Has Iran replaced Al-Qaeda as the greatest terror threat?

  • News
  • Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date
In summary, the thwarted terrorist attack on US soil has heightened Iran's importance as our greatest threat. Arbabsiar is a US citizen and is alleged to have planned to have a drug cartel carry out the assassination of an American ambassador with a weapon of mass destruction. We need to tighten our borders in order to prevent future attacks.
  • #1
WhoWee
219
0
Given the disclosures of the thwarted terrorist attack on US soil, has Iran replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-iran-tied-terror-plot-washington-dc-disrupted/story?id=14711933

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/11/iranians-charged-over-terror-plot-in-us/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2-arrested-in-alleged-plot-to-kill-us-ambassador-to-saudi-arabia/2011/10/11/gIQAykavcL_story.html [Broken]



http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-28/middleeast/world_meast_iran-navy_1_iranian-announcement-iranian-state-news-iran-today?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
no. in fact the "weapon of mass destruction" rhetoric being used already in reference to a bomb is highly suspect. no way in hades am i going to in any way get behind a sorry excuse to get ourselves into yet another quagmire. just no. NO FREAKING WAY! just put this guy in jail and walk away.
 
  • #3
It sounds more like a car bomb. The real issue is they planned to cross the Mexican border with a drug cartel - to commit a terrorist attack on US soil. We need to tighten our borders.
 
  • #4
WhoWee said:
It sounds more like a car bomb. The real issue is they planned to cross the Mexican border with a drug cartel - to commit a terrorist attack on US soil. We need to tighten our borders.

yeah, and that's another thing. Eric Holder is currently embroiled in a little scandal called "Fast and Furious" where we've been shipping guns into Mexico funding their little terrorism war on the people of Mexico. this all stinks to high heaven, and we need to stop, get our bearings, and figure out just what the heck is going on in our government.
 
  • #5
WhoWee said:
The real issue is they planned to cross the Mexican border with a drug cartel - to commit a terrorist attack on US soil. We need to tighten our borders.

Wow, how is that the real issue, and how is that what they planned?

I get that he wanted the cartel to carry out the bombing, and I would ASSUME they already have people in the united states, even as actual American citizens. Arbabsiar is a US citizen, he was just meeting with people in Mexico to make contacts with the cartel. He also flew to Mexico from Germany, and possibly planned on crossing the border to get back into the US but HE'S A US CITIZEN, so it's not like he was trying to sneak across. Assuming no warrants he would have no problem crossing back into the US at the border, NOR SHOULD HE.

Why do you want to move a terrorism issue to a border issue. Unless you have some proof that wasn't in your links that they planned on crossing the border to carry out this attack ,I just don't see how you stretch to that being the "real issue" after reading those 4 articles. Maybe I missed something in one of them.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Hepth said:
Wow, how is that the real issue, and how is that what they planned?

I get that he wanted the cartel to carry out the bombing, and I would ASSUME they already have people in the united states, even as actual American citizens. Arbabsiar is a US citizen, he was just meeting with people in Mexico to make contacts with the cartel. He also flew to Mexico from Germany, and possibly planned on crossing the border to get back into the US but HE'S A US CITIZEN, so it's not like he was trying to sneak across. Assuming no warrants he would have no problem crossing back into the US at the border, NOR SHOULD HE.

Why do you want to move a terrorism issue to a border issue. Unless you have some proof that wasn't in your links that they planned on crossing the border to carry out this attack ,I just don't see how you stretch to that being the "real issue" after reading those 4 articles. Maybe I missed something in one of them.

From the links
"According to a criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday, Arbabsiar met with a DEA informant — who was posing as a representative of a Mexican drug cartel — to arrange the killing. At one point, the complaint says, Arbabsiar told the informant that he would need four men to carry out the ambassador’s murder and that he would pay $1.5 million for the operation.

As a down payment, Arbabsiar allegedly later arranged for $100,000 to be wired to an account that was secretly overseen by the FBI.

“Though it reads like the pages of a Hollywood script, the impact would have been very real and many lives would have been lost,” said FBI Director Robert Mueller."


This tells us we have a legitimate threat and very little chance of stopping a major weapon from crossing the border if these groups were to coordinate efforts.
 
  • #7
Again, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the bomb as well as the 4 operatives would not already be inside the US. Cartels have tons of people and resources within the borders already, and I'm sure there are plenty of US citizen cartel members. (Though I'd assume they wouldn't be in this case.)
 
  • #8
Hepth said:
Again, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the bomb as well as the 4 operatives would not already be inside the US. Cartels have tons of people and resources within the borders already, and I'm sure there are plenty of US citizen cartel members. (Though I'd assume they wouldn't be in this case.)

Hepth, you are using logic and observation of facts to confront a discussion that is laden with emotion and has, as these things so often do, brought in side issues that, along with the emotion, are a distraction to any helpful discussion of the topic at hand. What I've noticed over the years is that what you are doing is, unfortunately, an exercise in what the military call "pissing up a rope".
 
  • #9
Hepth said:
Again, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the bomb as well as the 4 operatives would not already be inside the US. Cartels have tons of people and resources within the borders already, and I'm sure there are plenty of US citizen cartel members. (Though I'd assume they wouldn't be in this case.)

If the cartel was involved at any level - they need to be shut down aggressively. If they weren't involved - they need to understand the severity of consequences if they ever decide to participate.
 
  • #10
phinds said:
Hepth, you are using logic and observation of facts to confront a discussion that is laden with emotion and has, as these things so often do, brought in side issues that, along with the emotion, are a distraction to any helpful discussion of the topic at hand. What I've noticed over the years is that what you are doing is, unfortunately, an exercise in what the military call "pissing up a rope".

I agree this is an emotional issue and the exercise you've described is applicable to both the security along the soft under-belly of the US border and our handling of Iran.

It's quite clear that if the border isn't secured - it will be exploited. That is the most immediate threat to the security of the US at this moment and both the Mexican government and the cartels need to understand it is unacceptable.

The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.

Personally, I think we should make it very clear to the people of Iran that their leaders have gone too far and if their military forces cross the border into Iraq when we leave - they will be met by 1,000 missiles.

I believe the people of Iran will make the sane choice - if given the opportunity and the motivation - enough is enough.
 
  • #11
WhoWee said:
I agree this is an emotional issue and the exercise you've described is applicable to both the security along the soft under-belly of the US border and our handling of Iran.

It's quite clear that if the border isn't secured - it will be exploited. That is the most immediate threat to the security of the US at this moment and both the Mexican government and the cartels need to understand it is unacceptable.

The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.

Personally, I think we should make it very clear to the people of Iran that their leaders have gone too far and if their military forces cross the border into Iraq when we leave - they will be met by 1,000 missiles.

I believe the people of Iran will make the sane choice - if given the opportunity and the motivation - enough is enough.

we're currently killing people in at least 3 states surrounding Iran at the moment. and for all you know, we may also be conducting operations in Iran itself. so please, clam down and try to get some perspective.
 
  • #12
Proton Soup said:
we're currently killing people in at least 3 states surrounding Iran at the moment. and for all you know, we may also be conducting operations in Iran itself. so please, clam down and try to get some perspective.

I've long believed the key to dealing with Iran is to appeal to her people. We missed the last opportunity and now the door has swung wide open.

As for Mexico and the drug cartels - no mas!
 
  • #13
WhoWee said:
The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.

If you replace Iranian/Iran with American/America that paragraph still makes entirely too much sense.
 
  • #14
Adyssa said:
If you replace Iranian/Iran with American/America that paragraph still makes entirely too much sense.

Actually, an Iranian General seems to agree with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/masoud-jazayeri-wall-street_n_1002598.html [Broken]

"Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.

"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.

"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA."


