Who’s scarier — Iran or the Mexican drug cartels?
This past week, two Iranian nationals were arrested for allegedly plotting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir. They allegedly planned a bombing that would kill Mr. al-Jubeir along with potentially a significant number of civilians.
Iran obviously disputes this whole account, claiming that while the individuals in question may be Iranian citizens, they are not affiliated with or acting under the supervision of the Iranian government.
However, America sees it a bit differently. They claim the two men in question approached a drug trafficker in Northern Mexico. This trafficker happened to be an informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency. The Iranians offered him $1.5 million to carry out the assassination of al-Jubeir. This is how our government officials were able to arrest the Iranians before an attack could take place.
What’s wrong with this? We captured the two Iranians who wanted to carry out acts of terrorism on U.S. soil against a foreign diplomat? Without drug prohibition and agencies like the DEA, we never would have apprehended these guys, and the attack would have been carried out, leaving many dead.
My major concern is that when these Iranians, whether they were agents of Iran’s government or not, wanted to commit an act of terror on American soil, they went to the biggest badasses they knew. The biggest, most vile, murdering clan of delinquents they could find was a couple miles south of Texas.
They could have asked for help from another known terrorist organization, but they didn’t. They went to the pros — the Mexican drug cartels — who couldn’t care less about differing ideologies. All they care about is money, and they will do just about anything to make it.
These cartels have killed 40,000 Mexican citizens since 2006, when drug violence in Mexico began to erupt. How many people have died in the U.S. in terrorist related violence since 9/11? Just by sheer numbers, the cartels trump al-Qaida with efficiency.
The way I see it, through the prohibition of narcotics in the United States accompanied with the innate American desire to partake in such intoxicants, we have created an environment for the most extreme form of organized criminals to live and prosper. 
Without prohibition, there would be no cartels. Without prohibition, there would not be 40,000 dead Mexicans. Without prohibition, Iran would not pay Mexican cartels to attack American interests.
We captured these guys out of pure dumb luck. It’s not the DEA’s job to apprehend terrorists, so the fact they were the ones who stumbled upon this case should raise questions.
This is for-profit terrorism. This could be a serious threat to the people of the United States in the near future if crime syndicates like the Mexican cartels are allowed to exist. We send guns to Mexico, the cartels send marijuana, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine back to us. This is the spice trade of the 21st century.
Since we now live in a world in which cartels are more likely to commit acts of terrorism than religious or ideological factions, our top priority should be combatting their money supply.
Without money, the cartels cease to exist. They profit off our desire to smoke pot and snort a line off of a stripper’s navel any given Saturday night.
People will always use intoxicants, whether it’s alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, prescription medicines or narcotics. It would be safer for everyone if the government would control and regulate these substances to ensure a quality product and reduce organized crime and violence that stems from a drug underground.
We need to do whatever we can to reduce the presence of for-profit criminals near our borders and in our country, especially if they are migrating from the drug trade to political assassinations.
 
Parker Cramer is a 20-year-old political science junior from Houston, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_pcramer.
 
____
Contact Parker Cramer at [email protected]