What is Iran really up to?

[dre]

Something has been striking me as really wierd about all this stuff going on in Iran. People suspect that Iran has a clandenstine nuclear weapons program, but the regime is acting very strangely. If I was trying to build a nuclear weapon underneath the nose of the IAEA and the world, I would be pretty quiet, and keep a low profile. Espcially if I was close to being done. But the regime has done the exact opposite. They have done press releases bragging about every little achievement, and they have escalated their confrontational rhetoric, and the Supreme Leader is allowing the president to play chicken with Israel and the US, even though they know it will probably lead to war, or at least air strikes. It seems pretty clear that Iran is intentionally trying to provoke Israel and the US into attacking them.

I dont personally believe these people are stupid, I think they are actually pretty smart... So I got to wondering what they might be trying to do. Why on earth is Iran trying to provoke an attack on them by Israel or the US?

Then today I read this...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/05/former-cia-officials-say-iran-s-clerics-want-to-goad-israel-into-an-attack.html

Marty Martin, a former senior officer in the CIA, ran the unit that hunted Al Qaeda terrorists from 2002 to 2004. Iran’s most militant leaders “are goading the Israelis,” he tells The Daily Beast, “because a bombing will help them put their internal problems aside.”

Martin, who spent most of his 25-year career at the CIA in the Middle East, argues that some clerics and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, confronted with a discontented and restless population, are looking for ways to solidify public support. “The way they see it, if Israel bombs them it relieves the internal pressure,” says Martin. “Amid this turmoil, its always good to have an outside enemy.”

Iran’s internal troubles include a 12 percent unemployment rate, a shattered economy (due in part to international sanctions), resentment over the oppressive regime, and widespread disgust over corruption.

Martin, who retired from the agency in 2007, now works as an independent consultant. He was prominent inside the agency not just for his leadership against Al Qaeda but also for his expertise on the Middle East: his Louisiana drawl disguises the fact that he speaks fluent Arabic.

“If you are an Iranian,” he says, “there is actually a benefit to an Israel strike—an Israel strike which won't be successful completely militarily, but will be successful for saying 'game on'!”

Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer for the Middle East, agrees, though he emphasizes that only part of the Iranian leadership is likely plotting this way. “It’s quite rational,” he said, “from the perspective of the specific elements in the regime that believe it would work to their political advantage.” Pillar, who spent 28 years at the CIA, is now a professor at Georgetown University. “I strongly believe that the net political effect of an attack would be to help the hardliners,” he says.

"The White House is mindful of the fact that there are radical elements in Tehran who might like to provoke an attack for their own domestic expediency.”

This January, a hard-line newspaper in Tehran, a paper considered close to Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, made the incendiary announcement that a nuclear site buried deep underground was about to start enriching uranium. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that senior White House staff asked during that time period whether Iranian regime elements might be trying to goad Israel into launching airstrikes.

Edited March 8, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

Yep, it's true. A military strike against Iran will likely create political advantage for hardliners, allowing them to increase unity around their cause. At the same time, not striking may well mean allowing Iran to achieve nuclear weaponization. Iran leaves the world with no particularly good options.

The reality is other states, like Syria, have tried going the secret route. But things like that can't really be kept secret, not when other nations are doing their best to spy on you. Israel destroyed Syria's secret nuclear facility, and Syria didn't even so much as complain, because the whole program was supposed to be secret.

Iran is taking the other approach: broadcast everything to the world, claim its all for peaceful purposes, and goad other nations into attacking them. If they do get attacked, they gain sympathy in public opinion from a wide demographic of people (i.e. the left who is generally against US military intervention and condemns Israel for various reasons). If Israel does strike Iran and manage to significantly delay its nuclear program, it will still be a big PR victory for Iran. And if they don't get attacked, they can eventually make nuclear weapons, increasing their status as a regional power. It's a win-win scenario for Iran's leaders. The only case in which they lose is if the West decides to do an Iraq-style full invasion and regime change, which is extremely unlikely.

The way I see it, there are really only two possible scenarios here: either Israel/the US/NATO strike Iran and destroy its nuclear capabilities, or they don't and about a decade later Israel and Iran will be in a cold war style mutually-assured destruction standoff. Israel would have to go public with its nuclear capabilities and vastly increase its nuclear arsenal so they could be assured of utterly eradicating Iran, its proxies (Hezbollah and Hamas), the nation-state hosts (Lebanon and Gaza) of its proxies, and Iran's allies (Syria, etc) if the situation came to it. Due to the large land area of its potential enemies, building such a capability would require Israel to be nuclear armed almost to the present level of the US, which would also necessitate extensive nuclear and missile tests.

A nuclear standoff like this would also encourage other nearby nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, even perhaps Iraq. Hopefully, all parties in such a scenario would maintain a comparably admirable level of sanity as the US and USSR did in the cold war, and the nuclear armageddon would never ensue. But personally I don't put much faith in religious extremists and fanatics, and groups and governments run by them.

