Obama Administration Denies Killing Iranian Nuke Expert

An Iranian nuclear expert was killed in Tehran using a magnetic bomb attached to his car by assassins on motorcycles in typical Hollywood movie fashion. And, in typical, squishy liberal, politically correct fashion, the White House is denying that they had any involvement whatsoever with the killing.

My question is this: Why even dignify the accusation with a response one way or the other? Iran makes a habit of nabbing hikers dumb enough to wander across their borders with espionage, while consorting with two-bit dictators who accuse us of giving cancer to every dictator coming and going. Outlandish accusations (whether this would be considered outlandish or not) are common place with the Iranian regime.

Silence in the face of these accusations would seem to be the right move. But nobody ever accused the Obama Administration of making the right moves, especially when it comes to foreign policy or Iran in particular.

UPDATE: Obama condemns the killing, Santorum says we should have kept our mouths shut. Amen.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 11, 2012.
Filed under Iran.
Tagged with: .
I'm not an author, lawyer, or professor. These seem to be the most common careers of bloggers these days. I'm just an average, commonsense, conservative who lives in a red state that flipped blue. America is lacking in the commonsense department. We've got plenty of lawyers and professors.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    We know the US didn’t do it.  It has been decades since the US had the capacity to undertake and succeed with an operation such as this.  The most likely culprit is the Mossad and they don’t talk about their ops.

    The only reason for Barry to say anything is to create the impression that we could have.  By issuing a denial the admin can bask in the reflected glow of a successful intel op. One they wish they had the ability and the stones to carry out themselves.  (and before the lefties start hyperventillating about Bin Laden, that was a military op)

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

      Yeah, the Church Commission pretty much killed our capacity to carry out that sort of clandestine operation.  Special Forces or Seals could pull it off but the brass would never permit the military to get into assassinations (besides bin Laden) – not that they wouldn’t realize the need, but they wouldn’t risk getting anyone caught.  So you can be sure it was either the Israelis or that Iranian dissident group we have on the terror list because an American was killed in one of their bombings (although apparently not the target).  Maybe a joint op between them.

  • ackwired

    I think the administration responded because they were accused.  They were probably accused because the day before Obama said that we would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.  If you were Iranian, would you put these things together?

    I would agree that the Mossad would top the list of usual suspects.

    • jim_m

      I think the administration responded because they were accused.
      You mean that obama is thin skinned?  I’ll agree with that.

      • ackwired

        Actually, I would say that he is closer to insensitive than he is to thin skinned.
        ________________________________
        From: Disqus
        To: ackwired@yahoo.com
        Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:54 PM
        Subject: [wizbang] Re: Obama Administration Denies Killing Iranian Nuke Expert
        Disqus generic email template

        jim_m wrote, in response to ackwired:
        I think the administration responded because they were accused.
        You mean that obama is thin skinned?  I’ll agree with that.
        Link to comment

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    We haven’t had this sort of clandestine capacity since the Church hearings eviscerated the CIA.  It is either the Israelis or a particular Iranian dissident group.  I can’t remember their name, but they got on our list of terrorist organizations years ago, and nobody comes off of those.  Possibly a joint action with Tel Aviv, though.

    Faster, please.

  • Brucehenry

    One, who is TWB, and why should we care what TWB thinks would be the wise course? Introduction, please?

    Two, where is Jay Tea?

    • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

      Look at the footer between the end of the post and the beginning of comments. Where it says “TWB” is a link. When I hover my cursor over that link I see something that suggests an actual name.

      • jim_m

        The name was Ms Shannon Bell.  Now it just says “posts by TWB.  Most new authors have been auditioned historically and they are always introduced. 

        Something is fishy.

        • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

          (It’s Mr.) TWB is a moniker I use in honor of my father who passed away a few years back.

          I’m sure Kevin will do intro’s soon. He’s got a few others lined up to post here as well.

          • jim_m

            My bad.  Welcome none the less.

          • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

            No worries. Thanks for the welcome.

          • herddog505

            Welcome.  And… um… what’s with the pic?

          • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

            That’s my son. I thought that pic pretty much summed up the state of the union right now.

          • Commander_Chico

            Has Jay Tea been purged from the lineup?

    • http://www.ethnografix.blogspot.com/ ryan a

      “Two, where is Jay Tea?”

      I was wondering that too. 

    • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

      Bruce, I’m one of the new writers that will be posting here at Wizbang. Sorry I didn’t introduce myself in the post. And no, you shouldn’t care what I think is the wise course.

      Secondly, I have no idea where Jay Tea is. You’d have to direct that question to the higher ups.

      • Brucehenry

        No offense. Just being a smartass. Hope you’ll not be offended. Thanks for the reply.

        • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

          None taken. I was just being a smartass as well. 

  • herddog505

    This incident highlights just how dimwitted, shortsighted, and altogether foolish our prohibition of assassinations is.

    We don’t want Iran to get a nuke.  We have a few options to stop them getting one:

    1.  Bomb the sh*t out of them.  This will kill quite a few innocent Iranians and (understandably) anger the rest of them at us.  There is also the possibility that we will not get all the facilities either because they are so hardened or because our intelligence isn’t good enough to tell us where they all are;

    2.  Sanctions.  I’m surprised that this word doesn’t evoke either guffaws or tears.  Guffaws because they almost never work (and certainly not quickly) and tears because – once again – innocent people suffer;

    3.  Find out who the key players in the Iranian government and nuke program are and either buy them off, kill them off, or snatch them and (ahem) entice them to tell us what they’ve been up to.

    If we want to limit the (further) suffering of the Iranian people, then option #3 is obviously the best course of action.  And, obviously, it’s the one that we LEGALLY can’t do (Jimmy Carter: the gift that keeps on giving.  Just like herpes).  To give Barry credit, however, he doesn’t seem averse to whacking people… er… subjecting high-value targets to precision kinetic military action, I should say.

    I would love to think that CIA did this, but I agree with the other commenters: CIA doesn’t have the capability, and it’s likely that the Israelis did it.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Lets face it, if Obama had anything to do with it, Axelrod would have been on Jay Leno bragging about it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

    Obama and his goons don’t have enough brains to pull off something like this.

  • Olsoljer

    It may be a hardened facility, but a little precision strike with a small nuclear device (for peaceful purposes) would certainly make it hard to get in (or out) and what the hell, they are working 24/7 anyway.

  • Commander_Chico

    Of course if the USA did it, it would be an act of war not voted on by Congress, like Libya.  But I guess y’all are OK with it, that the country get drawn into a war without a debate or vote. 

    The USA should only be held responsible for its own actions. Nothing wrong with denying it – we get blamed enough for Israel’s actions as it is, and they act without asking for our permission, so why should the USA implicitly accept blame by remaining silent? 

    If someone rode around on a motorcycle in Los Alamos, Berkeley, or Oak Ridge killing scientists and people riding in the car with them by bombs, it would be “terrorism,” wouldn’t it? 

    • herddog505

      It really depends on who that person is.  Let’s say it was 1954 and it was the Soviets.  Not terrorism.  If it’s 2012 and it’s somebody from ELF or al Qaeda, it’s terrorism.  The key is state sponsorship.

      Anyway, as I discussed above, would you prefer that we bomb Iran to stop them?  Or do you buy into the garbage that they’re simply interested in building nuclear reactors to provide cheap, abundant, environmentally-friendly power?

      • Commander_Chico

        Glenn Greenwald dealt with this in his usual length by contrasting the alleged state sponsored plot by Iran to kill the Saudi ambassador to the USA – which he shows was labeled as “terrorism.”

        http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/iran_and_the_terrorism_game/singleton/

        I don’t think Iran is any more a threat to the USA than Pakistan or indeed Israel is.  I blame Bush for motivating them to gear up a serious nuclear weapons program.  If I were Ayatollah Khamenei, I would gear up a nuke program – to defend what I saw as my country and way of life from foreign aggression.

        • herddog505

          Thank heavens Bush wasn’t alive in 1941, or else you’d blame him for Pearl Harbor, too.  Is there ANYTHING bad in the world that he’s not – somehow – responsible for?

          • Commander_Chico

            He’s not responsible for AIDS, in fact he did some good work on fighting AIDS in Africa.

            But he’s got plenty to be responsible for in degrading the USA.  No other US president ever caused such a disastrous loss of power and prestige.

