American-Iranian relations have been strained for some time, as the U.S. has raised continual concerns that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran has denied all such charges, claiming that they have only been using nuclear materials for energy development – a practice allowed by international law.
Many Americans defend the idea of military action against Iran because the assumption is that they are guilty of developing a nuclear arsenal, even though there is no proof of those assertions. After all, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist group (only designated as such by George W. Bush’s executive order)! How dangerous the world would be, the thinking goes, if Iran had a nuclear weapon! Wouldn’t they attack Israel?
Well, one could simply ask Egypt and Syria what happens to a nation that attacks Israel. They were both embarrassingly defeated, though they attacked Israel together. Additionally, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Do Americans really have to worry about their well-being? It would seem that if America is deeply concerned about Israel’s safety, the simplest move would be to get out of the way.
Perhaps there are other motives for picking a fight with Iran?
David Broder of The Washington Post, one of the more well-respected journalists in recent history and 400 time guest on Meet the Press, argued that starting a war with Iran would be the surest way for Barack Obama to garner conservative support, help the economy, and save his presidency.
Spend 2011-2012 attacking Iran, Broder advised the President, and enjoy your reelection. Apparently the time has come…
The story broke today that U.S. authorities foiled a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Two men – Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri – have been charged in the plot and each of them is claimed to have strong ties to the Iranian government.
In fact, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder minced no words on the connection between the alleged assassins and Iran. He said, “High-up (Iranian) officials…were responsible for this plot. I think one has to be concerned about the chilling nature of what the Iranian government attempted to do here.”
The Iranian government quickly disavowed any involvement in the plot and released this statement on their English television network – “The Islamic Republic of Iranhas rejected U.S. accusations of the country plotting to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington as a prefabricated scenario.” The denial was repeated by the Iranian spokesman to the United Nations.
Such denials, however, did not stop Holder from calling this a “flagrant violation of U.S. and international law” and promising that the U.S. will hold Iran accountable.
It would seem an open and shut case. The two men were apprehended and, though both are said to have confessed everything to law enforcement. Arbabsiar, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was read his Miranda rights and given a public defender (as opposed to the “droning” he would have received on foreign soil).
Arbabsiar reportedly approached a Mexican drug cartel for help in the plot, but his contact turned out to be an agent of the D.E.A.
Yes, indeed, an open and shut case. And even though Iran denies the allegations of their involvement, all Americans know they are liars, right?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told The Associated Press that, “the idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up, right?”
Wait…was she asking or telling?
It remains to be seen what “hold accountable” means, but it seems the war hawks are circling again. After all, it is election season.
Article also appeared on Antiwar.com – October 12, 2011