The news story making waves that the Iranian government allegedly tried to have the Saudi Arabian ambassador assassinated on US soil strikes me as squirrelly and self-interested. Said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador? Nobody could make that up, right?" Well, nobody but government officials who rely on a lazy, compliant media to repeat their spin countless times before vetting the facts. (See Bruce Ivins' story, and Steven Hatfill's for classic illustrations, or since these charges could start a war, maybe the Gulf of Tonkin is a better example, or Bush II's claims that Iraq had chemical weapons.)
As it turns out, the suspects did not go to any "Mexican drug cartel" at all, but the case is based on a paid informant from Corpus Christi unaffiliated with any cartel who had state charges dropped in exchange for his services. In reality, the feds could have used an informant pretending to be from the Italian mob, the Crips, Bloods, you name it, since the only link to drug cartels is the cover story they fabricated.
Reported the Texas Tribune, the corporate intelligence service Stratfor says, "It seems unusual that the Iranians would approach a Mexican cartel to carry out the assassination, when the Iranians probably have the capability themselves," and that "at this point the cartels have not been directly linked to the plot."
Why would the Iranian government seek the Saudi ambassador's assassination, and if true, why would they choose to do it on American soil? It makes no sense. I don't yet know what to believe about these allegations, but one thing I know for sure: Only a fool would agree that "Nobody could make that up."
MORE: From Sylvia Longmire and Pete Guither. Amy Davidson at the New Yorker says one thing the story has going for it is an indictment. Read the full complaint here (pdf).
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar