Elliott Abrams

Pressure Points

Abrams gives his take on U.S. foreign policy, with special focus on the Middle East and democracy and human rights issues.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Iran’s Plot for Terror in Washington

by Elliott Abrams
October 11, 2011

Today’s explosive news of an Iranian plot to commit an act of terror in Washington, DC should put Iran back at the top of our foreign policy agenda.  As the Washington Post stated, the indictment is for “an elaborate terrorist plot backed by factions of the Iranian government,”  namely the Quds Force—the part of the Revolutionary Guards charged with acts of terrorism.

In recent months, with the events of the Arab Spring and the Administration’s obsessive focus on Israeli-Palestinian matters, Iran has seemed an afterthought. Indeed it barely got a sentence in the president’s speech to the UN General Assembly.

But the Iranian regime was bold enough to plot to kill the Saudi ambassador right in Washington, and had an explosive device been used many others, including American citizens, would likely have been killed or wounded. (Details can be found here, the actual indictment in the case.)

The recklessness of this plan is remarkable, and tells us a great deal about the ayatollahs’ regime. As the Iranians could never be certain that their role would remain undiscovered, one must assume they simply did not believe there would be serious repercussions. And that itself tells us a great deal about their assessment of American policy, and their fear of the United States.

What to do about Iran should once again be a top item for discussion. The recklessness–it is the only appropriate word–of this planned act of terrorism in our nation’s capital should teach us that the regime in Tehran cannot be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. If they will act this way now, how will they act if they ever get nuclear arms? That “it is unacceptable for Iran to get nuclear weapons” is the stated policy of the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, Germany, and France) as well as of Israel. The question is whether we mean it and are truly prepared to enforce it. Today’s revelation of planned Iranian terrorism in Washington should make it clear yet again that the answer must be “Yes.”

Post a Comment 6 Comments

  • Posted by Eliyahu

    Iran does not fear the USA, not the administration now in Washington. Yet Macchiavelli taught that it is better to be feared than loved [The Prince, 17:2]. Has anybody in the White House read Macchiavelli?

  • Posted by freshteh

    OMG: why on earth should Iran want to kill Saudi diplomat in US? Don’t we ourselves have Saudi ambassador in Tehran that we want to kill the one in Washington? under the nose of police state of US? the Big Brother US? come on! you can fool some people for some time but you cannot fool all people for ever! that’s the US story! and It wants to drag those illegitimate Saudi rulers into their covet, devil plans for Iran.Nobody believes US accusations and lies and hypocrisies any more. believe me!

  • Posted by freshteh

    Iran does not need to kill an old Saudi diplomat in Washington under the nose of US police,If it wants to punch US in the face it has other sources, allies and means to do so!

  • Posted by canadiansyrian

    Iran WAS ploting to kill the Saudi Embassador ( with some collateral Americans )the reason is ; to send a message to the Saudis not to help the Syrian revolution .
    Iran&Assad play from the same book , Assad killed Hariri (former lebanes prime minister)knowing the world would wonder why would Assad kill hariri.
    Iran ,does the same , kill the Saudi and let the world wonder why would Iran kills the Embassador.

  • Posted by Dean Smallwood

    The Iranians read the Obama Administration pretty accurately . They expected no repercussions that amount to anything … and there won’t be .

  • Posted by redracam

    Israel is estimated to have a stockpile of 200 nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India both have the bomb. What is the difference between these countries and Iran?

    Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty whilst the three other countries are not.
    The United States has attacked (including Libya) 73 different countries since WW2 Iran has attacked no one.

    Further, the IAEA report seems questionable – they present “evidence” that has clearly been provided by covert means when the agency itself has no intelligence capability(??!); the source of this is not stated. Moreover, the number of conditional phrases in the report (suspected, alleged, possibly) underlines the total lack of real evidence for Iran having any nuclear weapons capability now or in the near future.

    Finally, what would be the motive or gain for Iran in killing the Saudi Ambassador AND on US soil? Who benefits from this alleged assassination attempt? I believe it is people with an interest in gaining political capital against Iran; the same people who are, at this very moment, suing for sanctions and air-strikes.

    Countries that have real nuclear weapons and invade other countries should merit Mr Abrams attention far more than those who, like Iran, are have-nots in both cases.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required