT; I don't think launching a military counter-attack is the right move. For one, they haven't actually hurt you guys at all, much less been found guilty in a criminal court. Going and killing Iranians, a good number (if not all) of which will be completely innocent of this plot will not improve America's reputation in any part of the world, except maybe for Israel. And aside from the fact you then could provoke further terrorist efforts, I don't think you guys really have the cash to throw around and risk being drawn into a potentially protracted conflict (even on a proxy scale).

Edited by prettyfly on Oct 12, 2011 6:29 am
Doesn't the USA have anything better to do than declare war on a new country every time they run out of things to do in the last country?

As I was telling my mother earlier, I am shocked, shocked! that the Iranians would do any such thing, what with their reputation of wholesome milk drinking and little old lady street crossing helping. I mean, who knew they had it in them?

Also, I never use sarcasm. Ever.

So, I guess we could do the military strike thing, and if this were the 80s or 90s I'd be pretty down with it, but I'm not entirely sure what the world needs at the present is another period of Iranians shooting missiles at tankers in the Gulf, or for the Iranians to decide that kicking what's left of the Great Satan out of Iraq is the pro move, among other possible interesting Iranian response options.

Which is to say that our options suck. But we'll see how this goes down. We sure do live in interesting times, as it were.

yall cant afford the wars you already have, do you think that it would be prudent given the current economic conditions to be having another Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan?

If you have a fiscally responsible government, the only options you have are either diplomatic or patience and get them when you can afford to. As i said in another thread, 30 years of fiscal stupidity have got you into this economic mess, the last thing you need to do is have another war that you cant pay for, further exacerbating the economic position your country faces.

Iran is not going anywhere in a hurry, putting them on the back burner till your in a batter position to deal with them seems to be the only wise solution.

Edited by The_Fury on Oct 12, 2011 6:44 pm
If by another Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan you mean a victory that was later sabotaged into a failure by a liberal administration, no, I don't want that. What I want is a success, like Iraq in 1991 where we roll in, blast them back into the stone age, and leave. Or the first 3 without the sabotage part would do nicely.

We already have forces conveniently deployed. Use them. Blow up what few planes they have. Sink what few ships they have. Blockade the Persian Gulf. Unload the bombers. Problem solved. Or we could just get Israel to do it since there's information floating about that the Iranians were also targeting Israeli embassies with this hairbrained scheme.

Hate to tell you, but leaving aside the questionable "liberals lost all our wars" thing, we didn't actually win in '91 in any way that really mattered. I'd think that '03 would have made that fairly self-obvious, the whole 1990s aside.

Which is also to say that the "blow all their shit up" plan is neither as easy as you might think, nor, as it happens, has it ever to my knowledge actually worked in any kind of successful and reasonable fashion.

I'd call the liberation of Kuwait a total victory since that was the primary objective. So I don't even know where you came from on that one.

The '03 thing was totally unrelated and I'm pretty sure you know this. That had everything to do with Saddam's repeated violations of UN resolutions that went into effect after the cease fire in 1991. Note I shall now repeat myself in saying that the '91 and '03 wars are one in the same since no formal peace was ever declared.

"Blow up all their shit" sure seems to have worked in all the times I can think of where liberals weren't actively sabotaging us by telling the commanders in the field where they can't drop the bombs.

Samson said:

"Blow up all their shit" sure seems to have worked in all the times I can think of where liberals weren't actively sabotaging us by telling the commanders in the field where they can't drop the bombs.

Perhaps you'd care to name a few then.

Samson said:

I'd call the liberation of Kuwait a total victory since that was the primary objective. So I don't even know where you came from on that one.

I mean it like this:

Samson said:

the '91 and '03 wars are one in the same

And, well, here's the thing about that. Yeah, insofar as we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, we won in '91. Insofar as Desert Storm did not solve the underlying problem (Saddam), and actually created a whole host of new ones (botched uprisings, the ongoing air war, certain strains of Islamic terror, etc), we blew it pretty hard, which required 12 years of air campaigns, God knows how many UN inspections, and another war to clean up (and then badly).

"Winning" is pretty damn pointless unless you solve the underlying problem, which gets back to what I was saying earlier: I'm sure blowing some shit up is going to make us think we're all badass mofos and shit, but it ain't gonna fix anything.

Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #9 Oct 12, 2011 11:21 pm
One can't be absolutely sure, since the two men have not been in the same shoes, but unless my judgement of character fails me completely, Obama has a significantly more 'masculine' and 'warlike' personality than Romney. If a war with Iran is what you want, the coming elections may present you with a dilemma...

Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #10 Oct 12, 2011 11:32 pm
If the government of Iran really is behind this, there's no other way to see it than as an act of war, and it must have consequences. In that light, I can't imagine the Iranian authorities really took this enormous risk, for no discernible potential gain. I'd be very cautious about launching an expensive invasion and killing hundreds of thousands on the basis of the 'confession' of a clearly not very well organized would be terrorist.

Hard to tell with Romney, since I'm not sure he even knows what he thinks half the time, but Obama does seem pretty content to kill a lot of dudes with drones all over hill and dale.

As to the Iranians, I dunno. This far from the first time they've done something like this, never mind something like this to/with/near us. They usually confine it to places like Iraq and Lebanon, but I've heard mention of possible stuff going down here before. It also strikes me that, among other possible motivations, starting something with the Great Satan and either getting it away with it (and, barring epic war, they almost certainly will) or getting to talk about how the evil Americans are being evil and try to unite the people (and if we invade or bomb the shit out of them, good chance of that) could lead to decent upsides for a regime that's had a fair bit of trouble in the past few years.

So, yeah. It's really, really easy for me to imagine the Iranians pulling a stunt like this.

Keep in mind though that its only supposed to be a few high ranking members of the Iranian revolutionary guard involved, as opposed to the entire Iranian government. Which makes the whole concept of bombing them as revenge not quite so straightforward.

Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #13 Oct 13, 2011 12:45 am
As I was telling my mother earlier, I am shocked, shocked! that the Iranians would do any such thing, what with their reputation of wholesome milk drinking and little old lady street crossing helping. I mean, who knew they had it in them?

Supporting anti American/Israeli terrorism where it serves their interests, yes, definitely, but dangerous and irrational actions without a potential gain? Hmm...

Blockade the Persian Gulf.

Gasp. $20 per gallon gas?

Dwip said:

Perhaps you'd care to name a few then.

World War 1, World War 2, Korea (before libs butted their noses in), Vietnam (before Johnson's administration sabotaged it), Grenada (though no actual bombs fell), Liberating Kuwait in 1991, Bosnia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq again in 2003 since I'm pretty sure the bombing campaign in Baghdad was what drove Saddam out of power. Care to deny any of this?

Also, yes, from the legal standpoint, 1991-2003 was the length of the US/Iraq war. Not all wars involve active combat operations, as you well know with the situation in Korea.

Mohammed said:

Gasp. $20 per gallon gas?

Someone seems to think we buy all our oil from Iran. How cute.

Samson said:

World War 1

America fucked up by getting involved in the first place. If the various big figures on our side hadn't gotten together and pinned all the blame on Germany, there would never have been a Nazi regime and things wouldn't have turned out so bad for everyone.

Samson said:

World War 2

That did work, although you took your bloody sweet time (and made lots of money out of it while you waited around. Clever foreign policy, anyway).

Samson said:


I'm not going to deny that intervening was the right thing to do, but I'd like you to explain how liberals screwed this one up. The problem was your country's dumb ass general thought that China wouldn't get concerned if we started stomping all over a communist country.

Samson said:


That war was already failing when Johnson came in. In fact, it was so terribly executed and operated that if makes Iraq look like a well run ordeal. This war is a perfect example of a war that couldn't be won simply by throwing bombs around anywhere. In fact, all Johnson really did was start dropping more bombs on people anyway.

Samson said:


Unless the all the various news articles I've been seeing of late are part of some propaganda campaign to cover up the truth, despite dropping bombs for ten years now, this war isn't exactly being won.

Samson said:


The bombing drove Saddam out of power all right, but also began a number of years of intensive sectarian conflict, which still exists to a somewhat lesser extent today. Despite Bush proclaiming 'mission accomplished', I'm pretty sure things didn't go to plan, in fact, the war seems to have by and large been a bloody and expensive mess.

However, Libya does seem to have worked out more or less ok. For now anyway.

You know, had I taken bets and predicted the response I'd get for posting evidence that is without question (it is, look it up) I couldn't have come up with anything better than you just posted there. Seriously, are you guys just that totally blind or something? Cause it really DOES look to me like you're swallowing a shitload of pre-cooked propaganda that could come straight out of the Progressives Guide to Debates or something.

Re: $20 gas, any kind of action in the Gulf WILL drive up the price of everybody's oil, not just Iranian oil, so he's right insofar as that goes, sort of.

As to the list of wars, yes, actually, I'd care to deny a great deal of it.

World War 1 - Not a serious air war in any real sense of the term, zeppelins/bombers had a relatively marginal effect at best given the primative technology of the day. Further, I think it fair to say that all naval actions were similarly marginal, except insofar as they allowed for Allied resupply from the UK and US, which is an entirely different thing from forcing the Central Powers to capitulate.

World War 2 - The US Strategic Bombing Survey Europe | Pacific) disagrees somewhat, and suggests that, the atom bomb aside, the strategic bombing campaigns over Europe and Japan were not successful in crippling either power's industry or effectiveness alone. As in the first war, sea power, it seems to me, largely affected strategic resupply and troop movement more than it affected industry and morale, except in the case of the US submarine campaign against Japan, an island.

Vietnam - Was not, in the main, an air war prior to the Johnson administration. During the Johnson and Nixon administrations, I can see no other way to classify the strategic bombing of North Vietnam other than as a strategic failure that failed to produce adequate results. Bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was never successful even in part, nor were successive bombings of North Vietnamese transportation and industry. Tactical bombing in South Vietnam was another matter, but Skyraiders dropping napalm on VC was never going to win that war by itself.

Grenada - Isn't even really a war. It was pretty ludicrous. If you want a better example from the time period, the Falklands probably qualifies, but I'm not sure that's really applicable to Iran.

Iraq '91/Iraq '03 - Clearly, coalition airpower was pretty decisive in various ways - decapitation strikes, command and control disruption, SEAD, and on some level force destruction. However, both wars required very significant ground combat by coalition forces against often fully-functional Iraqi formations, and Saddam didn't actually fall until you had 3rd Infantry Division tanks rolling through Baghdad. In other ways, airpower was not wholly effective, such as the failed Scud hunts. I think it worth further noting that the various cruise missile strikes plus Desert Fox didn't particularly work all that well. Similarly, El Dorado Canyon against Libya in 1986 didn't particularly work all that great either, and that's the sort of thing we'd be looking at versus Iran.

Bosnia/Kosovo - While this is probably our most successful display of strategic air power actually working, I'm uncomfortable with declaring it the decisive element, considering the raging civil war going on at the time. I do not believe this model applicable to Iran.

Afghanistan - Certainly air power did a great deal in a tactical role during the initial 2001 invasion, though again, this is all in support of a whole lot of Northern Alliance troops. Yeah, we took over the country, and having awesome planes helped that. Hasn't done much about the 10 year long insurgency though.

I find the record of strategic air power less than stellar during this past century. As I say, our tactical application of air power in support of ground and sea forces is supurb, but that hardly wins wars by itself.

Love how the target has now shifted on me, while you ignore the fact that I already said liberal interference in these matters is what ultimately doomed the effort. "Blow shit up" did indeed work perfectly well until Johnson's cronies decided they didn't want a victory. Don't ask me why they didn't, but history PROVES it by their actions and their political hamstringing of the actual force commanders.

Also nifty how you've both apparently assumes I claimed that only bombers win wars. Clearly that's not true. No war is ever WON solely by land, sea, or air in the modern age. You need all 3, but to dismiss any one component of this is simply stupidity. The bombing campaigns where the field commanders had the authority all worked, period. They were never intended to win the entire engagement, but to provide proper support for ground and naval operations.

Now, it IS possible to win a war with bombers alone, but we haven't yet been presented with an ideal opportunity to prove this, and may not unless things go nuclear and the bombers are dropping strategic nuclear weapons.

(Clearly we've all missed having a good juicy political topic to vent about, yes?)

Edited by Samson on Oct 13, 2011 2:29 am
Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #19 Oct 13, 2011 3:29 am
Someone seems to think we buy all our oil from Iran. How cute.

Afaik the US doesn't buy any of its oil from Iran, there's a boycott after all. With a globally traded commodity this doesn't make much of a difference. With the persian gulf closed off, the total global production/export capacity drops. This affects the price of Canadian oil as much as oil from Iran. More so, I reckon, as Iran might have to sell below market price if potential buyers have to face such a large risk.

Interesting how casually you call for nuclear strikes over something kind of minor

Mohammed said:

Interesting how casually you call for nuclear strikes over something kind of minor

Of course, because as we know, those are the only bombs we have, right?

Also, no, blockading the Persian Gulf for the purpose of blocking Iranian oil exports wouldn't hurt other countries. You seem to be under the assumption I was calling for a general blockade against everyone there. I doubt Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAB, or Kuwait would appreciate us doing that. They would however likely be thrilled to death if we slapped the shit out of Iran.

