http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15269348
On September 29th the U.S. arrested Manssor Arbabsiar in the JFK airport in New York under high suspicion of his plot to bomb the Saudi Embassay in Washington DC. For many months now law enforcement and intelligence communities have been working on figuring out what Arbabsiar and his collegue in Iran have been up to. They discovered that they were planning to kill the Saudian Ambassador in DC and quickly arrested Arbabsiar before he entered onto any airplane. Thanks to the efforts of law enforcement what could have been a disastorous event was avoided.
The United States isn't the only country worried and outraged about the threat of bombing from Iran; the UK has also stated that they will back up the US in punishing Iran for its actions 100%. The reason the Iran government, as a whole, is being blamed and not just the two specific bombers involved is because the two men were apart of the Iran's Quad Force and had been given direct orders. This plot, to many other countries, is being seen as "childish acts" on Iran's part.
After his arrest, Arbabsiar confessed his involvement with the plot, but his attorney claims he is planning to plead not guilty when he is officialy indicted. Arbabsiar and other men involved in this plot were said to have contacts with informants in the US Drug Enforcement Agency who lied about their involvement with Mexican Drug Cartels. The US also discovered that the Iranian government were paying the bombers 1.5 milion dollars for the assassination of Adel al-Jubeir (the Saudi ambassador).
Both Arbabsiar and Shakuri (the other bomber not arrested at JFK) have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, weapons conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit international terrorism charges.With all this evidence and information that intelligence agencies have collected I wonder why Arbabsiar would even bother pleading not guilty? Does the US government have any hard evidence (I couldn't find any information on this)?
After the alleged conspricacy to kill the Saudian Ambassador in Washington, DC was discovered Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton really cracked down on Iran, with the threat of new penalties. Iran already has a series of international sanctions. My question about this, to you, is what do you think an effective penalty could be for Iran and/or Arbabsiar? How can Hilary send out a strong enough message to make sure other countries realize not to mess with us?
:-)
SoS. Clinton is in a bit of a difficult position because Iran and the cells of extremists that live there are very much a threat to the US and other nations. The only repercussions I could think of is to cease trade (if we trade with them) or to decrease the amount of aid we give them (once again if we give them any aid). Also by doing one of those two things, it's something that average Americans don't really care about, those kind of actions don't much interest voters and therefore doesn't hurt her chances at office if she ever chose to run again and doesn't hurt her party.
ReplyDeleteI don't know too much about what we do for Iran so I have to agree that the only penalties we can really give them is to take away anything there that is ours. Iran and the US obviously don't have good relations, and if we take any extreme actions it may cause the Iranians to try and do something worse to us. Hilary Clinton just needs to be effective and stern with whatever she decides to do, so US citizens know she is trying to keep us out of trouble and so other countries know she means business.
ReplyDeleteIt's always difficcult to find a solution to these types of problems. Perhaps the US could place negative economic sanctions on Iran, but in cases like these sanctions are often ineffective - Don't get me wrong; it could work. I'm just not certain of the type of trade relationship we have with Iran or how dependent the country is on US support.
ReplyDeleteAny solution to this problem would be difficult and reactive on each side. She needs to come up with a repercussion that is both civil and effective enough to send the message that this will not be tolerated. But, she also needs to please the U.S people with a solution that is severe enough. Taking away trade is civil but lacks the more serious demerit that the people would want.
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't a way to punish Iran here. For one, there is no concrete evidence that the Iranian government was involved. Even if we did find that evidence, how are we going to enforce this. We have no authority over the Iranian government and the Iranian people.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read about this incident it was a terrorist cell that wasn't necessarily affiliated with the Irani government. It's been said, but there isn't much we can do more than give them a slap on the wrist and ask that they crack down domestically. But really what do they care? There is no harm to them and we can't blame it on their government.
ReplyDeleteIf there isn't any proof other than rumors that the Irani government was involved, any type of sanction seems like a bad idea. But I don't have any other solution to offer up. Obviously Iran needs to be aware that this is not okay by any means, but how do we make them understand that without causing more trouble?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I read an article on Reuters about Iran wanting to reach friendly terms with America someday, but negotiations aren't working with America because what the government is saying then doing is "contradictory" and they (Irani government) don't like that. But if they say that they "love the American people" like they claim to do, to make amends wouldn't it be right for the Irani government to accept some of the blame for this or at least recognize that planning to murder a Saudian ambassador is BAD?
It seems to me there are some inconsistencies on both sides.