By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Mojtaba Khamenei has been appointed as Iran’s next supreme leader, a decision made by the Assembly of Experts amidst escalating attacks across the Mideast. The 56-year-old cleric, son of the recently deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, maintains close ties to the Revolutionary Guard, which has been engaged in missile and drone strikes against Israel and Gulf Arab states. This transition occurs as global energy markets are significantly impacted, with oil prices surging and natural gas supplies tightening. Despite some internal criticism regarding hereditary succession, the selection appears to position Khamenei to continue the ongoing conflict and potentially oversee Iran’s nuclear program.
Read the original article here
The UAE has reported a significant escalation in Iranian aggression, stating that Iran launched 16 ballistic missiles and a staggering 117 drones in new barrages. This information paints a concerning picture of the current regional dynamics, suggesting a deliberate and sustained effort by Iran to exert pressure through these aerial assaults.
From an Iranian military perspective, targeting economic infrastructure in neighboring countries could be seen as a strategically logical, albeit escalatory, move. Given their limited ability to directly impact the United States, hitting economic targets is perceived as their most realistic avenue to inflict damage and apply significant pressure on the US and Israel. Missile strikes aimed at Israel, in this view, might not significantly alter the ultimate outcome of the ongoing conflict, whereas disrupting the global economy could have a far more substantial influence.
The reported actions also raise questions about the internal command and control structure within Iran. There’s a suggestion that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may be disregarding any previous apologies or diplomatic overtures made by the Iranian Interim Leadership Council to the GCC, implying serious internal discord. This apparent divergence in strategy between different elements of the Iranian leadership could lead to more chaotic and unpredictable actions.
The nature of the drones used in these attacks is also a point of discussion. They are understood to be a mix, encompassing capabilities similar to cruise missiles or, more concerningly, suicide drones that detonate upon impact, as seen in conflicts like the one in Ukraine. These drones, like the widely used Shahed 136 with its substantial wingspan, are described as being significantly cheaper than conventional missiles, allowing for a much higher volume of deployment. They represent a formidable and cost-effective tool for sustained aerial harassment.
The effectiveness and intent behind these barrages are complex. While the sheer number of drones and missiles fired is alarming, some observations suggest that Iran might be running out of missiles, or perhaps launchers and crews. This could be a sign of depletion, or it could be part of a larger strategy to conserve resources or feign weakness. The fact that missile launchers are reportedly being “crushed” could contribute to the perception of Iran’s diminishing missile stockpiles.
Furthermore, the decision to continue these attacks, particularly against civilian infrastructure in neighboring countries, is likely to solidify the widespread perception of Iran as an existential threat. While Iran might frame these actions as a response to attacks or the presence of US bases, the consequence is a further entrenchment of fear and animosity in the region. The logic that “we’ll stop bombing you if you expel the US” could easily morph into other demands, showcasing a desire for regional hegemony.
The internal power dynamics within Iran seem to be a significant factor. There’s a strong indication that the President does not have full control over the IRGC. This perceived lack of cohesive leadership and control, potentially exacerbated by the removal of higher command figures, could lead to a messy power-sharing situation and more erratic military actions. This disarray within the command structure doesn’t bode well for regional stability, suggesting a future marked by increased confusion and chaotic behavior.
It is also noted that apologies from Iran, even if seemingly offered, might not be genuine expressions of remorse but rather calculated diplomatic maneuvers. Some interpretations suggest apologies were more akin to “we are sorry we have to do it this way,” rather than a commitment to cease hostile actions. These apologies could also be withdrawn or misinterpreted, especially in the volatile political climate, such as following public statements from figures like Donald Trump.
The strategic importance of controlling the Strait of Hormuz is frequently highlighted as Iran’s strongest point of leverage. The ability to disrupt global shipping through this vital waterway is a significant threat that can inflict widespread economic damage. Even a low percentage of sustained drone strikes could maintain this pressure.
The question of reciprocity in conflict is also raised. If US bases in neighboring countries are perceived as being used for attacks against Iran, then retaliatory strikes against those same neighbors hosting US troops could be seen as a form of fair play. This argument suggests that Iran cannot be expected to adhere to a higher moral standard than its adversaries, especially when it perceives itself to be on the defensive.
The potential for global economic depression as a consequence of escalating conflict is a serious concern. The disruption of critical infrastructure, such as desalination plants, could have cascading effects, leading to severe water shortages and exacerbating existing global economic crises. The impact of years, even decades, of building up certain capacities could be felt acutely once existing inventory backlogs are depleted.
Ultimately, the reported barrages of missiles and drones from Iran represent a significant escalation. The motivations appear to be a mix of strategic pressure on economic targets, a desire for regional influence, and potentially a reflection of internal power struggles and a lack of centralized command. The international community watches with concern as these actions threaten to further destabilize an already volatile region and have far-reaching global economic consequences.