A U.S. Set-Up or an Act of Stupidity by Iran?
Published in Correio do Brasil
(Brazil) on 12 October 2011
by Antonio Luiz M. C. Costa (link to original)
(Brazil) on 12 October 2011
by Antonio Luiz M. C. Costa (link to original)
Translated from
by Deonca Williams.
Edited by Hoishan Chan .
President Barack Obama’s government loudly announced on Oct. 14 the uncovering of a supposed conspiracy by a faction of the Iranian government to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States and to commit other attacks against the Saudi and Israeli embassies. In retaliation, the United States announced new sanctions against Tehran.
Saudi Arabia immediately addressed the “flagrant violation of international law.” The British government of David Cameron added that the levels of involvement of the “elements of the Iranian regime” were shocking and offered their support to the United States in terms of punitive measures. The other allies of the United States took a more cautious stance. The high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, said that the accusations will have serious consequences “if they are confirmed” and the media of France and Germany speak of a “supposed conspiracy” and an “American accusation.”
The Iranian government is far from monolithic — the disagreements between the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are notorious. There were recent accusations of corruption by various members of parliament, and we cannot disregard a priori the possibility that some fanatical individuals are involved in a senseless plan.
But there are more reasons to question this accusation. The first, and the most obvious, is that it has already been proven that the United States and the United Kingdom made false accusations and fabricated evidence against a foreign government when they decided to invade Iraq under President Saddam Hussein. From that moment, the administrations in those countries have changed, but the policies of the state remain fundamentally the same.
The second reason is that a plot on the part of Iran to attack the United States or Saudi Arabia fits poorly in the current international situation, though on the other hand, an Anglo-American scheme against Iran makes perfect sense. During the last few months, the Arab Spring has allowed Iran to come out of its regional isolation and to start rebuilding its relations with Egypt, which alarms Americans, Saudi Arabians and Israelis. Tehran also continues to advocate for mediation with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Turkey in the hope of reaching an agreement in regards to their nuclear program, backing the offer to end the enrichment of uranium to 20 percent in exchange for fuel. It seems obvious that the regime would not want to provoke an immediate conflict, while the United States and its allies have every interest in stopping the regulation of Iranian relations and return to segregating the country.
The third reason is that the account told by the Democratic United States Attorney General Eric Holder, with powers of the Department of Justice, is in and of itself quite bizarre. From May to September, Iranian-American Manssor Arbabsiar (who was on the side of Gholam Shakuri, member of a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Army) was arrested on Sept. 29 as he made contact in Mexico with a Drug Enforcement Agency informant who pretended to be a representative of an unidentified drug ring, most likely the Zetas (Z’s).
After discussing the possibility of attacks involving explosives on unspecified Saudi and Israeli embassies (spoken about in Washington and Buenos Aires), an agreement was reached to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir for $1.5 million, possibly in a Washington, D.C., restaurant, even if it involved killing innocent people. Arbabsiar was arrested upon landing in Mexico for making the first half of the payment, where he revealed his links to factions of the Tehran government, while Shakuri is in Iran.
Why would Iran, or better yet, a faction of their government be interested in killing the ambassador or committing attacks against embassies in this moment? These types of actions are not typical of governments, even ill-intentioned ones, but more so of organizations in search of a propaganda project and conquest of militants such as al-Qaeda. This brings to mind the traditional question “Cui bono?” Or “Cui prodest?” — “Who will benefit?”
Although there may not be sufficient evidence, it definitely does point to the other side. Even before the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pressured the United States to attack Iran, seen as a revolutionary threat to their obsolete regimes. Also, it is evident that the new conjuncture of the region left them in panic due to the influence not only of the ayatollahs over the region but especially the Shiites of the east and neighboring countries.
Tehran accused the Saudis of genocide in repressing the demonstrations of unrest held by the Shiites of neighboring Bahrain, which also serves as the main base for the United States’ Fifth Fleet. On the other side, Syria and Iran give critical support to al-Assad’s regime, while the government in Riyadh was the first to break relations with Damascus and openly support dissidents.
In addition, it is evident that Washington has an interest in creating an incident, as much for international political reasons as for negotiation reasons — to discourage neighboring countries from doing business with Iran. Washington want to give a "rallying call" to its NATO allies, as well as for its impact on domestic policy because as election time nears, Obama is no longer the favorite candidate for re-election. He is trapped between attacks from Republicans on the right and criticism from “Occupy Wall Street” on the left.
When the economy is a disaster, there is nothing better than to create an external enemy to gain the automatic support of the media and the voters. As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Saudi Arabia immediately addressed the “flagrant violation of international law.” The British government of David Cameron added that the levels of involvement of the “elements of the Iranian regime” were shocking and offered their support to the United States in terms of punitive measures. The other allies of the United States took a more cautious stance. The high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, said that the accusations will have serious consequences “if they are confirmed” and the media of France and Germany speak of a “supposed conspiracy” and an “American accusation.”
The Iranian government is far from monolithic — the disagreements between the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are notorious. There were recent accusations of corruption by various members of parliament, and we cannot disregard a priori the possibility that some fanatical individuals are involved in a senseless plan.
But there are more reasons to question this accusation. The first, and the most obvious, is that it has already been proven that the United States and the United Kingdom made false accusations and fabricated evidence against a foreign government when they decided to invade Iraq under President Saddam Hussein. From that moment, the administrations in those countries have changed, but the policies of the state remain fundamentally the same.
The second reason is that a plot on the part of Iran to attack the United States or Saudi Arabia fits poorly in the current international situation, though on the other hand, an Anglo-American scheme against Iran makes perfect sense. During the last few months, the Arab Spring has allowed Iran to come out of its regional isolation and to start rebuilding its relations with Egypt, which alarms Americans, Saudi Arabians and Israelis. Tehran also continues to advocate for mediation with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Turkey in the hope of reaching an agreement in regards to their nuclear program, backing the offer to end the enrichment of uranium to 20 percent in exchange for fuel. It seems obvious that the regime would not want to provoke an immediate conflict, while the United States and its allies have every interest in stopping the regulation of Iranian relations and return to segregating the country.
The third reason is that the account told by the Democratic United States Attorney General Eric Holder, with powers of the Department of Justice, is in and of itself quite bizarre. From May to September, Iranian-American Manssor Arbabsiar (who was on the side of Gholam Shakuri, member of a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Army) was arrested on Sept. 29 as he made contact in Mexico with a Drug Enforcement Agency informant who pretended to be a representative of an unidentified drug ring, most likely the Zetas (Z’s).
After discussing the possibility of attacks involving explosives on unspecified Saudi and Israeli embassies (spoken about in Washington and Buenos Aires), an agreement was reached to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir for $1.5 million, possibly in a Washington, D.C., restaurant, even if it involved killing innocent people. Arbabsiar was arrested upon landing in Mexico for making the first half of the payment, where he revealed his links to factions of the Tehran government, while Shakuri is in Iran.
Why would Iran, or better yet, a faction of their government be interested in killing the ambassador or committing attacks against embassies in this moment? These types of actions are not typical of governments, even ill-intentioned ones, but more so of organizations in search of a propaganda project and conquest of militants such as al-Qaeda. This brings to mind the traditional question “Cui bono?” Or “Cui prodest?” — “Who will benefit?”
Although there may not be sufficient evidence, it definitely does point to the other side. Even before the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pressured the United States to attack Iran, seen as a revolutionary threat to their obsolete regimes. Also, it is evident that the new conjuncture of the region left them in panic due to the influence not only of the ayatollahs over the region but especially the Shiites of the east and neighboring countries.
Tehran accused the Saudis of genocide in repressing the demonstrations of unrest held by the Shiites of neighboring Bahrain, which also serves as the main base for the United States’ Fifth Fleet. On the other side, Syria and Iran give critical support to al-Assad’s regime, while the government in Riyadh was the first to break relations with Damascus and openly support dissidents.
In addition, it is evident that Washington has an interest in creating an incident, as much for international political reasons as for negotiation reasons — to discourage neighboring countries from doing business with Iran. Washington want to give a "rallying call" to its NATO allies, as well as for its impact on domestic policy because as election time nears, Obama is no longer the favorite candidate for re-election. He is trapped between attacks from Republicans on the right and criticism from “Occupy Wall Street” on the left.
When the economy is a disaster, there is nothing better than to create an external enemy to gain the automatic support of the media and the voters. As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”