Iran's Assassination Plot and U.S. Homeland Security Response
This paper examines the 2011 Iranian-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, in which two suspects — Gholam Shakuri and Manssor Arbabsiar — were arrested in New York. The paper analyzes what went right during the investigation, particularly the effective use of the USA PATRIOT Act to monitor financial transactions and record conversations without a warrant. It also identifies what went wrong, notably the failure to intercept Iranian operatives before they entered the country. Areas for improvement in border screening are discussed, along with the federal policies — including the USA PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 — that enabled law enforcement to dismantle the cell before the attack occurred.
- Introduction: Context on Iran-West tensions and the 2011 plot
- The Attempted Attack: Arrests, charges, and background of the plot
- What Went Right: PATRIOT Act tools and undercover DEA operation
- What Went Wrong: Iranian operatives entered U.S. undetected
- Areas of Improvement: Border screening gaps and Israeli-style airline checks
- Federal Policies Used to Mitigate the Event: PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act applied
- Conclusion: Post-9/11 legal tools were decisive in prevention
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a concrete, real-world case study — the 2011 Iranian assassination plot — to ground abstract policy analysis in specific events and named actors.
- Organizes the analysis around a clear evaluative framework (what went right, what went wrong, areas of improvement, federal policies), making the argument easy to follow.
- Connects specific legal tools (USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006) directly to operational outcomes, demonstrating how policy translates into practice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied policy analysis: it takes a specific homeland security incident and systematically evaluates the institutional and legal response against an explicit rubric. Rather than simply narrating events, it assesses effectiveness and identifies gaps, which is characteristic of security studies and public policy writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with context on the broader Iran–West relationship before narrating the 2011 plot. It then moves through four analytical sections — successes, failures, improvements, and governing policies — before a conclusion that ties the legal framework back to the outcome. Each section is self-contained and builds on the preceding one, reinforcing the central argument that post-9/11 legal tools were decisive in preventing the attack.
Introduction
Over the last ten years, Homeland Security has been focused on dealing with a wide variety of terrorist attacks. In most cases, these incidents usually involve some kind of intelligence indicating that a terrorist-related incident was about to occur. One recent example of this happened in October 2011, with a failed assassination attempt on the Saudi Arabian Ambassador. When the news was first announced, this seemed somewhat surreal based on the fact that Iran was behind the plot, with two suspects charged for their involvement. However, the relationship that Iran has with the West during the last few years has been strained, and this is an indication of how the Islamic Republic was lashing out against these nations using one of their primary tools: terrorism (Miller, 2012, pp. 20–30).
To fully understand this event, this paper examines how the attempted terrorist attack unfolded by analyzing what went right, what went wrong, areas of improvement, and the federal policies involved. Together, these elements provide the greatest insights into how this event helped to redefine the way the federal government looked at terrorist-related activities.
The Attempted Attack
On October 11, 2011, U.S. law enforcement officials arrested an Iranian national, Gholam Shakuri, and an Iranian-American holding dual citizenship, Manssor Arbabsiar, in New York. They were charged with the attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Washington. At the time, the Iranians denied any involvement in the plot. However, prior to and following an intense investigation, their role became obvious. The arrests came after a series of disputes between Iran and the United States regarding Iran's nuclear-related activities (Miller, 2012, pp. 20–30).
Evidence of this context can be seen in observations from Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. He believes that this action was Iran's way of defying the West by lashing out against it. Had the assassination succeeded, it would have made Iran appear capable of attacking its enemies anywhere in the world. This is significant because the event was designed to create fear and intimidate any nation allied with the United States (Miller, 2012, pp. 20–30).
References
Burke, R. (2008). International Terrorism. Northampton, MA: Elgar Publishing.
Dobbins, J. (2011). Coping with a nuclear Iran. Survival, 53(6), 47–50.
Hasisi, B. (2011). The impacts of policing terrorism on society. To Protect and Serve, 3(7), 177–202.
Miller, S. (2012). Nuclear weapons 2011. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 68(20), 20–30.
Rahimi, B. (2012). Iran's declining influence. Washington Quarterly, 35(1), 25–40.
Schelepper, B. (2006). USA Patriot Act. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing.
Two men charged in alleged plot to assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. (2011). FBI. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2011/two-men-charged-in-alleged-plot-to-assassinate-saudi-arabian-ambassador-to-the-united-states
Two men charged in alleged plot. (2011). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/October/11-ag-1339.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.