IRAN's "mastermind plot"

NoDrama said:

Iran is not going to attack the USA, Iran will attack Israel if given the chance.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON — President Obama is pressing United Nations nuclear inspectors to release classified intelligence information showing that Iran is designing and experimenting with nuclear weapons technology.

Click to expand...

For 11 years, Saddam "has ignored the United Nations," Bush said. "He is willing to use weapons of mass destruction. I again call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution. If they won't act, the U.S. and our friends will act."

Click to expand...

Carne Seca said:

O'Bama's administration jumped on the story too quickly. Now they have egg on their faces. O'Bama needs to send some heads rolling. He has some real idiots working for him.

Click to expand...

splifchris said:

Its just America sniffing around for a fight... They already have them pretty well surrounded... probably looking for reasons to put sanctions on them like they did to iraq after the first gulf war... nothing in nothing out, wait 5 or 10 years so there people a starving to death and then make up some other reason to invade them (only after destroying the entire country from the air first)

War criminals in a POOR disguise!!!

Click to expand...

Treasury.gov said:

EXPORTS TO IRAN - In general, unless licensed by OFAC, goods, technology, or services may not be exported, reexported, sold or supplied, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Iran or the Government of Iran. The ban on providing services includes any brokering function from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located. For example, a U.S. person, wherever located, or any person acting within the United States, may not broker offshore transactions that benefit Iran or the Government of Iran, including sales of foreign goods or arranging for third-country financing or guarantees.

In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods, technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or reexportation to Iran. Further, such exportation is prohibited if the exporter knows or has reason to know the U.S. items are intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling with, or for incorporation into goods, technology or services to be directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped or reexported exclusively or predominately to Iran or the Government of Iran. A narrow exception is created for the exportation from the United States or by U.S. persons wherever located of low-level goods or technology to third countries for incorporation or substantial transformation into foreign-made end products, provided the U.S. content is insubstantial, as defined in the regulations, and certain other conditions are met.

Donations of articles intended to relieve human suffering (such as food, clothing, and medicine), gifts valued at $100 or less, licensed exports of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices, and trade in “information and informational materials” are permitted. “Information and informational materials” are defined to include publications, films, posters,phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds, although certain Commerce Department restrictions still apply to some of those materials. To be considered informational material, artworks must be classified under chapter subheadings 9701, 9702, or 9703 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. With certain exceptions, foreign persons who are not U.S. persons are prohibited from reexporting sensitive U.S.-origin goods, technology or services to Iran or the Government of Iran. Foreign persons involved in such reexports may be placed on the U.S. Commerce Department’s “Export Denial Orders” list. U.S. persons may not approve, finance, facilitate or guarantee any transaction by a foreign person where that transaction by a foreign person would be prohibited if performed by a U.S. person or from the United States.

Click to expand...

deprave said:

it doesn't make sense, so much doesn't add up, Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 100 years I believe....

Click to expand...

MJstudent said:

so... does anyone really buy this? i am ashamed that the american goverment actually believes the world is that dumb. the iranian gov't decided that this texan was theyre greatest soldier to pull this off. but wait we'll get him to contract the mexican gangs? WTF? this makes zero sense to me. can anyone make sense of their claim.?

Click to expand...

Carne Seca said:

Iraq invaded Iran.

Click to expand...

ralf said:

America with Britain and Israel are going to remove Ahmadinejad one way are the other

Click to expand...

Cali chronic said:

No it does not make sense at all, as a matter of fact it is reminiscent of this.... The FBI again thwarts its own Terror plot
http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/singleton/ Self explanatory according to link title.
1. it was a 100 k hit for a diplomat
2. not a 10k hit from a Merc from Fortune mag
3. nor a 5k hit from a Bar rat
A 100k hit is paid with a deposit and or at the completion of hit via wire, offshore and not discussed with some guys posing as bad guys.
A 100K hit is a professional hit that is handled with anonymity and not talked about with strangers. Especially a Political figure. We are not talking about hitting Al Bundy for life insurance policy $ Think about it.

Think about it...

Click to expand...

ralf said:

Lets not forget Iraq invaded Iran at the behest of the American government of the time, Its common knowledge that Saddam was the American lap dog and he was armed by both America and Britain, Saddam was just a stooge with delusions of Grandeur.

America have been waiting and hoping for a chance to invade Iran or get a puppet ruler in there for many many years and they will take Iran one way or the other, or at least lots of decent young British and American boys will die trying.

The removal of Saddam was a cake walk really, that has to increase the confidence of the American hawks, ok the after effects of removing Saddam were not and still are not, a pretty sight, but America does not have to stick around to clean up the mess afterwards, if they don't want to and all that would cost them is a little bit of world bad rep, considering that Americas name is already mud in places, not least Europe, they don’t have a lot to loose on that score either.

America with Britain and Israel are going to remove Ahmadinejad one way are the other, my guess is, that one of the three allies have got a replacement all set up ready to in to the use of the dead man, just soon as they can remove Ahmadinejad, but time will yell. sooner rather than later i reckon. Credit to Ahmadinejad though, he's got bottle, he has not slipped back one inch so far, he's sticking his chin and saying take you best shot, the decision do that, will prove fatal i fancy. But will be interesting to watch developments.


Just out of interest has anyone ever heard of any prime minister, president or any other kind of ruler, installing his son in his countries invasion force?

Click to expand...

There is more insinuation than actual substance to the claims of Saddam being a "lap-dog" for the US. Furthermore, he didn't invade Iran at the behest of the US - he invaded because he was Saddam-friggin' Hussein, and no qualms about starting catastrophic wars. He wasn't even liked by most Arab countries, especially after Kuwait.

Click to expand...

The US has no interest in invading Iran, despite the rhetoric. It's a lose-lose. It's been easier to just isolate Iran, but at this point an effective balance is needed (Enter India & Turkey). No invasion will happen anytime soon.

Click to expand...

America's name might be "mud" to some, but that does not negate the immense benefits the mere presence of the US gives to just about every country in the world. And the biggest factor about leaving an unresolved mess in Iraq is IRAN. That's why there is a lot of reluctance to pull out completely, and frankly - the majority of countries in the Middle East don't want us to.

Click to expand...

Ahmadinejad is going to be gone in less than a year anyway, there is no point to focus on him - except as a possible ally against the Regime at large: Khomenei, who is the real leader of the country. At this point he (Ahmadinejad) has nothing to lose, whereas Khomenei will be there until his death. He has served his purpose, and will be forgotten about. Khomenei and the stupid shit he has pulled over the decades, will remain.

Click to expand...

ralf said:

Thanks for taking the time to give me the flip side of the story, I thoroughly enjoy hearing other peoples thoughts on the subjects that interests me.



Would you accept the idea that neither of us really knows the actual truth of the matter? And that we have both formed our opinions on the material we have read from books or Newspapers or TV news etc etc?

We have obviously read different reports to have gained two different conclusions as we have on this now historical event. As I understand the situation, Saddam did not actually succeed in invading Iraq, the Iranians stopped his forces dead in their tracks and the military exchange reached little more than defending borders.

Tony Blair once said and I believe he was spot on with it, despite the fact that I detest him personally and politically. If he died today It would not be soon enough for me.

But he actually said, "In the final analysis, "The Truth is what ever you believe" Spot on in my book. . That was probably the true thing said to the British people, in the whole time as Prime minister.

I don't believe Hussain’s popularity has any bearing on this issue and if it did, the hatred for GW Bush, even from his own countrymen, would far out way the Hussain’s lack of polarity. It rather looks as though Obama has lost his Angelic halo as well lately.

I would just state again, that in my opinion America ably assisted by Britain will take the lead in removing Ahmadinejad






On this part of your post, I can tell you, thati genuinely hope that you are correct, if only for the innocent American, British and Iranian young armed forces sake.