Apparently the Iranian leaders think the US and it's leadership is weak?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
WhoWee said:
Actually, an Iranian General seems to agree with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/masoud-jazayeri-wall-street_n_1002598.html [Broken]

"Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.

"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.

"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA."


Apparently the Iranian leaders think the US and it's leadership is weak?

no, he's saying it's corrupt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Proton Soup said:
no, he's saying it's corrupt.

I disagree - he's saying the President could not keep his promise - this implies weakness rather than corruption.
 
  • #17
WhoWee said:
I disagree - he's saying the President could not keep his promise - this implies weakness rather than corruption.

The article said corruption, but is definitely implying weakness. They're related though - corruption implies the need to accomplish things underhandedly, which is leadership weakness. A strong leader could do things in the open and by the rules and be just as effective.

The government corruption does extend beyond President Obama, but outwardly he's our figurehead so it all gets put on him.

I remember President Bush being called an evil warmonger - but was he ever called corrupt and weak by other countries? Instead I remember many references to being a cowboy (which has connotations of being strong, but perjoratively independent (but still not dependant on corruption)).
 
  • #18
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.
 
  • #19
Char. Limit said:
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.

The general security of our country is one thing that most Republicans would buy into without too much problem - if it were done efficiently. I thought the willingness to spend money on security was one of the big beefs that collectivists have with the right? Why is this a suprise?

Personally, I am on the fence about it (hehehe). Can we effectively control our borders against plots like this? There is also the flip side - a fence works both ways. It keeps people out, but it also keeps people in. However, absent any real internal enforcement (aka Arizona-type enforcement) we need to be doing something to understand whom is in our country and why.
 
  • #20
Char. Limit said:
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.

We need to put the resources somewhere and the Mexican border's a war zone. What's the alternative - wait until something happens and re-deploy to Iran?
 
  • #21
In my opinion, no, Iran has NOT replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat. This alleged plot, if true, was to take place here, but not against the USA. It was alleged to be against a Saudi ambassador.
 
  • #22
Char. Limit said:
I find it funny how many conservatives want to "tighten the borders", apparently without realizing how much that would cost. Odd, considering they scream about anything else that costs any amount of money.
I find $3600B/year of spending and $1600B/year of borrowing worth screaming about.

A full US southern border fence is estimated to cost about http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm" [Broken] Consider that against the costs imposed by illegal immigration and drug traffic across that border, and the benefit to US society if illegal flow could by cut from ~500,000/year to 50,000/year or so, and perhaps replaced by legal immigration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Bobbywhy said:
In my opinion, no, Iran has NOT replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat. This alleged plot, if true, was to take place here, but not against the USA. It was alleged to be against a Saudi ambassador.

Are you joking?
 
  • #25
WhoWee said:
Are you joking?

why would he be joking? this is not a direct attack on the US, but on saudi arabia. it certainly doesn't even come close to justifying a war.
 
  • #26
Proton Soup said:
why would he be joking? this is not a direct attack on the US, but on saudi arabia. it certainly doesn't even come close to justifying a war.

If the Iranian Government plans or enables the bombing of a restaurant in New York or Washington DC - putting citizens (or even US Government officials) in harms way - it's an act of war. Perhaps they need to be more careful - in the future only plan to bomb Embassy locations in the US or the UN - so there's no chance of justifying a war?
 
  • #27
WhoWee said:
If the Iranian Government plans or enables the bombing of a restaurant in New York or Washington DC - putting citizens (or even US Government officials) in harms way - it's an act of war. Perhaps they need to be more careful - in the future only plan to bomb Embassy locations in the US or the UN - so there's no chance of justifying a war?

oh, the war drums are being beaten fiercely on the news. the israeli ambassador is on CNN right now beating the war drum. perhaps the israelis should go fight their own war and leave us out of it. because this is an extremely weak case for a war.
 
