|February 16, 2012
Source: Washington’s Blog
U.S. and Israel Point Towards Iran … But Did They Do It?
If Iran, in fact, carried out the attacks, it will provide a justification for war against Iran.
But did Iran actually carry out the attacks?
Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that the U.S. and Israel support the terrorists which have assassinated several Iranian scientists (and see this).
And put aside for a moment the following facts:
It would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
Why Would Iran Bomb One of Its Most Important Trade Partners … Who Is Helping Iran to Escape from Sanctions By the West?
India has become one of Iran’s most important trading partners, and has been increasing its ties to Iran since sanctions have been imposed by the West. Indeed, India has agreed to use creative payment methods for Iranian oil. See this, this, this and this.
Why would Iran carry out a terror attack on one of its most important trading partners … one which has agreed to help help Iran escape from sanctions?
As Finnian Cunninham notes:
What would Iran gain from such action, only grief and trouble?
This is especially true with regard to India and Thailand. Both Asian countries have become major trading partners with Tehran in recent years. India, along with China, is Iran’s biggest customer for its vital oil industry.
Thailand is of growing importance as a trading partner with Iran for oil, mining, heavy industry, services, technology and agriculture especially after both countries set up a joint business council five years ago.
For Iran to carry out such attacks, as is being claimed, would be like shooting itself in the foot, particularly because both Asian countries have refused to join in the US-led campaign to isolate Iran economically and diplomatically.
Put the other way round, it is much more in the interest of Washington and Israel to destabilize relations between Iran and its Asian partners. The repercussions from the blasts in India would appear to be having that desired effect.
Take this Reuters reports: Up to now India has not gone along with new financial sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union to punish Iran over its disputed nuclear programme. Instead, New Delhi has come up with elaborate trade and barter arrangements to pay for oil supplies. However, the president of the All India Rice Exporters’ Association said Monday’s attack on the wife of an Israeli diplomat in the Indian capital will damage trade with Iran and may complicate efforts to resolve an impasse over Iranian defaults on payments for rice imports worth around $150 million. “The attack and its political fallout have clearly vitiated the atmosphere. Traders who were already losing money due to payment defaults will be extremely wary of continuing their trade with buyers in Iran,” Vijay Setia told Reuters.
So add it up. Bomb teams with proven US/Israeli assassination expertise and methodology; target countries that are major Iranian partners; desired effect of further isolating Iran internationally; and, to cap it all, a long sought-after pretext for Israel to attack Iran with America’s blessing.
When logic and facts coincide like this, it’s usually more prudent to engage in reason than to indulge in lurid claims.
Simiarly, Arshin Adib-Moghaddam writes in the Guardian:
Let’s assume that sections of the military and security apparatus in Iran are responsible for the string of bombings in Georgia, Thailand and India. What would be the motive? The argument that Iran is retaliating for the murder of five civilian nuclear scientists in Iran is not plausible. If Iran wanted to target Israeli interests, it has other means at its disposal. It is hard to imagine that the Iranian government would send Iranian operatives to friendly countries, completely equipped with Iranian money and passports – making the case against them as obvious as possible.
If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are as professional, highly trained and politically savvy as we have been told repeatedly by Israeli politicians themselves, if they have successfully trained and equipped the cadres of Hezbollah and other movements with paramilitary wings in the region, then why would they launch such a clumsy and self-defeating operation?
And why India, Georgia and Thailand, three countries that Iran has had cordial relations with during a period when Iran is facing increasing sanctions spearheaded by the United States? A few days ago, India agreed a rupee-based oil and gas deal with Iran and resisted US pressures to join the western boycott of the Iranian energy sector. As a net importer of 12% of Iranian oil, India’s total trade with Iran amounted to $13.67bn in 2010-2011. What would be the motive for damaging relations with one of Iran’s major trading partners and regional heavyweights?
For Iran it doesn’t make sense to risk alienating India by launching an assassination attempt in the capital of the country. Similarly, Iran has good economic and political relations with Georgia and Thailand. Why would the leadership in Tehran risk a major crisis with these countries during this sensitive period when IAEA inspectors are moving in and out of Iran to investigate the country’s nuclear programme?
And Juan Cole points out:
India has suffered from both Hindu and Muslim terrorist groups. So the attack on an automobile outside the Israeli embassy in New Delhi could easily have been carried out by an Indian group. Israel’s government, a master of spin and propaganda, immediately blamed the bombing on Iran and Hizbullah. But there is no evidence for this cynical allegation, which makes no sense. India is Iran’s economic lifeline, and Tehran would not likely risk such an operation at this time.
India gets 12% of its oil from Iran and sees an $8 billion annual export opportunity in filling the trade vacuum left by unilateral US and European boycotts of Iran. Contrary to a bad Reuters article, Indian officials denied Tuesday that the bombing would affect trade ties. (Logical because no evidence points to Iran.)
Indian investigators are first rate. Based on the modus operandi, their initial thesis is that the attack was the work of the “Indian Mujahidin” group. [Cole is right.] It had used a similar remote controlled sticky bomb, placed by a motorcyclist, in an attack on Taiwanese tourists outside the Jama Masjid cathedral mosque in 2010. IM is a Sunni group, not connected to Iran, and doesn’t like Shiite Muslims (Iranians are Shiites). IM like other Sunni radicals support the Palestinians and they are unhappy with increasingly close ties between India and Israel.
American media that just parrot notorious thug, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in this unlikely allegation are allowing themselves to be used for propaganda. Why not interview Indian authorities on this matter? They are on the ground and have excellent forensic (“CSI”) abilities. Stop being so lazy and blinkered; that isn’t journalism.