I'm as mystified as most seem to be.
I can see only two beneficiaries: neoconservatives and Israeli right wingers. Unless this was a Mossad scheme--an absolutely ludicrous suggestion-- it qualifies as one of the most incompetent, self-defeating, international terror plots in recent memory.
Why would the Iranians want to make military strikes on Iran more politically acceptable to Americans?
Why use narco-traffickers who already have Mexican and American police crawling all over them? When did Mexican narco-traffickers decide that they would bring all hell down on themselves for a measly $100,000. With cocaine going for $35,000 a kilo, this seems like an incredibly stupid, dangerous, alternative income stream. And narco-traffickers don't need virgins in heaven; they've got all the women they want here on earth.
Why target the Saudi Ambassador? That would only make the Saudis more amenable to a US attack on Iran.
As my speculation would predict, the neocons can hardly restrain their glee: one neocon wrote that this makes Obama look like a fool for misjudging the Iranians. Another wrote that this happened because of Obama's weakness, never mind that under Obama's policies, al Qaeda is being shredded, and never mind that this was a thwarted plot.
In the neocon mind, reality doesn't matter; up is down, and thwarting terror is a failure and a sign of weakness. It's as if terror plots wouldn't exist if only the targets acted tough. Tell that to the Israelis.
And when terror actually succeeded under the Bush administration, neocons offered nothing but excuses for the Bush administration. When everything went haywire in Iraq, with American soldiers being blown to smithereens and Iraqi civilians dying in daily mass murders, they offered more excuses for the Bush administration.
This is how confirmation bias works. The rational processing brain goes dead to protect the emotionally compelling, ideological narrative. It's the politics of feeling over reason.
Just a couple of days ago, right here on this blog, in reaction to a provocative Rumsfeld interview, it was argued that the the Bush administration was not responsible for the acts of terror committed by al Qaeda in Iraq, because only the people who actually commit the terror are responsible for those acts. I agree with that position. And I trust that anyone else who took that position will step up now to defend Obama from such an attack.