Don't forget about Qatar :tongue:

I'm sure the Arab nations would be quite gracious if we blew Iran away, but being the moral and righteous western nations we are, we won't get involved in another countries affairs without strong reason, especially if such an operation runs a high risk of killing large numbers of innocent civilians, right? Oh.

Heh, yeah. Qatar too. Didn't see them on the map I was checking.

I should think an act of war against us is more than enough justification to pound some sense into these guys. Nobody is saying Australia has to come help, but I doubt we'd say no if you did. Also, I don't think blowing up the ENTIRE country would be warranted. Just the parts infested by Ahmadinejad's cronies.

Mohammed [Anon] said:
Comment #23 Oct 13, 2011 4:11 am
You specifically mentioned nuclear a few posts back, maybe I misunderstood.

I remember the effect the last two major conflicts in the gulf had on oil shipping very well - some close relatives worked in that business. The Iran-Iraq war was worse than the wars against Saddam, because oil tankers were targeted by both sides. Ships passed the hormuz strait with enormous delays. Sailors had to sign a release form absolving the company from responsibility if they chose to stay on board and accept the substantial hazard pay. They allowed crew members (not officers) to refuse and stay behind on land, but replacements had to be flow in and trained. The oil company ended up paying both sides enormous bribes to keep their ships from being targeted.

Every ship crossing there (and it's very busy) will have to be checked for Iradian contraband, causing further enormous delays. There is no way this would only affect Iranian transport.

You're absolutely right, the Arabs and maybe some other entities in the region would be thrilled to see a war between the USA and Iran. In fact, the only interested parties that wouldn't really be thrilled are probably the USA and Iran themselves, which is why this whole affair smells so fishy to me...

Well, ok.

Re: liberals suck ass at wars.

- It's not so much that Wilson sucked at the war, it's that he sucked at the peace, which is a rather different thing.

- I'd love to hear how FDR and Truman sucked ass in WWII.

- I guess you can make an argument that Truman screwed it up in Korea, but the reality of land wars with China being what they are, I'm unconvinced. I can't particularly see us succeeding where the Empire of Japan failed so spectacularly over a dozen years or so.

- Yeah, Johnson (and let's say Kennedy too, just for kicks) screwed up relatively hard in Vietnam. That's not particularly controversial, nor are the particular ways it was screwed up a mystery. That said, it's not like Eisenhower or Nixon (or Ford if you want to go that far) particularly covered themselves in glory either. Come to that, you may as well lump in Westmoreland and a ton of other leadership as well. Our whole strategy and outlook in Vietnam was fatally flawed from the start, from the people we backed to the methods used, and changing a few micromanaged bombing targets isn't going to change that. I could go on all day about this.

- Afghanistan and Iraq have yet to come to a conclusion, though considering the timing much of their success or failure (mostly failure, I think) at the presidential level must be laid at Bush's feet and not Obama's. I'm not sure what to say day to day about Iraq, but I tend to believe more and more that our nation-building mission in Afghanistan was doomed from the beginning, and there's nothing Obama or Jesus Christ is going to do to fix that. OTOH, he did fulfill the stated goal of fucking up OBL, so there's that.

Now, as to the "blow shit up" thing, two things.

- Bombs, which is what you mentioned, come out of airplanes. Most of our discussion has thus far centered around airpower, thus my airpower-centric focus.

- Let us be realistic here. There is a somewhere south of zero chance that we're going to launch a ground invasion of Iran. We do not at present have available the forces to commit to even a 2003-scale invasion of that country, much less a 1991-scale invasion, and I tend to think that you'd need the 1991-scale invasion. Even if you add the Saudis &c, I doubt that's going to change much.

That leaves us with air and sea power, which leads us straight back to my skepticism about the possibility of any such response having any real positive effect other than making us feel like badasses, and making the Iranians feel like badasses for having taken us on and not getting curbstomped, which would provide them with good propaganda for the next 30 years or so.

So, yeah. There's a reason I focused on what I did.

Don't know who is what, but i bet the Sunni Arabs would like to see some Shi'a Iranians get pounded. When all is said and done, we don't really have to do anything, just let me have my cage match between Muslim factions and all will be fun. It does not take them much to get fired up with each other anyways.

Iran is such a funny place, Judaism and Christianity are recognized and protected religions, each faith has a reserved seat in the Iranian parliament, Iran also has the largest Jewish population in any Muslim nation, yet, Iran will not recognize Israel and would like to wipe it off the face of the earth. Such a contrast of attitudes, for sure.

Edited by The_Fury on Oct 13, 2011 8:36 am
<< prev 1, 2 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31