How would America respond to another terrorist attack on its soil?
We never thought very much about that before 9/11, back when the subject of terrorism only came up in discussions about other countries.
The topic is still one we avoid, but it’s not too soon to consider it, because U.S. government officials have been making increasingly louder noises about the possibility of an Iran-backed attack in America.
Obviously, the country should do all it can to “dissuade” anyone from attempting to attack America or its people and, in fact, we have seen several examples of foiled or failed terrorist plots. But what if a plan succeeds — what then?
Recent statements by top Homeland Security and National Intelligence officials bring back memories of that infamous national security briefing given to President George W. Bush back in August 2001. Remember the title? “Al Qaeda Determined to Strike in U.S.”
The government didn’t take it seriously enough, and Americans were not told of the danger. When the attacks happened, a pained and angered nation threw its support behind the president as he launched a war in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. If they had known the repercussions of 9/11, would the attacks have happened?
What would we do now if terrorists struck again?
After reviewing the many things that what went wrong in 2001, one of the decisions the government made was to keep the public better informed of the risks. In the past, officials feared that publicizing threats would cause panic. It turns out those who worried about widespread anxiety if we heard about the danger really were wrong. The latest warnings have stirred barely a ripple. Maybe that’s a sign of a nation maturing about the risks of our turbulent the world. Or, perhaps its evidence that Americans trust those in charge to keep us safe. Or, maybe it’s just denial, refusing to consider unpleasantness once again.
A few days ago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she’s worried that Hezbollah — a group based in Lebanon but created, funded, and closely allied with Iran — will attempt a terrorist attack on American soil. Hezbollah and Iran are the prime suspects in a series of mostly-bungled attempts on the lives of Israeli officials in Thailand, India, Georgia, Azerbaijan and elsewhere in recent days.
Napolitano’s statements to the House Homeland Security Committee echoed the testimony of James Clapper, director of National Intelligence. Speaking before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence a couple of weeks ago, Clapper said the Iranians “have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States.”
Napolitano said she has been in contact with Jewish organizations, assuming that they would be the principal targets of a terrorist attack. Hezbollah, which is classified as a terrorist organization by a number of Western governments, has a history that includes catastrophically successful attacks on foreign soil.
Argentinean investigators say Hezbollah agents, acting on orders from Iran, carried out the worst terrorist attacks in Argentina’s history in the 1990s. Bombing of the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy killed more than 100 and injured almost 600 people, many of them maimed for life. The Interpol issued arrest warrants for half a dozen Iranian officials and Hezbollah members in 2007, acting on the work of Argentinean investigators.
Anyone who thinks the current threats only concern Jews should consider that shrapnel does not discriminate. Hundreds of victims in the Buenos Aires bombings were not Jewish.
In any event, the targets may not be Jewish. Last October, the FBI said it uncovered an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington in a plan that openly expected large numbers of casualties.
Napolitano says she doesn’t know of a specific plot against Jewish groups, but obviously the authorities are worried. Security has been noticeably increased.
One of the ways to discourage anyone, particularly Iran, from daring to order a hit against Americans is to openly consider not just the risk but also the repercussions. If the risk is real, as top officials obviously think, we should discuss whether or not the American people would opt to respond with full force.
And speaking openly about the threat, and about what price it would incur, could make Tehran and its allies think a little longer before they risk taking on America.
• Ghitis writes about global affairs for The Miami Herald. Readers may send her email at fjghitis@gmail.com.




Comments (13)
Add commentfanaticism trumps reason & rationale
One comment stuck out: "If they had known the repercussions of 9/11, would the attacks have happened?"
Of course they would've; there's lots of would'ves playing this game. If AQ had known the repercussions they would've pressed harder for subsequent attacks because the REAL target of these attacks are the adherents to Islam. When you take a swat at the Great Satan and he bleeds, that means he can be killed. That helps recruitment.
The enemy is still seething, and still committed to its cause. Anger makes you do stupid things, and this caliber of raw hatred will entertain the most irrational objectives.
What would we do?
We would immediately attack Peru, silly! Everybody knows that.
It's called 'The Bush Doctrine'.
The Obama doctrine - Dumb Down and Destroy America
Yes we can.
If Israel can more or less
If Israel can more or less protect it's borders and vital interests I think we should be able to do the same. The last time I checked we didn't have a border on the Euphrates. Bring our soldiers home.
"How would America respond to
"How would America respond to another terrorist attack on its soil?"
BO would (tele)promptly, bow deeply, apologize, & blame George W. Bush for what ever might have set the lunatics off this time.
Everyone go see Act of Valor.
Everyone go see Act of Valor.
Even with this group of clueless, lightweights in the White House, you'll maybe feel a little safer when you see our brave, heroic military in action.
Go twice, it's that good!
clueless & lightweights . . .
no doubt, just ask Osama, Gadaffi, Anwar al-Awlaki, and the 9 pirates in africa. Oh, right you can't, they be dead. Exactley, go to a moive . . .twice. . . that's not lightwieght or clueless at all.
Silence The War-Drums
Rather than letting our imaginations run wild with all the damage Iranian terrorism MIGHT be capable of causing on American soil, let's take a second and look at the evidence which is basically being used by the media to support yet another US (and Israeli) war in the middle east.
What if the Iranian threat isn't all that different from the Iraqi threat of 2002? This rhetoric seems awfully familiar...
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/us_media_takes_the_lead_on_iran/singleton/
"teabagger" - that about says
"teabagger" - that about says all you need to know.
Move along, nothin' to read here...
some similarities...
@PeaceMonger: the Iraqi threat in '02 was the unconfirmed, BUT substantiated, threat of Saddam using WMD either domestically or offensively; the Iranian threat in '12 is the Islamic Republic's confirmed pursuit of a nuclear program, its confirmed use of proxies vs US personnel, and the substantiated threats they are making in the Strait of Hormuz.
What if the US doesn't put the squeeze on Iran's increasing militancy? Who will? I dont think the UN's threat of suspending Iran's membership on the Council of Human Rights will carry the day.
We didn't consider terrorism
We didn't consider terrorism in the US prior to 9/11? Really? Forgot about Oklahoma City? WTC bombing? What has made 9/11 stand out for some of us is the inappropriate response of attacking Iraq which, by the way, we are still paying for both in blood and treasure.
It will happen again
We got attacked by students (student pilots) here on a visa and using our excellent schools to improve their lives. What did we get? 9/11. Now, we have the same Muslim students mad because we keep an eye on them. They are "offended" because we watch them. Meanwhile, to be politically correct, we shake down elderly female Alaskan legislators at the airport. Where's the common sense?
Bandit Jim Is right
We need to do some intelligent profiling and monitoring of the types of people who have attacked us in the past.
Take Timothy McVeigh for instance. He was a white, christian, Army veteran. Therefore, we need to be monitoring all white people, christians, and Army vets.
Thanks Jim, I feel safer already.