  • #28
  • #29
Proton Soup said:
oh, the war drums are being beaten fiercely on the news. the israeli ambassador is on CNN right now beating the war drum. perhaps the israelis should go fight their own war and leave us out of it. because this is an extremely weak case for a war.

When you consider the Government has known about this for a few weeks to a few months - MIGHT there be more going on than we know at this point?

While I don't want to go to war with Iran - it's my opinion that we need to shake off the fear and be very specific in dealing with them.
 
  • #30
Proton Soup said:
we're currently killing people in at least 3 states surrounding Iran at the moment. and for all you know, we may also be conducting operations in Iran itself. so please, clam down and try to get some perspective.

Yesterday, you thought President Obama might "also be conducting operations in Iran itself".

I maintain the best way to deal with Iran is to inform their people of the activities and potential consequences.
 
  • #31
WhoWee said:
Are you joking?

No sir, I was not joking. If Iran could be proven to have sent its Quds force to assinate a Saudi Ambassador here on US territory (unlikely) and even if all your speculating about some big weapon carried across the Mexican-American border was delivered and detonated in a restaurant here in the USA it would NOT
a.) replace al Quaida as our greatest terrorist threat, and
b.) be a legal basis for declaring war on Iran

"Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

True, our country has a history of trumping up causes to make war. See the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution justifying the Vietnam War, The 9/11 attacks justifying the War in Afghanistan, and the WMDs of Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq War.
 
  • #32
Gleen Greenwald has a good article on this:

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_very_scary_iranian_terror_plot/singleton/ [Broken]

I liked the article and agreed with basically all of what it said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
WhoWee said:
When you consider the Government has known about this for a few weeks to a few months - MIGHT there be more going on than we know at this point?

While I don't want to go to war with Iran - it's my opinion that we need to shake off the fear and be very specific in dealing with them.

ok. what specific action do you propose?
 
  • #34
Bobbywhy said:
No sir, I was not joking. If Iran could be proven to have sent its Quds force to assinate a Saudi Ambassador here on US territory (unlikely) and even if all your speculating about some big weapon carried across the Mexican-American border was delivered and detonated in a restaurant here in the USA it would NOT
a.) replace al Quaida as our greatest terrorist threat, and
b.) be a legal basis for declaring war on Iran

"Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

True, our country has a history of trumping up causes to make war. See the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution justifying the Vietnam War, The 9/11 attacks justifying the War in Afghanistan, and the WMDs of Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq War.

I agree, there isn't enough evidence to attack them. However, have you actually read the details of the plot or my posts? Who said the Quds forces were being sent to the US?

Also, what is the basis of your comments - dismissing the possibility of a weapon (big or small) crossing the southern border with Mexico? Do you think the border is secure? Do you think the drug cartels are incapable of moving weapons across the border - now or in the future? Do you find it acceptable this guy flew repeatedly between Mexico and Iran?

Next, who wants to declare war on Iran? In post 10 (my bold) - I wrote:

"It's quite clear that if the border isn't secured - it will be exploited. That is the most immediate threat to the security of the US at this moment and both the Mexican government and the cartels need to understand it is unacceptable.

The second problem is the Iranian attitude that they can do whatever they want without consequence. IMO - we need to communicate to the people of Iran - some of them rallied against the leadership a few months ago - and let them know the dangerous path their leaders have chosen. It should be made clear that actions have consequences.

Personally, I think we should make it very clear to the people of Iran that their leaders have gone too far and if their military forces cross the border into Iraq when we leave - they will be met by 1,000 missiles.

I believe the people of Iran will make the sane choice - if given the opportunity and the motivation - enough is enough."


******
We have sacrificed blood and treasure in Iraq and evidence exists Iran has aided the enemy against us in the region. Recently, Iran spoke of sailing their warships in the Atlantic. Now, we discover a terror plot connected to Iran that would have taken place in our nation's Capitol.

Accordingly, I think we should communicate very clearly to the leaders and the citizens of Iran - that which we know to be true - and allow Iran to make a specific choice moving forward.

