Barry Rubin
It should be, but will it be?
ABC News has broken a story about the disruption of a major Iran-backed terrorist plot to stage an attack on U.S. soil. According to U.S. officials, the plan was to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and to attack the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington DC. Parallel attacks were planned for these two countries’ embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Yet the case is still being developed and it isn’t clear whether the origin of this plot goes back to Tehran. According to ABC’s sources, Manssor Arbabsiar, an Iranian-American living in Texas, approached an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration thinking he was speaking with a member of a Mexican drug gang for help in the proposed attacks. He said he was acting on behalf of a cousin, Gohlam Shakuri, who might be a Revolutionary Guard official involved in terrorist operations. He offered $1.5 million for the killing, with a $50,000 down payment being paid by Arbabsiar while on a visit to Iran. These two men have been charged with conspiracy to kill, among other charges. Arbabsiar, who is now cooperating with the prosecution, also offered to provide opium in large quantity for the Mexican drug cartels. Apparently, the FBI has a lot of evidence including recordings of meetings and telephone calls with Arbabsiar.
Let’s assume that this story is accurate. What’s most important here is not the innate sensationalism of this dramatic story but its political implications. An Iranian official—perhaps two according to the indictment—are directly linked with a plan to stage terrorist attacks on American soil in which Americans would certainly have been killed or injured. This amounts to an act of war.
Indeed, it is the first time in modern history that a foreign government has been caught planning a major terrorist attack on American soil.
President Barack Obama, Homeland Security, and other top agencies and officials have the evidence and full briefings into this matter if they choose to access them. What effect would this have on U.S. foreign policy?
Already, they have had high-quality intelligence—we know this from the congressional testimony of Defense and State Department officials--that:
--Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.
--Iran is harboring al-Qaida leaders on its soil and letting them plan attacks on America from tat safe haven.
--Iran is training and supplying the Taliban with weapons and training to attack and kill Americans.
--Iran is deeply involved in attacking and killing U.S. personnel and citizens in Iraq.
And that’s not all. So is this sufficient evidence to persuade Obama that Iran regards itself as being at war with the United States? That the top priority of U.S. Middle East policy—and very possibly the number-one priority of U.S. foreign policy generally—should be to counter Iran and revolutionary Islamism? And I don’t mean by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hizballah as moderates!
In other words, is this case going to be the smoking gun—or, perhaps, the smoking bomb--that gets U.S. policy on the right course? It should be though I suspect it isn’t. But those who would be president and Congress should take note and learn from this event even if the current president doesn’t.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment