Developing Stories

HOLDER: IRAN PLOTTED ATTACK ON US BASED DIPLOMATIC TARGETS Yesterday's disclosure by the US Justice Department that the Iranian government was actively involved in plotting terrorist attacks on American soil has sent shock waves around the world. The plot, allegedly targeting Saudi Arabian and Israeli diplomats and diplomatic facilities, is just the latest in a series of Iranian actions that place it squarely outside of the norms of international behavior. As detailed in the criminal complaint made public yesterday, high level officials in the Iranian government sought to enlist someone that they believed to be a member of the Zetas, the notoriously violent Mexican drug cartel, to assasinate Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir. The plot called for the assasination to take place in a public, at a restaurant, where large numbers of American citizens would have inevitably been casualties. The audacity of the plan says a great deal about the worldview of the Iranian regime, their intentions towards the United States, and the likelihood that relations with the regime will ever by normalized. Diplomatic outreach has yielded nothing of value to date, and the upper echelons of the Iranian regime are intent on further degrading an already non-existant relationship. We here at Iran180 believe that this is yet another example of the Iranian regime's true nature. We call on leaders from around the world to make it known to the Iranian regime, through words and deeds, that this type of behavior is beyond the pale. Below, please find several pieces of insightful analysis into this fast developing story The Iranian-Saudi Cold War Heats Up

By Simon Henderson
ForeignPolicy.com, October 11, 2011

The extraordinary detail of the alleged Iranian-backed plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir, revealed today by Attorney General Eric Holder, raises all sorts of questions. Why would Iran have wanted to carry out such a killing here in the United States, where its "fingerprints" on such a plot would have had -- indeed, will have -- such an impact on U.S. policy toward Iran?
If, as the now-unsealed amended complaint reveals, there had been "a hundred, a hundred and fifty" people killed and injured, including "senators," there would have been huge political pressure on the White House to order a retaliatory military strike on Iran. An Iranian spokesman has responded by rejecting the charges as a "ridiculous show" -- but will the Islamic Republic persist in what certainly appears to be a newly aggressive policy?
And what will be the reaction of Saudi Arabia -- where Prince Nayef's Interior Ministry last week warned rioting Saudi Shiites not to act "at the behest of a foreign country" (code for Iran) and promised that Saudi Arabia "would strike with an iron fist" against disaffected citizens to preserve the "security and stability" of the kingdom. The news of the Iran plot may have already driven the United States and Saudi Arabia closer together: King Abdullah and Jubeir met with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon on Oct. 1 to discuss "a number of issues of mutual interest" -- we now know what at least one of those items must have been.
More trivially, one could facetiously point out that targeting Jubeir would have been problematic because he often seems to be out of Washington. Indeed, he seems to spend a huge amount of time back in Saudi Arabia, where he is King Abdullah's favorite English-language translator.
And, the issue that will intrigue Washington society as well as its political class: Which was the restaurant where Jubeir was going to be "hit" where he ate "like two times a week," according to the indictment. My bet is on Cafe Milano in Georgetown. It's known to be one of al-Jubeir's favorite haunts -- even if prosciutto di parma and Pinot Grigio aren't obvious fare for a Saudi diplomat.
Simon Henderson is the Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute

Iran’s Covert War Against the United States

Oct 11, 2011 8:55 PM EDT

The Iranian attempt on the Saudi ambassador’s life shows that Tehran is meaner and nastier than ever before. And no longer fears U.S. military retaliation. says Brookings’ Ken Pollack. Plus, Eli Lake on the escalating shadow war.

It’s shocking, but not entirely surprising to learn that the United States government has evidence that the Iranian regime was trying to kill Saudi Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir.

Of course, we need to be careful with this claim. It has not yet been conclusively proven, and it would not be the first time that Iran was accused of something it didn’t do. Nor would it be the first time that the U.S. government was convinced of something that later turned out not to be entirely correct (see “Iraqi WMD”).

That said, the confidence of the U.S. government in its claim is striking, and if its contentions are borne out, it would represent a major escalation of Iranian terrorist operations against the United States. That said, it would not necessarily represent a radical departure from the trend in recent Iranian foreign policy.

In particular, while this plot—a mass casualty attack on U.S. soil—would go well beyond what Iran has attempted in the past, it would represent an extrapolation of another pattern, namely the emergence of a more aggressive, risk-tolerant Iranian regime over the past two years.

In 2009, Iran experienced its own version of the Arab Spring. In response to the rigged re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, millions of Iranians took to the streets in protest, demanding the end of the Islamic regime and the creation of a new democracy in its place. Iran’s leaders briefly debated what to do before Tehran’s hardline faction won out and the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered its powerful security apparatus to crush the revolt.
The harder-line leadership has pursued a more aggressive, more recalcitrant, and more anti-American foreign policy

Iranian policemen carry a portrait of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a parade in Tehran, in May 2011, Vahid Salemi / AP Photo

Newsweek Cover Story

• The Shadow War

This crackdown was not only focused externally on the Iranian people, however.  At the same time, Khamenei and other Iranian hardliners—particularly the leadership of the Revolutionary Guard—also purged the government of its more moderate elements. Pragmatists like former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani were sidelined or ousted altogether, and the regime that emerged reflected the Iranian radical perspective more than at any time since the 1980s.

Not surprisingly, this harder-line leadership has pursued a more aggressive, more recalcitrant, and more anti-American foreign policy than at any time since the early days of the revolution. Over the past two years, Iran has ramped up its support for radical Shiite groups in Iraq, who have in turn stepped up their attacks on Iraqi Sunnis, on more moderate Iraqi Shia, and on American troops. In Afghanistan, Iran has provided more assistance and more lethal weaponry to the Taliban, contributing to the rising U.S. and Afghan security-force death toll there. Remarkably, despite the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929—which imposed unexpectedly harsh sanctions on the regime for its refusal to halt its nuclear program, causing widespread economic hardship in Iran—Tehran thumbed its nose at international offers to negotiate an end to the nuclear impasse. Meanwhile, the regime has steadfastly clung to its Syrian ally, backing its slaughter of thousands of civilian protesters rather than give up its dictatorship.

It is against this backdrop that we should weigh the possibility, as suggested by the U.S. government claim, that Iran may have tried to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States by blowing up a restaurant on American soil. If true, it would suggest three important things about Tehran’s thinking that take us beyond what we already believed:

1. That the regime believes it is already locked in an undeclared covert war with the United States—perhaps believing that the United States was behind the Stuxnet virus that set back Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the killing of several Iranian nuclear scientists on Iranian soil. Alternatively, the regime may believe that the Israelis were behind those acts, but that the U.S. (and Saudi Arabia) egged them on.

2. That the regime is willing to go way beyond anything it has ever done before to strike blows against the United States in this war. For instance, in the 1990s, the last time the regime (mistakenly) reached a similar conclusion, the most it did was to detonate a truck bomb outside an American military housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen. The Saudi-American tie was there in this attack as well, but at that time, the Iranians stayed off American soil.

3. That the regime may no longer be concerned about a massive American conventional military retaliation. In the past, that fear has been an important restraint on Iranian action against the United States. Again, if true, this plot suggests that the Iranians may believe either that the United States is so consumed with its own internal problems and so determined to avoid another war in the Middle East that the American people would not countenance any action that might risk escalation with Iran. Alternatively, it may suggest that Iran believes its nuclear program is far enough along to deter conventional American military retaliation.

Each of these would be troubling in its own right. It's why it is so important to substantiate both the plot, and its connection to Iran. Because if it is valid, it represents a very significant set of steps in the wrong direction for Iranian strategy.

Nevertheless, even if the claim is shown to be valid, we should not assume that this means that Iran is an irrational nation hell-bent on harming Americans at any cost, as it is sometimes depicted in the Western press. Even after the 2009 purge, the Tehran regime is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which was recklessly aggressive to the point of inadvertent suicide. But, if this incredible claim is proven true, it should remind us that Iran also is not a normal country by any stretch of the imagination, and that in a Middle East already in turmoil we now face a more aggressive, more risk-taking Iran that may be looking to stir the pot in ways that it once found imprudent.

The quiet war erupts

Iranian agents accused of plotting assault on U.S. soil

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran has engaged in a slow escalation of conflict against the U.S. (Atta Kenare, AFP/Getty Images / October 12, 2011)

October 12, 2011

For years, Iran has quietly waged war against the U.S., allying with and arming this nation's enemies. Now that war has come to U.S. soil.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that federal authorities have foiled a plot by men linked to the Iranian government to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States by exploding a bomb, possibly at a Washington, D.C., restaurant

This chilling news caps a long, slow, deliberate escalation of Iranian provocation:

• Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guards, armed its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan to target U.S. troops and accelerate the U.S. military withdrawal. U.S. defense officials say Iranian-supplied weapons have killed U.S. soldiers.

• Iranian speedboats have challenged U.S. and allied warships in the Persian Gulf, setting up a series of near-collisions. The U.S. response? An overture to Iran, to set up a military-to-military hotline to defuse such clashes. Tehran's answer: Forget it.

• American officials say Iran has forged an alliance with al-Qaida, allowing the terrorist organization safe passage to send cash, arms and fighters to its operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

• Iran has armed the terrorists of Hamas in Gaza and dispatched thousands of rockets to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, posing a direct threat to Israel, a key U.S. ally.

A quiet, largely client-based war. But this war is no longer quiet.

Holder called the plot "an international conspiracy by elements of the Iranian government."

Holder said the two men charged, Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri, are connnected to the Quds Force, a division of the Revolutionary Guards, the power behind Iran's ruling mullahs. Arbabsiar was arrested and reportedly provided details of the plot, but Shakuri is still at large.

"In addition to holding these individual conspirators accountable for their alleged role in this plot, the United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," he said.

So what will the U.S. response be? How will the U.S. hold Iran accountable? By slapping on more economic sanctions? By rushing out a furious diplomatic cable?

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We should learn more about how complicit its leaders were in this attempt to stage a terrorist attack in the U.S. that would have targeted an ally and most likely claimed U.S. lives.

Iran continues to develop a nuclear program. It is a state sponsor of terrorism with a determination to go nuclear. Round after round of economic sanctions haven't deterred Iran, which is closer to atomic bomb-building capability. The Iranians may have conducted experimental work to develop warheads to deliver nuclear payloads.

And now, it appears, Iranian agents were plotting to launch an assault in Washington. The war has come home.

  Chicago Tribune

Could 'Iran's assassination plot' be an opportunity for Saudi Arabia?

The details sound far-fetched, but Iran has used terror proxies before. If true, the Saudis have been gifted a golden opportunity

• 
• PJ Crowley
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 October 2011 08.15 EDT
• Article history

The US case accuses the Quds Force of being behind the plot: such an act would have required a direct order from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Photograph: Rouzbeh Jadidoleslam/AP

The alleged plot involving Iranian agents planning to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in Washington, DC, potentially killing scores of Americans at the same time, is on the face of it so fantastic that it begs a disclaimer. There may be more to this, or less to this, than meets the eye. At this point, we simply don't know.

It is important to keep in mind that grandiose plots straight out of Hollywood – foreign governments, Mexican drug cartels and government informants – are typically higher on aspiration than actual capability. However, the alleged active involvement of the Quds Force, which is connected at the hip with the Iranian leadership, is – if true – a serious development. How high up the Iranian hierarchy is unknowable – not unlike Pakistan and its knowledge of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden – but it is a safe assumption that there was at least some government complicity in the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir. But why?

A rogue plot? Perhaps, but if successful, it would be a strike at a near enemy – and one of that enemy's best friends.

The Saudis (the near enemy) and Iranians are locked in a pitched contest for geopolitical primacy in the Gulf. Saudi concern about the rise of Iran and its nuclear program matches that of Israel.

Broader changes in the neighborhood have heightened the regional stakes. In Syria, embattled leader Bashir al-Assad is an Iranian client. The emergence of a Sunni-led government in Syria would be the most significant development in this time of remarkable Arab transitions. The Saudis and Iranians have other political tugs of war underway in Bahrain, Yemen and Iraq.

Obviously, the second shoe would be embarrassment to the United States, which has an international responsibility under the Vienna Conventions to protect the diplomatic corps in Washington, not to mention a well-regarded and respected ambassador of a close friend.
It's unclear how much Iran would stand to gain by sanctioning or supporting this plot. It is true that US-Saudi relations have some existing stresses – the Saudi monarchy believes that the Obama administration tossed another close friend, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, over the side earlier this year. Perhaps the Iranians were thinking that additional sand in the gears of the US-Saudi friendship can't hurt. Again, who knows?
If official Iranian sponsorship is proved, what should the United States and the international community do in response?
Iran long ago earned its membership on the US list of state sponsors of terror – it has used surrogates against targets in this hemisphere before. There remains no easy military action regarding the full range of concerns about Iran, from its support for terrorism to its pursuit of nuclear know-how.
Through effective action by both the Bush and Obama administrations, there have been multiple rounds of sanctions in recent years. As a result, countries and companies around the world have reduced levels of business dealings with Iran. For any multinational corporation, the reputational costs of doing business in Iran – or even doing business with someone else who does business with Iran – have grown.
There should be a new opportunity to sanction an expanded universe of individuals and entities, and perhaps broader categories of economic activity linked to the Iranian government and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. More can be done to isolate Iran, and further action by European and Asian countries will be essential.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the plot will give the United States additional leverage in dealing with Iran. The real leverage may rest with Saudi Arabia, with a powerful commercial weapon it can use with an array of countries that have hedged their dealings with Iran in the past. For example, Saudi Arabia can have a blunt conversation with an emerging power like China, with which Saudi Arabia has growing commercial ties. China, as evidenced by its veto of a UN security council resolution last week condemning Syria for using extreme violence against its people, prefers not to mix international politics and business.

Call it Saudi Arabia's "with us or against us" moment. Business as usual is no longer an acceptable answer.