MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Brian Bennett, Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2011
An elaborate Iranian-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States was disrupted by FBI and DEA agents, officials said Tuesday.
Members of an elite Iranian security force planned to detonate a bomb at a busy Washington, D.C. restaurant, killing Adel Al-Jubeir, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. and possibly over one hundred bystanders, according to court documents filed in the Southern District of New York.....
The plot was infiltrated by a Drug Enforcement Agency informant posing as a member of a Mexican drug cartel. The plotters planned to pay a member of the Zetas cartel $1.5 million to carry out the attack....An Iranian-American, Manssor Arbabsiar, 56, has been arrested in the case. An Iran-based member of the secret Quds Force unit of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Gholam Shakuri, was also charged, but is not in custody.....
Comments
CNN is conducting a live blog on topic including this link read the Justice Department complaint (PDF)
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 4:11pm
This is going to be "interesting" as it unfolds if the facts hold up. Just in terms of Saudi - Iranian relations if nothing else.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 4:54pm
Interesting is understatement. I'm thinking maybe Sunni vs. Shiite Summer to follow Arab Spring? I must admit my mind runs wild...Iraq and Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain, (and its U.S. navy base,) Iran's Greens....what say you Egypt...etc. Nukes for all?
Meanwhile I am sure much of the western left will continue to think that if only Palestine was a state, everything would be hunky dory over there.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:27pm
For the last ten minutes I was thinking of coming back and saying "and did I mention Archduke Ferdinand of Sarajevo?" and before I could get to it, I just heard Chris Matthews steal it from me.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:58pm
I agree. The tensions between the Sunni and Shiite groups is just looking for the right match to light something not so good- one never knows what it is going to be. This could it (or not). In one strange way, Israel, through its function as the common enemy, has served to keep some conflicts under wraps for a long time.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:58pm
has served to keep some conflicts under wraps for a long time.
Anyone who really knows the region will tell you that most mideast dictators and pols used Israel as the bete noire to distract largely illiterate populations from sectarian tensions (which included talking one way to their people in their own language and another way in English to the rest of the world.) Israel stupidly obliged/obliges the narrative from time to time in cycles with its own behavior, enough so that the distractive narrative resonated all the more.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:18pm
Read the FBI statement and still cannot figure out what was going on. Sounds like it was maybe more personal than political even though the target is foreign official and one of the conspirators is very loosely connected to the Iranian military. The statement indicated more information would be forthcoming. Maybe it will make more sense then.
Did you notice that the name of the Manhattan bank was very obviously withheld?
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:05pm
Sounds like it was maybe more personal than political
Hope so! But even if it is, I think convincing the Saudis it isn't might be another matter.
Did you notice that the name of the Manhattan bank was very obviously withheld?
No, thanks for pointing it out.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:30pm
Mike Issikoff is on the story and just did a summary in a segment on Hardball, trying to explain what's known so far. It was pretty clear that he thinks "there's something here," that it's not just a penny ante scheme of renegades. It's to do with Al Quds faction of the Iranian government. I'm going to watch for what he publishes on it, he's really good at this kind of thing. Oh, and he said something about the Treasury department, that they have targeted certain accounts today.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:04pm
Follow the money.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:07pm
If Al Quds is really behind this, I wonder how their day will go at the workplace.
by moat on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:22pm
moat, I did not totally get your joke until after my reading yesterday. you really know your stuff.
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:58am
Mike Isikoff: Iranian military official implicated in assassination plot, deadly Iraq attack, NBC News, from 6 hours ago:
continuedby artappraiser on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 1:47am
I'm still missing the motive here. What could Iranian officials possibly hope to get out this?
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 1:49am
Stay tuned. This is one of those "there's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear" things.
I should add this from Isikoff's piece:
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 1:58am
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 2:16am
Julian Borger @ The Guardian, Oct. 11, 18:55edt:
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:08am
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:16am
I don't buy a word of it. You've got an indicted DEA drug-cartel informant, posing as a hit man capable of planting a bomb in D.C., an Iranian-American described by associates as "scatterbrained," and a "plot" that's been simmering since June, so carefully monitored that "the Saudi ambassador was never in danger." I'm sure he wasn't. And the one actual link to Iran is a guy they don't have in custody. Hey, believe it if you want.
And casting the Iranian-Saudi animosity as a deeper "Sunni-Shiite" division is simplistic -- to use the mildest, most polite term for it. You all do realize your government has a dozen or more of these "plots" going at any one time that it pulls out at politically opportune moments, don't you?
No wonder Americans elect Republicans.
by acanuck on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 4:11am
Whether true or not, the U.S. government is making a much bigger deal of it, more than the usual "plot." And that's why it's news worth following.
