1
NIAC US-IRAN POLICY MEMO
1411 K St NW Ste 600, Washington, DC 20005
web: www.niacouncil.org
|
202-386-6325
.:July 2008:.
e-mail: [email protected]
BENEATH BRAVADO, IRAN PREPARES FOR US ATTACK
Tehran has always been quite
strident in its response to the
possibility of US or Israeli attack.
It has either identified reports of
imminent attack as part and
parcel of “psychological warfare”
to intimidate the Iranian leadership into accepting restrictions
on its nuclear program - in the
words of Iran’s well-known hardline editor of Kayhan daily,
Hossein Shariatmadari, to make
Iran “commit suicide out of the
fear of death.” Or, it has bluntly
asserted Iran’s capability to respond to military attacks in ways
that would harm the initiators of
such attacks.
But the 28 June 2008 Jam-e Jam
daily interview with General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolution’s Guard Corps (IRGC), is
noteworthy not because of his
confirmation of Tehran’s determination to react to attacks but
for the details he reveals regarding the current state of thinking
in Tehran about the US and
Israeli capabilities, and Iran’s
… in the words of Iran’s
hard-line editor of
Kayhan daily, Hossein
Shariatmadari, reports
of imminent attack
against Iran are part
and parcel of
“psychological warfare”
designed to make Iran
“commit suicide out of
the fear of death.”
assessment and preparation for
such an attack.
The wire services have generally picked up Jafari’s counterthreats regarding what Iran
would do in case of an attack
(including missile attacks
against Israel, chocking off the
Hormuz Straight, and reliance
on ideological assets throughout the Middle East). Still quite
a bit of nuance has been left
out regarding his thinking.
Foremost are his thoughts
about the possibility of US or
Israeli attack. On this issue,
Jafari deviates from the usual
pronouncements and suggests
that the next few months are
indeed dangerous months in
which the threat of military action has been enhanced by the
“impasse” facing the United
States. This is how he explains
it:
“The analysis of political, security, and defense experts is that
that the United States is in a
special situation and, because
of this, it is trying to implement
its threats. If the conditions are
really there and it finds an opportunity and has confidence
that its action will at least have
a percentage of success, it will
implement its threat… The limited amount of time that Bush
has until the end of his presidency and also the Republican
lack of hope regarding the victory of their candidate have
created conditions that have
led us at present to take the
possibility of a military attack in
comparison to other junctures
National Iranian American Council | 1411 K St NW Ste 600, Washington, DC 20005
202-386-6325
2
NATIONAL IRANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL
BENEATH BRAVADO, IRAN PREPARES FOR US ATTACK
more seriously. Of course, I
don’t want to say that military
action is certain. But in comparison to the past, it seems
that the enemy sees one of the
ways of exiting the impasse
facing it to be military action.”
The focus on political conditions
in the United States is further
highlighted in Jafari’s rejection
of Israel as the source of military action: “We believe that
Israel is much smaller to be
able to take action against the
Islamic Republic alone. Hence,
the axis of threats is the United
States. However, this country
[the U.S.] will undoubtedly
benefit from the Zionist regime’s support.” He further
states that this same point –
that the US cannot attack Iran
without Israeli support – “because of the Zionist regime
very high vulnerabilities’ is a
deterrent factor.”
The point made is that Iran
perceives the difficulties of concealing the Israeli support for
the US action combined with
Israel’s vulnerabilities – both
because of its lack of strategic
depth as well as “Iran’s external capabilities” in harming its
interests – as important deterrent to US military action
against Iran along with other
deterrents, including the U.S.’
own particular vulnerability
caused by the extensive presence of its forces in the region.
But if that action does come,
according to Jafari, then Iran’s
response will be swift: “We
NIAC | July 2008 | www.niacouncil.org
cannot reveal the kind of action
we will take. But it can be said
that we see our time frame for
response to be very short. This
is because we see the extent of
our enemy’s action to be limited and this limited extent
forces us in a short period of
time to give swift, decisive, and
blunt responses so that they
will have impact.” He later adds
“unimaginable” to the list of
adjectives describing the response.
Bravado and bluster aside, the
point made by Jafari brings into
question conclusions drawn in a
recent report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on the basis of an examination of past experiences that
Tehran “recognizes that at
times its interests are best
served by restraint, although it
will react when circumstances
permit,” and it “has not always
reacted swiftly to foreign attacks to assuage nationalist
passions -and it has sometimes
not reacted at all.” When it has
responded, the report further
concludes “its responses have
sometimes been ill-conceived
and ill-timed from the point of
view of Iranian interests but at
other times on terms favorable
to Tehran (e.g., relying on a
delayed asymmetric response
in a distant theater of operations, using proxies or terrorist
surrogates.”
Jafari is explicit in this interview
that Iran will respond immediately and this immediate and
blunt response against Israel
and the United States – presumably implying the subsequent possibility of immediate
escalation and further commitment on the part of American
forces – must be taken into account in the American calculations of a limited aerial strike
against nuclear facilities and/or
IRGC facilities.
In short, Jafari is very clear
that Tehran is ready to match
the Bush Administration’s
words and deeds if need arises,
even at a time when the Iranian government is taking the
possibility of a military attack
more seriously than before.
This is truly a frightening dynamic for both countries as well
as for Israel and the region as a
whole.
While some may explain away
the US invasion of Iraq as a
tragic and strategic mistake or
miscalculation, nothing short of
madness can account for an
attack on Iran even if political
expediency turns out to be the
reason for some to contemplate
the attack.
Dr. Farideh Farhi is an independent researcher and an adjunct
professor of political science at
the University of Hawai’i.