But I still believe that that America is going to intervene in Iran’s political affairs, either by assassinating Ahmadinejad, creating a civil war to take over the countries leader ship (as in Lybya) or invade and murder Ahmadinejad. Time will prove right or wrong of course.




The disrespect for the American government, that I mentioned, was not on my part, but on the feelings of the People of mainland Europe, mainly. Germany, Holland and Belgium, the majority of those countries seem to all but hate the last and the present governments. A European poll that was conducted a couple of years ago asked the people, Quote: Who is the biggest threat to world peace today? The result given was 85% said America, with Israel taking the great majority of the remaining votes. In my opinion the majority got it wrong, I personally believe that Israel is the biggest threat,


Could you tell me why Ahmadinejad will be gone in less than year?, i'd be interested know that, for my own information.

Click to expand...

By Scott Stewart


On Oct. 11, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that two men had been
charged in New York with taking part in a plot
directed by the Iranian Quds Force to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the
United States



, Adel al-Jubeir, on U.S. soil.


Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri face numerous charges, including
conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives), conspiracy to
commit an act of terrorism transcending national borders and conspiracy to
murder a foreign official. Arbabsiar, who was arrested Sept. 29 at John F.
Kennedy International Airport in New York, is a U.S. citizen with both Iranian
and U.S. passports. Shakuri, who remains at large, allegedly is a senior officer
in Iran’s Quds Force, a special unit of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100617_intelligence_services_iranian_intelligence_regime_preservation

believed to promote military and terrorist
activities abroad.


Between May and July, Arbabsiar, who lives in the United States, allegedly
traveled several times to Mexico, where he met with a U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) confidential informant who was posing as an associate of
the Mexican
Los Zetas cartel

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110720-mexican-drug-wars-update-targeting-most-violent-cartels

. The criminal complaint charges that Arbabsiar attempted
to hire the DEA source and his purported accomplices to kill the ambassador.
Arbabsiar’s Iranian contacts allegedly wired two separate payments totaling
$100,000 in August into an FBI-controlled bank account in the United States,
with Shakuri’s approval, as a down payment to the DEA source for the killing
(the agreed-upon total price was $1.5 million).


Much has been written about the Arbabsiar case, both by those who believe the
U.S. government’s case is valid and by those who doubt the facts laid out in
the criminal complaint. However, as we have watched this case unfold, along
with the media coverage surrounding it, it has occurred to us that there are
two aspects of the case that we think merit more discussion. The first is that,
as history has shown, it is not unusual for Iran to employ unconventional
assassins in plots inside the United States. Second, while the DEA informant
was reportedly posing as a member of Los Zetas, we do not believe the case
proves any sort of increase in the terrorist threat emanating from the United
States’ southern border.

Unconventional Assassins

One argument that has appeared in media coverage and has cast doubt on the
validity of the U.S. government’s case is the alleged use by the Quds Force of
Arbabsiar, an unemployed used car salesman, as its interlocutor. The criminal
complaint states that Arbabsiar was recruited by his cousin, Abdul Reza Shahlai,
a senior Quds Force commander, in spring 2011 and then handled by Shakuri, who
is Shahlai’s deputy. The complaint also alleges that, initially, Arbabsiar was
tasked with finding someone to kidnap al-Jubeir, but at some unspecified point
the objective of the plot turned from kidnapping to murder. After his arrest,
Arbabsiar told the agents who interviewed him that he was chosen for the mission
because of his business interests and contacts in the United States and Mexico
and that he told his cousin that he knew individuals involved in the narcotics
trade. Shahlai then allegedly tasked Arbabsiar to attempt to hire some of his
narco contacts for the kidnapping mission since Shahlai believed that people
involved in the narcotics trade would be willing to undertake illegal
activities, such as kidnapping, for money.


