By John Q. Hosedrinker The Assembly of Experts is reportedly holding an emergency session to elect a successor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, with significant pressure from the Revolutionary Guards reportedly pushing for the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei. However, a number of Assembly members are boycotting the session, citing undue pressure and concerns that Mojtaba Khamenei’s potential leadership would create a hereditary succession, undermining the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. These opponents argue that Mojtaba Khamenei lacks sufficient religious standing and have warned that declaring him leader could be seen as invalid, potentially exacerbating internal divisions.
Read the original article here
The recent report of Iranian missiles and drones falling near Nakhchivan airport in Azerbaijan is a deeply concerning development, especially considering the delicate geopolitical landscape of the region. It’s perplexing, to say the least, that Iran would choose to escalate tensions with Azerbaijan, a neighbor with whom they would logically want to maintain stable relations. This action seems to fly in the face of strategic common sense, potentially turning a manageable situation into something far more complex and dangerous. The implications for international air travel are also significant; European airlines, already rerouting flights due to sanctions on Russia, rely on the Azerbaijan corridor for their routes to the Far East. If this passage is disrupted, it would create substantial logistical problems, and one can’t help but wonder if this is part of a deliberate Iranian strategy to inflict maximum disruption.
The question of *why* Iran would attack Azerbaijan, of all its neighbors, is central to understanding this incident. Azerbaijan maintains good relations with both Israel and Turkey, while Armenia, its neighbor, is more closely aligned with Russia. Perhaps there’s an attempt to sow internal discord within Azerbaijan by creating tensions between its Muslim population and the government’s support for Israel, though given the significant issues already involving Russia and Armenia, the hope for such a strategy to succeed might be limited. Regardless of the intended motive, the indiscriminate targeting of civilian areas, without any semblance of plausible deniability, paints a grim picture, suggesting the actions of a desperate and vindictive regime.
This incident further underscores the anxieties surrounding Iran’s capabilities and intentions. If Iran possessed nuclear weapons, the argument goes, such actions might have been deterred. The idea of such a regime wielding nuclear power is frankly terrifying, a sentiment echoed by observations that these “nutjobs” would undoubtedly use such weapons if they had them. The current situation, with Iran seemingly attacking multiple countries simultaneously, paints a picture of a nation determined to spread chaos at any cost. This behavior isn’t new; it’s a pattern that has persisted for decades, leading Gulf countries to seek alliances with the US and even, in some cases, discreetly with Israel. The hope is that this recent escalation will finally make it clear to the rest of the world that Iran operates as a fundamentalist force, willing to employ any means necessary for its perceived goals of conquest.
The rationale behind Iran’s broad aggression, extending to countries that were not initially involved in the conflict, is difficult to fathom. It’s a bold, almost reckless, strategy, akin to playing a game of “Total War” where one declares war on every faction on turn one, transforming a strategic simulation into a pure survival horror experience. The core of this strategy seems to be a desire to create maximum chaos, hoping to force the US and Israel into a prolonged and costly war of attrition, ideally a ground invasion. As long as US and Israeli forces maintain air superiority, Iran feels vulnerable. By attacking infrastructure and drawing in other nations, they aim to pressure their adversaries into deeper involvement. It’s a gamble that they believe might force a stalemate or at least significantly drain their opponents’ resolve.
Iran’s strategy appears to be predicated on the belief that direct confrontation with powers like the US and Israel is unwinnable. Therefore, they are targeting poorly defended infrastructure that indirectly supports these nations, aiming to inflict economic pain. They are essentially daring the US and Israel to commit ground troops to contain the situation, betting that neither nation has the appetite for a protracted, boots-on-the-ground conflict that could last for years. The perception is that the US and Israel may have instigated this situation, but anyone expecting a quick resolution is, in this view, severely mistaken. The question remains how many casualties will occur before the “instigators” choose to de-escalate.
The attacks on oil and gas infrastructure are a clear indicator of Iran’s intent to pressure global markets and, by extension, the US economy. This strategy is also linked to a broader approach of decentralizing command and control, making their operations more resilient. In a direct one-on-one confrontation with the United States, Iran would undoubtedly face eventual defeat. However, by engaging multiple targets and sowing widespread disruption, they aim to overwhelm their adversaries through economic pressure and force a de-escalation. This involves targeting US allies like the Gulf states, forcing the US to spread its anti-missile defenses thin and deplete critical stockpiles.
Iran possesses one of the world’s largest missile arsenals, and while not always high-tech or precise, they are certainly capable of causing significant destruction to civilian targets. Combined with swarms of inexpensive drones, these weapons are designed to create a complex defensive challenge. The objective is to place the US and allied air defense systems under immense strain by creating a chaotic, multi-front scenario. It’s as if they are turning a disadvantageous two-on-one situation into a free-for-all where everyone risks losing. The hope is that by making the conflict sufficiently costly for the US and its allies, they will be compelled to seek a ceasefire.
The current global silence while Iran’s neighbors are attacked is notable. The aim is to generate enough disturbance to make the US and Israel reconsider their approach. Iran’s primary hope seems to be to involve all parties in their own disputes, thereby diverting attention and pressure from themselves. The notion of World War III looms as a potential consequence of this escalating conflict. The apparent decentralization of Iran’s military, with generals acting with what appears to be extreme autonomy, suggests a breakdown of centralized control, possibly driven by a sense of desperation.
Since military victory is unlikely, the strategy shifts to making the conflict as messy and unmanageable as possible, aiming to erode public support for the war in neighboring countries and in the United States. The prevailing sentiment is that Iran is trying to provoke panic among Israel, the US, and their allies, compelling them to push for a ceasefire. This aggressive posture is likely aimed at disrupting global oil production, which would put significant pressure on Western economies and force a de-escalation. The US might prefer Iran to focus solely on Israel or US military installations, but Iran has opted for a more widespread disruption affecting global trade and supply chains, including oil, gas, and general commerce, creating a more immediate and painful form of pressure.
The expectation is that terrorist attacks will begin in various parts of the world, further incentivizing an end to the Iran-Israel-US conflict. The mention of the Kurds highlights a potential target or point of leverage for Iran. The choice to attack competent neighbors like Turkey and Azerbaijan, rather than less capable ones, further complicates the regional dynamics.
The concept of nuclear deterrence, while controversial, is often cited in this context. If Iran possessed nuclear weapons, the argument is that such aggressive actions might have been deterred in the first place. The scenario of Iran having nuclear capabilities, and thus potentially not being attacked in the first place, is a recurring theme. The breakdown of the Obama-era nuclear deal is also pointed to as a turning point that may have contributed to the current proliferation concerns. Ultimately, Iran’s current actions are being viewed by some as a desperate attempt to overwhelm its adversaries, drawing in numerous other parties into a chaotic and potentially global conflict.