Slashdot Mirror


US Intercepts Iranian Order For Attack On US Embassy In Iraq

cold fjord writes "Another NSA story? The Wall Street Journal reports, 'The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria ... U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf ... U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies. ... Israel has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese militant ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the "destruction of Israel." ... The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.' What's interesting is this Washington Post story from 2011: Iran's Quds Force was blamed for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq."

30 of 433 comments (clear)

  1. Keep the Distraction Machine Running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Situation normal.

    1. Re:Keep the Distraction Machine Running by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole story is an outright lie - to set up a desired chain of events, where striking Syria illegally will create an incident that can be trumped up as Iranian in origin, thus justifying an attack on the actual desired target.

      You folks were all played REALLY badly, on the Iraq bait-n-switch. If you want to go for this one, will you at least walk down my Carnival Midway, first?

      I have some "P.T. Barnum" theories, I'd like put to test...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Keep the Distraction Machine Running by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pay special attention to the whereas lines. They lay out the official reasons we went to war and to the best of my knowledge, the only one that has turned out to be untrue was the continuing WMD programs and stockpiles.

      You may have hoped for a massive TL;DR response, but I read some of it. Several other lines were untrue: Al-Qaida in Iraq (it came during the war to support the insurgents, was not there to begin with), the fact that 9/11, I quote, "underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations" (a few knives are hardly a WMD; if anything, 9/11 underscored how easy it is to pull off a terrorist plot with simple tools and some out-of-the-box thinking), the possibility that Iraq would use WMDs in a surprise attack against the US or pass them to terrorists.

      If you think the WMDs were made up, then ask yourself why the government would lie to get us into a war and not put WMDs in the sand somewhere to keep it's citizens trusting of it.

      I asked myself, and I answered myself that the sheeple would not care if no WMDs were not found after the war was started. Who started the war needed an excuse to get it started, not to justify himself afterwards. No WMDs were found, yet I don't see Bush, Rumsfeld and all other war criminals (because that's what they technically are) being brought to court and sentenced to death by hanging (which is what was normally dished out for the crime of war of aggression at Nuremberg).

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  2. Re:WSJ is not exactly a credible source by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All Rupert Murdoch newspapers are warmongering tools.

  3. America would deserve it... by adamchou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a US service member, I really don't want this to happen because I'll probably get sent there if this flares up and I've got less than 5 months left in the military. However, I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria.

    1. Re:America would deserve it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a former U.S. service member, I'm with this guy. Both sides of the Syrian civil war are equally "bad guys". Sometimes going to war is warranted, getting involved in Syria isn't.

    2. Re:America would deserve it... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And here I thought you'd got control of yourself, cold fjord; all the submissions have been bumping up your karma rating, and I hadn't seen anything inflammatory from you lately.

      Being unsurprised at tit-for-tat has nothing to do with being an Anti-US sympathizer. What you'll find though is that there are a growing number of people who are against the US government's foreign policy, because it costs lives, often without appearing to have any benefit to the US as a whole (only to businesses who have a vested interest in some foreign country).

      When Israel says "let the Muslim world handle this" and the UN almost unilaterally takes a "don't touch this" attitude, then some nation issues orders to retaliate if the US conducts an unprovoked assault on another nation, when said nation is known to be high on the list of "next targets", WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE REST OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING MANY OF ITS OWN CITIZENS, TO CONSIDER ATTACKING, AND THEN IS IN A HUFF WHEN ANOTHER NATION GIVES ITS OPERATIVES SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS?

      You can't have it both ways, as your comments about 9/11 so clearly indicate.

      Show me the number of Americans killed by terrorists, averaged over the past decade -- I'll show you the number of Americans and non-Americans killed by American corporate and governmental greed and negligence. Neither have much of anything to do with this discussion.

    3. Re:America would deserve it... by slick7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a US service member, I really don't want this to happen because I'll probably get sent there if this flares up and I've got less than 5 months left in the military. However, I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria.

      Now you know how it felt in Vietnam. The funny (as in odd) thing is, the profiteers of that war are the same profiteers of this war. The funnier (even odder yet) the bought dog politicians of that war are the AIPAC bought dog politicians of this war.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    4. Re:America would deserve it... by adamchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I signed up on my own will to kill people that want to harm my friends and family. Attacking a country in the midst of a civil war so we can push our politicians agendas is not what I signed up for.

    5. Re:America would deserve it... by adamchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who said I was a weak link? Just because I don't want to go there doesn't mean I won't do it and I won't do it to the best of my ability. I'd lead my soldiers from the front and I'd take a bullet for any of them. You're full of shit if you say you enjoyed everything you did in the military.

  4. BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Within the last 10 years, both the United States and Israel have been busted for faking intelligence for supporting military strikes. The IDF, all of three years ago, was caught dubbing hair on fire anti-semitic slurs onto tapes from the Freedom Flotilla.

    And, of course, remember that the U.S. and Israel have already committed multiple acts of war upon Iran, whether by Stuxnet or assassinating their nuclear scientists.

    1. Re:BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu by skipkent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey now, haven't you learned that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic?

    2. Re:BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gee I wonder how those psychopaths got into power. It's not like the CIA overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed their own lap dog leading to revolution a decade later instilling anti american feelings in the region or anything.

      A few problems in this oft-quoted assumption:

      1. The mullahs who later supported overthrowing the Shah also hated Mossadegh. It wasn't until after the Shah pissed off the mullahs (see item 2) that Mossadegh's overthrow became a talking point with them. They (as did the US) saw Mossadegh as having Marxist sympathies -- a very bad thing given Marxism's hostility towards religion. Grand Ayatollah Broujerdi (who Khomeini was a clerk for at the time) strongly supported the coup. This attitude continued despite a temporary alliance during the 1978-79 revolution, and a lot of Marxists were executed after Khomeini's rise to power. Even after the revolution, Khomeini continued to condemn Mossadegh, refusing to allow his birthday to be celebrated, stating that "if the US imperialists had not slapped Mossadegh in the face, then Mossadegh would have slapped Islam."

      2. What really pissed off the mullahs (and their followers) was the Shah's attempts as liberalizing and secularizing Iran, in particular the elimination of official government privileges and funding for the clergy, removing religious influence from the schools (fx. by teaching evolution), and extending voting rights to women. You need to distinguish with what was grievances against the Shah were emphasized by the people in Iran, and what grievances were emphasized for external consumption to undermine support for him internationally.

      3. A large segment in Iran were pissed off about it, but it certainly didn't instill anti-American feelings "in the region" as you put it. The peninsular Arabs did not want to wind up staring across the Gulf at a Soviet sympathizer, as they feared Mossadegh of being or at least becoming.

      Also, while it's not a part of the cause/effect discussion, I have yet to see any of the folks who condemn Operation Ajax whenever the topic of US/Iranian relations comes up similarly condemn Operation Countenance (the earlier Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran).

    3. Re:BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu by johanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering past history, Iran has not started any wars in the region. The US-backed Iraq has. Iran with nukes will probably only use them to prevent US and Israeli attacks. Even better if they get rocket technology to deliver them: hey, US, you attack and we'll probably loose but some of your cities will be finished too. I think it would actually promote peace since it would prevent US agression.

  5. Re:WSJ is not exactly a credible source by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the hazards of the news business is that occasionally you end up reporting unpleasant or disagreeable news like this. Even "rainbows and puppies" papers like USA today are carrying the story.

    Do you prefer the news, or rainbows, puppies, and unicorns?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  6. I'm supposed to trust this? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, look at the source. I'm sure that the US intelligence agencies will all run to the Wall Street Journal with leaked information. Next, there have been no facts presented for anything else they have been banging a war drum on. Not just for this, but for decades. Are we really supposed to keep trusting known liars and a corrupt media system?

    We also have this one.

    Not only do I not trust a corrupt media and politicians, I want them out of our country. Maybe a good first step in war is to start parachuting politicians into these foreign countries where they clamor for war?

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  7. The fishy smell just got worse. by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details. Now a mystery communication putting Iran and Syria together if attacked. First of all if they had intercepted this, why would they tell every one about it. Now Iran is going to find another form of communication since this one is compromised. The whole scenario is playing out like a bad 80's conspiracy movie.

    1. Re:The fishy smell just got worse. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details.

      Well, that bit would make sense. If you divulge too many details, you leave clues as to how to came by your information which puts your spies and methods at risk. Which leads me to the next part...

      Now a mystery communication putting Iran and Syria together if attacked. First of all if they had intercepted this, why would they tell every one about it. Now Iran is going to find another form of communication since this one is compromised. The whole scenario is playing out like a bad 80's conspiracy movie.

      Agreed, releasing this doesn't make much sense from a US standpoint, IMO; if we had this info, why the hell would we make it public knowledge that we had it !? Seems it would've been smarter if we had played dumb and covertly made preparations to thwart any such attacks.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:The fishy smell just got worse. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details.

      Conversely, Russian officials are claiming that they've found evidence that the rebels had used sarin, but instead of keeping it on the D/L, they're passing the info along to the UN inspectors.

      FWIW.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:The fishy smell just got worse. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems it would've been smarter if we had played dumb and covertly made preparations to thwart any such attacks.

      Even if the message was authentic and there was a reason to release that information WHY is this going through the WSJ instead of from The White House?

      The next question is WHO will call for the prosecution of the journalist at the WSJ who published this.

      And WHO will call for the investigation and prosecution of who leaked that information.

  8. Timing is suspect by m00sh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The day after Snowden reveals NSA snoops secure internet traffic ...

    Do we even trust the media anymore? They are just a tool for beating the war drums now.

    Wasn't the whole CIA-Iran coup thing started with planting false stories in the media. How do we know that we aren't being fed planted stories?

  9. The U.S word is no good by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like they think we're suddenly going to believe them. Turn off the bullshit- and propaganda-machines, no one is listening.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  10. Re:WSJ is not exactly a credible source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    PUPPIES!!!

  11. Angling to get Iran too by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this just what the US wants? They know that if they escalate things in Syria, they will drag in Iran, and then they will have the mandate they want to hit Iran.

    I have a feeling that this was the plan all along....

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:Angling to get Iran too by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have been on the Earth for quite a while now. Ever since the Shah was overthrown, I keep hearing about how bad Iran is and how they plan to rule the world. I have seen the US, UK, and Israel bully them. On more than one occasion Israel has bombed Iran. I saw Iraq instigated into war with Iran by the US and UK, the US arm Iraq, and offer intelligence so that Iranians could be killed. I saw the US sit silent while they knew that Saddam had used Sarin, Cyanide, and Mustard gas on his own people as well as the Iranian soldiers.

      All of this time, the CFR and their puppets have been claiming that "Iran is Evil".

      What I have not seen in this time is Iran retaliate, start a war, or massacre their allegedly sworn enemies.

      The story line is played out, and so full of false information that I really don't know whether to laugh or cry when people like you repeat propaganda without doing any fact checking. Worse, this does not require much in the way of fact checking. Just open your eyes and ask some basic questions.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  12. Re:Fine but leave my tranny wombat porn alone by mcl630 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My first thought reading this was (assuming the story is true), "this is exactly what the NSA is *supposed* to be doing." They should be focusing on gathering foreign intelligence, NOT collecting bazillions of phone records of Americans and coercing American companies (Google/Microsoft/etc) to build backdoors and weaknesses into their software and servers.

  13. So? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, this is a legitimate intercept that's been made public for the purposes of swaying public opinion in favor of the NSA's spying program. Were any of us upset that the US government is attempting to learn about the activities of other nations hostile to it? No, of course not.

    But how does this supposedly justify any of the crap behavior we ARE upset about?

    Do the Iranians use Verizon cell phones to give tactical orders to its sailors? Does Hezbollah use Gmail to coordinate its attacks? Maybe the G-20 ministers were going to kidnap an American right after the conference? Or perhaps its those NSA spooks' ex-wives that were going to aid and abet the Taliban in their next attacks?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  14. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia. by Grog6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least this week.

    I think America has finally realized they're being lied to; hell, Obama doesn't even look like he believes what he's saying, and that's suicide for a politician.

    This will not end well, however it goes.

    I advocate a full Nuclear Strike; It makes as much sense as everything else.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  15. Re:And if they do this, we have to do that, and... by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    good let someone else do something for a change.

    Let iran and syria claim the west was scared. the USA has literally marched and rolled over countries in the blink of an eye.

    The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?

    The problem is not the initial strike and devastating military blow but the aftermath. the long term engagement planning. the USA simply doesn't plan for more than 6 months into the future. It is why we keep getting bogged down into quagmires. We remember the revolutionary war and bam George washington was president, and we had a constitution. What is often forgotten is the articles of confederation lasted for the better part of ten years before we got it right and we didn't have Britain, or France breathing down our backs trying to "help" us. while the French supported us we forced the british out we started the fight and we finished the fight. you can not build nation from the outside it must be built inside. these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy they want Ayatollah's and dictators.

    Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other. Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other. You can't change their mind so you might as well not get your hands bloody.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  16. Re:And if they do this, we have to do that, and... by ph1ll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?"

    And how many days did it take America to "roll over" Vietnam?

    America is the World's pre-eminent super power but as soon as their boys start returning home in body bags, they lose the taste for war. Do you think Iran doesn't know this?

    You can't compare Iran with Iraq. Iran is 4 times as large, over twice as populated and (unlike Iraq) largely ethnically homogenous and pretty unified. They lost between 300 000 and 600 000 in their war with Iraq and suffered chemical attacks but they still repelled the invaders (who were being assisted by the US). Can you image America taking even a small percentage of those casualties?

    I don't want to sound down on America, but if you think this is going to be a walk in the park, you're going to get your asses kicked.

    --
    --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."