As a matter of fact, if you are wont to see it that way, Sec. Clinton in an hour interview with AP Tuesday afternoon doesn't appear to be hiding anything, then, here is her "plot," and it includes pretense that she too finds it to stretch credibility:
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:27am
Appraiser, I totally agree that this is important, specifically because of the way the U.S. government is hyping it. That is the story. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin!
And "whether it is true or not" (and what parts are true) is a crucial question.
Baer is a lone voice of skepticism; everyone else is running with speculation as to how high the orders came from, how it imperils Mideast peace, etc. -- as if the whole tale were factual and proven.
You say "neither of us can truly know without following the reports on it as they develop." Sometimes the truth takes a very long time to emerge, and by then lots and lots of people have died.
How long did the Vietnam War last after the Tonkin Gulf "incident"? How long have U.S. troops been occupying Iraq, long after the search for WMDs was called off? My skepticism has deep roots in American imperial history.
by acanuck on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:50pm
Agree acanuck. If Americans got 1/10th as thrilled, interested and informed on what goes on, or has gone on, in America, as they do in other cultures, or countries most can't even find on a map, we and our country would be a lot better off.
Example, Amerithrax, which Frontline had a hour on last night shedding doubt on the FBI's closing of the case, with a dead 'lone gunman' implicated yet never to stand trial. The anthrax attack did, of course, create hysteria which Bush used to start the Iraq War, as he assured us there were biological WMD in Iraq, which, of course, they did not have. The anthrax was ours. The convicted after death Ivins, was the second scientist who was voluntarily working on the case helping the FBI, and who was conveniently fingered in the attack. Hatfill being the first implicated, yet he fought back and vindicated himself. There has not been one peep out of a Dagblogger on the case and the shoddy police work, one of the most pivotal terror attacks in US history.
by NCD on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:41pm
My feeling is that certain events are intended as demonstrations of what might happen to people that don't get with the program.
by Donal on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 6:58pm
Frontline had an interesting link in the comments section to a Las Vegas news report from 12/2001 saying that the Utah Dugway Army Biowarfare facility may have been the source of the anthrax spores, and had at least a pro forma 'investigation' by the FBI related to the anthrax attacks.
by NCD on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:57pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 4:56am
Art, Here is the best link you are going to find, I'm surprised you missed it! http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2011/10/would-iran-really-plot-to-blow-up-...
by Daoud Al Ameriki (not verified) on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 4:22pm
It does completely undermine Iran's strategy to play nice as possible with international bodies while going ahead with as many activities they can get away with. Simultaneously declaring war on the U. S. and Saudi Arabia just seems ridiculous.
by moat on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 6:21pm
.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:43pm
I don't get it.
by moat on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 9:40pm
Sorry mote, I posted a comment and then decided that I didn't want to keep it up. I was joshing with "David the American" who is our dear friend David Seaton. Nothing to do with what you wrote moat.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 10:13pm
by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 5:41am
Much better Seaton. You can teach an old dog new tricks. You're learning. By the way, I have no idea if there's anything to this.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:14am
Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I.e., just because it's illogical and counterproductive doesn't mean Iran couldn't have done it. We've done plenty of illogical and counterproductive things ourselves, after all. (That sentence works no matter how you parse "we".)
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:31am
by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:26am
I wouldn't rule out the Revolutionary Guard, Mossad, or the CIA. With respect to the Revolutionary Guard, all organizations have their screw-ups. As for "the Persians" being "not at all nuts", that I'm going to have to challenge. All humans (and many non-humans) are nuts.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:16pm
Totally agree VA. I was just trying to encourage David to work on his conspiratorial speculations over a broader spectrum of humanity.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:46am
I read a ton of stuff on this yesterday and collected a lot of links--but unfortunately I don't have time to clean the notes & post them right now. In the end---sooo many theories, very many naysayers, but usually for different reasons, a lot of supposed "experts" contradicting each other about Al Quds organization and what's going on in the Iran government as well, many lists of questions, lots of speculation, lots of opinion. Maybe I'll be able to fit it in tomorrow but also maybe by then developing on this will make it all look pretty lame, as it's already starting to do to me as it coagulates in my brain.
But taking a quick look at this thread, your comment here, Atheist, is the one that jumped out at me. Because over at Uskowi on Iran, I looked not only at his posts on it but at the comments on them, because I know he gets attention from those that really know Iran's military. And your comment reminded me of one comment there jumped out at me.
His blog is pretty apolitical, he doesn't get into much opinion if at all, he mostly posts factual analytics about Iran, like the kind of info. that businesses would pay him for as a consultant. Well in the comments on this thread, when commenters started with the "this is ridiculously unbelievable," he posted this comment:
No one else that I read pointed that out about Shakuri. No one else that's a supposed "expert" opining on it right now seems to be reading the Iranian media on it as closely as he. And he's not ready to imply what's going on yet.
