Iran in Turmoil (Deathbed and Car bombs)

[SB Shock]

Rumors are circulating in the media that Supreme Leader Khameni'i is either very ill or has died. Two iranian news agency are denying. The state run TV has not addressed the issue.

Over the weekend a suicide bombing occurred where 7 senior Revolutionary Guard officers including the deputy of the IRGC Maj. General Ali Jafary were killed. Jafary has promised a crushing response for U.S. and U.K. involvement. Iran has also threatened to invade Pakistan.

[Maggie]

For what it is worth:

I am not sure what to think about the “Supreme Leader’s” health or lack thereof. Rumors like this are very common in the Middle East.

While there's a certain irony, I’m not sure you should read too much into the latest attack on the Revolutionary Guards. It may well be that the attack represents a new chapter in internal unrest that remains unresolved from this summer. However, in this case, I understand the problem is local: The suspects are an ethnic group which has been operating in southeastern Iran and across the Pakistani frontier. The tensions there are as much sectarian as ethnic and have been boiling for some time.

The Iranian “saber rattling” is nothing new. Whenever the Iranian government experiences internal unrest, they blame it on external enemies and this problem is no exception. Traditionally, the British are suspects number one but, in the last couple years, the Iranians have voiced suspicions that there is CIA involvement. They are threatening Pakistan for the same reason.

[SB Shock]

The Iranian “saber rattling” is nothing new.

Except they have they capability of retaliating in Iraq and Western Afghanistan.

[Maggie]

The Iranian “saber rattling” is nothing new.

Except they have they capability of retaliating in Iraq and Western Afghanistan.

Again, nothing new…..they have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan (and many other places) for a long time. My point was that this seems to be largely an internal matter.

[SB Shock]

The Iranian “saber rattling” is nothing new.

Except they have they capability of retaliating in Iraq and Western Afghanistan.

Again, nothing new…..they have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan (and many other places) for a long time. My point was that this seems to be largely an internal matter.

Well of course I don't know whether CIA and the Brits were involved in providing support to this sunni extremist group - I would have my doubts especially with the Oboma administration, but that is my point - the government is continues face overt internal pressure from protests and now terrorism. Add in that their leader might be incapacitated (or dead) and it is something worth watching.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6376895/Iran-threatens-revenge-against-Britain-over-bombing.html

[Maggie]

I agree from an internal political standpoint – there is pressure on the current government which we (U.S.) have failed, to my knowledge, to exploit or even attempt to exploit.

I just don’t think this particular attack is likely to have an adverse affect on the region at large as long as the current regime is in power. The “saber rattling” is for domestic consumption.

[kcshocker11]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1930896,00.html

Found this quite interesting. 8)

[SB Shock]

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...930896,00.html
Found this quite interesting. 8)

I read that today. Will be interesting to see if it pans out.

[Maggie]

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...930896,00.html
Found this quite interesting. 8)

I read that today. Will be interesting to see if it pans out.

Incidentally, on Iran Obama’s efforts are indistinguishable from Bush’s policy. They are both based on the idea of negotiations and threatening sanctions, all of which have failed for years. I’m sorry but I highly doubt they are talking about a significant portion of Iran’s uranium so I am not sure what this “deal”, if it actually comes to fruition, will get us. I question whether this administration understands the nature of the Iranian regime it is dealing with, the determination of the Iranians to get nuclear weapons, and the risk that a nuclear Iran poses to the region. Furthermore, I hope President Obama is not too desperate for a foreign policy “victory”. You better believe the Iranians are aware of how Obama is perceived (and his actions abroad have backed up this perception) – he has not placed himself in the best bargaining position.

In addition to what he is doing or trying to do (which I suppose is necessary, on some diplomatic level, but practically useless), I hope President Obama is considering a long-term solution to the Iranian problem: regime change. An opportunity could present itself given Khamenei’s health. If Iran had representative government, they wouldn’t pursue nuclear weapons. And if they were nuclear, the threat would be de minimis. How often do you lay awake at night worrying about France’s nuclear arsenal?

This is a very dangerous situation and I am not particularly optimistic. If the Israelis don’t see very real tangible progress – they will likely strike militarily within a year give or take.

[SB Shock]

If the Israelis don’t see very real tangible progress – they will likely strike militarily within a year give or take.

I don't see Israel attacking Iran. I would say it is "saber rattling". Their attack on the Osirak reactor in Iraq pushed them to the limits. With Iran they will have to hit multiple hardened sites. The Israeli's don't have the capabilities to conduct that type of unilateral strike, e.g.

a. No heavy bombers to carry the size penetrators they will need for the hardened sites.

b. not enough refueling tankers - US denied their request to purchase additional tankers.

c. would need airspace opened up (Turkey and Iraq, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or one of the "stans" or georgia).

d. If Israel used missiles - they lack the range with the Jericho II to hit critical sites.

[SubGod22]

Israel will do whatever they have to

[Maggie]

SB - You make good points - a military strike is a very risky proposal for Israel.

The Osirak strike, you mention, is often voiced as the model should Israel decide to launch a similar attack on Iran’s nuclear program. You are correct to imply that this is a different situation – the two situations are not analogous:

(1) Iran is further away from Israel, and almost four times the size of Iraq. Iraq’s nuclear program was concentrated in Osirak, and the nuclear reactor itself above ground and vulnerable;

(2) Iran’s nuclear sites, by contrast, are scattered across the country, heavily fortified, and sometimes buried below mountains. Israeli planes would need to fly more than a thousand miles across hostile lands and require refueling only to reach Iran;

(3) Even if Israeli bombers penetrated Iran with surprise, they would need to fly several hundred miles over Iranian territory after dropping their payloads. This might require additional targeting of Iran’s air-defense and communications infrastructure ;

(4) To destroy just the physical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program would require a lot of sorties, the sheer scope of which Israel, as you point out, may not, and probably is not, capable of executing alone.

However, total annihilation of the program would not necessarily be the goal. To cripple Iran’s nuclear program would require less. Israel need not destroy the entire program, but only certain components — such as the centrifuge cascades — in order to delay the program by one, two, or three years. Furthermore, Israeli fighters do not have to destroy a facility to render it useless. Iran may feel its facilities invulnerable if buried under mountains, but the Israeli military must only destroy the entrances to such facilities, entombing the scientists and engineers inside, to meet their objectives. Such a strike would not be ideal: Iran’s retaliation, whether direct or by proxy, would be ferocious. What too many American pundits and analysts do not seem to understand (or ignore), however, is that if Israel feels itself facing an existential threat, then, by definition, it has no choice but to at least try to eliminate that threat.

The questions then become should Israel strike and what would happen if they did strike? I think it is pretty self-evident that the Israeli military could force a delay in Iran’s nuclear program but they would lose a lot of aircraft and soldiers. Put aside traditional discussion of retaliation. Hezbollah would strike. Oil would spike and terrorism could again become epidemic. And while Iran may only be capable of shutting the Strait of Hormuz for a day or two, its proxies could destroy the southern Iraqi oil fields, a far more devastating outcome for the international community. However, only some of this would be of paramount concern to Israel, especially when balanced with threat of its own annihilation.

Then what would happen inside Iran? However Iranians may feel about their current leadership, they are, without doubt, fierce nationalists. The likelihood of the current Iranian government convincing its people to rally around its flag is very high. Also, would the delay buy Israel enough time – to outlast the Iranian regime as it outlasted Saddam Hussein? I am not sure, not optimistic. Hussein made some very stupid moves and in doing so he inadvertently retarded his nuclear program. Iran is a different situation.

Okay – this has gone on longer than I anticipated. I understand your concerns; however, I think you need to focus more on Israel’s threat perception. The world, at least at this point, does not seem willing to force upon Iran the degree of coercion necessary to achieve a change of regime behavior. This will leave Israel with no choice but to act, setting off a cascade of events which will be very, very scary.

[kcshocker11]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_re_eu/eu_un_nuclear_iran

VIENNA – Iranian negotiators on Wednesday expressed support for a deal that — if accepted by their leaders — would delay Tehran's ability to make nuclear weapons by sending most of its existing enriched uranium to Russia for processing, diplomats said.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that representatives of Iran and its three interlocutors — the U.S., Russia and France — had accepted the draft for forwarding to their capitals. ElBaradei said he hoped for approval from all four countries by Friday.

8)

[SB Shock]

SB - You make good points - a military strike is a very risky proposal for Israel.

The Osirak strike, you mention, is often voiced as the model should Israel decide to launch a similar attack on Iran’s nuclear program. You are correct to imply that this is a different situation – the two situations are not analogous:

(1) Iran is further away from Israel, and almost four times the size of Iraq. Iraq’s nuclear program was concentrated in Osirak, and the nuclear reactor itself above ground and vulnerable;

(2) Iran’s nuclear sites, by contrast, are scattered across the country, heavily fortified, and sometimes buried below mountains. Israeli planes would need to fly more than a thousand miles across hostile lands and require refueling only to reach Iran;

(3) Even if Israeli bombers penetrated Iran with surprise, they would need to fly several hundred miles over Iranian territory after dropping their payloads. This might require additional targeting of Iran’s air-defense and communications infrastructure ;

(4) To destroy just the physical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program would require a lot of sorties, the sheer scope of which Israel, as you point out, may not, and probably is not, capable of executing alone.

However, total annihilation of the program would not necessarily be the goal. To cripple Iran’s nuclear program would require less. Israel need not destroy the entire program, but only certain components — such as the centrifuge cascades — in order to delay the program by one, two, or three years. Furthermore, Israeli fighters do not have to destroy a facility to render it useless. Iran may feel its facilities invulnerable if buried under mountains, but the Israeli military must only destroy the entrances to such facilities, entombing the scientists and engineers inside, to meet their objectives. Such a strike would not be ideal: Iran’s retaliation, whether direct or by proxy, would be ferocious. What too many American pundits and analysts do not seem to understand (or ignore), however, is that if Israel feels itself facing an existential threat, then, by definition, it has no choice but to at least try to eliminate that threat.

The questions then become should Israel strike and what would happen if they did strike? I think it is pretty self-evident that the Israeli military could force a delay in Iran’s nuclear program but they would lose a lot of aircraft and soldiers. Put aside traditional discussion of retaliation. Hezbollah would strike. Oil would spike and terrorism could again become epidemic. And while Iran may only be capable of shutting the Strait of Hormuz for a day or two, its proxies could destroy the southern Iraqi oil fields, a far more devastating outcome for the international community. However, only some of this would be of paramount concern to Israel, especially when balanced with threat of its own annihilation.

Then what would happen inside Iran? However Iranians may feel about their current leadership, they are, without doubt, fierce nationalists. The likelihood of the current Iranian government convincing its people to rally around its flag is very high. Also, would the delay buy Israel enough time – to outlast the Iranian regime as it outlasted Saddam Hussein? I am not sure, not optimistic. Hussein made some very stupid moves and in doing so he inadvertently retarded his nuclear program. Iran is a different situation.

Okay – this has gone on longer than I anticipated. I understand your concerns; however, I think you need to focus more on Israel’s threat perception. The world, at least at this point, does not seem willing to force upon Iran the degree of coercion necessary to achieve a change of regime behavior. This will leave Israel with no choice but to act, setting off a cascade of events which will be very, very scary.

I pretty much agree with your assessment and likely ramifications of what might happen if there was an overt attack.

I don't disagree that Israel won't react in some manner, but I think it will be much more discrete than something that is as high risk and low probability of success as an airstrike(s).

In the last month there has been illegal hezbollah ammunitiion dumps in Lebanon that have just blown up out of the blue. A Iranian nuclear scientist went on a pilgrimage to Mecca during Ramaddan - he never returned. Iran is now inquiring about their lost scientist. Senior leaders of IRG were killed in a suicide bomber (these are the guys generally responsible for exporting supporting to outside groups).

Now was Israel involved in these incidents? I don't know. But as you pointed out, you don't have to destroy everything. You just need to disrupt. Kidnap (or intice) a key scientist so you can gather intelligence on the state of the program and remove technical knowledge from said program. Start destroying ammunition dumps covertly so your enemy won't have the weapons to attack at your borders. Send a message to your enemy that they are not safe even in their own country 2000 miles away. Probably all coincidences, but this is the type of action I would expect rather than the brute force method.

Recall after the 1972 Olympics massacre, Israel responded by sending covert hit teams into europe and the middle east and started eliminating the leaders behind the terrorists.

[SB Shock]

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...930896,00.html
Found this quite interesting. 8)

Looking like Iran maybe going to balked at the deal and slam the proverbial door in Obama face.