There are no good options, but pretty soon striking Iran's nuclear sites may well be the least bad one remaining.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Bonam

[olpfan1]

U.S seems to believe an attack will be the start of the Iranian spring, this former C.I.A agent seems to think the Iranian government thinks it will bring them closer as a country and relieve the internal country..that is a nice theory, I guess it's plausible

[eyeball]

Iran’s most militant leaders “are goading the Israelis,” he tells The Daily Beast, “because a bombing will help them put their internal problems aside.”

You shouldn't have to look too far to find a reciprocal mindset in the west.

They probably all got the same memo.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are a lot of moving parts to this problem, including domestic political considerations for the American election. So the following concurrent strategies are probably in play:

1) Israel is ready to attack just as it has before, but the BDA will always leave doubt as to effectiveness in eliminating the threat, even in the short term. This just resets the clock and the game continues.

2) Obama just pleaded with Netanyahu to hold off in exchange for a guarantee of a US strike when target hardening and facilities dispersal exceeds Israel's capabilities to destroy them. Obama has a big election date in November!

3) 5+1 diplomacy will be renewed to buy yet more time and international drama. Sanction squeeze continues hoping to foment civil unrest and mullah headaches.

4) The story going forward will emphasize and parse the difference between enrichment and actual weaponization.

5) There will be a strike whenever credible intelligence points to completion and or testing of critical weapons components.

From a practical perspective, Iran really has a second rate military compared to Israel and can't modernize because of sanctions and cashflow, not even with the Russians. BFF Syria is about to bust out in a civil war, and proxy fighting with armed terror groups is not getting desired results either. Iran really needs a nuclear weapon!

[Post To The Left]

So if Iran is trying to goad Israel into striking Iran then shouldn't we all be arguing to prevent an Israeli strike?

[Topaz]

Question, Israel HAS nukes and Iran may have them, so who do you think would use them first or would they? I remember hearing a person predicting a mini nuke war in the Middle -East within 5 years, these are his words not mine.

[bush_cheney2004]

So if Iran is trying to goad Israel into striking Iran then shouldn't we all be arguing to prevent an Israeli strike?

I think "we" are, except for some American presidential candidates looking to undermine the incumbent. The US and UK are promising more strike support in the future if Israel will delay their desire for a pre-emtive attack "today". Iranian rhetoric about "erasing Israel from history" really doesn't mean anything until a real capability is confirmed, but Israel can't/won't wait that long.

[Wild Bill]

Yep, it's true. A military strike against Iran will likely create political advantage for hardliners, allowing them to increase unity around their cause.

I still think this is an umproven assumption! Iranians, especially the younger demographics, are NOT stupid! Or ignorant either! They are very modern people who are well aware of world politics and not nearly as inclined to be comfortable under a fundamentalist, primitive dictatorship than countries like Afghanistan or parts of Pakistan.

Because of that, I don't believe they would automatically side with the mullahs who got them into the mess! More likely, they would think that their best hope is a revolution before those wackos get them all killed.

My premise of course is unproven as well but I think it is more likely than this knee jerk idea that all these civilized Iranians would rally round the Ayatollahs.

[DogOnPorch]

Question, Israel HAS nukes and Iran may have them, so who do you think would use them first or would they? I remember hearing a person predicting a mini nuke war in the Middle -East within 5 years, these are his words not mine.

What sort of nukes does Israel use again? Fission? Fusion? Who gave them these nukes?

[GostHacked]

So if Iran is trying to goad Israel into striking Iran then shouldn't we all be arguing to prevent an Israeli strike?

It's actually the other way around.

[bush_cheney2004]

...My premise of course is unproven as well but I think it is more likely than this knee jerk idea that all these civilized Iranians would rally round the Ayatollahs.

I have no doubt that your premise is part of the calculus for risk and reward, i.e. "regime change". It reminds me of the suicide squeeze play in baseball.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[Guest Peeves]

I have no doubt that your premise is part of the calculus for risk and reward, i.e. "regime change". It reminds me of the suicide squeeze play in baseball.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."

You guys are missing the point. Iran..aka Persian(s) want to be THE Islamic superpower in the region. Iran wants the historic glory, the return of the twelfth Imam, the superiority over the Arabs which they have always maintained as a right. They call Arabs names in private. First & foremost Iran is blustering against the U.S, Israel to gain popularity with Arab countries. Every time they rant they get more points from Arabs. Standing provocatively as they do, financing terror, developing nukes when the UN, and the world is condemning them is for the Islamic world's attention more so than for the West....makes them look like the obvious Islamic world leader.

Only Turkey can be said to have any similar ambitions.

"Hatred of Arabs deeply rooted in Persians, says Iranian intellectual"

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html

[bush_cheney2004]

You guys are missing the point. Iran..aka Persian(s) want to be THE Islamic superpower in the region. Iran wants the historic glory, the return of the twelfth Imam, the superiority over the Arabs which they have always maintained as a right.

No, I think we get all that, but one has to separate the rhetoric from reality. The infidel Americans and NATO have walked all over the place with virtual impunity. Islamic superpower is an oxymoron.

