My Theory Behind the “Iranian” Plot to Assassinate the Saudi Ambassador
Okay, I will assume you’ve heard about this story, a plot uncovered by the USA to assassinate this handsome gentleman here, the Saudi envoy to America.
It is such a weird story. The plotter, supposedly acting on behalf of an elite element of the Iranian military, transferred $100,000 from an account associated with that element to pay a member of a Mexican drug cartel to kill the Saudi in a very public place.
Some people think it’s too weird to be plausible. Too many red flags. The plotter was a ne’erd’well cretin who never expressed any interest in politics or religion. He drank. He smoked. He chased women. Not exactly the prototypical agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most damning of all, he was a used car salesman.
Was it a set-up by American or Israeli interests in order to justify an attack on Iran?
Was it a ham-handed attempt by a rogue element within Iran to act against the establishment Mullahs or rulers?
Was it an attempt by Iran to drive a wedge between the already fragile relationship between Saudi Arabia and the USA?
If it is this third motive, which is sort of what the “official” story is, I am so confused, as there is no way this assassination would accomplish that goal. In fact, it would only bring the USA and Saudi Arabia closer together. We would work together to track down those responsible, and eventually this would lead to Iran.
Saudi Arabia would retaliate economically. See, they’re rich. Iran is poorer. All Saudi Arabia would have to do to seriously damage Iran would be to unilaterally increase their oil production, something they’re perfectly capable of doing, thus driving down oil prices, seriously impacting Iran and hurting Saudi Arabia only marginally. An assassination of their ambassador to the world’s sole superpower would give them the justification they would need to engage in this kind of economic warfare.
Now, just think WHO benefits economically from dropping oil prices? Well, to some extent, in the short term, we all do, but the major world corporations most. A period of cheap petroleum would seriously inhibit the growth of alternative energy sources. Gasoline prices never completely mirror the price of crude oil, and if oil prices dropped by half, we might see a (much welcomed) 25 to 30% drop in gas prices. Guess who pads their margin while stifling technologies that may eventually replace their product? Big oil.
Look, I’ve never been much of a conspiracy theorist. I scoff at those who quickly blame the New World Order, the Bildenberg Group or whatever the shadowy illuminati d’jour happens to be. At the same time, I think the world’s largest corporations share interests and have, in this world, such tremendous power that they could easily choose to dabble in world politics. You take that kind of power, and the opportunity, and the whole idea of big corporations transcending nation-states and pulling the strings and becoming world players beyond their business-only charters becomes not just plausible but inevitable.
So, given all the weird complexities and unexplained inconsistencies in this story, instead of looking at WHY any nation, intelligence agency or 5th column would plan such a plot, look instead to what WOULD have happened had it been successful. Oil glut. Even further record corporate profits.
I use this monologue when I audition for dramatic stage roles. It was written 35 years ago, but is perhaps before it’s time. Today is it’s time.
I can’t find an “embeddable” FULL version of Ned Beatty’s speech in the movie Network, but the long version, seen here, is well worth watching.
So, what do you think? Whose really behind this ridiculous plot?
This is very well written, and very interesting Joko…Actually, I do have a considerable amount I could add to the topic, but will refrain from doing so, mainly because anything I say will be taken the wrong way with others who will visit this post. I just wanted to commend you on the post…It really is a good blog…
“Was it an attempt by Iran to drive a wedge between the already fragile relationship between Saudi Arabia and the USA?
If it is this third motive, which is sort of what the ‘official’ story is, I am so confused, as there is no way this assassination would accomplish that goal. In fact, it would only bring the USA and Saudi Arabia closer together. We would work together to track down those responsible, and eventually this would lead to Iran.”
Yes, I think that’s somewhat obvious, and that the powers-that-be are counting on the inability of the American people (or at least a very goodly portion thereof) to discern the obvious (doubtless not without some reasonable basis for their perverse optimism, alas). As Patrick J. Buchanan said on this most recent episode of The McLaughlin Group, “the neo-‘conservatives’ are gassing up the Enola Gay,” and as the entity known only as “Q” said, in the episode where The Borg made their first appearance (and attempted to gain control of the starship Enterprise), “I wouldn’t let them.”
I think this goes beyond a mere desire to see Saudi oil production increased (although that doubtless would occur, and was certainly seen as one of the advantages of embarking on this particular course of treacherous deceit), I believe the true goal (which may or may not be yet realized), is to justify air strikes on the Iranian national security apparatus, with particular emphasis on the nuclear facilities at Natanz. And while I think we can all agree that we would prefer not to see the Iranians in possession of nuclear warheads, a war with Iran in 2011, or 2012, is a war we can not win. I mean, I suppose we could deploy our own nuclear warheads, and generate a phyrric victory of sorts, but if the term “victory” is to mean the advancement of the authentic national interesrs of the USA and her people, then no, this is a war we simply can not win. And if we wage it, the USA itself will cease to exist by the year 2030 (if not 2020).
How’s that for a daring prediction, eh? I’m not joking, by the way. War with Iran means the dissolution of the USA. And ironically, although I favor the idea, in principle, of the dissolution of the USA, I retain a vestigial patriotism that forces me to speak out against any course bound to force such an eventuality upon us (much as if one might wish for one’s sick, suffering parent to shuffle off the proverbial mortal coil, but would be aghast at any suggestion that one grip the nearest balpeen hammer and effect such an outcome proactively).
Oh, and I wanted to mention (since it isn’t mentioned nearly often enough, by the sort of people who’s words carry far more weight than mine own), that Ned Beatty, going all the way back to “Deliverance,” and up until, um, whatever his most recent performance may have been, is one of the finest actors in the history of cinema.
“Was it a ham-handed attempt by a rogue element within Iran to act against the establishment Mullahs or rulers?”
Take kilos of Afghani hash, and attach them to parachutes. Then carpet bomb all of Iran, and get them totally bombed!
After that the Pro-Democracy Movement would take over Iran, and nobody would be interested in anything more violent, than watching a soccer game :love:
Your analysis sounds quite reasonable to me. We often forget that world governments are no longer the most powerful players. Money makes the world go round.
Good blog.
Those who want to gas up the Enola Gay (what a great line) need to remember that if the consequences of such a rash action isn’t enough to discourage them, the money for yet another war would have to be borrowed from Exxon.
You’re too funny Joko. Why cant a used car salesman become an assasin? Maybe he used the profession as cover for his illegal activities. John Gotti once claimed to be car salesman. I do believe your theory though that it might have been a set up. You can never put anything past the US government.
If we declared war on Andorra, space aliens will descend to Earth and take over the commercial fishing industry!”
With all due respect, a war with Iran is not even remotely unlikely (Obama has repeatedly alluded to the possibility of a strike at the Natanz nuclear facilities, and if Israel does so, which they’ve repeatedly threatened to do, then we’d get dragged into war without even choosing to start one, as it were). I think you’re pro-Obama biases interfere with your ability to discern the relative likelihood of a war with Iran ie., that its a disaster we will probably avoid, but its hardly some remote, far-fetched contingency. Its clear you want very much to believe that Obama is a cool guy who means well, or however you would characterize it, but that is saccharine hogwash. He’s the President of the United States; if he wasn’t a capitalist stooge who serves as an errand boy for the oligarchy, one who wipes his ass on any serious notion of civil liberties, or the Bill of Rights, and a war mongering mass murderer who’s perpetually on the look out for opportunities to expand our de facto imperial domain irrespective of how many innocent non-combatants (and their children) he has to liquidate via cowardly air strikes, then he wouldn’t fucking BE the President of the United States. That is the ONLY sort of person presently eligible to hold that office, and you should be embarrassed that you fall for his ridiculous public relations blather.
BARACK OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT FROM GEORGE W. BUSH
There’s room for nuance, but anyone who doesn’t find the above sentence to be at least 85-90 percent true, is woefully ignorant, or delusional. Its doubtless considered gauche to say so, but its still factually correct.
Hi, Joko…I will respond to one of the three scenarios that I believe will be a factor, even though we many never know the true factors behind the foiled attack.
“Was it a set-up by American or Israeli interests in order to justify an attack on Iran?”
We do not know that, and may never know the true factors, or who was specifically behind this plan. Having said that, both Israel and the United States can now claim that as a step in the direction of justification for a future attack on Iran, or even a full war. Is it a cut and dry justification, or even a move in that direction? Not necessarily, but we are dealing with government, so cut and dry very seldom enters the picture, anyway.
Our justification of war (When a clear justification is not present) is much like the three strikes situation that will land someone in prison for life. Now, with Iran, we have:
“Strike one” There are working on quite a large development of potentially long range missiles, which may very well include nuclear weapons. This is an immediate threat to Israel, which Iran makes clear that they want to wipe off the face of the earth. It also poses a threat to the entire Middle East region, and beyond that depending on the success of their weapons development.
“Strike Two” The foiled attack you have mentioned in this blog. Regardless of the true factors behind the failed attack, it is now on record, and will surface again should that justification for attacking Iran be needed.
Strike Three” We are now waiting on the final stage of justification, and based on the first two strikes, it will not take anything monumental to give that final justification.
This may sound pretty simple-minded, but if you look at the justification of past wars, and even isolated military implementation, you will see that the justification is not always, in itself, justified.