home

US Issues World Wide Terror Alert Linked to Iran

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 11:32:41 PM EST
Tags: Iran (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

That didn't take long. On its Twitter account, the State Department posted this alert tonight -- its first tweet in four days.

@TravelGov Travel - State Dept

#Worldwide #Travel alert - potential for anti-U.S. actions due to disruption of terrorist act in U.S. linked to Iran: goo.gl/RKo7B

The gist:

The U.S. government assesses that this Iranian-backed plan to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador may indicate a more aggressive focus by the Iranian Government on terrorist activity against diplomats from certain countries, to include possible attacks in the United States.

Background on the plot is in our earlier post here.

What's this really about?

< Iranians Charged With Plot to Kill Saudi Ambassador in U.S. | Underwear Bomber Pleads Guilty to All Counts >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    US Issues World Wide Terror Alert Linked to Iran | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't trust a word the U.S. government says. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 12:03:14 AM EST
    Sad, but true. Our government has proven itself to be unreliable at best and just outright deceitful at worst. So, I don't know what to think here, but it seems a safe bet that many grains of salt are called for.

    This is so convenient for the administration. Too convenient.

    Juan Cole voices (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:06:10 AM EST
    his doubts:

    Arbabsiar wired $100,000 to a bank account he thought belonged to a member of the Zeta Mexican drug cartel,

    If Arbabsiar really had been an Iranian intelligence asset, he would have been informed if there's one thing the US typically monitors, it is money transfers of more than $10,000 (as a measure against drug money laundering). The only safe way to undertake this transaction would have been cash, and no one in the Quds Brigade is so stupid as not to know this simple reality.

    Helpful Hint: The Feds have been spying on SWIFT transaction since 2001.

    Parent

    What does this have to do with Republicans? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Romberry on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    This isn't about the Republicans. Why on earth drag partisanship into the issue of skepticism? This ain't a partisan thing. This is an issue where people of all political persuasions are beginning to really mistrust everything they hear from their government because experience these last years tell them that their government lies to them. Repeatedly.

    Greenwald does a good job of dissecting the ludicrousness of this latest plot. So does Marcy Wheeler, here and here. And experts on Iran speaking to the Christian Science Monitor also say this does not add up.

    I trust Holder, Biden and Obama exactly as much as I trusted Gonzales, Cheney and Bush. Skeptical? Yeah...I'm skeptical.


    Parent

    Wheeler and Greenwald are NOT... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Romberry on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 07:53:10 PM EST
    ...professional cynics. They are skeptics. Big difference. Huge in fact. (Skepticism is warranted always and everywhere. Cynicism is poison.)

    Regardless of why you brought Republicans into this (with no real relevance at all) or how well intended you were, I took exception. Still do.

    Parent

    What's this really about? (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Romberry on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 12:25:34 AM EST
    Too soon to say what this is really about. Whatever it is, I doubt it's anything good. Could be that we're about to have another war. (War presidents don't generally lose elections.) Regardless, I'm with caseyOR: I don't trust anything from the US government that I can't verify through other means.

    It's also (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    The 11th anniversary of the bombing on the USS Cole.

    What's wrong with being a little more vigilant?

    Parent

    Eric Holder fogged the wrong mirror. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Compound F on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 12:41:28 AM EST


    So... what color is this alert? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:48:05 AM EST
    Gotta coordinate my wardrobe.

    I don't think this is about another war (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:41:52 AM EST
    and us starting another one.  Why would we need to do that?  It isn't as if we didn't know what Iran was capable of.

    Nor is this about bringing Saudis back into our corner, they never left our corner.  If they had left our corner they would have to give us all of our $hit back.

    Saudi Arabia has a ton of military equipment from us if they want to go to war with Iran.  They aren't very proficient using it, but it is theirs.

    Iran has been becoming increasingly isolated and Iran and Saudi Arabia have been at each others throats forever.  I suppose Iran hoped that killing Saudi Arabias Amb on American soil would damage our relationship with Saudi Arabia.  And maybe it would have, who knows?

    Our President can't afford one successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil right now...NOT EVEN ONE.  He is attempting to get re-elected and having looked like they got past him or he neglected to protect the nation on his watch would be DEVASTATING to his re-election bid.  He can't afford to look like a slacker on addressing terrorism....not one little bit.  That is what this is all about.

    Yup. This seems to be (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by The Maven on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    yet another attempt to convince those "independent" voters of mythic importance that the Obama administration is aggressive in prosecuting the eternal war on terror, as the generic media narrative remains that all Democrats (and I use that term loosely in regard to Obama) are pantywaists ready to flinch in the face of any enemy.

    Just as it's said that GWB felt he had to prove his manhood by "finishing" the war his father left incomplete, Obama appears to believe that he needs to outflank all Republicans -- including folks like Dick Cheney -- in waging war on America's enemies, both real and imagined, here at home and in every corner of the globe.

    Does it actually all boil down to simple issues of re-election politics and pop psychology?  Probably moreso than many people would care to admit.

    Parent

    I don't think anyone is suggesting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    Obama - or any president - should feel free to be less vigilant, but what a lot of us have concerns about is whether this is going to turn out to be one more "threat" that was engineered more from our end, using what seems to be a never-ending supply of bumbling stooges.

    Marcy Wheeler is writing a great deal about it, as more details become available.

    I think I'm just going to stay tuned for the inevitable further developments.

    Parent

    I just don't experience this administration (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 08:55:38 PM EST
    as that sort of betrayers of our trust, not on terrorism and protecting the nation.  Obama knew about this since it began in what....June.

    I have too many reasons witnessing what they have done right in the war zones that Bush left them with and what their approach to terrorism is to think they manufactured any of this.  I know I'm a horrible person for saying so, but I'm impressed with them and the war situations they were left with and what they have done with ALL OF THAT.  Wish I could say the same about our economic crisis.

    Parent

    terrorist attacks on our soil (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    have been buried before. Pinochet's secret police blew up a gentleman in his car right in D.C back in the seventies, whith minimal 'polictization' and media coverage ensuing.  And of course, the U.S itself  has a sordid, monumentally hypocritical, history of supporting terror in Latin America -- and specifically against countries like Cuba -- going back to CIA-sponsored groups like Alpha 66 and it's south Florida-based bastard children.

    But I agree with the analysis that opines that even Iran wouldn't be THIS careless and stupid in thier handling of the details of an operation like this -- no matter how much they wanted the Saudi dead.

     

    Parent

    After reading this whole thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 08:57:23 PM EST
    It would appear that you are fine jumping to some conclusions but not so fine with other jumps to other conclusions.

    Parent
    The Iranian Govt is out to kill diplomats? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 07:32:39 AM EST
    to what end?

    Sounds implausible to me.

    Boo (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    George W. Obama

    So, we supposedly foiled a plan that (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    we had been actively involved in and US travelers all over the globe are now at risk of being the targets of retalliation? Huh? This is about something...not sure what. Could be as simple as someone wanting to know if they can still scare the majority with their threat thermometer.

    Those seem to be about the only (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    plots we ever can foil, the ones we actively enable.

    Seems to me the timing - being announced right after the al-Awlaki killing - is designed to crowd out any questions about that operation.  And, with all this budget talk, it ensures that people are reminded of just how valuable and worthwhile the obscene amounts of money we spend on "national security" are.

    Parent

    It's about pulling Saudi Arabia back into our corn (none / 0) (#4)
    by redwolf on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:46:01 AM EST
    It's about pulling Saudi Arabia back into our corner again.  The Saudi's told us to get lost after we helped over throw Mubarak.  They have been courting China and Russia to be their new patron and to keep them safe from Iran and we can't have that.  

    As a person of the right me and most of the people I know wouldn't support an attack on Iran nor do we want to keep troops in Afghanistan or Iraq.  The only priority for our leaders should be "fixing the f!@#!@#!@$ economy".

    To keep them safe from Iran? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Romberry on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:10:07 AM EST
    In what way do the Saudis need the US to keep them safe from Iran? When was the last time Iran launched an aggressive war or invasion of any other nation?

    Nice to know that you wouldn't support an attack on Iran. Damn if I can understand why anyone in the US would.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:20:40 AM EST
    Iran causes a lot of upheaval all over the Arab world and Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are wholly owned subsidiaries of Iran.

    This administration, as did the previous one and as did early on the Reagan administration like to scare the natives; it keeps them in line.

    One will be hard pressed to find a single case in the last 30 years where catching a terrorist result in an immediate reaction.

    Iran is the one who is doing this. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Compound F on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:59:34 AM EST
    Your argument.  Interesting.

    I honestly think Americans are "infinitely stupid."  Faster than the speed of light stupid.

    I could not be more ashamed.

    It pains me.

    Parent

    What was that argument? (none / 0) (#22)
    by cymro on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    To me, 'incoherent' seems more apt than 'interesting'. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure what point was being argue -- either by the orginal post, or by your response.

    For example, some indication that would allow me to distinguish between serious statements and sarcasm would be useful. Is the title of your post serious, or sarcastic?

    Parent

    Maybe to try and persuade (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    the let's go to war against Iran contingent in the Congress to vote for the "jobs" bill, or portions thereof.

    From FP (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:53:01 PM EST
    Link

    That's funny: (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    While Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Captain Louis Renault issued an official statement saying that his government is "shocked, shocked" at allegations that they were behind an assassination plot...


    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:41:52 PM EST
    that gambling was going on.

    Parent
    US Issues World Wide Terror Alert Linked to Iran | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment