Oh boy, here we go again - another Gulf of Tonkin lie.

Washington in direct contact with Iran over plot
(Associated Press, October 13, 2011, 1:41 p.m. eastern standard time)

WASHINGTON — The State Department says the U.S. has had at least one direct conversation with Iran over allegations of a brazen assassination plot on U.S. soil.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday there's been "direct contact" between the U.S. and Iran. She gave no details.

Separately, a U.S. official says the contact was made through Iran's United Nations mission in New York. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive diplomacy.

The two nations have no diplomatic relations and any direct contact is rare.

The U.S. says Iran was behind a foiled plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. Iran denies it.

Intelligence and security officials say that the case laid out Monday by the Justice Department, which alleges that three senior Iranian officials directed former car dealer Manssor Arbabsiar to arrange the killing of Saudi Ambassador Abdul al-Jubeir, is intriguing and reads like a spy novel. But they also note that in spite of years of bad relations, Iran’s security forces haven’t sought to carry out such an attack on U.S. soil since 1980.

...


There are, of course, substantial differences between the plot alleged this week by the Justice Department and what took place in Bethesda in 1980 although both did involve assassination. The key difference is that, in 1980, it succeeded.

More

He said evidence of Iranian government complicity has already been shared with key U.S. allies. "There will not be a dispute" over Iran's role, Obama said. Iran has denied any involvement any such alleged plot.

U.S. officials believe Iran hoped that such an attack would be blamed on al-Qaida. That, in turn, would strike at two of Iran's chief enemies: the United States and Saudi Arabia.


...


"We don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran," Obama said. But he said "what you can expect" is continued U.S. pressure on Tehran "until it makes a better choice in terms of how it's going to interact with the rest of the international community." More

What I suspect is that Israel has been threatening to do another bombing run on Iran and this story of a plot to kill a Saudi ambassador is to provide cover for anything the Israelis might do.

We don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran," Obama said. But he said "what you can expect" is continued U.S. pressure on Tehran "until it makes a better choice in terms of how it's going to interact with the rest of the international community."

Arbabsiar’s assertions about Qods Force drug dealing inject another puzzling dimension into a case that has triggered a crisis in U.S.-Iranian relations. While accusing the Qods Force of arming terrorist groups throughout the Middle East and orchestrating attacks against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials have never publicly accused the organization of involvement in international narcotics smuggling.

If these allegations are true, “They would be a game changer,” said Douglas Farah, a national security analyst who has closely studied Qods Force activities in Latin American and frequently testified before Congress on the issue.

The Qods Force has built up a significant presence in Latin America, especially in Venezuela, where it has forged close ties with the government of anti-U.S. President Hugo Chavez, said Farah. The organization has also long had extremely close ties with, and directly funded, Hezbollah -- a Mideast terror group that has long been linked to the drug trade and money laundering. But there has been no clear evidence linking the Qods Force directly to narcotics smuggling or to dealing with the Mexican cartels, said Farah.More

They would be a game changer? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
.........

Why Israelis aren’t surprised by the alleged Iranian plot
(By Yossi Melman, Special to CNN, October 14, 2011)

With the dramatic news of the prisoner swap with Hamas due to take place next Tuesday (where one Israeli soldier will be exchanged for 1027 convicted Palestinian terrorists), Israeli media, politicians, security officials and the public at large barely noticed the news from Washington about the alleged Iranian plot.

According to the U.S. Administration and media reports, the Iranian government was behind the plan to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and to attack Israeli embassies in Washington DC and Buenos Aires.

The conspiracy involved the Al Quds Force - a super secretive arm within Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) - a force which is responsible for maintaining contacts with pro-Iranian (usually Shiite) groups around the globe.

The 15,000 Al Quds force, led by Major General Qassem Suliemani is practically an army within an army. It is trained to conduct special operations. Its cadre of operatives train and supply weapons and explosives to the Lebanese Hezbollah and to Shiite groups in Iraq. Al Quds has been involved in building secret networks in the Gulf Emirates, Sudan, Somalia, West Africa, the Far East and South America, especially Venezuela.

Therefore, for those Israelis who were paying attention, the news of the alleged Iranian plot did not come as much of a surprise. Israel has been a target of repeated Iranian efforts and failed conspiracies to bomb its embassies and installations abroad. Thus, Israelis, unlike many in the USA who shed doubts whether Iran was indeed behind the plot because of its amateurish nature, tend to think the accusations are believable.

In 1992, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), acting via its Hezbollah proxy, approved a bomb plot against the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. More than two years later, it approved another plot to destroy Amia, the Jewish community center in the Argentinean capital, killing 86 people and wounding dozens more. This was Iranian-Hezbollah retaliation for the Israeli assassination of the Hezbollah Secretary General.

The cold but violent war between Israel and the Iranian mullahs has intensified in the last five years. In June 2006, Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded by invading Lebanon and conducting a 35-day military campaign against Hezbollah. The Shiite organization retaliated by launching 4,000 Iranian-made and supplied rockets and missiles against Israeli towns and villages.

Less than two years later, Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah's "Defense Minister" was assassinated by a powerful bomb in Damascus in February 2008, in an operation attributed to the Israeli spy service, Mossad. Hezbollah and Iran swore to avenge his killing. Since then, Israeli intelligence uncovered several plots against Israeli embassies and other targets in Azerbaijan, Egypt and a West African nation.

So a plan to attack the Israeli embassy in Washington DC is not a farfetched idea. It even makes sense. Such a plan could have had a few advantages for Iran. First, it could have avenged the killing of Hezbollah's number two, who maintained close links with the Al Quds force. It would also have embarrassed the Obama administration and showed Israel that it can't find a safe haven even in its closest strategic ally.

The same advantages could accrue from an Iranian attack on the Saudi Ambassador. The two countries are already waging a cold war of harsh words and behind-the-scenes secret operations. The rivalry between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia has accelerated in recent years. Iran, via Al Quds intelligence officers, is stirring trouble for the Saudis in the Gulf Emirates, especially in Bahrain and in Yemen. Saudi Arabia countered Iran by sending its tanks to defend the Sunni ruling family of Bahrain. Its army and intelligence also rushed to support the Yemeni regime. Riyadh is very much concerned about Tehran having nuclear weapons and senior Saudi officials were cited in U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks as expressing their desire that either the U.S. or Israel attack and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

Publicly, however, Saudi officials are very cautious. The Kingdom's officials said Thursday that they are still considering their response to the reports. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal was more forthcoming, saying during his visit to Austria,"We hold them [Iran] accountable for any action they take against us…. Any action they take against us will have a measured response from Saudi Arabia." He also noted that this was not the first time Iran had been suspected of similar operations.

Nevertheless, it is hard to explain why Iran acted so foolishly and amateurishly. In many prior incidents, Iran did a better job concealing its finger prints. But, over the past two decades, Iranian agents and officials with established links to MOIS and/or Al Quds were caught red handed in Berlin, Vienna and other European capitals. In fact, the poorly planned and executed plot could indicate that Iran was desperate to carry out the operation but lacked a suitable infrastructure in the United States. Without this, Iran lacks credible deniability.

How to Punish Iran, not Iranians
(By Jamsheed K. Choksy and Carol E. B. Choksy, World Policy Journal, October 14, 2011)

This past week an Iranian-American dual citizen was charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with attempting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington and then blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies. He was allegedly working with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) elite Quds Force. The Quds Force, a group tasked with exporting Iran’s Islamic Revolution, reports directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

U.S. president Barack Obama emphasized that the American government will ensure that Iran will “pay a price.”

One thing is clear: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America are angry. Forgiveness is out of the question, and the Iranian regime’s tactless response has been anything but mollifying. Nevertheless, Obama’s statement that Iran should “pay a price” should be considered carefully. Military action will hand the mullahs and generals a winning card, because they will use such retaliation to divert Iranians’ attention from much-needed political, social, religious, and economic reform. Unlike the fundamentalist mullahs and hardline politicians, most of Iran’s population detests the theocracy’s stifling ways and yearns for engagement with the West. Making the citizenry pay for their tyrannical leaders’ actions would turn them back to the theocracy, reinvigorating rather than weakening the Islamic regime. The Iranian regime is dictatorial and not actually representative of the people. Iranian politicians have not reacted with any kind of tact to these claims and their words should not be taken as reflecting the viewpoints of ordinary Iranians.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have been at loggerheads for years, most recently regarding the Arab Spring and its impact upon politically restless Shiites in Bahrain and the eastern Arabian provinces. The Saudi monarchy, its own totalitarianism notwithstanding, has been pushing for regime change in Tehran and for an end to Iran’s Syrian crony Bashar al-Assad.

The U.S. has spearheaded decades of sanctions against Iran for its nuclear quest. Israel in conjunction with the U.S. is believed to have been the source of the Stuxnet computer worm that disabled centrifuges in that atomic program. So directing an attack, even an amateurish one, against diplomats and embassies on American soil is plausible.

But Iranian politicians have snuffed allegations, responding with a range of accusatory counter-theories while failing to address charges with any kind of seriousness. Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi claimed it was just another “anti-Iran campaign by Americans aimed at sowing discord in the region.” Iran’s Representative to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaei wrote to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressing “outrage” at “American warmongering.”

The Chairman of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaoddin Boroujerdi, came up with an even more farfetched explanation “this is a new American-Zionist plot to divert the public’s opinion from the popular uprising known as the Wall Street protests.” Even the usually level-headed Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani could not contain himself, declaring that: “The West seeks to make a new crisis in the region to cover its own problems.”

It would serve the Islamic Republic of Iran well on the world stage to take the charges against its IRGC officers seriously. Offering to launch an internal inquiry and provide all the results to American and Saudi authorities would have calmed international tensions. Tehran’s leaders have not displayed such prudence. By blustering rather than addressing the facts, Iran’s leaders missed an important opportunity to portray their theocracy in anything less than a lurid light. A recent poll by the Arab American Institute indicates Iran’s standing among other Muslims in the Middle East has been falling precipitously. Less than 40 percent of Arabs now have favorable opinions of the Islamic Republic.

American officials believe the IRGC has resumed foreign attacks after a multi-year hiatus and that swift action must be implemented to stop such activity. They are hot on the trail of those who gave the go ahead, attempting to determine if the attack was conceived and executed by rogue officers in the IRGC or if the orders came from the Supreme Leader. Saudi sources contend that both Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the go ahead—but the Arabian monarchy has its own axe to grind against Iranian politicians, and their claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

While some Middle East foreign and foreign affairs analysts have questioned the validity of the charges, it should be kept in mind that the President of the United States, who is privy to far more information, has himself pointed the finger of guilt at the Iranian government. Ultimately, of course, the validity of the charges will be decided impartially in a U.S. court of law. So far the general consensus among American officials and Iran experts is that Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his appointees were probably not privy to the plot. They have been seeking a nuclear deal with the West for years, but xenophobic hardliners within the government’s other branches sabotaged the attempts. Senior commanders in the IRGC are appointed by, report to, and display loyalty to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The President and the Supreme Ruler do not always agree. The attacks were likely associated with the Supreme Ruler and the Quds Force. President Ahmadinejad, while still controversial, has been slightly more open to easing relations with the West. Unlike the IRGC’s rank-and-file and even middle-level officers, many of its generals—like those in the Quds Force—are hostile to the president’s attempts to reorient Iran’s internal and foreign policies. In that context, the assassination and bombing plot can be regarded as yet another way to impede the opening of Iranian society to the West.

The U.S. may be tempted to teach the Quds Force a lesson by targeting its facilities in Iran for missile strikes. The White House has made clear, “we take no options off the table.” Representative Peter King, Republican Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee added sternly “Basically, this would have been an act of war. It has raised this relationship, between the United States and Iran, to a very precipitous level.”

Yet for now the Obama administration is focusing on “working through economic measures, sanctions to isolate Iran.” The U.S. government is also considering additional diplomatic action against Iran, such as taking the current charges to the U.N. Security Council.

Unlike the Obama administration, authorities in Jerusalem and Riyadh may not show as much restraint since they are considering the launch of military operations. The Saudi government, like the American one, regards the plot as a flagrant violation of global conventions. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal warned, “We hold them [Iran] accountable for any action they take against us.” Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has warned Tehran, “We [Israel] are always fighting against Iranian terror at our borders and beyond our borders.” Nonetheless, the House of Saud is unlikely to undertake armed retaliation without assurances for protection from U.S. forces in the region. The same is likely of the Israeli cabinet, though it has been known to act independently.

The US response is imperative. Military actions could isolate and hurt the Iranian people and more moderate politicians, who are western friendly and oppressed by the clerical Iranian regime. Right now, many believe that Iran is poised to become the next country to join the Arab Spring. Over 50 percent of Iranians were born after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They also make up 40 percent of voters, and right now, 15 percent of the population is unemployed. The graffiti in malls, subways, and other public places denounce the mullahs’ power. Young activists circumvent government censorship through the Internet. Many women minimize and even reject the hijab and the conservative dress code. Men and women sport the latest western fashions in clothing, jewelry, and hairstyles. They flock to rock, punk, and rave concerts despite the threat of arrest. They embrace globalization as a central aspect of protest, especially as the state condemns it as un-Islamic. Their push for social liberalization has merged with their quest for political freedom. This group should not “pay a price” for the actions of extremists.

The Islamic Republic’s downfall cannot be accomplished through foreign missiles and Western troops. Though regime change may take time, it will come from Iran’s citizenry as witnessed in North Africa during the Arab Spring. When the theocracy begins to topple, the U.S. must swiftly assist Iranians seeking liberty.

For now the U.S. should pursue its investigation vigorously and, if Iranians at the highest levels are found complicit, should take the charges not only to American courts but to the Security Council and even the International Criminal Court. Washington must bear in mind the lessons learned from other interventions of the past decade. Ground and drone wars, billions of dollars, and thousands of lives did not bring Osama bin Laden to justice—diligent intelligence and covert operations did. The same techniques, perhaps even culminating in the form of a precise and well-planned mission, can ensure that those in Iran behind the recent terror scheme are held fully accountable.

Quote:

Why Israelis aren’t surprised by the alleged Iranian plot
(By Yossi Melman, Special to CNN, October 14, 2011)