Specifically, the border with Iraq should be declared off-limits when our troops are pulled out. If Iran chooses to be the aggressor and invade Iraq - they should suffer massive losses.
 
  • #35
Proton Soup said:
ok. what specific action do you propose?

Our zipper is down at the Mexican border - and the world knows it. That is a more immediate threat to US national security than Iran.

However, we need a plan to deal with Iran - given their increasing willingness to test the limits. I don't think the average person on the streets of Iran want war with anyone - especially the US. IMO - if the people of Iran understand the risk of following their leaders down this path - they might just "vote" them out.
 
<h2>1. What evidence suggests that Iran has replaced Al-Qaeda as the greatest terror threat?</h2><p>There is no clear evidence to suggest that Iran has replaced Al-Qaeda as the greatest terror threat. Both organizations have been designated as terrorist organizations by the United States and have been responsible for numerous attacks and acts of violence. However, their motivations and tactics differ, making it difficult to compare them as the "greatest" threat.</p><h2>2. How does the US government view Iran and Al-Qaeda in terms of terror threats?</h2><p>The US government views both Iran and Al-Qaeda as significant terror threats. However, they are seen as distinct entities with different ideologies and methods. Iran is considered a state sponsor of terrorism, while Al-Qaeda is a non-state actor.</p><h2>3. Is there any evidence of collaboration between Iran and Al-Qaeda?</h2><p>There have been reports of some limited cooperation between Iran and Al-Qaeda, particularly in the early 2000s. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they have formed a formal alliance or that Iran is actively supporting Al-Qaeda's terrorist activities.</p><h2>4. What are the main differences between Iran and Al-Qaeda in terms of their goals and tactics?</h2><p>Iran's main goal is to spread its influence and promote its Shia ideology in the Middle East, while Al-Qaeda's goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Iran primarily uses state-sponsored terrorism and proxy groups to achieve its goals, while Al-Qaeda relies on individual acts of violence and terrorist attacks.</p><h2>5. How does the international community view Iran and Al-Qaeda as terror threats?</h2><p>The international community has designated both Iran and Al-Qaeda as terrorist organizations and recognizes them as significant threats. However, there is often disagreement on how to address these threats, with some countries supporting sanctions and diplomatic efforts against Iran, while others focus on military action against Al-Qaeda.</p>

1. What evidence suggests that Iran has replaced Al-Qaeda as the greatest terror threat?

There is no clear evidence to suggest that Iran has replaced Al-Qaeda as the greatest terror threat. Both organizations have been designated as terrorist organizations by the United States and have been responsible for numerous attacks and acts of violence. However, their motivations and tactics differ, making it difficult to compare them as the "greatest" threat.

2. How does the US government view Iran and Al-Qaeda in terms of terror threats?

The US government views both Iran and Al-Qaeda as significant terror threats. However, they are seen as distinct entities with different ideologies and methods. Iran is considered a state sponsor of terrorism, while Al-Qaeda is a non-state actor.

3. Is there any evidence of collaboration between Iran and Al-Qaeda?

There have been reports of some limited cooperation between Iran and Al-Qaeda, particularly in the early 2000s. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they have formed a formal alliance or that Iran is actively supporting Al-Qaeda's terrorist activities.

4. What are the main differences between Iran and Al-Qaeda in terms of their goals and tactics?

Iran's main goal is to spread its influence and promote its Shia ideology in the Middle East, while Al-Qaeda's goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Iran primarily uses state-sponsored terrorism and proxy groups to achieve its goals, while Al-Qaeda relies on individual acts of violence and terrorist attacks.

5. How does the international community view Iran and Al-Qaeda as terror threats?

The international community has designated both Iran and Al-Qaeda as terrorist organizations and recognizes them as significant threats. However, there is often disagreement on how to address these threats, with some countries supporting sanctions and diplomatic efforts against Iran, while others focus on military action against Al-Qaeda.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top