Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

  1. #1

    Default Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    According to an article in the New York Times:

    Al Qaeda’s second-highest leader, accused of being one of the masterminds of the deadly 1998 attacks on American embassies in Africa, was killed in Iran three months ago, intelligence officials have confirmed.

    Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, who went by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad al-Masri, was gunned down on the streets of Tehran by two assassins on a motorcycle on Aug. 7, the anniversary of the embassy attacks. He was killed along with his daughter, Miriam, the widow of Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza bin Laden.

    The attack was carried out by Israeli operatives at the behest of the United States, according to four of the officials. It is unclear what role if any was played by the United States, which had been tracking the movements of Mr. al-Masri and other Qaeda operatives in Iran for years.

    The killing occurred in such a netherworld of geopolitical intrigue and counterterrorism spycraft that Mr. al-Masri’s death had been rumored but never confirmed until now. For reasons that are still obscure, Al Qaeda has not announced the death of one of its top leaders, Iranian officials covered it up, and no country has publicly claimed responsibility for it.

    Mr. al-Masri, who was about 58, was one of Al Qaeda’s founding leaders and was thought to be first in line to lead the organization after its current leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.

    Long featured on the F.B.I.’s Most Wanted Terrorist list, he had been indicted in the United States for crimes related to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people and wounded hundreds. The F.B.I. offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture, and as of Friday, his picture was still on the Most Wanted list.

    That he had been living in Iran was surprising, given that Iran and Al Qaeda are bitter enemies. Iran, a Shiite Muslim theocracy, and Al Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim jihadist group, have fought each other on the battlefields of Iraq and other places.

    American intelligence officials say that Mr. al-Masri had been in Iran’s “custody” since 2003, but that he had been living freely in the Pasdaran district of Tehran, an upscale suburb, since at least 2015.

    Around 9:00 on a warm summer night, he was driving his white Renault L90 sedan with his daughter near his home when two gunmen on a motorcycle drew up beside him. Five shots were fired from a pistol fitted with a silencer. Four bullets entered the car through the driver’s side and a fifth hit a nearby car.

    As news of the shooting broke, Iran’s official news media identified the victims as Habib Daoud, a Lebanese history professor, and his 27-year-old daughter Maryam. The Lebanese news channel MTV and social media accounts affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps reported that Mr. Daoud was a member of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant organization in Lebanon.

    It seemed plausible.

    The killing came amid a summer of frequent explosions in Iran, mounting tensions with the United States, days after an enormous explosion in the port of Beirut and a week before the United Nations Security Council was to consider extending an arms embargo against Iran. There was speculation that the killing may have been a Western provocation intended to elicit a violent Iranian reaction in advance of the Security Council vote.

    And the targeted killing by two gunmen on a motorcycle fit the modus operandi of previous Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. That Israel would kill an official of Hezbollah, which is committed to fighting Israel, also seemed to make sense, except for the fact that Israel had been consciously avoiding killing Hezbollah operatives so as not to provoke a war.

    In fact, there was no Habib Daoud.

    Several Lebanese with close ties to Iran said they had not heard of him or his killing. A search of Lebanese news media found no reports of a Lebanese history professor killed in Iran last summer. And an education researcher with access to lists of all history professors in the country said there was no record of a Habib Daoud.

    One of the intelligence officials said that Habib Daoud was an alias Iranian officials gave Mr. al-Masri and the history teaching job was a cover story. In October, the former leader of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Nabil Naeem, who called Mr. al-Masri a longtime friend, told the Saudi news channel Al Arabiya the same thing.
    Why wouldn't the Trump administration have taken credit for it? That al-Masri's daughter was also killed doesn't look so good, nevertheless collateral causalities among family members are pretty common in such operations. The deaths of female family members didn't really sully the operation that killed Bin Laden, but then he was an archvillain and household name taken out by American special forces rather than during some shady third party operation. Although, it certainly could have been framed as a US operation and likely the public would have been none the wiser.

