Sunday, April 02, 2006

Iran Poised To Couter-Attack Against The United States

This article, from the Washington Post, is interesting in that it explains Irans reach, but it does not at all discuss Irans possibly weaponry.

I believe we have reason to be very afraid. I believe Iran has the ability to hit us harder than most of us would like to imagine.

Consider this quote, from Hassan Abbasi, "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University,

"There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them." This Revolutionary Guard officer continued by saying, "Iran's missiles are now ready to strike at Western targets, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Ali Khamenei, we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations."

Now, read of the threat, as spoken of by the American intelligence community:

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.

Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.

But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, "as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation," said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.

Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.


Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.

Iran's intelligence services "are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades," said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. "They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished."

The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.

9 comments:

Epaminondas said...

The fear is justified, and that said....



SO WHAT?

Bad now

Horrific later

We live in an age where the battlefield will determine the politics.
Send a back channel message that:
1) Under no circumstances wil they be allowed to perfect either a UF6 gas diffusion or centrifuge nuclear enrichment cycle, or use low power reactors to purify plutonium. Ensure that THEY UNDERSTAND there is nothing they can say or do if they persist which will convince us they mean to have peacfule use of nuclear power.
2) If they persist in their current course they must be left with NO DOUBT we WILL attack these sites and try to spare civilian casualties
3) If they attack us here, tell them in no uncertain terms we will LAY WASTE to their nation from Qum to the Gulf, and from Iraq to the afghan border, and leave no mullah alive to restore their theocracy. Ensure that whatever come back from Iran it will not be any kind of Islamic republic.

Frankly IF this stopped them it would only be until they can TRY the next elected president.

While this may sound bloodthirsty, it is unfortunately my judgement that we either do this now, or face scores of millions dead later. Many here.

With each new step they take they peel another branch away from other possible paths.

They are sending clear signals they believe we are BLUFFING.

Texas glint say otherwise

Always On Watch said...

I get home-delivery of the WaPo, so I'm looking at the front page right now.

Headline, above the fold: "Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism."

Subheading: "U.S. Experts Wary of Military Action Over Nuclear Program."

If all one did was read those words, what would be the next thought?

I think the message is clear. We're supposed to accept a nuclear Iran. Any discussion in the WaPo as to what that acceptance will mean? I haven't read the article yet, but I'm guessing that the real possibilities are not in the article. I may be wrong.

Jay.Mac said...

Anyone with even the slightest understanding of Iran knows that if they do decide to strioke at the West it will be through terrorism. Just look at the hundreds of people signing up to become suicide bombers in defence of Iran.

The WaPo is right- Iran may retaliate with terrorist strikes. But the other side of it is this- if we allow Iran to become a nuclear power those same terrorists may be using nukes against civilian targets instead of suicide vest or car bombs.

Pastorius said...

Epa,
I absolutely agree with you. It's pay now, or pay dearly later.

Kiddo said...

We knew the risk with alQaida and our inaction got us to 9/11. We obviously cannot remain in stasis on this issue. I would love to have access to the behind the scenes political discussions in our current administration on this.

Epaminondas said...

I wonder what the moonbats would say?
You guys should check out the comment goings on at ATB. Alexandra is iron, but for some reason she has attracted some first class weak minds among her commenters.

Stogie said...

Moonbats? You rang?

My feeling is that a great smoking radioactive hole can't counterattack anyone.

Christine said...

This is exactly what I have been saying all along. The fact that Iran has been signing up martyrs non-stop for some time now, tells me that they will definitely be used. Reading between the lines of all of Iran's threats up to this point, tells me that they will not only hit Iraq and other overseas targets, but right here in the US. Our country has been lucky so far with regard to suicide bombers. Our luck will run out and I have no doubt it will be Iran that will be behind it.

Now, the fact that we could be hit at home if we attack Iran, doesn't deter me. In the end, if we do not do something about Iran, there will be a much bigger price to pay and I do believe it will be here anyways.

So yes, pay now or pay much bigger later.

Cubed © said...

AOW,

"Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism."

I just have to wonder what they are thinking - like, maybe, Iran isn't into terrorism right now, or, like, maybe, it wouldn't launch a terrorist strike UNLESS we attacked them first? I'd laugh, but...

Jay.mac,

"Just look at the hundreds of people signing up to become suicide bombers in defence of Iran."

Yeah, and you know what I'm getting really tired of? It's the people who keep telling us, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, and now in Iran, that "the people are so eager for the Americans to come and save us!" Yeah, right. If The Powers That Be still believe that, I've got this bridge...

Filou,

"That's the very reason why we need to act now."

You betchum. I say, a few well-placed EMPs over Tehran and certain select strategic places sometime this week. They won't even be able to turn on a light bulb, much less launch a missile. Then drop a nice bunker-buster down the well that the Mahdi's supposed to crawl out of.

Folks,

Go buy your copy of that movie "Deliverence." Those are some of the nastiest human beings on the face of the earth, and that's probably what we'll have to be doing pretty soon.