          • herddog505

            Well, certainly no other president in the past ten minutes.  At least, I suppose that Barry’s asleep at the moment…

      • Commander_Chico

        Glenn Greenwald dealt with this in his usual length by contrasting the alleged state sponsored plot by Iran to kill the Saudi ambassador to the USA – which he shows was labeled as “terrorism.”

        http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/iran_and_the_terrorism_game/singleton/

        I don’t think Iran is any more a threat to the USA than Pakistan or indeed Israel is.  I blame Bush for motivating them to gear up a serious nuclear weapons program.  If I were Ayatollah Khamenei, I would gear up a nuke program – to defend what I saw as my country and way of life from foreign aggression.

      • hyperboliszt

        That’s insane. States can conduct acts of terrorism if they so choose. If an Iranian person blows up an airliner on behalf of the Iranian government, what the fuck would you call that?

        • herddog505

          I call that sabotage.

          I admit that the line between sabotage and terrorism is hazy, but GENERALLY sabotage is committed by sanctioned officers of a nation state in order to damage, cripple, or eliminate some capability of another nation state.  As Wiki notes, “acts of sabotage do not always have a primary objective of inflicting casualties”.*  Terrorism, in contrast, are acts of mayhem committed by unsanctioned people or groups intended to influence a country’s policy simply by indiscriminately killing people (or just kill people out of wanton bloodlust).

          Some examples:

          SABOTAGE:

          — The “Black Tom” explosion in 1916 was caused by agents of the German Empire attempting to impede the shipment of US-made war materials to the Allies

          — Oeration Gunnerside, the destruction of a Norwegian heavy water plant by Norwegian commandoes in 1943

          — STUXNET bug

          TERRORISM:

          — 9/11 attacks

          — 1972 kidnapping and murder of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich

          Can states take advantage of terrorists to do their dirty work?  Of course.  It’s sometimes hard to distinguish between a spy committing sabotage and an terrorist.  O’ course, the penalty for the captured spy and the captured terrorist is (or should be) the same: death.

          • hyperboliszt

            So when Libya blew up an airliner that was sabotage?  Aren’t Hezbollah state-sponsored? And aren’t they a terrorist organization that commit terrifying acts of terrorism?

            An act of terrorism is one that is intended to terrify people to weaken political resolve of the population and/or government. Doesn’t matter who commits the act!I realize that we’re arguing over semantics and it doesn’t make a difference who’s right and who’s wrong, but you’re so obviously wrong that I’m not going to let this go.

          • herddog505

            Please reread what I wrote:

            1.  The line between terrorism and sabotage is hazy;

            2.  Sabotage is intended to degrade some capability, while terrorism is intended to (as you say) terrify.

            So:

            — Libya blowing up an airliner is terrorism; the goal was simply to kill people.

            — Hezbollah is not an official entity of any state.

            And, yes, that means that my initial response – that an Iranian blowing up an airliner at the behest of the Iranian government is sabotage – incorrect.

          • Commander_Chico

            C’mon, what about the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the USA?  That would “degrade a capability,” but it was labelled as “terrorism” by the US media.

          • herddog505

            What something is and what people (especially a pack of halfwits like MiniTru) call it may not be the same thing.  It’s like the old controversy about about calling what happened in Korea from 1950 – 1953 a “police action” or a “conflict” instead of a war.

            In the case of the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador, I would say that was assassination, akin to sabotage in that it was directed by a government at a specific person and not just an act of random mayhem. cf. assassination of Reinhard Heydrich or Georgi Markov.

            And, yes, as with the distinction between terrorism and sabotage, there’s a blurry line between murder and assassination.

      • hyperboliszt

        That’s insane. States can conduct acts of terrorism if they so choose. If an Iranian person blows up an airliner on behalf of the Iranian government, what the fuck would you call that?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QTKFCCUIJILNB3ZG3CZNMWJJNY ThanM

    The Obama administration responded for a number of reasons:
    1) Outright denial = please the left
    2) Outright denial = conspiracy…why deny something that doesn’t need to be denied, unless you did something
    3) Obama is a thin skinned whine bag
    4) By denying he will get credit for doing it (or thinking about doing it) from the media. See    …….#3  (Only at times when it would be beneficial to his standing/electability, of course.)
      a) Ex: Obama killed Osama..tough on Koran Thumpers and terrorists

    • Stephen

      Everyone knows it’s Israel == and they are trying to start a war before the election to put pressure on Obama.