posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:13 AM
First off, I find it ironic that many of the same people who claim that the entire whole world hates the US, and laughs at the military venture in
Iraq, are also those who would dismiss the substance of the article on the supposition that Iran would never risk raising the ire of the American
government. The fact is that Iran has been funneling money and intelligence agents into Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning of those conflicts.
i.e.: The April 3, 2004 edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a London arabic language daily, quoted a recent Iranian defector and an informant in Iraq who
detailed Iran's involvement with Muqtada Al-Sadr's mehdi army. The article also gave evidence that Iran was spending approximately $70 million A
MONTH on activity in Iraq. These are NOT the actions of a government that is afraid of US retaliation.
Furthermore, if Iran WERE to back a terrorist attack on the US, one would have to assume that it would be executed through a third party such as
Hezbollah or Hamas, AND that all parties involved would try their damnedest to keep the US intelligence from concretely tying it to the Iranian
leadership. Again, Iran has already shown the willingness to use these organizations to attack Israel. Thus why would they not do the same to the
Now, the above may very well indicate that Iran would not be adverse to backing a terrorist attack on the US. However, Intelgurl is right, that the
scale of the attack mentioned in the article is a different story. One can only conclude that any terrorist attack that succeeded in causing a nuclear
catastrophe would be viewed by the US government as a use of the dreaded "WMDs" and the conventional wisdom is that the US would respond in kind.
But would they really? Would a US President really order the first use of a nuclear weapon in sixty years, knowing full well the number of innocent
deaths that it would entail? I for one don't think so. And I'm willing to bet that the Iranians don't think so either. For years the Muslim
extremists have used the western world's own morality against it, and this case would be no different.
The veracity of the intelligence itself may be questionable. I myself tend to view ANYTHING that comes from a congressman as such. Hell I bet some of
them even believe in Chemtrails... but I digress.
The point is that world events don't happen in a vacuum. There are a plethora of factors that
weigh in on every decision a nation's leader makes and the intelligence game ain't cricket. For anyone to flat out disregard an intelligence report
as crazy, is just embracing ignorance. After all, many of you seem to think that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was insane, so why can't Sayed
Khamenei be a nut job too huh?
[edit on 16-12-2004 by Cypher]