It is important to recognize that Arbabsiar was not just a random used car
salesman selected for this mission. He is purportedly the cousin of a senior
Quds Force officer and was in Iran talking to his cousin when he was recruited.
According to some interviews appearing in the media, Arbabsiar had decided to
leave the United States and return permanently to Iran, but, as a naturalized
U.S. citizen, he could have been seen as useful by the Quds Force for his
ability to freely travel to the United States. Arbabsiar also was likely enticed
by the money

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090304_security_implications_global_financial_crisis

he could make working for the Quds Force — money that could
have been useful in helping him re-establish himself in Iran. If he was
motivated by money rather than ideology, it could explain why he flipped so
easily after being arrested by U.S. authorities.


Now, while the Iranian government has shown the ability to conduct
sophisticated operations in countries within its sphere of influence, such as
Lebanon and Iraq, the use of suboptimal agents to orchestrate an assassination
plot in the United States is not entirely without precedent.


For example, there appear to be some very interesting parallels between the
Arbabsiar case and two other alleged Iranian plots to assassinate dissidents in
Los Angeles and London. The details of these cases were exposed in the
prosecution and conviction of Mohammad
Reza Sadeghnia

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111013-more-questions-over-alleged-iranian-plot

in California and in U.S. diplomatic cables released by
WikiLeaks pertaining to the Sadeghnia case.


Sadeghnia, who was arrested in Los Angeles in July 2009, is a naturalized
U.S. citizen of Iranian descent who at one point ran a painting business in
Michigan. Sadeghnia was apparently recruited by the Iranian government and
allegedly carried out preoperational surveillance on Jamshid Sharmahd, who made
radio broadcasts for the Iranian opposition group Tondar from his residence in
Glendora, Calif., and Ali Reza Nourizadeh, who worked for Voice of America in
London.


Sadeghnia’s clumsy surveillance activities were a testament to his lack of
tradecraft and were noticed by his targets. But even though he was fairly inept,
a number of other factors seem to support claims that he was working as an
agent for the Iranian government. These include his guilty plea, his
international travel, and the facts that he conducted surveillance on two
high-profile Iranian dissidents on two continents, was convicted of soliciting
someone to murder one of them and then returned to Tehran while on supervised
release.


Sadeghnia’s profile as an unemployed housepainter from Iran who lived in the
United States for many years is similar to that of Arbabsiar, a failed used car
salesman. Sadeghnia pleaded guilty of planning to use a third man (also an
Iranian-American) to run over and murder Sharmahd with a used van Sadeghnia had
purchased. Like the alleged Arbabsiar plot, the Sadeghnia case displayed a lack
of sophisticated assassination methodology in an Iranian-linked plot inside the
United States.


This does raise the question of why Iran chose to use another unsophisticated
assassination operation after the Sadeghnia failure. On the other hand, the
Iranians experienced no meaningful repercussions from that plot or much negative
press.


For Iranian operatives to be so obvious while operating inside the United
States is not a new thing, as illustrated by the case of David Belfield, also
known as Dawud Salahuddin, who was hired by the Iranian government to
assassinate high-profile Iranian dissident Ali Akbar Tabatabaei in July 1980.
Salahuddin is an African-American convert to Islam who worked as a security
guard at an Iranian diplomatic office in Washington. He was paid $5,000 to shoot
Tabatabaei and then fled the United States for Iran, where he still resides. In
a plot reminiscent of the movie Three Days of the Condor, Salahuddin, who had
stolen a U.S. Postal Service jeep, walked up to Tabatabaei’s front door dressed
in a mail carrier’s uniform

http://www.stratfor.com/iran_apparent_abduction_ex_fbi_agent

and shot the Iranian diplomat as he answered
the door. It was a simple plot in which the Iranian hand was readily visible.



There also have been numerous assassinations and failed assassination
attempts directed against Iranian dissidents in Europe and elsewhere that were
conducted in a rudimentary fashion by operatives easily linked to Iran. Such
cases include the 1991 assassination of Shapour Bakhtiar in Paris, the 1989
murder of Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou in Vienna and the 1992 killing of three
Iranian-Kurdish opposition leaders at the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin.


All that said, there was a lengthy break between the Iranian assassinations
in the West in the 1980s and 1990s and the Sadeghnia and Arbabsiar cases. We do
not know for certain what could have motivated Iran to resume such operations,
but the Iranians have been locked in a sustained
covert intelligence war

http://www.stratfor.com/covert_war_and_elevated_risks

with the United States and its allies for several
years now. It is possible these attacks are seen as an Iranian escalation in
that war, or as retaliation for the assassinations
of Iranian nuclear scientists in Iran

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100112_iranian_nuclear_scientist_killed

, which the Iranians claim were
conducted by the United States and Israel.

South of the Border

One other result of the Arbabsiar case is that it has re-energized the
long-held U.S. fears of foreign entities using the porous U.S.-Mexico border to
conduct terrorist attacks inside the United States and of Mexican cartels
partnering with foreign entities to carry out such attacks.


But there are reasons this case does not substantiate such fears. First, it
is important to remember that the purported Iranian operative in this case who
traveled to the United States, Arbabsiar, is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is
not an Iranian who illegally crossed the border from Mexico. Arbabsiar used his
U.S. passport to travel between the United States and Mexico.


Second, while Arbabsiar, and purportedly Shahlai, believed that the Los Zetas
cartel would undertake kidnapping or assassination in the United States in
exchange for money, that assumption may be flawed. Certainly, while Mexican
cartels do indeed kidnap and murder people inside the United States (often for
financial gain), they also have a long history of being very careful
about the types of operations they conduct inside the United States

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110817-buffer-between-mexican-cartels-and-us-government

. This
is because the cartels do not want to incur the full wrath of the U.S.
government. Shooting a drug dealer in Laredo who loses a load of dope is one
thing; going after the Saudi ambassador in Washington is quite another. While
the payoff for this operation seems substantial ($1.5 million), there is no way
that a Mexican cartel would jeopardize its billion-dollar enterprise for such a
small one-time payment and for an act that offered no other apparent business
benefit to the cartel. While Mexican cartels can be quite violent, their
violence is calculated for the most part, and they tend to refrain from
activities that could jeopardize their long-term business plans.


One potential danger in terms of U.S. mainland security is that the Arbabsiar
case might focus too much additional attention on the U.S.-Mexico border and
that this attention could cause resources to be diverted from the northern
border and other points of entry, such as airports and seaports. While it is
relatively easy to illegally enter the United States over the southern border,
and the United States has no idea who many of the illegal immigrants really are,
that does not mean that resources should be taken from elsewhere.


As STRATFOR has noted before, many
terrorist plots have originated in Canada

http://www.stratfor.com/u_s_border_security_looking_north

— far more than have had any sort
of nexus to Mexico. These include plots involving Ghazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a
Palestinian who was convicted of planning a suicide bombing of the New York
subway system in 1997; Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested when he tried to enter
the United States with explosives in 1999; and the so-called Toronto 18 cell,
which was arrested in 2006 and later convicted of planning a string of attacks
in Canada and the United States.


Moreover, most terrorist operatives who have traveled to the United States
intending to participate in terrorist attacks have flown directly into the
country from overseas. Such operatives include the 19 men involved in the 9/11
attacks, the foreigners involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the
follow-on New York landmarks bomb plot, as well as failed New York subway bomber
Najibulah
Zazi

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090922_u_s_thwarting_potential_attack

and would-be Times Square bomber Faisal
Shahzad

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100505_uncomfortable_truths_times_square_attack

. Even failed shoe bomber Richard Reid and would-be underwear bomber
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to fly directly into the United States.



While there is concern over security on the southern U.S. border, past plots
involving foreign terrorist operatives traveling to the United States have
either involved direct travel to the United States or travel from Canada. There
is simply no empirical evidence to support the idea that the Mexican border is
more likely to be used by terrorist operatives than other points of entry.

Click to expand...