(As a matter of fact, after reading what I read yesterday, it seems to me that a lot of "Mideast experts" in the west, including the ones in American gummint, don't know much about Iran at all. If they did, they wouldn't be saying so many conflicting things about it's workings.)
l8ter guys.... uskowi says wait & see, maybe I'll take his advice
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:57am
Maybe I have a leg up on the experts because one thing I do know is that I don't know nothing.
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:59am
Amen VA (no pun intended)!
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:05am
by jollyroger on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:23pm
The term, "Credible deniability" was coined to describe ludicrous claims that were incredibly hard to believe but ones that, as long as they were possible, so called credible but duplicitous people could make with a straight face and still keep their incredibly lucrative jobs while [almost certainly] punking the public with the protection provided by a lie. I cannot think of a handy concise term to use for a corollary, maybe, "Incredible but possible assertion".
All we are asked to believe is that the international bad guys are uniquely deadly and dangerous and evil and bloodthirsty [they will actually kill people and risk killing innocents for their purposes] and incredibly smart and devious, while also being incredibly amateurish, often to to point of stupidity, while at the same same time our intelligence services are incredibly competent, never devious, always above-board, and also are on one hell of a lucky streak.
An example is the computer bombs sent from Yemen. So cleverly designed and demonstrative of the grave high tech capabilities of our backward terrorist enemies that they could have worked but were apparently part of such an intricate plan that for some diabolical reason they were set to not explode. It was suggested the bad guys just wanted to be sure that the delivery service would actually take the bombs to the address that was on them before setting the triggers on the next shipment. And how did we know just where to find the computer bombs in the nick of time that had been shipped by common carrier? From a tip by an insider to the terrorist operation sent to the Saudis who passed it on to us. What luck!, the tip included a tracking number. At least that is the incredible story we were told, when, to try to make this incredible story believable to a credible public, our brilliant agents who saved us again let that be known. They incredibly let let the incredible idea be known that someone on the inside of what was most likely a very small group ratted on the bad guys to our benefit. A rat that was in a position to know the tracking number. I wonder how the following days of this extremely valuable, to us, terrorist group insider went after that? If he even existed, that is. One way or another, he doesn't now. Or maybe he does, but that would be hard to believe.
How many plots have been discovered through incredible luck. Any one of them could have played out the way we are told but the odds that so many did so are getting pretty long.
The Saudi ambassador's death would have had no more operational significance if he had died of a heart attack. There was no reason to kill him except to make a statement. Its purpose could not have been to foil some operation or break up some group. Its purpose had to be to make a statement, to start something. [Like a war, maybe?] For it to have been an Iranian plot and for it to have benefited them after being successful they would have had to openly take credit or else have had to successfully made the killing look like it was done by someone else, depending on their devious intent.
Nobody seems to think they could have had any chance of the killing not traced back to them if it had gone through to its [alleged] intended end. If we give them credit for not being such morans that they thought they could pull off a moronic plot and make the world think someone else did it, then we must think that they wanted the killing to happen with the intention of the world knowing they did it and that they wanted the consequences that would result. I suppose that is incredibly possible.
I don't have to think that the Iranians are all good guys, operatives who are all above pulling off black ops or false flag operations, to think of alternate scenarios that are, in this case, easier to believe, scenarios in which other actors from other countries are more likely responsible.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:54pm
But, Lulu, the government looked very carefully at the evidence and they're still convinced -- really, really convinced -- that the Iranians did it. Or tried to do it. Who are we to argue? What are we, commies?
by acanuck on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:05pm
Remember when the Defense Department was accusing Iran of killing U.S. troops by supplying IEDs to Iraqi militias. The argument was that the "shaped charges" being used were too sophisticated to be made in Iraq, so they had to have come from Iran.
Then they raided an arms workshop and found -- guess what? -- dozens of shaped charges at various stages of completion. So that line of complaint, which up till then had fueled pundit outrage, vanished overnight. Not a peep from the experts and analysts about how they'd all bought this load of BS. Memory hole.
I recall Colin Powell at the United Nations, holding up a vial of baby powder and describing how, if it were toxin X or Y, it could kill everybody in the room, or New York, or the world. As if that were evidence of anything, except the poor quality of the State Department's dramatic writing department.
Your government lies to you, people. And to the world. Routinely.
The only difference is that you, the American people, routinely believe them. The rest of the world laughs, and shakes its head ruefully. "There they go again." But the humor is starting to wear thin.
by acanuck on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:30pm
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:49pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 6:36pm
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/08/2012 - 12:53am
by artappraiser on Fri, 10/19/2012 - 10:26am
by artappraiser on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 4:05am