The “Fast And Furious” Used Car Salesman “Threat” Falls Apart

October 13, 2011

The failed used car salesman Mansour J. Arbabsiar, who is accused in the “Iran kills Saudi ambassador” movie plot, is a hapless idiot and petty criminal whose businesses deals always went wrong. He couldn’t even match his socks, smoked marihuana and drank a lot of alcohol, was nonreligious, an opponent of the Iranian regime and only cared about money. A business man who knows him calls him “worthless” and his neighbors believed he was dealing in drugs.

But Arbabsiar had some money through inherited land holdings in Iran. Those holdings may well be the source of the $100,000 wired from Iran to the Drug Enforcement Administration informant. Israel’s Mossad, the MEK cult or some drug dealers in Iran are other possible sources for the money.

The Obama administration insists that it has proof of Iranian government involvement in the assassination plot. Some anonymous officials though are already walking back that claim. It seems that they have no proof at all, just a hunch.

Every Iran expert interviewed thinks the story as presented is nonsense: Alireza Nader from Rand Corp, Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, former CIA agent Robert Baer, Carter era NSC official Gary Sicks, Bush 2 NSC official Hillary Mann Leverett (also here), Muhammad Sahimi of PBS/Tehran Bureau and Iran scholar Hamid Serri.

To me the indictment reads as if a nutty Mansour J. Arbabsiar attempted a drug deal which was then turned into an terrorism entrapment by and through the paid criminal Drug Enforcement Administration informant.

The Obama administration seems to use this case for three purposes:

Diversion from the subpoena to AG Holder in the Fast and Furious gun running case which was served yesterday, from the #OccupyWallStreet movement and the general economic malaise
To get some momentum for additional international sanctions on Iran
To prop up the connections with the Saudi regime as that had threatened to distance itself from the U.S. over the U.S. veto of a Palestinian state

The administration’s case for the “plot” is now falling apart. Yesterday’s hype in the media has by now been replaced with doubts and mistrust. Given the obvious weakness of the case this was predictable.

But why then did the Obama administration use this case at all? Why come up with such a weak case that was sure to make it a laughing stock?

Posted by b on October 13, 2011 at 12:28 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Shrillary was the give away right from the get-go.
Whenever there’s nothing to say, or there’s some dumb-ass factoid to exaggerate, they call in the Liar-In-Chief – Sec State Clinton.
Maybe she wants to out-Colon Sec State Powell.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 13 2011 13:42 utc | 1

Of course this story is bunk, but it’s important to separate the “Iran experts,” who are quick to call out the bunkitude, from the “foreign policy experts,” the majority of whom seem to be climbing on board the train, even if their own explanations are self-contradictory and non-sensical. E.g., Steve Clemons, who up til now has been good on Iran:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/iran-allegedly-sought-to-assassinate-saudi-ambassador-to-us/246491/
“…then the US has reached a point where it must take action.”
Who gets read more, the “Iran experts” or the “foreign policy experts”? From this perspective, the Obama Administration isn’t really making itself into a laughing stock.

Posted by: Bill | Oct 13 2011 14:39 utc | 2

More expert voices doubting the plot in this Reuters piece. Funny, even the U.S. government financed Radio Free Europe has serious doubts.

Posted by: b | Oct 13 2011 18:00 utc | 3

But why then did the Obama administration use this case at all? Why come up with such a weak case that was sure to make it a laughing stock?
I think that the military/security forces delight in concocting scenarios that their civilian ‘superiors’ have no choice but to support.
The ‘Iran kills Saudi ambassador movie plot’ reminds me of the dubious claim that Iraq attempted to assassinate Bush I on his visit to Kuwait in 1993. Newly elected former draft-dodger Bill Clinton promptly sought to establish his hawkish credentials by launching a cruise missile attack on Baghdad.

Posted by: Watson | Oct 13 2011 20:18 utc | 4

the ‘narrative’ is piss poor even by their parlous standards

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 13 2011 20:23 utc | 5

Helps to put this story in perspective: this fellow alleges Irans pvt wants to kill the saudi ambassador, as oposed to the US/EU thru NATO REALLY TRYING to kill Libyas leader…One gets media and govt and public condemnation, the other doesn’t. Australias govt figuers Gillard and Rudd both wanted Gadafi assassinated.
If assassination is so bad, why do the forces of goodness and niceness support fellows who were calling for assassination back in march?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/libyan-rebel-leaders-gaddafi-benghazi

Posted by: brian | Oct 13 2011 21:00 utc | 6

“”But why then did the Obama administration use this case at all? Why come up with such a weak case that was sure to make it a laughing stock?””
“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.” Michael Rivero

Posted by: no6ody | Oct 13 2011 21:47 utc | 7

Given that the lead in this farce, Arbabsiar, had trouble finding the car keys for his used cars, it struck me that he might just be facing early onset Alzheimer’s disease.
And became a useful fool for some DEA group to attempt to make the drug war a bigger part of the War on Terra.
The Very Serious People who are swallowing the WH line are frightening to listen to (including Obama). One was on The Diane Rehm Show today and kept coming up with “scary, scary, scary” what-if’s. Oooooh, American public, be afraid! Be very afraid! Of the big bad boogie man from Iran who could kill you at your local restaurant (well, local high-end restaurant if the Saudi ambassador goes there…).
And Obama had the temerity to say that even if the upper reaches of Iran’s goverment did not know about the plot they were still accountable!!
First thought: Oh, dear me, so you, Obama, must be held accountable for not holding Bush/Cheney “accountable” for their authorizing torture? When you yourself said nothing could be done about that because we had to look forward, not back?
Who does keep account of those who don’t hold those who break international laws to account?

Posted by: jawbone | Oct 13 2011 23:21 utc | 8

About SIRTE, interesting comment, auto translated, from el-murid.livejournal.com
=======
Still Sirte Stands. Not only that, it advances from what we were told was a hopeless situation.
NATO is shocked by the fight in the city. This city is rewriting the rules for modern Guerilla warfare in the 21st century.
When western media admits this fact then the situation is much worse for the rebels in Sirte than admitted.
The odds, leaving aside the rag tag miscreants murdering the people of Sirte, against these heroes holding out were nil.
El murid two weeks ago gave them until the end of that week and continually predicts the cities demise. He could still be right but then again ……..
Full spectrum dominance of the skies by NATO. Merciless bombardment of everything that moves for a month and more.
Full spectrum dominance of the world media by NATO including RT and Press Tv. Psyop operations unrivaled in modern history.
Special forces.
Sirte is roughly 3km x 4km. London is 607 sq miles. Americans have bigger gardens.
Now we can all speculate and disagree so let me speculate more as is the want of this good site.
Sirte will one day rise from the rubble as the new capital of Libya. It will write the Obituary for NATO, inspire its people the oppressed people of Africa, the middle east and the world.
It is now a beacon. The more it’s turned to rubble the brighter it glows.
Its stand will have been enough whether it falls or not. These foreign mercenaries, devils spawn will have had their backs broken in Sirte.
Its a city one day I hope to see.
I would like to meet these people. I would like to shake their hands, I’d like to hear their story.
I pray that in the final analysis Sirte will come out the right side of this war, Speculation aside, don’t we all.
========

Posted by: anon | Oct 14 2011 0:06 utc | 9

By the looks of it the desperation is painfully/hilariously obvious, I can’t hardly bring myself the willpower to follow it anymore. After dispatching hundreds of thousands to their death, ruining the lives of millions, and at a reputed price tag of 6 to 7 trillion dollars, and a plundered world economy – exactly what has been gained in the war on terror? Name one (1) tiny success. And yet it lives on like being trapped in all encompassing, endless, totally unbelievable and inescapable non-stop B rated horror show.
9-11 itself? A mere lullaby to the suffering and the insufferable unleashed.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 14 2011 9:09 utc | 10

To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.

i would have thought that most people adopt the position that i have – i’m a coward, but occasionally mouth off anoymously against my oppressors, whom i consciously know are not just thieves, but serial killers

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. | Oct 14 2011 12:18 utc | 11

“But why then did the Obama administration use this case at all?”
Well, you are anything but naive, therefore a bit of ridiculous question. Yet, provocative.
Simplistic and easy, from imperial point of view, explanation would be “because they can”. More complex one, in my point of view, is because “they” are desperate, and simply do not know what to do. Particularly in case of Iran, a major obstacle to their imperial agenda. They (western) concept is depleted and idealess and have nothing to offer anybody, except devastation of society(ies) and anything what resemble on: community, native, solidarity, self-sufficiency and the like.
Closely related with the former “explanation” is the article from 1964, however, it haven’t lost a bit of its relevancy. Only, the list is extended from 1964 onward.
The paranoid style in American politics

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Oct 14 2011 12:36 utc | 12

To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.

If only it were as simple as that. But it’s not. I can’t speak for others, but one must consider all factors in this complex equation. For example, risking one’s life for what, exactly, and for whom? I look around me, and I don’t like what I see. I’ll be damned if I’m going to lay my life on the line in a blaze for liberty when the recipients of that action can’t even grasp the depth of that concept, even though they claim to hold it so dear. So long as “I’m going to get my own, whether it be through Government theft or Private theft” is the creed of the day, I’m not going to lay it on the line. And I’m sorry, that’s what I see from both sides of the aisle, and before you pass judgment on me, I will inform you that I have attempted to act in, and build, solidarity in my life many times over only to be screwed over in the end and left out to dry. It’s for these reasons that I admire and respect what Che, Fidel and the countless other unnamed Revolutionaries in Cuba accomplished. They acted in Solidarity, got each other’s back, didn’t sell each other out to the opposition, maintained their principled convictions and pushed it through. That was a sacrifice well worth it, and if not for the U.S., Cuba today would be a much more successful endeavor that history has shown.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 14 2011 13:04 utc | 13

“…the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.”
Richard Hofstadter
This, “paranoid modes of expression” nowadays can also be called sociopachy, or… Political Ponerology according to Andrew M. Lobaczewski’s same book.

Posted by: neretva’43@yahoo.com | Oct 14 2011 13:08 utc | 14

Not sure how Richard Hofstadter’s article is linked to one of the delusion of US society, namely ACLU, which is equal with Occupy Wall Street so-called movement/delusion – if not outright fraud.
But the article is here: http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706

Posted by: Neretva’43 | Oct 14 2011 13:24 utc | 15

Yes, @16, and it’s telltale sign and signature is that it’s all the result of a particular, and easily definable, group with distinct features that masquerades as something else. You will note that it is never the System that is at fault. The logic goes that the System is just fine…..it’s this “group” that infiltrated the System and co-opted to its own ends. Once you rid yourself, and the System, of that nefarious, evil “group” then it’s a Return to Paradise, or a realization of the Paradise that was meant to be if not for the damned “group”.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 14 2011 13:48 utc | 16

b, i agree with your 3 primary reasons. i’ll also add there may be some election neocon fundraising tied to the tightening of sanctions. my first hunch was chummying up to SA ahead of the UN vote.

Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2011 14:44 utc | 17

But why then did the Obama administration use this case at all?
As for this particular case, no idea. In general, such silly stories are aimed at making threats and attributing blame on a household level to keep the great unwashed public on board thru fear (panty bomber), anger at a particular group or nation (phials of botulism, babies thrown out of incubators), and all that follows.. patriot act, torture, etc.
However such stories are also symptoms, vague outcroppings, mini-dramas, of underground power struggles between different entities: Gvmts, pols in different strands, different power groups (Zionists, etc.) secret services (plural), military, etc. amongst themselves. They cannot openly engage in confrontation, as none wants to give up any advantages, and none wants any of the others to be losers, all want to conserve their influence. So they fight it out in a soft symbolic arena – dealing with insignificant details and rubbishy ephemera. The arbitrator is often the media, i.e. those who control the media. So, in any case, a few stories are debunked, if none ever were it would look bad, others get legs, and lead to prosecutions that nobody at all cares about, the fate of those involved is completely immaterial.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 14 2011 16:53 utc | 18

Pat Lang says that this is an information operation not a real attempt but he wonders who did it.
Then there is this theory:
Sources: US Gives Israel Green Light For Iran Strike

The Obama administration’s fabricated terror plot blamed on Iran represents the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran set to take place within the next two weeks, according to confidential military sources who spoke with Alex Jones.
Israel is concerned that major powers like Germany are moving closer to smoothing relations with Iran and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program unimpeded. A two month window has been allocated during which Israel has the opportunity to launch a military assault, waiting until winter when the attack will be more difficult to pull off is not an option.
…

Posted by: b | Oct 14 2011 18:10 utc | 19

Stephen Walt, like me, is wondering what’s the real purpose here: Obama doubles down

More to the point: what’s the endgame here? What is the positive purpose to be gained from this new campaign? If there really is hard and reliable evidence of a serious Iranian plot to bomb buildings in the United States and to kill foreign emissaries on our soil, then that’s one thing. But if this turns out to be a much more ambiguous business — either a rogue Iranian operation, a false flag scheme, or a case of FBI entrapment — then what are we trying to accomplish by rolling out a seemingly well-orchestrated round of new accusations, especially when there’s little chance of getting the sort of “crippling sanctions” that might actually alter Iran’s behavior? Are we just trying to divert attention from other issues (the economy, the “Arab Spring,” the failed diplomacy on Israel-Palestine, etc.), or is this somehow linked to the 2012 campaign?

Posted by: b | Oct 14 2011 18:41 utc | 20

Israel is concerned that major powers like Germany are moving closer to smoothing relations with Iran and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program unimpeded.
I have to admit, this would be an interesting altercation considering the History. Germany and Israel finally going at it. It’d be like a Father and Son battling to the death.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 14 2011 19:09 utc | 21

Laura Rozen tweets:
‘Many see US Iran hit plot accusations as politicized pretext for escalation. But cld be opposite: exposure to push Iran back on heel’

Posted by: Watson | Oct 14 2011 19:54 utc | 22

I find this story quite bizarre.
Obama must know that any false story will soon be revealed on the internet. That many people will examine the public version, and find any faults.
The White House should be more sophisticated than that. They should know what happens these days.
So are we talking about a failure on the part of the White House?
Is it that they expected a failure, or that it doesn’t matter?
Maybe it is that the public view, beamed over the US by the MSM, will be enough to convince Americans, whatever the truth seen on the internet.
Myself I think you have to be much more sophisticated these days, if you want to justify a war against Iran.
The Israeli regime are maniacs, no question. Quite why they are determined on a war against Iran escapes me. But it seems to be the case. It is a war of the Zealots, as in 69 AD.

Posted by: alexno | Oct 14 2011 20:03 utc | 23

Maybe it’s a Rorschach Test. The apparatus will say and do anything, even though they know it’s absurd, and the constituents know it’s absurd, and the apparatus knows the constituents know it’s absurd, and the constituents figure the apparatus must know it’s absurd. And yet, still, considering all of that, it moves forward unchallenged, albeit with much head scratching. If so, I believe the test reveals that you can execute most any plan, regardless of how flimsy the rational, because even though the Establishment knows it’s bogus, the apparatus (machinery of the MIC) will move forward on it because that’s what’s required of it.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 14 2011 20:12 utc | 24

Emptywheel tweets:
‘Gotta give Obama credit: by inventing casus belli that will probably end in plea deal w/everything sealed doesn’t have to worry abt evidence’

Posted by: Watson | Oct 14 2011 20:23 utc | 25

Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left writes that the DEA is empire building and moving itself into the War on Terra with ginned up (entrapment or DEA informant/agent instigated) “situations” outside the US which can then be adjudicated in the US. The DEA is not only working to prevent drugs entering the US, but from going from, say, South American to, oh, Europe. But with just enough tangential evidence to get the perps into a US courtroom.

So it’s not at all surprising that the DEA’s latest caper is to use an informant pretending to be a Zeta to snag some guys from Iran. Given the implications of messing with Iran, the DEA is the last agency I’d want calling the shots. Not to mention it’s far too over-extended from fighting its multitude of wars, from the war on medical marijuana to doctors prescribing pain medication to a war on geriatric Aspen dealers.

Lots of links, quite a few examples.

Posted by: jawbone | Oct 16 2011 2:03 utc | 26

Correction: The DEA post is by Jeralyn from Talk Left, and drug enforcement is one of her areas of interest.

Posted by: jawbone | Oct 16 2011 2:19 utc | 27

“But why then did the Obama administration use this case at all?”
Mrs Clinton explained that when she broke the news. She made no secret of the fact that it was the Deniable Implausibility.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 16 2011 4:42 utc | 28

Back to Main