It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Congressman Warns of Iranian Attack on U.S.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


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 US?

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]

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:06 AM
I don't remember saying anywhere in my post about the US's decision to invade Iraq being wrong. In fact if you look at any of my previous posts i am in full support of the US regarding Iraq. But If it looks like bull and smells like bull then I'm pretty confident that it is in fact Bull. Politicians have a way of turning a molehill into a mountain and think this is another case.
As for using another Organisation to launch an attack is possible, hell they may even have thrown a few dollars into 9/11. But for them to be involved in anything like that with even the remotest possibility of discovery would be foolish on their half. These guys are not stupid, don't make the mistake of thinking they are.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Janus]

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:37 AM

I apologise if you thought my opening comment was directed at you. I should have said who I really meant. That comment was really only aimed at a few people (re-read the posts in the thread) and specifically at one rather prolific, "the NWO is coming" poster.

My point was and still is that for Iran to back a direct terrorist strike against the US is not inconcievable. Even one as drastic as an attack against a nuclear facility could be reasoned out by religous fanatics. Especially if they believed that they could survive the consequences.

You see, I feel that the argument that they wouldn't dare attack a nuclear facility harkens back to MAD. (Mutually Assured Destruction) The logical reasoning behind MAD is ironically fairly sound. However, it ONLY holds up if the BOTH sides believe that they could not hide the fact that they perpetrated the first attack, and further believed that the opposition would respond proportionately. I think my previous arguments showed fairly well that the Iranians could very well believe that they could hide their involvement in such an attack at least to the point were the US would not nuke back. Further, given the fact that the US military is undeniably stretched thin, it would not be unreasonable for the Iranians to believe as well, that the US would NOT be able to conduct any major military action against them. Don't forget, Israel in the past swore that they would not allow Iran to go nuclear, and yet if they haven't already they will be soon. Also, Israel has a lot more reason to turn Tehran to dust than we do. They ONLY way that the world community would condone ANY nuclear attack is if there was absolute, undeniable proof, that the target was a guilty party in a previous WMD attack. And that kind of info is hard to come by in a terror attack. Just look at 9/11....


posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:52 AM
Mhmm I wonder if those Neocons will use CG Mobile Nuclear Missile Silos again or if they will start airdropping them on Iran to have real proof for a threat.

Seriously, they really need better Special Effects people if they want to impress the UN SC this time.

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:59 AM
Iran will attack the US and Israel for several reasons. First, internal propoganda......for years the mullahs have taken and stayed in power by convincing the masses they were in a religeous fight to save ISLAM, this goes back to the 1979 rev. Second, over the years a "western" sector of the population has "arisen". This is the sector they will let die in a US retaliation. Most likely the "nuke" sites they admit to having are surrounded by "western" types. Easier than doing it themselves. The mullahs must produce real results of the great satan attacking them. Allah is on their side so they all think there will be so devine intervention when the US invades. It didn't happen in Iraq because Saddam was "secular". Allah used the US to punish him for his "hieracy".

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 09:11 PM
I still don't see the gain...

I agree that if it was to be done it would be done through some backdoor third party channel lowering the risk of discovery. If you were the leader of Iran would you be willing to take that risk though? I mean this is America we're talking about here, odds are we're going to find out who did it, would you be willing to risk your life and rule on the hope that we wont find out and retaliate? If Iran found a way to neutralize America as a military threat through a single terrorist attack I believe they would in a heartbeat, but taking out a nuke plant will not accomplish that and I'm hard pressed to think of a single terrorist scenariothat would be capable of such a broad stroke.

By the way its hard to take advantage of a propaganda victory if admitting to it will bring down the full weight of the US military on your country. Sounds like a short lived victory to me.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by boogyman]

[edit on 16-12-2004 by boogyman]

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 10:10 PM
Why presume that the iranian leaderhip cares about being attacked by the US? They've actually gone so far as to remark, 'what do we care about nuclear bombs that kill thousands, we have thousands more'. They don't care if their cities are destroyed and people are killed, because they can still escape and live on 'fighting the great satan'. Bin Ladin obviously knew that he was going to be running around the mountains of afghanistan and waziristan if he did 911, but that didn't stop him.


posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:16 PM

I dont think that we should compare BinLadin to the Iranian Mullahs, because BinLadin actually believes in what he does. He could be living in a plance and having a wonderful life, seeing how he and his family are multi-billioners. But the Mullahs on the other hand, have worked very hard for their money. They started a revolution for it, and have stollen it for a few decades now. I can not see them just throwing it away by attacking the US.

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Koka

What if... people stopped speculating about the stereotypical viewpoint that most neo-cons have regarding persons from the Middle east?

What if... the US re-addressed their foreign policies and the world suddenly realised that level headed responsible people do exist in the US?

What if... the US stopped backing Israel and told them to cease occupying the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and then supplied Guns and Ammo to the Palestinians?

What if.... the US didn't create or get involved in a war just to increase their economic interests.

What if.... people stopped treating those less fortunate than themselves as 2nd class.

I could go on, but will get flamed enough as it is.

I agree with everything you said there are some very good and level
headed people here in the states and though sometimes we don't all
agree on the method of change we all know that something has to change.


[edit on 12/16/2004 by geocom]

[edit on 12/16/2004 by geocom]

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:44 AM

While, I respect your assessment of the situation, I feel that there are a few flaws in your reasoning. One is that you are questioning a possible decision by Iran to attack the United States in your own moral context. Also, you are assuming that the goal of the attack would be to neutralize America as a military threat.

Sep posted shortly after you that the Iranian mullahs wouldnt perpetrate such an attack for fear of losing their money, while you thought they wouldnt risk losing life and rule. Both of these ideas ignore the fact that the Iranian mullahs are religious leaders first and political leaders second. For them politics are just a means to their religious ends. As such, they firmly believe that they are doing Allahs work here on earth. Further, a major tenet of the radical form of Islam they follow is that the infidels MUST be removed from the Holy Land.

Since, the militant Muslims know that they cannot force Israel and the western governments out of the Middle East through direct force; they have adopted the strategy of making the wests involvement and backing of Israel too costly in terms of human life, and as such, force a political withdrawal. That is the TRUE goal of a terrorist act. The March 11th bombing of Spanish trains is a perfect example of this. The 3/11 bombings were a calculated political act, not a military strike. Just as the continued bombings in Iraq and Israel are intended to weaken the political will of their enemies to continue their occupations, so would any strike against the US homeland.

Any assessment of Iranian ambitions and/or goals must be under taken in that context.


posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:09 AM
Well the local news finally reported on this issue this morning. Talk about timely information. Thank goodness we have the internet. Nothing to report, BTW.

from Cypher
Further, given the fact that the US military is undeniably stretched thin, it would not be unreasonable for the Iranians to believe as well, that the US would NOT be able to conduct any major military action against them. Don't forget, Israel in the past swore that they would not allow Iran to go nuclear, and yet if they haven't already they will be soon. Also, Israel has a lot more reason to turn Tehran to dust than we do.

Why has Israel been so silent, I wonder? We could speculate that it is pressure from the US, but I think that we agree that Israel in the end will do whatever they see as in their best interests. Furthermore, the US may not want to dissuade them from taking out the nuclear reactors. Maybe Israel is sitting on the fence because they don't want to jeopardize peace negotiations with Palestine.

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:18 AM
Respectfully I have to disagree for the simple fact that you dont become the rulers of a nation by being stupid. When was the last time you heard of the muslim leader killing themselves in a suicide attack. If they wanted to throw everything away then why havent they done it already its not like they have a new ayatollah every week because the old guy blew himslef up in Israel.

Or consider this scenario...

Iran has had chemical agents for at least twenty years why have they not commited an all out chemattack on Israel if they are so intent on its destruction?
Its not like they dont have the means.

People were probably saying similar things about the "soviet" thought process and how different and alien it was back during the cold war.

I say despite everything we are not all that different from each other at least not to the point that people make out. Strategically we all operate from pretty much the same motivations.


posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:21 AM
agreed with boogy man, sorry didnt men to post.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Sep]

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 07:07 AM
Iran must go down for many reasons. Terrorism the current excuse. The bible speak of 200,000,000 men marching down the dry bed of the Euphrates. Iran must be taken out to clear the road for China to get to Iraq.

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:03 AM

I agree with you 100 percent that Israel will do whatever it thinks is in its best interests. I also think youre right about the peace process, but not just in relation to the Palestinians. Egyptian President, Hosny. Mubarak has been overly nice to Israel as of late, and the anti-Israel rhetoric from other Middle East countries has abated somewhat in recent months. I think its this, and a hope that a new Palestinian leadership will calm things down in the region that has kept them from lighting up the Iranian nuclear facilities as of yet. Not only that, but also remember that this time around the Iranians have placed their nuclear facilities far apart and have them literally surrounded by SAM sites. Taking them all out would be quite a task.


I never intimated that the Iranian Mullahs were stupid. In fact I generally believe that the majority of them are fairly astute political tacticians. Besides, your argument is illogical. Why would a Mullah who feels that they are the voice of God, sacrifice themselves personally in a suicide attack that would only kill a handful of Israelis; especially when there are legions of volunteers who would gladly strap on a Dupont shirt for them?

As to your scenario, the answer is this; Israel does not require the proof that America would in a similar situation. The Mossads network of agents and informants in the Mid-East is by necessity far greater than the US and would undoubtedly find at least a tentative connection to the true perpetrators. Thus it would naturally follow that using a terrorist organization to use Iranian chemical weapons against Israel would almost assuredly result in Tehran resembling a glass blowers horrible mistake.

So again, one does not have to assume that Ayatollah Khamenei is crazy or stupid in order to see how he could back a terrorist attack on the US. If Khamenei thought that he and his government could reasonably hide their involvement in such an attack, at least to such a degree as to preclude a proportionate response, then a massive attack on the US could definitely be reasoned to serve their greater purpose.


posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:35 PM
Okay look at this scenario

Wacky Ayatollah Assaholah plans a strategically pointless attack against America that accomplishes nothing toward any of the long term goals of Iran. Mossad being the theoretically the best intelligence service in the world discovers the plot in a heartbeat and has two potential options
A) tell America and watch as Iran gets the crap get kicked out of it for planning an attack on America
B) dont tell america about the plot but help them put the pieces of the puzzle together and link the attack to Iran then watch Iran get the crap kicked out of it
either way end result Iran gets linked and overthrown....

Your acting like we would need mountains of evidence to connect the act to Iran but we invaded Iraq over evidence that was tenuous at best and they never even directly attacked us. Imagine what would happen to Iran over circumstantial evidence linking them to a direct attack against american soil.
Now imagine what would happen with direct evidence provided by Mossad linking them to the attack.

This is why I say Iran would never pull a stupid stunt like this. As we both agree the leadership of Iran is not politically stupid they know a dumb move when they see one. They know that an attack on America of such proportions will be investigated by the best intelligence services in the world including Mossad and will be linked back to them. So why would they risk everything over an attack that accomplishes nothing?

I'm not saying that Iran would never consider an attack on America just that they wouldnt do something as pointless as the attack being talked about here. Iran is not Al Quaeda that can afford to support random pointless attacks against Americas interests. If Al Quaeda gets linked to an attack like this what happens? we destroy some training camp somewhere no big deal they just build a new one someplace else. If Iran gets linked its kind of different its not like the Iranian government can just pack up and leave when America invades and then start up a new country someplace else. Iran would only attack america in such a capacity if they knew they could take us out in one punch which they can't so they wont.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in