Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Politics

US Intercepts Iranian Order For Attack On US Embassy In Iraq 433

Posted by Soulskill
from the fool-me-once.. dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Intercepts Iranian Order For Attack On US Embassy In Iraq

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06, 2013 @05:54PM (#44779423)

    Situation normal.

    • by istartedi (132515)

      OK, they intercepted; but did they run it back for a--oh crap! The distraction is working.

    • by Grog6 (85859) on Friday September 06, 2013 @08:11PM (#44780445)

      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.

  • by adamchou (993073) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:00PM (#44779477)
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:16PM (#44779597)

      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.

    • I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria.

      Unfortunately for you, it doesn't matter what you think.

    • I've got less than 5 months left in the military.

      You're worried they'd send you home before you'd get a chance to grin in the photo of raising a US flag on the roof of the Sa'dabad Palace?

      • by adamchou (993073)
        If things escalated, and they needed to deploy more people, they could extend contracts and/or recall people.
    • by slick7 (1703596) on Friday September 06, 2013 @07:45PM (#44780229)

      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.

  • by puddingebola (2036796) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:02PM (#44779485) Journal
    No idea if it's legitimate or not, but the Zimmerman Telegram was the first thing that came to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram [wikipedia.org]
    • It's not that surprising, Syria and Iran are allies. Would you really expect Iran to stand by and do nothing while the US attacks Syria? The only reason any rational actor would not want to join with their allies in that situation is fear of losing badly. Thus it makes sense that Iran would attack through its proxy clients, much like the US and Russia did during the cold war.

      Whether the actual leak is a true leak or not, it certainly matches a likely reality. It's also foolish to assume it is a reason to
  • by Uberbah (647458) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:10PM (#44779549)

    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 [maxblumenthal.com] 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.

    • by skipkent (1510) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:11PM (#44779559)

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

      • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:26PM (#44779663) Homepage Journal

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

        Nah, see, it's cool - we balance it with a good helping of love for John Stewart.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ralph Wiggam (22354)

        One or two nutjobs that nobody cares about have labeled legitimate anti-israel criticism as anti-semitic.

        Yet people like you make it sound like some big widespread thing so that you can feel like oppressed victims.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps (1157495)

      Umm... not that I want to justify the US in doing all their nastiness in the middle east but Iran hasn't exactly been laying olive branches at our feet. As bad as our government is, I'm under no delusion about what's going to happen once the psychopaths in charge of that country have nukes. In my opinion Israels justified in doing just about anything they want to prevent that from happening because I doubt there will be an Israel anymore after it does.. or an Iran for that matter. I think the only thing tha

      • by skipkent (1510)

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06, 2013 @08:03PM (#44780389)

          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).

          • 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).

            Doh. Sorry, new computer, didn't realize I wasn't logged in.

      • by johanw (1001493) on Friday September 06, 2013 @08:16PM (#44780467)

        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.

        • The real problem with a nuclear Iran is that it would cause Saudi Arabia, as their regional rival, to go nuclear.

          Fortunately, US intelligence indicates Iran isn't building a bomb.

    • by onyxruby (118189)

      Get real, Iran has a history of openly supporting terrorism that goes back for decades. Iran has used proxies to attack the United States and Israel for years in any number of environments. This is exactly the kind of thing that Iran has done and would do. You sound like the person claiming the neighborhood bully might not have beaten the class nerd, even though they have done so the last 78 times.

    • by Khashishi (775369)

      More like the last 200 years. Well, maybe just ~60 years for Israel.

  • by s.petry (762400) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:11PM (#44779557)

    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 [cbslocal.com] 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?

  • by who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:13PM (#44779571)
    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.
    • by cyberchondriac (456626) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:23PM (#44779645) Journal

      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.

      • 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...

        Take tissue/DNA/blood/whatever samples from bunch of people who are from a very large bunch of people who've been exposed to some chemical and run scientific tests for that chemical. It's basic medical science; I can't believe there'd be anything sensitive or classified about the procedure itself, and there's prob

      • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:48PM (#44779821)

        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.

    • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:32PM (#44779705) Homepage Journal

      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 [rt.com] 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.

      • That's the great thing about having big stockpiles of chemical weapons - there are plenty to go around, capture, and use. But do keep in mind that the Syrian government has a bit more practice and training for this sort of thing.

        Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about [abovetopsecret.com]

        • by s.petry (762400)

          Big on the propaganda? From wiki.org: In August, September and November 1981, the Brotherhood carried out three car-bomb attacks against government and military targets in Damascus, killing hundreds of people, according to the official press. On 2 February 1982, the Brotherhood led a major insurrection in Hama, rapidly taking control of the city; the military responded by bombing Hama (whose population was about 250,000) throughout the rest of the month, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 people. The traged

    • I say we nuke it from orbit.

      It's the only way to be sure.

    • by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:32PM (#44779709)

      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....

      • You should note that is only possible if the Iranian government gives in to its general inclination towards terrorism [cfr.org] and hatred of the United States. (Talk about low hanging fruit.)

        • by s.petry (762400)

          Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy. I'm guessing that you should study up on who the CFR is, and what they are about before you believe that they have the USA in their best interests.

          Remember that most criminals will not tell you that they are criminals. When you have money and are a criminal, you get to pay people to never see you in the spotlight and make bad stories disappear.

          • Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy.

            The question of whether or not Iran engages in terrorism is a question of fact, not of foreign policy. It is well established that Iran engages in terrorism, both directly and indirectly.

            • by s.petry (762400) on Friday September 06, 2013 @08:11PM (#44780437)

              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.

            • by johanw (1001493)

              So does the US, bombing civilians in Pakistan for example.

    • by khallow (566160)
      Well, one obvious reason is to attempt to discourage Iran from actual retaliation for a Syrian strike. I suppose it could be a prelude to a US invasion of Iran, starting with a false flag attack on a US embassy or some such. But if that was going to happen, then why happen now rather than any time in the last twelve years?

      My take is that the proposed retaliatory attacks are probably just an Iranian tactic to discourage US intervention in Syria and were intended to be intercepted by US intelligence. There
    • So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details

      Does this help?

      Sarin gas was used in Syrian chemical weapons attack, says David Cameron [theguardian.com]

      The positive tests for sarin were completed this week and made on clothes and soil taken from the site of the attack in Ghouta, eastern Damascus on 21 August. The tests were carried out in the past seven days by British scientists at the Porton Down facility, and will be deployed by Cameron in a fresh attempt to persuade the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to do more to force the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to the negotiating table.

      The samples brought to the UK from the Syrian borders are different to the hair and blood samples tested in the US. Details of those test results were released by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, four days ago.

      • by s.petry (762400)

        Okay, third comment in the thread along the same line. Are you a government puppet?

        Your statement does not present facts, it states what we already knew. "Chemical Weapons were used." It does determine who used them, and you provided no facts to even begin to make an implication. Cameron could not convince the British he had any evidence which is why their parliament voted "NO" on military action.

        Yes it does matter who used them. Bombing Assad (in reality thousands of innocent citizens) if the rebels u

    • by jon3k (691256)

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

      http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/03/happening-now-lawmakers-grill-obama-officials-on-syria/ [cnn.com]

      2:45 p.m. ET - Sen. Bob Menendez: "We know that chemical weapons personnel from the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center – subordinate to the regime’s Ministry of Defense – were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18th until early in the morning on Wednesday August 21st near an area the regime uses to mix chemical weapons including sarin and human intelligence as well as signal and geospatial intelligence have shown regime activity in the preparation of chemicals prior to the attack, including the distribution and use of gas masks.

      We have multiple streams of intelligence that show the regime launched a rocket attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21st and satellite corroboration that the attacks were launched from a regime-controlled area and struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred clearly tying the pieces together. That is what we know in terms of who may have deployed these weapons.

  • Timing is suspect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by m00sh (2538182) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:13PM (#44779577)

    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?

  • by Reliable Windmill (2932227) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:15PM (#44779585)
    It's like they think we're suddenly going to believe them. Turn off the bullshit- and propaganda-machines, no one is listening.
  • Iran / Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:22PM (#44779639)

    Since I paid attention to the TV "news" as a teen or thereabouts, we (the west) have been at war with Iraq, then Iran, then Iraq, and now Iran is getting the propaganda treatment ready for another skirmish. Eric Blair must have used this for his 1984. I know people have short memories, aren't interested, claim it's god's will, or prefer "reality" TV to life beyond their sad lives, but come on, surely I'm not the only non-historian to see we're vacillating between these two?

    We (the west, most likely US and UK) must be looking to supply Iraq (old UK territory) with a huge amount of expensive weaponry and military contractors, just like we did with Iran, and Iraq before them. It's not just the oil, it's the contracts, and it's not just the US. It's the old British and French regions constantly having to fight among themselves and the US led oil occupancy campaigns.

  • by sandbagger (654585) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:28PM (#44779679)

    This may be PR of course. However, assuming that this is true, and given how it is coming at a spectacularly bad week, it's timeliness makes me suspicious. However, this is the sort of stuff we want our spooks to catch not deploy a dragnet over our own society.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I dunno... it's from ColdFjord of all people. I mean, he's radically in favor of the NSA and anything that even remotely justifies their existance and current illegal activities is going to be spun as god's own truth. If he's involved in the discussion and the NSA is on topic, then I simply have to take everything with a fist-sized grain of salt. I'll just look elsewhere for information on who said what about Iran.

  • No credibility (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RenHoek (101570) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:33PM (#44779713) Homepage

    I think the US has lost all its credibility in the world since it became known where all of the 'credible documents' about Iraq came from. I'll believe there were chemical weapons used but most likely it was the rebels, trying to get other countries involved in their war.

    Also, as a European, I'm getting ever so tired of hearing how 'America is the policeman of the world'. Why not let the Middle East countries clean up their own mess for once? The added bonus being a lot less angry Muslims giving the US the stinkeye.

    • Yes, as an American I am tired of America being policeman of the world, too. Especially when it comes to paying taxes for things like having military bases in Europe and the Middle East. WTF is that about? Europe is capable of paying for it's own defense and has been for a long time.

      There was a time when America really depended on the Middle East for oil, and a time when Europe was recovering from WWII and was incapable of defending itself. When those are the realities then foreign entanglements are justifi

  • So? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:45PM (#44779791)

    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?

  • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Friday September 06, 2013 @06:46PM (#44779809)

    Who else, but Cold Fjord?

    In regards to his continued efforts as the resident NSA Shill here at Slashdot, I respect his dogged determination to continue the fight, futile as it may be.

    Keep it up--you've become a de facto inside-line on what the Feds want us to believe. It's like having our own mole inside the NSA.

  • Close down the US embassies in Baghdad, Beirut, and indeed, elsewhere in the Middle East - Riyadh, Cairo, Tripoli, Khartoum, et al. Then they won't have to worry about Jihadi attacks on US embassies.

    For the record, I'm against the US getting involved in either side, since there are no 'good guys' in this conflict. But if they insist on getting involved, they should evacuate all their embassies in the region, so that a rerun of the US embassy bombing in Beirut of 1983 or the attack on the US consulate in

  • ... the militants know that we are on to them. And they can adjust their command and control procedures to avoid future detection. And for what? Some positive spin on the NSA's antics?

    FFS, this is what they are supposed to be doing. Not screwing around, feeding the DEA the lowdown on pot deals or handing the IRS lists of overseas bank accounts.

  • Only the US could launch an unprovoked attack with the simultaneous expectation that no-one would be motivated to retaliate.

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw

Working...