The plot is described as bold and far-reaching. Cipher Brief Expert and Former Intelligence Manager for Iran at the ODNI, Norman T. Roule, offers the analysis behind the headlines:
Overview: Rarely does a compromised terrorist operation read like a thriller, but this was the case in recent days. The framework could not be more dramatic and involved a conference organized by Iranian opposition leaders near Paris which drew thousands of spectators, and included a number of former U.S. officials, including former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani as speakers; an international conference with Iran in an increasingly unlikely effort to save the nuclear deal; and a visit by Iran’s president to Europe to push back against the rising sanctions which will undermine the stability of the Islamic republic.
Background: The architect of the failed operation is alleged to have been Iran’s bloody Quds Force, which sought a mass casualty terrorist operation to demonstrate Tehran’s long reach against long-despised foes and perhaps, just perhaps, even to kill two of the U.S. president’s closest advisors.
According to press sources, the players on the ground included Iranian-born nationals from two countries. Just as the operation is launched, they say, the suspects are dramatically captured in operations involving dozens – possibly hundreds - of security officials across Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany. Despite apparently overwhelming evidence, Iran’s diplomats decry the incident as an international conspiracy. European diplomats and nuclear deal supporters avoid public comment on the incident to focus on the collapsing nuclear deal, and Iran’s malign Quds Force leadership walks away disappointed, but unpunished, and looking for their next opportunity to attack. One needs only to salt the narrative with a disillusioned Western spy, a few brave human sources, a couple of hard conversations between suspicious liaison partners and their respective political masters, a love affair or two, and the novel writes itself.
Sadly, this is not a work of fiction, but harsh reality and the international community’s subsequent response will determine whether Iran’s terrorist machine continues to threaten civilians throughout the world. Europe’s reaction to this incident has been muted, although this is at least the second disrupted Iranian terrorist operation in less than a year. Such a tepid response will not only fail to discourage future operations, it will likely encourage them. The flaccid reaction also seems to justify the concerns of those who argue the nuclear deal serves as a shield to protect Iran from the consequences of its non-nuclear crimes.
Whatever one’s views on the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) which dominates its leadership, the conference just outside Paris turned out to be a peaceful event which drew thousands of attendees. It is unclear whether terrorists were targeting specific individuals, but a successful explosion would have caused significant bloodshed and panic, hallmarks of Iran’s past terrorist operations.
Norman T. Roule, Former National Intelligence Manager for Iran, ODNI
"The nature of the arrests is telling. The urgency associated with the detentions and scale of forces involved implies the investigation had reached an advanced stage, sufficient to persuade political leaders and prosecutors to act at a time when Europe is doing what it can to avoid exacerbating relations with Tehran."
A quick review of the key events will illustrate this point.
- On Saturday, June 30, an elite Belgian security unit detains a married couple of Iranian origin at a traffic stop in a residential neighborhood of Brussels. They are found to be carrying 500 grams of the explosive TATP along with a detonation device which they allegedly obtained in Luxembourg from a Vienna-based Iranian diplomat. The pair had apparently portrayed themselves as MEK supporters in order to infiltrate the conference which they planned to bomb later that day. The couple was subsequently charged with attempted terrorist murder and preparation of a terrorist act. Reportedly, Belgian security forces also conducted a handful of follow-on raids related to the incident.
- On Sunday, July 1, German security forces descend upon an autobahn service station near the ancient Bavarian city of Aschaffenburg where German security officials detained the Iranian diplomat and three companions. Concerns over the risk associated with this detention were such that it reportedly involved more than a dozen vehicles and temporarily closing the highway. The 47-year-old diplomat, identified by police as Assadollah Assadi is taken into custody on an international arrest warrant and a court will consider his extradition to Belgium which now claims he masterminded the operation.
- While these operations are unfolding, French officials are detaining several Iranian-origin nationals linked to the Brussels suspects. Two of those detained were subsequently released for lack of evidence while a third was held for questioning.
- Iran’s mendacious foreign minister rolled out a response of “admit nothing, deny everything, and make counteraccusations.” In a tweet, he denied Iranian involvement in this or any terror attack and declared that the detentions were a foreign plot to sour the impending visit of Iran’s president to Europe and to a nuclear conference in Vienna. Iran’s foreign ministry has maintained this position and has demanded that Germany release Assadi.
Yet, if the operation was remarkable for the swift efficiency and coordination by Europe’s security forces, the diplomatic response has been notably thin. On the Monday following the arrests, Austria’s foreign ministry summoned the Iranian Ambassador to Vienna to complain about the planned operation and to advise that they would seek to revoke Assadi’s legal immunity. Austria’s chancellor, Sebastian Kurz subsequently raised the issue with Iran’s visiting President Hasan Ruhani, who promised to look into the matter. In an example of diplomatic politeness which captures the flavor of Europe’s approach, Kurz thanked Ruhani for agreeing to provide a “full clarification” of the incident. Ruhani made no comments on the case at the time and questions were not allowed at a joint news conference between the two.
A strong European position against this planned operation is unlikely. Iran hawks are few in number outside of Washington and Europe’s diplomats remain focused on how to develop sufficient enough work arounds to U.S. sanctions to convince Tehran to maintain existing restrictions on its nuclear enterprise. Now is not the moment for tough public diplomacy, they will argue.
They may be right, but the excuse of “the time is not right for pressure against Iran” is a well-worn line. Objections over the years to tough action against Iran have drawn from a deck of excuses, to include: pressure would be exploited by Iran’s hardliners to weaken President Ruhani; pressure could prevent Iran from cooperating with the West on Syria, Iraq, or Yemen; pressure would compel hardliners to unchain Iran’s nuclear program which will inevitably lead to a military conflict; or after weeks of deliberation, the passage of time has stripped any pressure of its currency as a message. Moscow is famous for demanding that no action against Iran take place without a full investigation, allowing any issue to be lost in a sea of new crises.
The urgency of these operations speaks to a strong investigation and the vigor of Vienna’s actions against Assadi, undercuts the theory that this is somehow an elaborate operation designed by Iran’s opponents. Likewise, the modus operandi of the alleged operation fits a pattern of past Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah operations. The MEK may have found safe haven in Europe, but it has few friends in the corridors of European foreign ministries. If security services believed the MEK orchestrated the operation, it is unlikely that the Paris conference would have been allowed to take place. For this reason, and absent “clarification” from European security forces, the smart money should be on Iran’s Quds Force as the instigator of this terrorist plan.
In response to those who question why Iran would have undertaken an operation with such a high risk of blow-back, the first (and obvious) answer is that Iran didn’t believe the operation would be traced back to Iran. Certainly, Iran would have been suspected had the operation been successful, but Iran has a strong record of involvement in terrorism where its role is attributed but denied. The international community has taken little action against Iran in the past and there is no reason to believe it would have acted differently in response to an attack on the MEK.
To those who claim Iran would not conduct an operation in France given Iran’s need for French support on the nuclear deal, Iran was identified by Indian authorities as being behind a terrorist attack in New Delhi against an Israeli diplomat in 2012. This operation was executed despite Tehran’s putative need to avoid threatening its important economic interests with India.
Media reporting on terrorist-related activity by Iranian surrogates in Europe is increasingly routine.
In January of this year, and following two months of observation, German security forces conducted raids across Germany which led to as many as ten Iranian nationals whom officials believed were targeting the Israeli embassy as well as Jewish community targets, to include kindergartens. Germany’s Federal Prosecutors Office stated that the individuals under investigation “spied on institutions and persons in Germany on behalf of an entity associated with Iran.” According to press reports, arrest warrants listed the suspects as members of the Quds Force. There were also reports that the Quds Force had attempted to recruit non-Shi’a Europeans to undertake terrorist operations in Europe.
According to press reports, in early June 2018, Dutch intelligence ordered the expulsion of two Iranian personnel assigned to the Iranian embassy in Amsterdam. Although it is possible the expulsions were related to espionage, it is more likely that the action was taken in response to operations undertaken against the opposition community in the Netherlands. As in the Paris case, Iran claimed the expulsions masked a plot to sabotage the nuclear deal.
Norman T. Roule, Former National Intelligence Manager for Iran, ODNI
"The attack plan also bears a striking similarity to the 2012 conviction of Iran-born, U.S. citizen Mansour Arbabsiar for conspiring with the Quds Force to kill the then-Saudi Ambassador to the United States."
As in this incident, the unsuccessful operation involved explosives intended for use in a way which would have produced mass casualties. This operation, a potentially mass-casualty attack in the U.S. capital, in the post 9/11 political environment, also demonstrated Iran’s tolerance for high-risk activity against its opponents.
Moving Forward: If Iran’s hand is indeed known, the absence of a tough, collective response will be counterproductive for three key reasons.
- First, such weakness will sustain the tactics Iran employs to feed Western indecision. Foreign Minister Javed Zarif - adept at using media to play the affronted victim of foreign and domestic conspiracies – has consistently sought to blunt Western response to an array of Iranian activities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and abroad. If proxies are the Quds Force dagger, Zarif is too often allowed to be its shield.
- Second, opponents of the nuclear deal will point to Europe’s silence as the latest evidence that defenders of the nuclear deal will overlook any other Iranian action, adding this incident to a list that already includes missile firings against Riyadh, and the creation of multiple, armed, militant proxy groups in the region.
- Finally, silence will delay the debate in Tehran over the value of its adventurism. Indeed, the absence of a tough response suggests that Iran’s actions have no consequences. For those who worry of a conflict, this is the path most likely to produce war as the Quds Force misinterprets red lines.
Europe’s decision on a response has apparently been made. The July 6, 2018 Statement from the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action clearly shows Europe’s lack of enthusiasm for economic pressure against Iran. One can almost hear the Quds Force sigh of relief. Perhaps Europe will reconsider economic pressure in the future, but in the meantime, other steps are available. With the operation’s actors in custody, the investigation should be rapidly concluded and Iran’s role – if confirmed – should be made public.
Norman T. Roule, Former National Intelligence Manager for Iran, ODNI
"Europe’s response should be collective, much as it was in the wake of Moscow’s use of chemical weapons to assassinate a dissident in England. At the very least, Europe should expel Iran’s ambassadors from Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany."
Europe and the United States should declare the Quds Forces a terrorist organization. In October 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the Quds Force as a terrorist supporter for providing material support to various terrorist organizations. Looking beyond the recent months of terrorist activity in Europe, its personnel are enabling, and in some cases fighting alongside, some of the worst actors in the Middle East. It remains inexplicable as to why Iran is allowed to openly maintain an organization with the sole purpose of supporting terrorism, establishing external militant groups, and destabilizing its regional partners.
Most importantly, the Western response should be accompanied by a strong narrative on this topic to the Iranian people. Recent demonstrations in Iran have illustrated the growing dissatisfaction with Quds Force adventurism, while Tehran’s state-run media machine portrays the organization in a consistently positive light. The U.S. should do more to bring facts to the Iranian people.
This incident also represents a rare opportunity to mend Trans-Atlantic Relations. Europe and U.S. supporters of the nuclear deal routinely claim that “other tools” will be employed to deal with Iran’s non-nuclear mischief. When asked to specify what those tools might be, the response is often that this would depend on the circumstances. To those who say that the Trump Administration was wrong to withdraw from the nuclear deal because of these “other tools,” this would be an excellent opportunity to prove the point. Doing so can only help restore the important partnership we must maintain between Europe and the United States.