    Of course the next question is why was al-Masri in Iran in the first place. The article offers some suggestions:

    Iran may have had good reason for wanting to hide the fact that it was harboring an avowed enemy, but it was less clear why Iranian officials would have taken in the Qaeda leader to begin with.

    Some terrorism experts suggested that keeping Qaeda officials in Tehran might provide some insurance that the group would not conduct operations inside Iran. American counterterrorism officials believe Iran may have allowed them to stay to run operations against the United States, a common adversary.

    It would not be the first time that Iran had joined forces with Sunni militants, having supported Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Taliban.

    “Iran uses sectarianism as a cudgel when it suits the regime, but is also willing to overlook the Sunni-Shia divide when it suits Iranian interests,” said Colin P. Clarke, a counterterrorism analyst at the Soufan Center.

    Iran has consistently denied housing the Qaeda officials. In 2018, the Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi said that because of Iran’s long, porous border with Afghanistan, some Qaeda members had entered Iran, but they had been detained and returned to their home countries.

    However, Western intelligence officials said the Qaeda leaders had been kept under house arrest by the Iranian government, which then made at least two deals with Al Qaeda to free some of them in 2011 and 2015.

    Although Al Qaeda has been overshadowed in recent years by the rise of the Islamic State, it remains resilient and has active affiliates around the globe, a U.N. counterterrorism report issued in July concluded.

    Iranian officials did not respond to a request for comment for this article. Spokesmen for the Israeli prime minister’s office and the Trump administration’s National Security Council declined to comment.
    The article further elaborates on al-Masri's background and role in Al Qaeda:

    Mr. al-Masri was a longtime member of Al Qaeda’s highly secretive management council, along with Saif al-Adl, who was also held in Iran at one point. The pair, along with Hamza bin Laden, who was being groomed to take over the organization, were part of a group of senior Qaeda leaders who sought refuge in Iran after the 9/11 attacks on the United States forced them to flee Afghanistan.

    According to a highly classified document produced by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center in 2008, Mr. al-Masri was the “most experienced and capable operational planner not in U.S. or allied custody.” The document described him as the “former chief of training” who “worked closely” with Mr. al-Adl.

    In Iran, Mr. al-Masri mentored Hamza bin Laden, according to terrorism experts. Hamza bin Laden later married Mr. al-Masri’s daughter, Miriam.

    “The marriage of Hamza bin Ladin was not the only dynastic connection Abu Muhammad forged in captivity,” the former F.B.I. agent and Qaeda expert Ali Soufan wrote in a 2019 article for West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.

    Another of Mr. al-Masri’s daughters married Abu al-Khayr al-Masri, no relation, a member of the management council. He was allowed to leave Iran in 2015 and was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Syria in 2017. At the time, he was the second-ranking Qaeda official after Mr. Zawahri.

    Hamza and other members of the Bin Laden family were freed by Iran in 2011 in exchange for an Iranian diplomat abducted in Pakistan. Last year, the White House said that Hamza bin Laden had been killed in a counterterrorism operation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

    Abu Muhammad al-Masri was born in Al Gharbiya district of northern Egypt in 1963. In his youth, according to affidavits filed in lawsuits in the United States, he was a professional soccer player in Egypt’s top league. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, he joined the jihadist movement that was coalescing to assist the Afghan forces.

    After the Soviets withdrew 10 years later, Egypt refused to allow Mr. al-Masri to return. He remained in Afghanistan where he eventually joined Bin Laden in the group that was later to become the founding nucleus of Al Qaeda. He was listed by the group as the seventh of its 170 founders.

    In the early 1990s, he traveled with Bin Laden to Khartoum, Sudan, where he began forming military cells. He also went to Somalia to help the militia loyal to the Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. There he trained Somali guerrillas in the use of shoulder-borne rocket launchers against helicopters, training they used in the 1993 battle of Mogadishu to shoot down a pair of American helicopters in what is now known as the Black Hawk Down attack.

