• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran accused over Washington terror plot

Yeah...I'm gonna call bull**** on this story. There's more than meets the eye here. Why would Iran want to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US? How does that benefit Iran in any way whatsoever? I see a couple of possibilities: 1) This was a plot by a few random dudes in the Revolutionary Guard with no high-level approval from anyone, or 2) The whole story was made up.

For what it's worth, I just walked by the Israeli embassy and there isn't so much as a police car out in front. If there was really a plot to bomb it that was just uncovered yesterday, I would have thought they'd be on a little more alert, even if it's foiled. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
At the end of the video an ABC News reporter takes a jab at Obama about this incident stating:
a government official pointed out his strategy of using soft diplomacy to bring Iran into the community of nations has so far not worked.
Click to expand...

Ouch... more fuel to add to the fire of the 2012 election.

 
Ben K. said:
So, Obama has presided over a number of legally questionable assassinations and people feel the Iranians see him as weak at this point in time?
Click to expand...
Perhaps they were emulating him?
 
Obama's position was that all we needed to do to get along with Iran is just sit down and talk to them. So he's went from being extremely naive to being Barack Cheney Obama.
 
1Perry said:
Obama's position was that all we needed to do to get along with Iran is just sit down and talk to them. So he's went from being extremely naive to being Barack Cheney Obama.
Click to expand...

Obama said from the beginning of his presidency he would to talk to Iran without preconditions. I guess that strategy hasn't worked out too well for him.
 
theplaydrive said:
Actually, I'm thinking like someone who's interested in a conservative foreign policy and you are clearly unaware of many conservatives who feel the same way if you think that's a "liberal" position. I agree that the Iranians would perceive it as weak. I, however, am not an Iranian. And no, my perception is not irrelevant because I don't believe in starting wars just because the Iranians will think I'm weak if we don't. That's probably one of the dumbest reasons to start a war ever.
Click to expand...

What the US intent is is essentially irrelevant. What is more important is what Iran perceives, and how that affects future actions.
 
mac said:
What the US intent is is essentially irrelevant. What is more important is what Iran perceives, and how that affects future actions.
Click to expand...
I never argued intent is relevant. In fact, I think it's one the most irrelevant aspects of all international politics since it's near impossible for states to effectively communicate their own and interpret each other's intentions.

My point is that starting a war because Iran would perceive it as weak if we did not is a ridiculous reason to go to war with Iran. We, like all states, determine how we treat other states, in great part according to our knowledge of how they perceive us and our actions in addition to how they will react to our handing of conflicts that we get into with them. However, war is not the only way to handle a country who perceives avoiding war as weak. There are other ways to handle their behavior.
 
I don't understand why the administration is creating an international incident over this unless there is much, much more than meets the eye. It's not like they tried to assassinate an American diplomat. If anyone should be huffing and puffing to the UN about it, it's the Saudis. I believe that there were some Iranian Qud's working with Mexican cartels to assassinate the Saudi diplomat; however, it's more than a case of dumb luck that the "cartel" member they met with was a DEA plant.

Bottom line, they got one bad guy off the street and let another one get away. Hardly worth crowing and slapping one's own back about. Announce it, then go on with the people's business... by that I mean OUR business. If the Saudis want to use us to get back at Iran, I say hell no, dammit. Let the Saudis carry their own damned water. This appears on the surface to be an overstated foreign policy fubar, or a knuckle-headed campaign tactic. Either way, the administration's methods seem... questionable.
 
I dont agree with Fox News generally

But the alleged Iranian plot and this particular Fox News story has me agreeing

 
iliveonramen said:
apdst said:
[...] We're not going to do it, because Obama doesn't have the nads.
Click to expand...
Since when is sending other people to war having nads?
Click to expand...
Since those of certain ideological persuasion began mistaking testosterone for intelligence (coincides with watching numerous Rambo movies ;) ).
 
Karl said:
So, Fox says the whole deal is yet another vast left wing conspiracy by the Obama administration? :lamo
Click to expand...

It is no less plausable then believing Iran is so incompetent as to seek the aid of Mexican drug cartels to kill people and wire $100 000 in money transfers when the US government monitors any transfer over $10 000

That someone tried to contact the mexican drug cartel to kill and bomb some people is likely, that it was arranged by the Iranian government is not. Iran does have the network and training to do this in house or through one of its associates like Hezbollah, neither of which would trust using mexican drug cartels to do the work
 
They probably used Mexicans for the simple reason that they know they'd be a shoe-in to get into the country. Everybody knows that we don't even attempt to stop Mexicans from entering. And how bad would it look if guns purchased in America in that Fast and Furious gun scandal by the gov't were used to kill a Saudi ambassador in America. Wow......that'd be freaky good for Iran.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
They probably used Mexicans for the simple reason that they know they'd be a shoe-in to get into the country. Everybody knows that we don't even attempt to stop Mexicans from entering. And how bad would it look if guns purchased in America in that Fast and Furious gun scandal by the gov't were used to kill a Saudi ambassador in America. Wow......that'd be freaky good for Iran.
Click to expand...

Iran or Hezbollah already has assets in the US by most accounts. The large number of Iranian and Lebanese immigrants in the US most likely includes a few operational assets

As for killing the Saudi ambassador, what would that actually achieve for Iran, other then pissing of Saudi Arabia and the US. It is not like the Saudi Ambassador is the King of Saudi Arabia, his death would not throw Saudi Arabia into turmoil leading to a revolution. The entire plan is idiotic and would achieve no strategic goals for Iran and instead would cause far more headaches for Iran then any potential benifits (of which I cant see any)
 
Just a prop to go to war with Iran without doing a 9/11 on us. I thought it was going to happen when Romney got into office but I guess not. When we take over Iran, will soon find ourselves with an engagement with Pakistan. When that happens, they'll initiate a draft.
 
Shame its non nav but very competetively priced.. Just shows how hard it is to shift metal at the moment! glws..
 
This really doesn't seem like Iran's government, at least at the top levels planned this.

Why would the Zetas risk a full blown American crackdown for a mere 1.5 million? Furthermore, if the assassin was rouge, it would be in the Cartel's interest to kill that guy before he actually pulled it off. The LAST thing the Cartels want is Obama and Calderon coming down on them.

Seems like someone moderately up, or just a rich civilian in Iran has a grudge to settle.
 
I notice that at the beginning of this thread a lot of folks agreed with Ahmadinejad that this plot was too much like a bad movie plot to be plausible. Thus, the US must be lying about it. Now people are agreeing that it is plausible, but only to say the US must have set it up as an excuse to attack Iran.

I find that curious.

Another thing to consider is that terrorism doesn't follow the lines of logical, rational statecraft. Terrorism in born out of fanaticism. So when a terrorist maneuver seems illogical or poorly thought out from a geo-political standpoint that's only because...it's terrorism.
 
EagleAye said:
Another thing to consider is that terrorism doesn't follow the lines of logical, rational statecraft. Terrorism in born out of fanaticism. So when a terrorist maneuver seems illogical or poorly thought out from a geo-political standpoint that's only because...it's terrorism.
Click to expand...

But the other thing about terrorism that is often forgotten in lue of more colourful rhetoric such as "they hate us for our freedoms" or they're "Evil" is that terrorism is ultimately a tool used by said fanatics to achieve a political goal, what the maneuver is, however illogical and poorly thought out is not nearly as important as its impact.

If you actually look at it on paper, with all the hurdles that had to jumped to make 9/11 happen, it would seem ludicrous on paper.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I dont agree with Fox News generally

But the alleged Iranian plot and this particular Fox News story has me agreeing

Click to expand...

Napolitano is someone I wouldn't mind being president.
 
Jetboogieman said:
But the other thing about terrorism that is often forgotten in lue of more colourful rhetoric such as "they hate us for our freedoms" or they're "Evil" is that terrorism is ultimately a tool used by said fanatics to achieve a political goal, what the maneuver is, however illogical and poorly thought out is not nearly as important as its impact.

If you actually look at it on paper, with all the hurdles that had to jumped to make 9/11 happen, it would seem ludicrous on paper.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Terrorists lack the wisdom of a statesman. They're going for impact, rather than the careful, methodical maneuvers borne of experience. What they lack for wisdom they make up for with tenacity and cunning.

So they can draw up an improbable plan, and by sheer force of will make it work, but cannot stop and think about the difference between "could" perform an act and "should" perform an act.
 
I'm currently cognizant of the lies that supported the Libyan debacle and know that as wars wind down, so do jobs and the Military/Industrial profits, so it's full time work to gin up wars and excuses for wars and cold wars and covert wars and it's all good business, very profitable. Then there's all that OIL. Is there even a remote chance that these types of motivation may be behind the huge Mass Media coverage this event instantly drew as opposed to, for example, to the Occupy Wall Street protests and the paucity of coverage. This is the Media working the minds to influence an sublimal agenda. Could the agenda be war, I mean big business, I mean big money making big money and sharing with the politicians and the military. Bidness as usual, perhaps? Won't Darth Cheney be pleased?
 
jasonxe said:
Just a prop to go to war with Iran without doing a 9/11 on us. I thought it was going to happen when Romney got into office but I guess not. When we take over Iran, will soon find ourselves with an engagement with Pakistan. When that happens, they'll initiate a draft.
Click to expand...

I agreed until "they'll initiate a draft".

There's no way we'd be fighting constant wars if people were drafted to fight them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom