This sounds much more like an elaborate and professional Mossad set-up than an Iranian plot. Cui Bono? (What POSSIBLE good interest of Iran would be served by a bomb assassination of the Saudi ambassador in DC? Whose interests would be advanced? Who propagates for war with Iran? Could it be the young dogs of Zion?) But that point aside...

According to Rasool Nafisi, an Iranian-American scholar who studies the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, rogue elements of the Revolutionary Guards Quds force conceivably might have concocted the plot without top-level approval, perhaps to prevent rapprochement between Iran and the U.S.

So why play into their hands and let them succeed even though the plot itself failed? The absolute last thing this country needs is to be played into a new and most catastrophic war with Iran. We love to invoke international law when it serves our purposes, and totally ignore it when it suits us.

Where was international law when we overthrew the Iranian democracy in 1953 via CIA operation Ajax? (from which devolves all our problems with Iran)

Where was international law when we supported Saddam’s eight-year war with Iran, including the use of chemical weapons, and Rumsfield went to Iraq to shake his hand?

Where was international law when in 1988 a US cruiser shot down an Iranian Airbus in the Persian Gulf, in Iranian national waters, killing 290 civilians?

The absolute last thing we need is another catastrophic war with Iran. Sure, we can blast them and create vast chaos, but chaos is one enemy no amount of bombing can cure. How does the slamming shut of the Straights of Hormuz sound to you, through which passes about half of all the petroleum exports of the whole world? Small boat actions and various missile strikes could do that very easily.

I argue we should not let the Quds force succeed (if they were not being set-up that is) even though their plot failed. Sounds reasonable to me.

Ahem.

Yesterday's ALLEGATION of an Iranian plot.....

Inboden appears to be taking that allegation at face value, and then weighs up the various "retaliatory options" on the assumption that those allegations are true.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

I seem to remember the USA rushing into Iraq on the basis of allegations that were accepted by every American official as a "slam dunk".

Turns out the allegations were false, and as a result the USA has wasted untold trillions of dollars for "retaliating" against.... make-believe.

Honestly, do you guys EVER learn?

If Tarq's comments reflect in any way the Islamic Revolution's official line, it sounds like somebody got their hand stuck in the cookie jar. Interrogation 101: if somebody's first instinct is to insinuate something as improbable as a frame-up / black flag operation [though not impossible], that person better lawyer up. Confusion and/or possible mistaken investigators is a more natural response of the innocent. Then Tarq immediately goes to the rogue element card. Better, but not the next argument is justification for the original allegations, "we didn't do it but boy the US sure deserved it."

Furthermore, Iran's near instantaneous statement that the US was telling a big whopper without the requisite time for an inventory of Iran's own intel operations to find out if everybody was home before curfew sounds suspicious. Perhaps a more believable statement would have been, "we cannot confirm the identities of the gentlemen in custody but we will offer our full cooperation in finding out what those knuckleheads were doing."

Thirdly, who expects a sit down with a Zeta? Those guys' field craft is sharper than a scalpel. Why would the Zetas give two fudge-sicles about Iran's struggle to date a popular boy in the international schoolyard. Maybe Iran would have a friend in the world if they actually treated diplomats and embassies with a little respect. Then again, this is probably why Teheran is the most conquered place on earth, who hasn't planted a flag there.--Que righteous indignation from the Supreme Leader's Internet Martyrs Brigade.

If the US struggled in Iraq, what do you think will happen if America attacked Iran with more that twice the population and almost four times the area? Secondly, an attack on Iran would give the weak regime new life. Every opposition would be forced to stand behind the mullahs or risk accusation of siding with the country that attacked their country. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mullahs wanted to get caught with the intention of using nationalist sentiment to bolster their increasingly unpopular rule, but that is just speculation. It would be better to use the outrage to ratchet up sanctions and wait for the Iranian people to bring down the regime themselves.

As JOHNBOY4546 has said, there have only been ALLEGATIONs of an Iranian plot.

It's quite amazing that so many have come down with Red-Queen-itis, "Sentence first, verdict later" or, in modern-ease, "We don't need no judge and jury, hang 'em!"

"Beijing and Moscow must now realize that any further support or cover they provide to Tehran amounts to a direct alignment against the core interests and security of the United States."

That is exactly the wrong approach, with both giants. If this is a real Iranian plot against targets in the US, it is b/c the US is perceived as far weaker than it used to be. If Iran thinks it can plan such attacks successfully, the two most powerful states outside the West will not respond favorably to American threats. China is probably as comprehensively powerful as the US today, or not far behind, and Russia is still the largest nuclear weapons state in the world. So stroke them gently, make high level calls to carefully explain your position to Moscow and Beijing and how you would appreciate their cooperation.

" One possibility could be targeted strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) training camps inside Iran. This would also have the advantage of punishing the same entities responsible for killing American troops in Iraq, and supplying munitions to the Taliban in Afghanistan."

Secondly, if we are to engage in overt air-war with Iran, and incur all the risks from doing so, the IRGC is NOT the first priority. We should take this opportunity to destroy as much as at all possible of their nuclear infrastructure and related sites, as we can from the air. Hitting the IRGC, while satisfying as vengeance for killed allied troops, is far less important strategically. This should take priority only once the nuclear facilities are ruined.

The Islamic despots and Army dictators of mineral rich Middle East do what they think is good to do; suppress people, lampoon democracies, prosecute minorities and liberals with in, make bombs and intimidate the world .

Unfortunately its same megalomaniac story of Libya, Iraq with a difference that Iran has nukes and its same with poor but pure Pakistan.

Americans fatigued- worn out after Iraq and Afghanistan can not ill afford to wage another right or wrong war.

They first have to deal with a nuke loaded Pakistan on verge of imminent implosion and fears of a Jiahdi take over.

Signals from Egypt are ominous with increasing societal tensions, suppression, prosecution and killings of Copt Christians along with deep hatred for Israel becoming the driving political force based on religious xenophobia.

The world was never a heaven, but now a days it is only turning in to a planet of fear.

Lets hope for the best and be prepared for the worst.

NOTHING happened, for God's sake! It is even worse than Germany having invaded Poland on the "alleged Polish plan" to attack a radio station. Yet all you hear about is retaliation.

This article is revolting. Cite an internal jurisdictional decision to substantiate the "malevolence" of the Iranian regime... like malevolence was a casus belli.

Then you go on about Iran considering itself at war with the US, citing a Pollack article. The article itself provides no evidence, no links, no explanation to its outrageous claim. Oh, and it contains a sentence about the justification of the US invasion of Iraq, the presence of WMDs was "not entirely true". It was not true at all, it was a deliberate pretense to go to war again, same as this alleged car-salesman plot!

Then you go on about how an assumed plot should be considered enough justification to go to war, citing the first Iraqi war - see where it led you? Another lost war for the US, no war-goals achieved, billions of dollars squandered and a whole administration obsessed with Saddam, resulting in another losing war ten years later. Bravo, way to learn one's own from mistakes!

'State actors' and 'non-state actors', 'Rogue Elements' and 'non rogue elements', 'Good Taliban' and 'bad Taliban' are American constructs to indicate their willingness to act/ negotiate or not.

Duplicity is a natural and integral part of Islamic ideology which supports any means as long as the ends are met. Duplicity, therefore, comes naturally to Muslim countries who have no moral compunctions which the civilized world is saddled with.

the last thing you want to do here is retaliate against Iran militarily. THE LAST. Such an action would cripple the global economic recovery, and could even unleash a HZBLH/ QUDS force backlash on our own soil that would make 9/11 seem paltry by comparison. Irans operatives are the INVENTORS of international terror. They and their capabilities make AQ look like a bunch puppy dogs. Not to mention how much it would destabilize our "progress" in Iraq if we struck Iran. Despite this despicable move by them, they still hold almost all the cards...and they know it. They have set their defensive chess pieces in an extremely intelligent manner. The only thing we can do is heat up our covert sabotage operations against the regime and maybe convince Israel to take a swipe at Mahmood or the supreme leader...IMO.