They call Arabs names in private. First & foremost Iran is blustering against the U.S, Israel to gain popularity with Arab countries. Every time they rant they get more points from Arabs. Standing provocatively as they do, financing terror, developing nukes when the UN, and the world is condemning them is for the Islamic world's attention more so than for the West....makes them look like the obvious Islamic world leader.

But it's not working...the Saudis and others openly conspire to undermine their bellicose neighbour. Iran has never been more isolated now with Assad's nuts getting squeezed very hard as well. These are the death rolls of a dying regime.

Only Turkey can be said to have any similar ambitions.

Turkey is a modern state and NATO member. Turkey has hosted US nuclear weapons in the past and may continue to do so.

[kactus]

You guys are missing the point. Iran..aka Persian(s) want to be THE Islamic superpower in the region. Iran wants the historic glory, the return of the twelfth Imam, the superiority over the Arabs which they have always maintained as a right. They call Arabs names in private. First & foremost Iran is blustering against the U.S, Israel to gain popularity with Arab countries. Every time they rant they get more points from Arabs. Standing provocatively as they do, financing terror, developing nukes when the UN, and the world is condemning them is for the Islamic world's attention more so than for the West....makes them look like the obvious Islamic world leader.

Only Turkey can be said to have any similar ambitions.

"Hatred of Arabs deeply rooted in Persians, says Iranian intellectual"

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html

There are 1.2 billion moslems in the world. Majority of them are sunnis including Turkey (a Nato member) Then there is a Shia sect, which is in Iran, Lebanon and parts of Iraq. How do you envisage a shia minority with less than a quarter of the population of sunni moslems to take over the whole sunnis and moslem world? And please don't tell me when they acquire nuclear weapon....

As for your assertion in regards to Iranians hating arabs, yes, that's true there's a lot of bad blood between them but then again there is a lot of animosity between jews and arabs...So what's new...?

Furthermore, Iran has long enjoyed a friendly relation with Syria and Lebanon (both arab country) even Iraq which once was an arch enemy. So why does Iran have to gain the popularity of these arab countries when the popularity exists? Oh yes and then there is the puppet government of Saudi Arabia, which Iran doesn't have a good relation but then again why should that be important when their own poor human rights record speaks volume.

[Signals.Cpl]

What is the overall goal in unifying a nation that cannot sustain much more pressure due to their economic situation? I mean it would be fine if the whole country was behind the leadership but would it do anything? Unless the coveted arab support brings them cash they will not be able to sustain their nuclear program.

[Guest Peeves]

I think Iran is up to their noses in lake Deep Do Do and lots of motor boats are ready to make waves.

Allegorically speaking of course.

[dre]

What is the overall goal in unifying a nation that cannot sustain much more pressure due to their economic situation? I mean it would be fine if the whole country was behind the leadership but would it do anything? Unless the coveted arab support brings them cash they will not be able to sustain their nuclear program.

Wow...

[Signals.Cpl]

Wow...

Wow what?

[j44]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-signal-to-iran/2012/04/05/gIQApVLDyS_story.html

[bleeding heart]

Interesting article, j44.

[Rue]

What sort of nukes does Israel use again? Fission? Fusion? Who gave them these nukes?

The same fools who created them for the US, Russia, China, France, Britain, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, India.

Of course your selective mind can not fathom that. It tends to focus on Israelites and their burning bush now

doesn't it?

Here is the issue. Not only the above countries but Japan, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, South Korea, and no doubt other nations have the ability to make nuclear weapons.

For that matter any idiot can get on the internet and get the instructions to build a dirty radioactive bomb that could

kill thousands.

Do you have a point other than to yet again take a piss in the wind at Israel?

The topic was Iran not Israel.

Israel the last time I looked has not elected a leader calling on wiping out Iran unlike in reverse with the fool in Iran. Not that you would notice.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Rue

[Jack Weber]

The same fools who created them for the US, Russia, China, France, Britain, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, India.

Of course your selective mind can not fathom that. It tends to focus on Israelites and their burning bush now

doesn't it?

Here is the issue. Not only the above countries but Japan, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, South Korea, and no doubt other nations have the ability to make nuclear weapons.

For that matter any idiot can get on the internet and get the instructions to build a dirty radioactive bomb that could

kill thousands.

Do you have a point other than to yet again take a piss in the wind at Israel?

The topic was Iran not Israel.

Israel the last time I looked has not elected a leader calling on wiping out Iran unlike in reverse with the fool in Iran. Not that you would notice.

You do realize that DoP is one of the staunchest supporters of the state of Israel on this board,right?

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jack Weber

[DogOnPorch]

You do realize that DoP is one of the staunchest supporters of the state of Israel on this board,right?

Apparently not.

[eyeball]

You do realize that DoP is one of the staunchest supporters of the state of Israel on this board,right?

I'm sure Israel's just thrilled with MP's like DOP representing them.

I recall how my buddy's drunken Uncle used to come and shoot his mouth off for our hockey team when we were kids.