In prepared remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper reviewed “global threats to the United States.” He covered a number of things, one of which was the alleged Iranian plot to kill a Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC back in October. New York Times:
Mr. Clapper also addressed possible threats from Iran as tensions with that country over its nuclear program escalate. He said that the alleged Iranian plot last year to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States “shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived US actions that threaten the regime.”
…He also said the United States is concerned about Iranian plotting against American or allied interests overseas, adding that “Iran’s willingness to sponsor future attacks in the United States or against our interests abroad probably will be shaped by Tehran’s evaluation of the costs it bears for the plot against the Ambassador as well as Iranian leaders’ perceptions of US threats against the regime.”
I think this was the very first mention of that case since the dust settled in the days following its initial publicity. What was true then is still true now – that is, no evidence has been made public which substantiates the claim that this was an Iranian plot. And the evidence that is public puts the “Iranian plot” scenario into serious question. As I wrote at the time, practically every Iran expert poked holes in the official story and most of the plot was hatched by U.S. law enforcement as opposed to the disgruntled Texas-based Iranian-American accused.
Clapper’s other claim that America needs to be on alert for Iranian attacks “against our interests abroad” is a perfect example of an Orwellian inversion of the truth.
First of all, much of what he means by “our interests abroad” is “our ability to attack Iran.” The U.S. has garrisoned Iran’s surroundings with the most provocative militarism on the globe. U.S. troops and bases in the region are used as strategic locations from which to launch a military attack on Iran. As the New York Times reported in October:
The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
…In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.
With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.
Far be it from Iran to view that as a security threat.
Secondly, Iran is weak and inept. Their military capabilities are so meager compared to the United States that it’s a wonder Americans buy into Washington’s warnings that they’re a threat. They are also not building a nuclear weapon, which makes them defenseless against the U.S. Iran is now also suffering from some of the harshest economic sanctions in the world that are now beginning to cripple their economy. Yet, this is the country we need to worry about attacking us (not, of course, the other way around, which is far more likely).