    “When Al Qaeda began to carry out terrorist activities in the late 1990s, al-Masri was one of the three of Bin Laden’s closest associates, serving as head of the organization’s operations section,” said Yoram Schweitzer, head of the Terrorism Project of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. “He brought with him know-how and determination and since then was involved in a large part of the organization’s operations, with an emphasis on Africa.”

    Shortly after the Mogadishu battle, Bin Laden put Mr. al-Masri in charge of planning operations against American targets in Africa. Plotting a dramatic, ambitious operation that, like the 9/11 attacks, would command international attention, they decided to attack two relatively well-defended targets in separate countries simultaneously.

    Shortly after 10:30 a.m. on Aug. 7, 1998, two trucks packed with explosives pulled up in front of the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The blasts incinerated people nearby, blew walls off buildings and shattered glass for blocks around.

    In 2000, Mr. al-Masri became one of the nine members of Al Qaeda’s governing council and headed the organization’s military training.

    He also continued to oversee Africa operations, according to a former Israeli Intelligence official, and ordered the attack in Mombasa, Kenya, in 2002 that killed 13 Kenyans and three Israeli tourists.

    By 2003, Mr. al-Masri was among several Qaeda leaders who fled to Iran which, although hostile to the group, seemed out of American reach.

    “They believed the United States would find it very difficult to act against them there,” Mr. Schweitzer said. “Also because they believed that the chances of the Iranian regime doing an exchange deal with the Americans that would include their heads were very slim.”

    Mr. al-Masri was one of the few high-ranking members of the organization to survive the American hunt for the perpetrators of 9/11 and other attacks. When he and other Qaeda leaders fled to Iran, they were initially kept under house arrest.

    In 2015, Iran announced a deal with Al Qaeda in which it released five of the organization’s leaders, including Mr. al-Masri, in exchange for an Iranian diplomat who had been abducted in Yemen.

    Mr. Abdullah’s footprints faded away, but according to one of the intelligence officials, he continued to live in Tehran, under the protection of the Revolutionary Guards and later the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. He was allowed to travel abroad and did, mainly to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria.

    Some American analysts said Mr. al-Masri’s death would sever connections between one of the last original Qaeda leaders and the current generation of Islamist militants, who have grown up after Bin Laden’s 2011 death.

    “If true, this further cuts links between old-school Al Qaeda and the modern jihad,” said Nicholas J. Rasmussen, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. “It just further contributes to the fragmentation and decentralization of the Al Qaeda movement.”
    Assuming these "intelligence sources" are legit, why the confirmation now? Is the timing just after the election a coincidence?
    Last edited by sumskilz; November 14, 2020 at 05:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  2. #2

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Yeah, Iran has been keeping a few al-Qaeda officials under house arrest since the invasion of Afghanistan, but I don't think the hostility with the United States is a major factor for this policy. They function more like hostages with benefits, which ensure that al-Qaeda will not commit any terrorist attacks against Iran, which is very vulnerable to this type of operations, because of its large border with her lawless, eastern neighbor. Not to mention the fact that they also serve as great, bargaining chips for liberating Iranian diplomats that have been captured in countries, where al-Qaeda is quite active (Yemen, Pakistan). ISIL has criticised al-Qaeda very harshly for that practice, in an effort to pander to the new generation of jihadists, who, because of the Syrian Civil War, are more obsessed with Shiites than Israelis or the Westerners. There has been a declassified interview of a Kuwaiti source for the FBI that details the sojourn of al-Qaeda operatives in Iran, ranging from detention to house arresting and indirect surveillance. Not sure how reliable it is, but the overall picture won't be very far from the truth.

    Social media are full of speculation about how it could have affected the presidential elections, but I personally doubt the impact would have been significant. Osama bin Laden was a globally famous archvillain, Abu Muhammad al-Misri could not have even been compared with him in notoriety, especially nowadays, when al-Qaeda is hardly on the spotlight. In my opinion, the revelation is probably linked to the surfacing of persistent rumours that Zawahiri has died (from natural causes, like Mullah Omar) one month ago. If the rumours are confirmed (and they probably will, several quite reliable sources report this), then it will be even greater news than the assassition of Abu Muhammad al-Misri. It could explain why al-Qaeda kept silent, given how precarious the succession procedure is, and why US officials were secretive, in an attempt to also eliminate Zawahiri.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    It is entirely possible that Trump simply wasn't entirely briefed on the matter. The man, supposedly, doesn't bother reading his already dumbed-down intelligence briefings. He could've missed it, and nobody bothered to tell him. Had Trump known, I don't doubt we would've been hearing about this as frequently as the stock market.

  4. #4
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Meh. If every news report based on "trusted sources" is to believed, the US and their allies killed Al-Qaeda's Number 2 in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 ... 2017, 2020. Yawn.

    Iran isn't allied with al Qaeda. It fights them in Yemen and Syria. It doesn't arm and train Sunni terrorists. The US does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  5. #5

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Weak bait as usual. Also, Hamas is Sunni last I checked.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  6. #6

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Meh. If every news report based on "trusted sources" is to believed, the US and their allies killed Al-Qaeda's Number 2 in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 ... 2017, 2020. Yawn.

    Iran isn't allied with al Qaeda. It fights them in Yemen and Syria. It doesn't arm and train Sunni terrorists. The US does.
    It's hardly stretch to imagine Iran working with Al Qaeda when it suits.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Signs of cooperation between Iran and al-Qa’ida’sleadership date back to the 1990s. This relationship hascontinued since 9/11, with Iran allowing hundreds ofal-Qa’ida members and affiliates fleeing Afghanistan to enterits borders. One of them, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, went onto become the most wanted man in Iraq. Another, Saifal-Adl, recently returned to the field, and was soon appointedto oversee international terror operations by Osama binLaden. Yet the assumption Iran would never work with Sunnimilitants for years eschewed much needed attentiveness tothis lethal issue among officials in Washington.

    THE AL-QA’IDA-QODS FORCE NEXUS: Scratching the surface of a “known unknown”, Michael S. Smith II, Apr 29th 2011.



  7. #7

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    EDIT: Delete, copy-paste ed up again.

  8. #8
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Also, Hamas is Sunni last I checked.
    Yup. Check out which side Hamas has been on in the Syrian civil war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  9. #9

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Tehran has a history of consistent and deliberate support for Hamas, a Sunni terrorist organization. That this assistance temporarily ceased as a consequence of disagreements over the Assad regime is irrelevant. Iran and Hamas renewed their friendship years ago.



  10. #10

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Hamas and Iran did not completely cut off their alliance after the fall-out with Assad. But ties cooled considerably. Tehran’s funding continued, particularly for Hamas’ armed wing, but at a reduced level, while political connections dwindled.

    Since Yehiyeh Sinwar took over Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip in February, the militant group has been rebuilding those relations. In August, the most senior Hamas delegation in years visited Tehran and took part in President Hassan Rouhani’s inauguration. During their visit, the delegation met with the parliament speaker and senior aides to Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. This year, Hamas officials have held three meetings with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and relations have returned to normal, according to a Palestinian official in Beirut.

    Iran has responded by increasing funding. Sinwar told reporters last month that Iran is now “the largest backer financially and militarily” of Hamas’ armed wing. He said that with Iran’s help, Hamas is “accumulating” its military powers in preparation for a battle meant for “the liberation of Palestine.”
    Now Iran wants to end the rift between its two allies, Assad and Hamas.

    https://apnews.com/article/eec488035...f39533bc9d94c7
    Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said March 4 that his movement supports the sovereignty of the Syrian government over all Syrian territories. At a press conference in Moscow, Haniyeh said the Syrian regime and people have given nothing but great support to Hamas for many years.
    Hamas leaders met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the Kremlin on March 2.

    With the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, relations between Hamas and the Syrian regime deteriorated. Hamas opted for an impartial stance in the Syrian internal conflict, siding with the Syrian revolution, and its leaders left Damascus in 2012, though they had been present in Syria since 2001.

