Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Oct 11, 2011 #1
    Given the disclosures of the thwarted terrorist attack on US soil, has Iran replaced Al-Qaeda as our greatest threat?



    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: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 11, 2011 #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.
  4. Oct 11, 2011 #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.
  5. Oct 11, 2011 #4
    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.
  6. Oct 11, 2011 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Oct 11, 2011
  7. Oct 11, 2011 #6
    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.
  8. Oct 11, 2011 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.)
  9. Oct 11, 2011 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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".
  10. Oct 11, 2011 #9
    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.
  11. Oct 11, 2011 #10
    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.
  12. Oct 11, 2011 #11
    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.
  13. Oct 11, 2011 #12
    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!
  14. Oct 11, 2011 #13
    If you replace Iranian/Iran with American/America that paragraph still makes entirely too much sense.
  15. Oct 11, 2011 #14
    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: May 5, 2017
  16. Oct 11, 2011 #15
    no, he's saying it's corrupt.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  17. Oct 11, 2011 #16
    I disagree - he's saying the President could not keep his promise - this implies weakness rather than corruption.
  18. Oct 11, 2011 #17
    The article said corruption, but is definately 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)).
  19. Oct 11, 2011 #18

    Char. Limit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  20. Oct 11, 2011 #19
    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.
  21. Oct 11, 2011 #20
    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?
  22. Oct 12, 2011 #21


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  23. Oct 12, 2011 #22


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: May 5, 2017
  24. Oct 12, 2011 #23
    Are you joking?
  25. Oct 12, 2011 #24
  26. Oct 12, 2011 #25
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook