Republican politicians are now demanding that the Obama administration investigate the Iran-Mexico connection, linking that issue to the lack of enforceable border patrol measures and illegal Mexicans crossing over. That there is some credible evidence linking Iranian operative, connected or not to the government, may not be the same thing as arriving at far fetched scenarios of a plot that the government of Mexico any more than the government of Iran are implicated, or that there is a need to crack down on illegal Mexicans, or that Iran poses a global terrorist threat because of an incident for which a great deal more evidence must be disclosed so that people can make up their own minds about this so-called plot.
Gary Sick, Columbia University and former US government official, argues that Iran does not have a history of a) relying on third parties to carry out sensitive missions, and b) it has never attempted any kind of plot inside US soil. But let us say that Mexican drug lords are indeed involved, as alleged, this means that the government of Mexico would have to know about it. It is true that Mexico has followed other Latin American countries, Cuba, Brazil, and Venezuela among others, in supporting ar at least staying silent about Itan's nuclear energy program that the US and its major EU allies oppose.
Moreover, Mexico, like Venezuela and Brazil, has expanded its trade relations with Iran and it plans to expand them further, although it pales by comparison to Iran-Brazil trade. Given that there has been a cordial Iran-Mexico relationship at all levels, does this mean that the US must necessarily declare Mexico as a threat to US national security and as a terrorist state? Where does the madness stop and when do people begin to clear the smoke from their eyes regarding this manufactured crisis that the US has cooked up in a dangerous game of high stakes foreign policy?
I have no doubt that the Obama administration has considered all the possibilities and all options, just as Joe Biden said. There is probably some type of fire where there is some smoke, but the response is a blatant case of overkill for purely political reasons that I have stated in a previous posting. Who knows what to make of the WIKILEAKS cable dated 20 April 2008 in which ambassador Adel al-Jubeir relayed a message from Saudi King who wanted the US to 'destroy' Iran's nuclear capability.
Who knows what to make of third parties acting on behalf of Iran's Quds force that in turn paid Mexico's Los Zetas gang to kill the ambassador who dared relay a message from the King?! On 14 October 2011, an Iranian official at the UN, categorically denied US claims that the US government was in direct talks with the government in Tehran over the alleged plot. Unless one or the other side, or both produce hard evidence, it is difficult to know which side is lying.
Who knows what to make of third parties acting on behalf of Iran's Quds force that in turn paid Mexico's Los Zetas gang to kill the ambassador who dared relay a message from the King?! On 14 October 2011, an Iranian official at the UN, categorically denied US claims that the US government was in direct talks with the government in Tehran over the alleged plot. Unless one or the other side, or both produce hard evidence, it is difficult to know which side is lying.
The flames of hysteria were deliberate lit to serve a goal completely unrelated to whatever there is behind the Saudi plot. Can you imagine China, for example, threatening to go to war against Taiwan because Taiwan conspired with South Korea to assassinate a North Korean diplomat? This is unmitigated reckless foreign policy conduct, no matter how one looks at it. There are multilateral institutional structures in place to deal with such matters, and bilateral action is not one of them, especially now when the most significant issue confronting the world is the lingering economic recession.
2 comments:
Absolutely-- Thank You.
Re: "Can you imagine China, for example, threatening to go to war against Taiwan because Taiwan conspired with South Korea to assassinate a North Korean diplomat?"
First, I might redress by what authority this particular process was birthed. But, in the case of using China as an example to find correlations with an action that is alleged to have occurred in the United States, is incongruent.
The Attorney General is in question at present. He is in question because No One is above the codified law in America; precept upon precept.
We pledged to each other our Lives, our Fortunes. and our Sacred Honor to hold the scales of even-measured Justice; for the "most wholesome" and good of the public, the Ascent to Law (where executive orders can be petitioned by the people, overturned by the people, for the people).
Especially in regard to our Arms and foreign elements, codified laws see through the shit flowing through Paul's prison cell. And with all due respect to Columbia University and former US government official Gary Sick, Of course Iran has attempted plots and 'inside US soil.' they have not bore fruit though because the Art of War provides us with Sheild and Buckler. Prepared and wholly Armed.
On the otherhand, the executive branch in China subscribes to Communism which is totalitarian. The mass of earth's population is under bondage in China. And, that being said, most citizens of China speak on the behavior of their leaders in hushed whispers. Cry China.
Post a Comment