Alleged Iran Terror Plot tied to Mr. Bean, Saudia Arabia, Iraq and Bahrain
\nOctober 15th, 2011 – Jasmin Ramsey – lobelog<\/p>\n
The details of the alleged Iranian terror plot are getting more interesting and complicated by the day. In addition to experts analyzing its sketchy details, a significant amount has been written about Mansour Arbabsiar\u2019s lifestyle and personality, with a former business partner and friend telling Reuters that \u201cIf they\u2019re looking for 007, they got Mr. Bean.\u201d But what\u2019s more important is the way the plot is being further tied to Iran, even while the credibility of the two main witnesses is being seriously questioned (read this for more<\/a> on the DEA and the DEA informant\u2019s role in the plot).<\/p>\n Just consider the elaborateness of these allegations: not only did the conspiracy allegedly involve an Iranian assassination plot against a diplomat from Saudi Arabia on U.S. soil, it\u2019s also being tied to the unrest in Bahrain and U.S. losses in Iraq. Thus, the unnamed \u201ccousin,\u201d who Arbabsiar described as a \u201cbig general in [the] army,\u201d according to the complaint, is identified in a press release about new OFAC sanctions as Abdul Reza Shahlai \u2014 the same man who, as reported by Laura Rozen, was previously designated as the Qods Force deputy commander behind the 2007 raid in southern Iraq by a Shiite militant group that killed five U.S. soldiers. Robert Mackey of the New York Time\u2019s blog The Lede also informs us that Saudi scholar and former royal family adviser Nawaf Obeid told McClatchy that Gholam Shakuri, the other Qods officer behind the alleged plot, was suspected by Saudi intelligence of \u201cfomenting unrest in Bahrain on behalf of Iran\u2019s government.\u201d<\/p>\n So the first conspirator named by Arbabsiar is said to have harmed the U.S. in Iraq, and the second is allegedly behind the protest movement in Bahrain which is ongoing despite the crackdown by Bahrain\u2019s ruling family with the help of some 1,500 Saudi and Emirati troops. Could this really be possible? Always. Is it likely or even plausible? Not really.<\/p>\n Some questions in addition to the ones I asked on the day the accusations were made public:<\/p>\n 1) The first mention of Arbabsiar\u2019s \u201ccousin\u201d in the FBI complaint is made by the DEA informant, CS-1: \u201cDuring their July 14 meeting, CS-l asked ARBABSIAR about ARBABSIAR\u2019s cousin\u2026\u201d This means that the initial conversation about Arbabsiar\u2019s cousin was not documented. Why is that and what did it involve?<\/p>\n 2) Since the DEA informant is a \u201cpaid confidential source\u201d, how are we to assess his role in the plot, considering his incentives (not necessarily restricted to financial ones) to bring Arbabsiar in? (Also read Stephen Walt\u2019s comments about the FBI\u2019s track record with these kinds of conspiracies.)<\/p>\n 3) Would a high-level Qods force member not be able to assess Arbabsiar\u2019s shady and shaky character before asking him to carry out an extremely risky assassination attempt with his own reputation on the line? Was the Iranian Mr. Bean his only option?<\/p>\n 4) Even if Arbabsiar\u2019s cousin is indeed Shahlai, and Shahlai is who the U.S. claims he is, does he represent the Iranian government? What if Shahlai, for various possible reasons, acted on his own accord? In other words, was this an Iranian plot or an Iranian cousin\u2019s plot?<\/p>\n Again, the question is not whether Iran is capable of terrorism (because it is) or about Arbabsiar\u2019s guilt, but whether the Iranian government was behind an act of international terrorism on U.S. soil. When the media headlines pieces on this case using phrases like \u201cIran plot\u201d it is going to be remembered by readers as such regardless of the facts presented. The long-term effects of this on the U.S. psyche remain to be seen, but is there enough evidence to even make that claim at this point? This question is particularly important when prominent pundits such as those that pushed for the invasion of Iraq are pushing for a military response to Iran. Consider the recent words of well-known neoconservative Reuel Marc Gerecht in the Wall Street Journal:<\/p>\n The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage. If we don\u2019t, we are asking for it.<\/p>\n Until hard evidence is offered by the Obama administration to back up its far-reaching allegations, more questions need to be asked. It\u2019s disconcerting that while the U.S. is gearing up to respond with further punitive measures against Iran, the most important question hasn\u2019t even been adequately answered yet.
\n…source<\/a><\/p>\n