creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Alexander Cockburn
Alexander Cockburn
13 Jul 2012
The End of America's Armies

Retired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, bounced out of his job for revels in Paris as witnessed by Rolling Stone, … Read More.

6 Jul 2012
Epitaph to a Dead Movement

It was very hard not to be swept away by the Occupy movement, which established itself in New York's Zuccotti … Read More.

29 Jun 2012
The Affordable Care Act: Decision Effects

It's tempting to say the Affordable Care Act decision spells the end of the Romney candidacy. The Mormon … Read More.

War with the U.S. Is of No Interest to Iran; Who Invented This Absurd Plot?

Comment

Even by the forgiving standards of American credulity, the supposed Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. is spectacularly ludicrous. That doesn't mean it isn't a sinister harbinger of a new crisis. Why would Iran want to kill the Saudi envoy — the mild-mannered functionary Adel al-Jubeir? To kill any ambassador — particularly a Saudi ambassador — is to invite lethal retaliation, even war.

Iran doesn't want war with the U.S.

Manssor J. Arbabsiar, an Iranian-American used car salesman from Corpus Christi, Texas, has been indicted as the chief conspirator working for Iranian intelligence. He is charged with promising to pay $1.5 million to Los Zetas — one of the Mexican drug cartels — to kill the Saudi ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.

The FBI claims that Arbabsiar told the Drug Enforcement Agency's informant — posing as a high-ranking member of Los Zetas — that it would be "no big deal" if many others died at the restaurant, possibly including United States senators. He also proposed bombing the Israeli embassy.

If even one U.S. senator died in a terrorist bombing in Washington, D.C., if anything larger than a firecracker detonated outside the Israeli embassy, U.S. bombers would be raining explosives on Iranian targets within 24 hours. Why would Iran want to invite such a response?

The supposed plot is wreathed in incidental grandiose absurdities: A side deal between the Al Quds force, part of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Los Zetas to smuggle vast shipments of opium from the Middle East to Mexico with additional plans to bomb the Saudi and Israeli Embassies in Argentina.

To repeat: Iran doesn't want war with the U.S., quite the reverse. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently tried to refloat the Tehran Research Reactor nuclear fuel swap. He proposed that Iran suspend production of some uranium-enrichment activities in exchange for fuel supplies from the United States. On Sept. 29, the International Herald Tribune ran an op-ed piece saying the proposal was well worth consideration by the U.S. government. All such hopes of a warming in relations have now been snuffed out.

There are two powers in the Middle East that most certainly do want war, or a deepening rift between the U.S. and Iran — namely Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Iranian intelligence is famously efficient at hiding its tracks. Though many believe that it was the Iranians who blew up Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 — in retaliation for the shoot-down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the U.S. Navy ship the USS Vincennes — no convincing trail has ever come to light. Yet it is supposedly Iranian intelligence that wired $100,000 to the used car salesman, allegedly a down payment for Los Zetas, using a known Al Quds force bank account.

If the bid was a false flag operation mounted by the Saudis or Israelis, an open transfer of money would be one obvious tactic. The U.S. has made swift use of dubious "plots" in the not-so-distant past.

In 1981, the United States flourished charges of a Libyan "hit squad" entering the U.S. through the border tunnel between the Canadian town of Windsor to Detroit with a plan to assassinate newly elected President Ronald Reagan. No evidence was ever offered for this accusation.

B the accusation kindled animosities that culminated five years later with the U.S. raid on Tripoli, aiming to assassinate Col Gaddafi in his compound.

In April 1993, former President George H.W. Bush was visiting Kuwait to commemorate the victory over Saddam in the Gulf War. Detection by the Kuwaitis of a plot to kill him with a car bomb was announced. The FBI duly declared that the wiring of the bomb indicated that the bomb-makers belonged to Iraqi intelligence.

In June 1993, Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., denounced the plot in the Security Council and a day later President Clinton ordered the firing of 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad. One of the missiles landed in a Baghdad suburb and killed Layla al-Attar, one of Iraq's leading artists. This set the tone for relations during the Clinton years.

There have also been some spectacular cases of gullibility on the part of supposedly seasoned U.S. intelligence operatives and high military commanders.

A year ago, General Petraeus and the U.S. high command in Afghanistan placed great confidence in Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, allegedly a senior Taliban commander empowered to make peace proposals. The U.S. negotiators and Afghan officials were initially suspicious of Mansour's credentials, but their doubts soon melted. According to a New York Times report, "Several steps were taken to establish the man's real identity; after the first meeting, photos of him were shown to Taliban detainees who were believed to know Mr. Mansour. They signed off, the Afghan leader said."

It turned out that Mansour, given quite large sums of money by the Americans, was a freelance impostor. Note that in the case of the Iranian plot, the FBI says that Manssor J. Arbabsiar correctly identified a known Al Quds force officer from a photo array.

The question is why the U.S. government should nail its colors so firmly to the mast of this purported Iranian assassination plot. On two other occasions, the U.S. made passionate commitments at the U.N. to concocted evidence — with both used as levers to launch wars.

The first was U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's unveiling to the U.N. in February of 2003 of the infamous dossier of entirely bogus evidence that Iraq had a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The second was the allegation by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, in February of this year, that Gaddafi was committing crimes against humanity up to and including genocide against his own people — charges decisively refuted by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Absurdity is not a decisive factor. Iran doesn't want war with the U.S. But how far will the U.S. go in its response, led as it is by a weak president always glancing fearfully over his shoulder at the neo-cons and the war party?

Alexander Cockburn is co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch. He is also co-author of the new book "Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils," available through www.counterpunch.com. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
"Why would Iran want to invite such a response?"

why cant self proclaimed liberals open their minds to the possibility that ahmedinajad and the ayatollahs are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi? he only mentions the occurance at every speech he gives at the UN. perhaps a little research might answer your question?
Comment: #1
Posted by: thomas Fortunato
Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:00 AM
"Why would Iran want to invite such a response?"

why cant self proclaimed liberals open their minds to the possibility that ahmedinajad and the ayatollahs are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi? he only mentions the occurance at every speech he gives at the UN. perhaps a little research might answer your question?
Comment: #2
Posted by: thomas Fortunato
Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:00 AM
If Israel goes after Iran with nukes (they got a bunch) the resulting fallout cloud, blowing east, will kill one million people in Afghan land and China over a six month to one year period.

Of course the short answer would be to go nuke free in the middle east, which includes the sole nuke power there,
as deterrence doesn't work when only one party is armed.

Comment: #3
Posted by: Soothsayer
Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:07 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Alexander Cockburn
Jul. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 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 1 2 3 4
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Jill Lawrence
Jill LawrenceUpdated 28 Aug 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 28 Aug 2014
Jim Hightower
Jim HightowerUpdated 27 Aug 2014

11 Dec 2009 Obama's Progressivism Has Petered Out

9 Nov 2007 Hillary's Big Problem and How Bill Can Fix It

13 Nov 2009 A Year of Obama