“Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States”

From the WaPo:

US-IranAn assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb.

In congressional testimony Tuesday, U.S. intelligence officials indicated that Iran has crossed a threshold in its adversarial relationship with the United States. While Iran has long been linked to attacks on American targets overseas, U.S. officials said they see troubling significance in Tehran’s alleged role in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year.

U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence to indicate that Iran is actively plotting attacks on U.S. soil. But Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said the thwarted plot  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 U.S. actions that threaten the regime.

The warning about Iran’s more aggressive stance was included in written testimony that Clapper submitted to Congress on Tuesday as part of the intelligence community’s annual assessment of the nation’s most serious security threats.

A clash of cultures is coming, sooner or later.  The argument really boils down to whether we deal with it now to minimize casualties or deal with it down the road when casualties may be catastrophic.

I do not envy those charged with making the decision.

Here come the "Milker Bills"
Komen sez goodbye to Planned Parenthood
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • Commander_Chico

    I remember reading stories like this back in 2002 . . . about Iraq.  The same playbook is being followed.  Are the American people so stupid as to allow their military to be ordered into a war at the behest of Netanyahu?   Sadly, due to liberal education and the degrading of teaching standards, probably yes.  The media loves war and will cheerlead for it again.

    The intent to start a war is increasingly clear, but this time I expect there will be no debate in Congress, no Authorization for the Use of Military Force.  We will wake up some day to a Pearl Harbor style attack, perhaps based on some Tonkin Gulf-like incident.  A week later, gasoline will be $8 a gallon, a month later $10 or more (when you can get it).  The Russians and Chinese will covertly help Iran create mischief, perhaps sink a carrier or two.  Maybe this will be The Big One – WW III.

    • UOG

      I need you to expand on your thoughts a bit Chico. Just for starters, with whom in the Obama Administration does Netanyahu hold sway?

      • Commander_Chico

        Netanyahu and his allies at AIPAC have tremendous influence in Washington in both the executive and legislative branches - this lobby has been exerting sustained pressure towards war.  I am not privy to private conversations, but can see the result when someone like Clapper is beating the war drum and the media amplifies his vague theats to try to scare the American people and create a mindset for war.

        War is coming.  Do you think there will be a debate over it, a vote in Congress?  Not likely.  When do you think it would be timed to boost Obama? 

        • Gmacr1

          Get a grip on reality CC, the voices in your head are terrorizing you.

          • Commander_Chico

            Are the voices in my head, or are you deaf? 

            The voices are all around you, and their message is “WAR!”  All you need to do is watch the media.  For example:

            1.  this article, without a lot of new substance but with a lot of scary threats;

            2. NYT Magazine article last weekend on the possibility of Israel attacking Iran:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

            3. Hillary Clinton’s recent trip around the world to pursuade other countries to impose sanctions;

            4. The EU threat of sanctions;

            5. Warmongering groups like this stepping up activities, (from today’s news):

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-iran-usa-report-idUSTRE8100BH20120201

            This is just like 2002, just change the consonant at the end of “Ira . . .”

          • jim_m

            Chico does have a point.  After all, the dems were constantly accusing Bush of creating military conflicts in order to boost his election prospects.

            Since that idea is already in the dems heads I would suggest that they might consider doing it themselves.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            Wow, you are totally wrong on this Gmacr1, and Chico is spot on correct.

            All of Washington, both parties, bow deeply to AIPAC. Get informed on the subject.

          • jim_m

            posted in wrong place. See below.

          • Commander_Chico

            More, originally from DEBKA, which is reputedly a Gov of Israel outlet:

            http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/91077/

             50,000 troops on Socotra and Masiryah?  I am skeptical, but the report shapes the information environment for war.

            Massive U.S. military buildup reported south of Hormuz
            February 1, 2012 – 16:42 AMTPanARMENIAN.Net – While U.S. President Barack Obama’s supporters hailed his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the end of the war in the middle east, behind the scenes the Pentagon has been quietly massing troops and armaments on two islands located just south of the Strait of Hormuz, and within easy striking distance of Iran, infowars.com reported. In addition to some 50,000 U.S. troops currently in the region waiting for orders (apparently they won’t be home by this past Christmas as was originally promised), Obama is deploying an additional 50,000 soldiers to be ready for ‘any contingency’ by March: Obama is reported exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and Washington sources to have secretly ordered U.S. air, naval and marine forces to build up heavy concentrations on two strategic islands – Socotra, which is part of a Yemeni archipelago in the Indian Ocean, and the Omani island of Masirah at the southern exit of the Strait of Hormuz. Western military sources familiar with the American buildup on the two strategic islands told DEBKA-Net-Weekly that, although they cannot cite precise figures, they are witnessing the heaviest American concentration of might in the region since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

        • UOG

          So you think that Obama could get away with a full on war with Iran just by defining it as another one of his kinetic military actions? Really?

          • Hank_M

            I just can’t see Obama doing much of anything with the Iranians except for more talking.

            I doubt other countries will join in. Hell, they were looking for the exits shortly after the kinetic fiasco with Libya. And even with that farce, Obama led from behind to insure he had political cover.

          • jim_m

            The MSM would certainly give him a pass.  Heck, He could launch a full out ground war with thousands of casualties per day and the MSM would paint it as a garden party compared to Bush.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            History shows that Obama gets in and out, surgical, precise, accurate and deadly.

            Bush went in, failed to get out, wasted billions and blliions, and never got bin Laden.

            Case closed. decision: Democrats.

          • jim_m

            Well I guess that makes FDR and Truman total fuck ups considering that WE ARE STILL IN EUROPE AND THE FAR EAST!!!

            How much has that cost since 1945?

            Case closed. decision: Stephen is a dumbass.

          • hyperboliszt

            You’re comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq to World War II. Stupidest person on the internet! Or: clandestine liberal troll who does a better job than liberal trolls like me at making conservative blog commenters look like fucking retards by association.

          • jim_m

             No I am  pointing out that having to remain in theater to rebuild a nation after a war is not unusual and not a sign of failure as the ignorant left seems to think.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003180090291 Spamf Roming

            No, his illegal action in Libya, which was certainly unprovoked, not that I’m crying for Khadafi, was never brought to Congress, which gave it’s blessing to both of Bush’s wars. And then to “lead from behind” like the coward he is, he gave up control of events to Al Qaeda, which will soon be setting up shop where they were endangered before. Don’t go “in” unless you’re willing to stay in. Getting out for the sake of washing your hands of the messy business of war, insurgency and nation-building is not a virtue any commander in chief should want. Obama is a coward.

  • herddog505

    That the Iranians are nogoodniks is no surprise, but what has changed that makes them REALLY nogoodniks?  Did US intelligence, by the absolute blindest accident, actually stumble on some hard data that indicates that Tehran is REALLY getting ready to cause trouble?  Or is this merely CIA telling us what we already know?  Or is it even politically motivated?

    IF there’s solid evidence that Tehran is actually preparing terrorist strikes against us, then the solution is simple: we make it quite clear to the mullahs that ANY terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack or suspected terrorist attack will be regarded as an act of war by Iran against the United States requiring a full retaliatory response.  And IF a WMD is used or attempted to be used, our response WILL include nuclear weapons.

    Does anybody know the Persian for “sit down, shut up, and don’t f*ck with us, you grubby little pissants”?

    • UOG

      “Does anybody know the Persian for…”

      Up until the inception of the Obama Administration my reply would have been that some things do not require translation. Right now I’m unconvinced that even a really, really good translation would be adequate (a threat from someone who just bowed to you generally lack authenticity).

    • Commander_Chico

      There is nothing new in what Clapper said – Iranian capabilities have been known for a long time.

      In my opinion it is more the hyping of Clapper’s testimony as something new and threatening than the substance of the testimony itself.  In other words, it’s not the intelligence community, it’s the media.

      • herddog505

        Makes sense.  Perhaps MiniTru is looking at the REAL poll numbers, has decided that Barry needs to have an external villain to make him look tough, and are setting about providing one.

        • Commander_Chico

          It could be Barry’s people placing the stories, or it could be the friends of Netanyahu.

          Shaping the information environment.

  • Gmacr1

    The last thing the Iranians would possibly ever want to do is attack the US on American soil.
    As crazy as the Mullahs are even they realize the retaliation would forever change the face of the Middle East.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/NLDVHVBNBKSUODWOIAFHQBAHII Stan

    This is nothing new. The Iranians have been at war with the United States since they took over the American Embassy in 1979. This latest action is just another reminder that we have a bunch of chickens running our government right now. They see how Obama and crew are kowtowing to them, so they think they can get away with escalating the attacks on us.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      No, Iran has been at war with the US since the 1953 overthrow.  Might want to go back a little further in history.

      • jim_m

         Oh. So we were at war with the Shah, who we helped put into power.  I just can’t wait to hear how Iran was at war with the US all those years, despite being characterized by most people as a close friend of the US.

        • jim_m

           I suppose you might characterize the current regime and its predecessors as being “at war” but it is inaccurate to say that they represented Iran before the Shah was deposed.

          • hyperboliszt

            The Shah didn’t represent Iran before he was deposed either.
            But hey, non-representative non-elected foreign puppets are all good so long as they keep the oil flowing and your shitty car all gassed up, eh? 

          • jim_m

             Really? The Shah was not the head of the legally constituted government of Iran?  I guess that the vast majority of nations, including the UN must have been really stupid back then.

            Go ahead and live in your fantasy world.

          • hyperboliszt

            Was he elected? Whom did he represent?

            Your country and its allies installing and propping up a friendly dictator–even a relatively pleasant one!–does not make that dictator a legitimate political authority. It makes them a dictator.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            America’s allies… like Canada.

            Glad to see that you think Castro is not a legitimate political authority, or Kim Jong Il’s spawn…

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          I love how you magically think that 1979 is a singular incident in Iranian politics.  Here’s a little education about the importance of 1953 and the US blowback from their ousting the democratic government:

          General overview: US overthrows Iran’s democracy for a pro-US dictator (Shah)

          1951 – Anglo-Irania Oil company is taking away Iran’s oil, which the Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, their first elected official was against.  For the past 50 years, the oil was under a British country.  AIO would eventually become BP (British Petroleum).  Mosaddegh was popular in Iran, but unpopular abroad for his stance of trying to nationalize the oil.

          In the world court, Britain lost.  The next few steps include trying to destroy their economy and having the US (under Truman) to assist with regime change.  He wasn’t interested.  Eisenhower was interested from the Cold War pretext of Iran relying on the Communist Party for power.  The newly formed CIA executed Operation AJAX to perform the coup.  This caused the Shah to come into power.  He was weakened by the Parliament before, but the UK and the US backed him fully, strengthening him.  The ones to benefit from this position: Britain, America, the Netherlands, and France.

          This set up Iran to oppose the US when the Shah was overthrown.  Would you like me to go on, or are you saying that the US doesn’t have a hand in Iran’s political aspects from so long ago?

  • Brian_R_Allen

    You try, Mister Rice, you really do. 

    But 
    Wizbang was Mister Tea was Wizbang.So, bring back Mister Tea!?

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE