# What if... (Iran)



## Marauder06 (Mar 14, 2012)

*The president of Iran is apparently on the outs with the more radical element within the Iranian power structure*.  What if the clerics were to decide that he had to go, and they whacked him?  I think it would immediately get pinned on Israel (with American complicity, of course ) and it would be more than the excuse they needed to block the Straits, actively attack Israel, and unleash their terrorist proxies against US targets.  What do you think?


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Mar 14, 2012)

If he gets whacked in the next 35 days, I am blaming you for giving the radicals the idea, Sir.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 14, 2012)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> If he gets whacked in the next 35 days, I am blaming you for giving the radicals the idea, Sir.


 
lol, well the Iranians probably listen to intel types even less that the US does, so I think it's all good. ;)

I also speculated that a foreign power would whack Assange over the Wikileaks scandal just to try to pin the blame on the US, but that hasn't happened either.


----------



## QC (Mar 14, 2012)

Maybe the dissent is over corespondendance between Iran and the west saying it's ok to come and have a look, we're really harmless. His approach has taken the heat out of the argument, this may not sit well with the theocracy. Even though he's been unpopular with the lawmakers recently, this may have been a bit too much


----------



## x SF med (Mar 14, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> lol, well the Iranians probably listen to intel types even less that the US does, so I think it's all good. ;)
> 
> I also speculated that a foreign power would whack Assange over the Wikileaks scandal just to try to pin the blame on the US, but that hasn't happened either.


 
just proof that your persuasive skills suck...  and that nobody listens to Intel types...


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 14, 2012)

They've been saying this for at least the last year.


----------



## TH15 (Mar 14, 2012)

Wouldn't attacking Israel be virtually suicide for them? I'm just asking...


----------



## 104TN (Mar 14, 2012)

TH15 said:


> Wouldn't attacking Israel be virtually suicide for them? I'm just asking...


 
Cultural difference - martyrdom is an attractive proposition.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 15, 2012)

The President of Iran has been on the outs with the clerics for several years.  The clerics just won more seats in there government and they are flexing that new found power by publicly flogging Mahmoud.  I think the cleric's would have wacked him much earlier if that was there desire.  If Ahmadinejad supporters had won in the election I could see taking him out to stop him.  Right now Ahmadinejad is pretty powerless and makes a good whipping boy.

Either way Iran isn't going to block the straits because they know that would force our hand and make us respond to that issue.  If we are going to bomb Iran to open the straits we are surely going to continue the bombing campaign to take out there nuclear facilities.  It would be the biggest gift they could give Israel.

Attacking Israel directly again opens the door they would rather keep closed.  It forces another response and even if Obama doesn't have the best relationship with Israel an attack would certainly pull the US into the conflict.  Not to mention that is just the excuse that the Israeli's are looking for to take the gloves off in there response.

Proxy support of terrorist is and will continue to be there chosen response to most situations.


----------



## TH15 (Mar 15, 2012)

No, I don't mean suicide in the direct sense of the word. What I mean is, based off what I have read, Iran will not do anything that will get the US military directly involved in raining warheads down on their country because they know they don't have a fighting chance. Do you guys agree with that statement?

I also saw in an interview where an official stated that if Iran was attacked directly by the US, that Iran would resort to Hizbollah type attacks through its proxies here _inside_ the US. Is there any truth to that? Because that is quite unnerving. 

So does Iran really want war or do they just like beating their chests for political purposes?


----------



## dknob (Mar 15, 2012)

TH15 said:


> No, I don't mean suicide in the direct sense of the word. What I mean is, based off what I have read, Iran will not do anything that will get the US military directly involved in raining warheads down on their country because they know they don't have a fighting chance. Do you guys agree with that statement?
> 
> I also saw in an interview where an official stated that if Iran was attacked directly by the US, that Iran would resort to Hizbollah type attacks through its proxies here _inside_ the US. Is there any truth to that? Because that is quite unnerving.
> 
> So does Iran really want war or do they just like beating their chests for political purposes?


 
Hezbollah activities have been sighted/documented in South America. I don't doubt it is possible. Persian operatives can more easily pass as Westerners then Arabs can.


----------



## Brill (Mar 15, 2012)

TH15 said:


> Wouldn't attacking Israel be virtually suicide for them? I'm just asking...


 
No, but it would bring about the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 15, 2012)

lindy said:


> No, but it would bring about the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.


 
That's right, Ahmadinejad is a *Twelver*, isn't he?


----------



## Brill (Mar 15, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> That's right, Ahmadinejad is a *Twelver*, isn't he?


 
Very much so; almost David Koresh-like without the rock music.


----------

