EA WorldView: Scott Lucas points out that the only named source that we have to back up David Ignatius’s advancing of the claim that Gholam Shakuri “helped organize militant Shiite protesters in Bahrain” is Bahrain’s Foreign [...]]]> News and views relevant to U.S.-Iran relations from Oct. 15 – Oct. 21

EA WorldView: Scott Lucas points out that the only named source that we have to back up David Ignatius’s advancing of the claim that Gholam Shakuri “helped organize militant Shiite protesters in Bahrain” is Bahrain’s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al-Khalifa. The following is a press release from Bahraini state news:

Bahrain national intelligence agency has been totally aware of the activities of Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian Al-Quds Force operative who was accused by the US authorities of plotting to assassinate Saudi Ambassador to Washington Adel Al-Jubeir.

“This man is not new to us. Months before the indictment was issued, Bahraini and Saudi intelligence had identified him as an important “Iranian interlocutor” with several members masterminding the coup attempt in Bahrain”, Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al-Khalifa told Washington Post Columnist David Ignatius.

He wondered about the action which would be taken by the US against Iran to show its seriousness after President Obama denounced the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and warned that Iran “will pay a price”. “We’re asking the U.S. to stand up for its interests and draw the red lines,” Sheikh Khalid said, referring to Iran-sponsored attacks on American forces in Lebanon and Iraq and asked: “How many times have you lost lives, been subject to terrorist activities and yet we haven’t seen any proper response. This is really serious. It’s coming to your shores now.”

Washington Post: Experts are arguing that sanctions and other measures are “exerting a mounting toll” on Iran’s nuclear program:

“Without question, they have been set back,” said David Albright, president of the institute and a former inspector for the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Although the problems are not fatal for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they have “hurt Iran’s ability to break out quickly” into the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers, Albright said.

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran’s clerical leaders are seeking to rapidly acquire the technical capability to make nuclear weapons, though there are indications that top officials have not yet firmly committed to building the bomb. Iran maintains that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.

The Weekly Standard: Lee Smith, the senior editor of the Weekly Standard who also works with the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and frequently accuses critics of the U.S.’s “special relationship” with Israel of being anti-Semites uses the killings of Muammar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein as a pretext for the U.S. implementing regime change in Iran right now:

One day soon, however, the Iranians will cross the line, and the American president will have no choice but to retaliate​—​even if the Iranians have the bomb. There won’t be time then for the “collective action” prized by Obama and his deputies. The time for “collective action” is now.

Collective action does not mean bringing the unmovable Russians and Chinese on board. It means going after Revolutionary Guard camps. It means destabilizing Iran’s ally Syria by creating a no-fly zone there that protects the Syrian opposition and helps bring down Bashar al-Assad. Collective action means using every possible method and tactic to destabilize the Iranian regime by working with allies inside and outside of Iran. It means doing everything possible to ensure that Ayatollah Ali Khameini, stripped of his clerical robes, is the next Middle East dictator dragged from a hole in the ground.

National Review Online: In “Breaking Tehran” anti-Islam extremist Andrew C. McCarthy of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who considers President Obama a “radical leftist” declares that regime change by way of military force should be the driving motivation behind U.S. foreign policy toward Iran after incorrectly stating that all other options have been exhausted. McCarthy also says that Iran’s alleged nuclear weapon ambitions aren’t the real problem:

The point is that the problem isn’t the nukes, it’s the regime — and while there may be many sites, there is only one regime. Take the regime out, eliminate the world’s most destabilizing and incorrigibly evil force, and the challenge of Iran’s weapons program would get a lot easier. So would such challenges as the future of Iraq; the ground beneath Syria’s execrable Assad regime; and the supply lines of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and the mullahs’ other clients.

Most significant, gone would be today’s worst threat to American national security — a threat that will become only more dire if these rabid, desperate men are permitted to become a nuclear power. That is an eventuality that will come about in short order if we fail to act. It is an eventuality that we should find unacceptable, as this week once again demonstrated. And it can be stopped only by military force; other options have been exhausted, and they only vex the mullahs — they don’t stop them.

Earlier today the FBI issued a press release stating that two Iranian men have been criminally charged in a New York court for allegedly plotting to assassinate [...]]]> Update: I was interviewed on FAIR’s Counterspin radio show about this on October 13. I come in around the 15 minute mark.

Earlier today the FBI issued a press release stating that two Iranian men have been criminally charged in a New York court for allegedly plotting to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir. Here are some examples of how the U.S. mainstream media initially headlined the story:

ABC News: Iran ‘Directed’ Washington, D.C., Terror Plot, U.S. Says

New York Times: U.S. Accuses Iranians of Plotting to Kill Saudi Envoy

Washington Post: Iran behind alleged terrorist plot, U.S. says

So from the looks of things, Iran has been planning a terrorist plot on U.S. soil, right? Wrong, at least for now that is. There are many holes in this story that need to be filled before the government of Iran can be credibly accused of committing what could be interpreted as an act of war. For a summary of related events so far, read Jim Lobe’s report, and following are some preliminary questions that need answering:

1) Who has the authority to operate on behalf of the Iranian government?

If a relative of a member of the U.S. military or CIA plans a murder on foreign soil and claims he was ordered to even though the U.S. denies it, would we consider that a terrorist plot by the U.S.?

The accused named in the FBI press release are Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old Iranian-American from Texas with dual citizenship, and Gholam Shakuri, an alleged Iran-based member of Iran’s secretive Quds Force. What does the U.S. have that proves they were acting on behalf of the Iranian government, which, by the way, quickly denied the charges?

2) Who approached who first?

If Arbabsiar approached the agent first, how did he find them? If the FBI put Arbabsiar under surveillance for suspicious activities and then lured him into direct communication (which could have been the initial point of contact), was the FBI involved in other persuasive activities as well? Considering the loony aspects of this story which even Hillary Clinton has alluded to, is it wrong to question the sanity of Arbabsiar? Is it unfathomable that the FBI could have found a crazy and/or impressionable person who was acting on his own accord but was in some way related to elements of the Iranian government?

Update: A report in the Washington Post by Greg Miller and Julie Tate sheds some light on who Arbabsiar really is. According to House intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.):

It is my belief he was recruited for this particular operation

3) What are the exact details of Arbabsiar’s confession and under what conditions was it made?

4) While in FBI custody, Arbabsiar made calls to his “cousin” in Iran who is allegedly a “big general” in the Iranian army and a “senior member of the Qods Force”. How did the FBI verify his cousin’s identity?

Did the cousin verify his identity on the phone? If yes, why would he do that if they knew one another? Would the alleged cousin really have been that imprudent while speaking to someone that he was planning an assassination plot with?

5) Why is the “cousin” unnamed?

6) Why would a government that is constantly accused of conniving to build nuclear weapons so that it can allegedly wreak destruction upon its adversaries attempt to assassinate someone as insignificant as the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in such a poorly conducted plot and with the use of such low-level assailants?

While nothing is impossible, Iran has shown its capabilities in Lebanon and Iraq and this plot is not its style. You would think that after surviving for 32 years with the most powerful countries in the world against it, the leaders of the Islamic Republic would have learned a few things about carrying out high-risk operations with diligence and maximum impact — clearly not the case here.

7) What could Iran gain from this plot?

Certainly tensions have increased between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the past year, but Iran has been battling the Saudis in other ways, by exerting influence over Iraq’s government, for example. As Jim Lobe points out, if this plot is really Iran’s doing, it will only lead to more strangling sanctions and bring the threat of war closer. Unless you are among the misguided group of people who think that Iran’s current government is suicidal, taking part in an event like this is simply not in Iran’s interest.

8) What can Iran lose from this plot?

As Lobe and Josh Rogin have pointed out, Iran hawks are having a field day with this story. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) immediately called for the U.S. to collapse Iran’s central bank and unsigned opinion pieces are urging further action (what comes after sanctions?) against the Iranian “threat.” This story was also broken on the same day that further OFAC sanctions were announced, with more on the way.

I am not doubting that suspicious and worrisome events took place with regard to Arbabsiar or that Iran has animosity towards Saudi Arabia and the U.S. and vice versa (recall Saudi Arabia urging the U.S. to bomb Iran), but do we really have enough evidence to claim that the government of Iran directly attempted to carry out an assassination plot on U.S. soil? That’s a serious, game-changing charge. Even if you don’t want to accept Iran’s official denial, you need to produce more facts before you can make that case. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will do its job and provide us with them.