The targets were the Saudi and Israeli ambassadors to the United States, and perhaps others. The assassinations were to take place, at least for the Saudi, in a public restaurant in Washington, D.C.
The good news? We stopped these mokes; read them their Miranda rights, and, apparently, despite Eric Holder’s best attempts, got some usable intel from them.
The bad news? That Iran was so emboldened, had such a lack of respect for the Obama and his administration, that they felt entirely safe in running this operation in the first place.
Was this a “win” for Obama? Only in the sense that it prevented further loss of American lives. The response from the Obamatons, so far, has been to dust off that ol’ multinational rhetoric. As if we must not respond if we don’t have our European “allies” with us at the United Nations.
The Heritage Foundation published, in late August this year, a “Counterterrorism Strategy for the ‘Next Wave.'” This has both a statement of what is now wrong, and how to right it. I’ll focus simply on this paragraph of what is wrong:
…the President’s strategy pays insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism, which will increasingly be a major force to be reckoned with. Iran is one of the most prominent and aggressive state sponsors of terror and its protégés—both Hamas and Hezbollah—represent potentially grave threats. In addition, transnational criminal cartels in Mexico are increasingly taking on the character of terrorist networks.
Sounds like what almost happened in this case. Not to worry; we’ll have our State Department issue bromides, statements of “grave concern,” etc. etc. etc. We’ll attempt to organize the United Nations Security Council to agree to disagree on whether we should jointly send a note to Iran that is “seriously” or “gravely” concerned.
Iran, meanwhile, continues apace its nuclear weapons program. And knows that while Obama the Bowing Apologizer is our president, we’ll not be serious about deterring fanatical terrorist regimes such as Iran.