Iran Signals Its Readiness for a Final Confrontation
by Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=9990&TTL=Iran_Signals_Its_Readiness_for_a_Final_Confrontation
•Since the publication of the November 2011 IAEA report, which explicitly
spotlights Iran's plans to build nuclear weapons, senior figures of the
Iranian regime and the state-run media have begun to use threatening,
defiant, and sometimes contemptuous language toward Israel and the United
States.
•From Iran's standpoint, an ongoing, head-on confrontation with the U.S. and
Israel would serve its purposes in the region and build its image as a key
actor that stands firm against the West and provides an alternative agenda
to reshape the Middle East. Hence, compromise has almost ceased to be an
option for Iran.
•The current round of the conflict between Iran and the United States and
Israel over Iran's (military) nuclear program should be seen in a much wider
context, one that centers on shaping a new landscape in the Middle East.
Iran views itself as "the next big thing" in the region and behaves
accordingly-at the moment with no significant challenge or response from the
United States and the West.
•If in the past Iran held clandestine contacts with Islamic movements,
mainly from North African Arab states, on Sudanese soil (such as Ennadha,
which has now won the Tunisian elections), it can now openly boost its
influence in countries where the "U.S.-supported dictators" have fallen.
•Iran no longer fears openly acknowledging that it has built capabilities
for reacting to an attack-including the Palestinian organizations in Gaza
and Hizbullah in Lebanon-and depicts them as part of its defensive strategy
and response in case of a confrontation with Israel and the United States.
•At home, the growing strength of the Revolutionary Guards enables them to
increasingly influence foreign policy and mainly to export the revolution in
ways not seen in the past. The top commanders of its elite Quds Force are
emerging from the shadows and will have a key role in the future struggle
against the U.S. and its remaining allies in the region, particularly
Israel. Iran, as its president said, is preparing for the "final
confrontation."
The animated talk in Israel and the West about a possible attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities is naturally arousing great interest in Iran. Initially,
the Iranian leadership chose not to react and made only minor statements
about this discourse. But since the publication of the November 2011 report
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),1 which spotlights the
military dimension of Iran's nuclear program and its plans to build nuclear
weapons, senior figures of the regime and the state-run media have begun to
use threatening, defiant, and sometimes contemptuous language toward Israel,
the United States, and IAEA Chairman Yukiya Amano, who was described by
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "America's lackey" and as having "no
authority of his own."2 Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh
declared: "This report is unbalanced, unprofessional, and prepared with
political motivation and under political pressure mostly by the United
States...this is in fact a prime historical mistake."3 Concurrently, Iranian
spokesmen and commentators emphasize Iran's power, its capability to react
"decisively" (including along Israel's borders), and its ability to
withstand both sanctions and a military offensive.
"The Final Confrontation"
Of all the Iranian statements, one made by Ahmadinejad stands out. During a
meeting with supporters, he said, "the West is mobilizing all its forces to
finish the job because it is clear as day that NATO is yearning to act
against Iran." He added in an apocalyptic-messianic spirit that the
conditions taking shape in the region are not normal (a hint at the Imam
Mahdi),4 and that "we are nearing the point of final confrontation." Such a
confrontation, he explained, will not necessarily be military and could take
a political or other form. Ahmadinejad stressed that Iran is now almost at
the apex of its power, but could, if it does not demonstrate resolve, absorb
a blow from which it will not recover for at least five hundred years. He
also warned that an attack on Syria by NATO would cause a regional
explosion.5
Iran is not only observing the crisis brought on by the IAEA report but also
the changing Middle East and its own role in it. On November 4, Iran honored
the anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran (right in
the midst of the debate on the possibility of a Western attack). Indeed,
Iran views the upheaval in the Middle East and the growing Islamic trends
(with Tunisia as an example) as further proof of the (divine) justice of its
path. These are added to a series of "glorious" achievements, as Iran sees
it, over the course of more than a decade-the Israeli withdrawal from
Lebanon, the Second Intifada, the wars in Afghanistan (the harsh blow to the
Taliban) and Iraq (the fall of Saddam), the Second Lebanon War, and Israel's
2009 Gaza operation.
Hubris?
From Iran's standpoint, a head-on confrontation with the United States and
Israel would serve its purposes in the region and build its image as an
actor that stands firm against the Western powers and does not submit to
pressure. If there still was any chance of Tehran agreeing to concessions in
its sporadic talks with the West about its nuclear program, the Middle
Eastern turmoil has now made a compromise all but impossible. Indeed, given
the harsh IAEA report, more critical than in the past and providing more
detail on the military aspects of the nuclear program, compromise has almost
ceased to be an option for Iran, which is deliberately ramping up its
defiance in light of Middle Eastern and world developments.
Tehran is also encouraged by the positions of Russia and China, which are
granting it (along with its client Syria) immunity against any stringent
Security Council sanctions. Specifically, Iran is encouraged about its
ability to withstand sanctions by Russia's statements since the IAEA
report's publication6 (which have made much mention of Iran's reaction to
the report). So Iran has been exuding confidence-sometimes verging on
hubris-and is prepared to take risks, even to the point of trying to
assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and thereby moving the
Middle Eastern playing field to Washington itself.
An interview that Ahmadinejad gave in early November to the Egyptian paper
Al-Akhbar accurately reflects Iran's interpretation of recent Middle Eastern
developments and the threats it faces. The United States, Ahmadinejad
asserts, is indeed looking to attack Iran, as was President Bush, but what a
huge difference there is between Bush's fate and the status Iran enjoys
today.... Iran is becoming a more and more advanced country and therefore
can counterbalance and contend with the global powers....The Zionist entity
and the West, and especially the United States, fear Iran's power and
(growing) role and so are trying to enlist the world for a battle to contain
and reduce its power and role....They must know that Iran will not allow
such a development.
The Iranian president claims further that the United States aims to
safeguard the "Zionist entity," but will fail in that endeavor because this
entity has no place in the Middle East and is destined for extinction. If,
Ahmadinejad suggests, the peoples of the region were to hold a referendum on
the Zionist entity's existence among them, it is clear what the results
would be. "This entity can be compared to a kidney transplanted into a body
that has rejected it...it has no place in the region and the countries will
soon get rid of it and expel it from the region...it will collapse and its
end will be near."7
Iran continues to project military, political, and economic power in the
region, and sees the Israeli and American focus on possibly attacking it as
aimed at undermining its rising status in the changing Middle East-and also
as manifesting the West's loss of its traditional mainstays of power in the
region. Iranian propaganda claims that the talk about attacking it is not
serious "because no such option really exists," and that the real aim of
such talk is only to encourage tougher sanctions-with poor chances of
success given Russia and China's position.
Political and Military Bluff
In an editorial that analyzes the discourse surrounding an attack on Iran
(quoting Ha'aretz, The Guardian, and President Shimon Peres), Iran's
conservative Mehr news agency assessed that "the Israelis are trying to set
the stage for the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran." Mehr observed:
"Over the past few days, Western media outlets have created brouhaha about
the possibility that the Zionist regime may make a unilateral military
strike against Iran." The article noted, "Israel recently test-fired a
ballistic missile, purportedly capable of reaching Iran," and that "the
Israeli military, which is usually secretive about its activities, allowed
media people to report on the event."
The editorial concludes by saying, "it is clear that a military attack on
Iran cannot be a viable option for Israel" and offers several reasons for
this:
(1) They know that a strike could not stop Iran's nuclear program.
(2) Even Israeli and U.S. strategists, who believe that the strike could
delay Iran's nuclear program, say that the strike would only set back Iran's
program for two years, and thus it would not be worth the trouble to start a
war with Iran.
(3) Any attack against Iran would strengthen Iran's national cohesion.
(4) Iran has shown that it is totally prepared to counter any military
threat and is capable of involving regional and extra-regional countries in
any possible war.
(5) U.S. and Israeli intelligence and military officials do not believe that
Iran's nuclear program is their number one threat. They know that the Arab
Spring is a much greater threat to their interests.
So, what is the reason behind the new political game directed at Iran?
It seems that the Israelis are trying to set the stage for the imposition of
stricter sanctions on Iran, but the biggest obstacle is the fact that
Russia, China, and some members of the European Union are strongly opposed
to new sanctions.
All this rhetoric about war is being used to compel these countries to stop
opposing the moves to impose new United Nations Security Council sanctions
on Iran, which they prefer to the outbreak of a dangerous war, which could
have serious repercussions for the world.8
In a similar spirit, Esmaeil Kowsari, deputy chairman of the National
Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Majlis, asserts that recent
threats made by officials of the U.S. and the Zionist regime are a political
and military bluff. The Zionist regime and the U.S. are in no position to
attack Iran....The U.S. and the Zionist regime are gripped by an intense
fear and great concern in dealing with developments in the region and the
world. And after losing their strongholds and illegitimate interests in
regional countries, they are trying to extricate themselves from this
situation.9
Active Diplomacy
Amid the Israeli media campaign about a possible attack on Iran's nuclear
facilities, commentators in Iran's leading conservative outlets have called
on the country's leaders to adopt an active diplomacy to counter it. Behind
this "murky" campaign, they claim, stands Israel's fear that Middle Eastern
developments have removed the nuclear issue from the Western agenda and that
the tide is not in Israel's favor. Thus, these commentators contend, Israel
is using a tactic of trying to scare the world and draw attention to the
nuclear issue, hoping thereby to increase the pressure on Russia and China
to support further Security Council sanctions. This, in these pundits' view,
is primarily psychological warfare by Israel and the West and does not stem
from a real intention to attack Iran.
They argue, then, that Iran needs to take two clear stances toward the
world. First, it should emphasize that no military attack on its nuclear
facilities will benefit the attackers because these sites are dispersed and
underground. Second, it should declare that if there is an attack, even if
it fails to damage these facilities, it will be considered an act of
aggression and a violation of international conventions, and therefore Iran
will quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and no longer be obligated to
the IAEA or allow the presence of nuclear inspectors. According to the
commentators, such a threat would have a great impact. And to further
neutralize the psychological warfare, Iran should espouse an active
diplomacy and convey its positions to the other states such as Russia and
China.10 Other commentators have suggested putting the Russian step-by-step
initiative on the agenda.11
A Crushing Response
Senior Iranian military officials, clerics, and commentators have adopted
threatening language, warning that Iran will react with great severity to
any attack on it.
•Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei: IRGC and Basij (volunteer) forces will
respond to any aggression with a strong slap and an iron fist that "the
enemies, the U.S., its allies, and the Zionist regime, in particular, should
take into consideration, that the Iranian nation is not to attack any
country or nation but rather is to strongly react to any aggression or
threat so that the aggressors and attackers would collapse from
inside....The Iranian nation will not remain only an observer of the threats
of the absurd materialistic powers....Only a nation with a stable power of
self-defense can survive in a world where, unfortunately, relations between
nations and countries are based on the power of weapons."12
•Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said any sort of hostile act against Iran's
territorial integrity would be met by a rapid, firm, and crushing response
by its armed forces.13
•Yadallah Javani, politburo chief of the IRGC (Revolutionary Guards), said
that "if the Zionist regime commits such a mistake [as attacking Iran], it
would mean that it has entered the final days of its existence since the
Islamic Republic of Iran is a powerful and strong country which can defend
its territorial integrity and interests across the globe, especially in the
Middle-East.... The Islamic Republic of Iran has some means and
possibilities in areas very close to the Zionist regime and can easily give
a response to Israel to make its leaders repent their action" (emphasis
added).
•Javani also pointed to the Israeli military's successive failures and
defeats in the thirty-three-day war in Lebanon in summer 2006 and the
twenty-two-day offensive in Gaza in winter 2008-2009, and underlined that
Israel is not strong enough to threaten Iran.14
•Deputy Chief of Staff for Cultural Affairs and Defense Publicity Brig.-Gen.
Massoud Jazayeri said that Iran will not be handcuffed if comes under enemy
aggression. Israel's Dimona nuclear plant and all other parts of Israel are
within the reach of Iranian missiles. "The easiest target for Iranian
military capabilities is the (Dimona nuclear) reactor....Our capabilities
and our defensive tactics will definitely make the enemies, including the
U.S. and the Zionists, repent....Tel Aviv knows well that any small step
against Iran will be linked with the existence of this fake entity...such a
military step from the Zionist entity against Iran will lead to the total
disappearance of this entity from existence...if smoke columns rise from our
nuclear facilities, then this smoke could rise from other installations and
places....Our military information on our enemies is good and sufficient."15
•Ayatollah Seyed Ahmad Khatami, a member of the Experts Assembly, said,
"Today Iran is mighty, strong and powerful and will retaliate against any
plot so powerfully that it would become a lesson for others."16 Another
member of the same assembly, Hossein Ebrahimi, warned that "before [being
able to take] any action against Iran, the Israelis will feel our wrath in
Tel Aviv." Ebrahimi "assessed Israel's military capabilities during the
Second Lebanon War, ‘and found it weak.'" He stated: "The Israelis entered
the war with the capabilities they had but earned nothing but
humiliation....I do not think that Israelis along with the Americans and
Britons will commit such a folly....If the threat is carried out, they will
see the political might of the (Islamic) establishment, the solidarity of
the Iranian nation, and the strength of the country."17 Still another
Experts Assembly member, Mahmud Alavi, said, "Washington and Tel Aviv are
aware of the fact that putting their anti-Iran threats into practice would
cost them dearly, and thus they would not become involved in such folly." He
added "that the United States and Israel know that such empty threats cannot
intimidate Iran and also know that they would receive a crushing response if
they ever attacked the Islamic Republic."18
Particularly notable are the tough statements of Sadollah Zarei of Kayhan
newspaper, which reflects the outlook of the leader of Iran. Zarei claims it
is very unlikely that Israel has any plan to attack Iran or even to take
part in a larger attack; the regional conditions and Israel's capabilities
do not allow it. "Iran is too great for the Zionist regime to threaten it."
Four regular Iranian missiles, Zarei asserts, will cause a million Zionists
to become refugees, while even if Israel fires a hundred missiles at Iran
not even a few houses will be demolished. He stresses that Iran's power and
ballistic-missile capability can cause a total Israeli defeat and adds:
"Iranian missile fire on Israel will not involve any expenditures from the
national budget, because Iran sells missiles in thirty-five countries of the
world and builds its operational missiles from the profits of these sales.
Hence, with very little money it will be possible to destroy Tel Aviv and
the occupied lands." 19
"The Next Big Thing"
To sum up, the current round of the conflict between Iran and the United
States and Israel over Iran's nuclear program should be seen as another
battle in a much wider campaign, one that centers on shaping a new landscape
in a Middle East that is still in upheaval. Iran views itself as "the next
big thing" in the region and behaves accordingly-at the moment with no
significant response from the United States and the West. The November 2011
IAEA report will probably temporarily increase the pressure on Tehran and
lead to limited measures against it. It appears that ultimately, however,
the unhurried approach of the international system, though it certainly
wants to leverage the IAEA report for "crippling" sanctions (mainly on
Iran's banking and energy sectors) and for another round of talks with Iran
(the Russian proposal?), will again be stymied by Russia and China, which
will act to soften any measures.
Given its assessment of the international and regional balance of power,
Iran's audacity is growing even in areas distant from the Middle East (as
revealed in its recruitment of a Mexican drug cartel for the assassination
plot against the Saudi ambassador). In the Middle East itself, Iran's
perception is that the dams have burst. If in the past it held clandestine
contacts with Islamic movements on Sudanese soil (such as Ennadha, which has
now won the Tunisian elections), it can now openly boost its influence in
countries where the "U.S.-supported dictators" have fallen. Iran no longer
fears openly acknowledging that it has built capabilities for reacting to an
attack-including the Palestinian organizations in Gaza and Hizbullah in
Lebanon-and depicts them as part of its defensive strategy and response in
case of a confrontation with Israel and the United States.
Standing up to the United States and Israel on the nuclear issue well serves
Iranian interests in the Arab street, which was and remains hostile toward
those two countries. As Islam regains its hold over the Middle East, after
years in which it was repressed by the Arab regimes, Iran's confidence grows
that it can determine the new power equations in the region and drive the
United States out of it-as well as Israel.
At home, the growing strength of the Revolutionary Guards-who play a central
role with respect to both domestic politics and the Iranian nuclear program,
its protection, survivability, and the missiles that are eventually supposed
to carry nuclear warheads-enables them to increasingly influence foreign
policy and to export the revolution more boldly and in ways not seen in the
past. Indeed, recently Kayhan made an extraordinary admission that testifies
to Iran's self-confidence perhaps more than anything else. It stated that
the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards has already been clashing for
some time with U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere:
The Quds Force is more than an active operational force; it is an ideology
that does not recognize borders, a worldview whose tenets and beliefs
directly conflict with Western culture....Since conquering Iraq and
Afghanistan and entering the region, the United States has experienced more
than ever the taste of conflict with the Quds Force as profoundly and
tangibly as possible. America's appreciation of Iran's regional power is
based mainly, and perhaps exclusively, on the experience of clashing with
the Quds Force (emphasis added).20
Asr-e Iran also writes openly about the Quds Force's active presence in
Iraq, and its contribution to bolstering Iran's status, to the detriment of
Saudi Arabia.21
In light of the Quds Force's involvement in planning the putative hit on the
Saudi ambassador in Washington, there have been American suggestions to
assassinate senior Quds Force figures including its commander, Kassem
Suleimani. This has sparked a wave of adulation for the force and its
leaders in the Iranian media; they are seen as playing, and as destined to
play, a key role in the struggle against the United States and Israel.
Suleimani's name was also recently mentioned as a candidate for the next
president of Iran (in 2013). The previous commander of the Quds Force, Ahmad
Vahidi, is now defense minister. Iran indeed views itself as prepared for a
final confrontation.
* * *
Notes
1.
2.
http://tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4346-iran-will-make-us-regret-its-opposition-ahmadinejad-.
4. Part of the revolutionary leadership believes that the imminent return of
the Twelfth Iman-as the Mahdi-can and should be accelerated by triggering
global chaos. See Dore Gold, "The Diplomatic Implications of the Growing
Iranian Threat," in Iran's Race for Regional Supremacy: Strategic
Implications for the Middle East (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs, 2008), p. 20.
7.
9.
10.
%DB%8C%D8%AF.%D9%81%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84.%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AF.html.
11.
%AD%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%A2%DA%98%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9
%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%258.
21.
* * *
IDF Lt.-Col. (ret.) Michael (Mickey) Segall, an expert on strategic issues
with a focus on Iran, terrorism, and the Middle East, is a senior analyst at
the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Posts