    Following the election of a new leadership in 2017, Hamas has pursued a policy of openness and made efforts to repair ties with the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis, which deteriorated during the Syrian war, given Hamas' stance on the internal conflict.
    In recent years, Hamas restored with Hezbollah and Iran, which prompted the latter to resume financial and military support in March 2019, after several visits by the new Hamas leadership to Tehran.

    Hamas is banking on Russia to rearrange the situation in the Arab region, including Hamas' relations with Damascus, especially since the regime now controls most of Syria, and, with the help of Russia, aims to retake the north.

    https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...ns-moscow.html
    The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement announced on Sunday that Russia is ready to host a meeting for leaders of the Palestinian factions.

    "During our visit to Moscow," said Hamas Political Bureau member Mousa Abu Marzouk, "President [Vladimir] Putin's envoy to the Middle East Mikhail Bogdanov expressed Russia's readiness to host a meeting for secretaries-general of the Palestinian factions."

    According to Abu Marzouk, Bogdanov said that the offer is intended to "reinforce national unity and political partnership, and face up to plans to liquidate the Palestinian cause."
    Last week, Hamas announced that a senior delegation of its leaders had travelled to Moscow to meet senior Russian officials, including Bogdanov and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This followed an announcement in August when Russia invited the Palestinian factions to meet in the Russian capital as part of the efforts to reconcile Fatah and Hamas.

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...tions-meeting/
    Mahmoud Mardawi, a member of Hamas' national relations bureau and a former leader of al-Qassam Brigades, told Al-Monitor, “Hamas wanted to shed light on the [past] efforts of Syria, Iran and Sudan in supplying it with weapons and equipment. This explains, according to Hamas, the conspiracy against Sudan to hinder its role in serving the Palestinian cause (in reference to the 2019 coup against the former regime). Syria is already absent due to its preoccupation with its civil war. Meanwhile, Iran continues to support us without restrictions or conditions,” he added.

    https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...smuggling.html
    And what’s this? More Sunnis:
    In Afghanistan, Iran has supported Taliban militant factions, despite past tensions with the group, to focus on its core goal: pressuring the US military. Although Tehran’s efforts were likely marginal in affecting the Trump administration’s decision to negotiate with the Taliban to extricate US forces from Afghanistan, a US departure would remove a key threat from Iran’s eastern border and enable Iran to increase its influence in the country. The Taliban is not marked as an FTO.

    Neither the Obama administration’s successful negotiation of the 2015 multilateral Iran nuclear agreement nor the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and re-imposition of sanctions appear to have dented or retarded Iran’s advancement of its regional goals. Because expanding its regional influence is core to Iran’s national security, it is not clear that any combination of US initiatives will persuade or compel the Iranian regime, as currently constituted, to give up its strategy of the past four decades.

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...wer-structure/
    Iran’s military aid to the Taliban has included light arms, rifled-propelled grenades (RPGs), and even military training for Taliban forces on Iranian soil.63 Iran’s support for Taliban insur- gents has not been as extensive as its support for Shia insurgents, who inflicted thousands of casualties against U.S. forces in Iraq. Iran’s military and intelligence ties with the Taliban are also much less significant than ties to other anti-American groups such as the Lebanese Hezbollah.

    This may be in part because the Taliban is a Sunni fundamentalist group at odds with Shia Iran. But Tehran’s measured support for the Taliban may be tied to very specific goals; it could strengthen Iran’s credibility with certain Taliban factions, enhance communication with the Pashtun Afghan population, and increase leverage with the Afghan central government without excessively hurting bilateral relations. It also sends a message to the United States: in the event of a military conflict, Iran has the ability to dial up the pressure against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...RAND_RR616.pdf.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  11. #11

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Tankies be like, "Arabs are sun people. Persians are mountain people. Two totally different groups. They'd never cooperate. I know this because that's how things work in my Japanese cartoons."
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  12. #12
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,952

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Meh. If every news report based on "trusted sources" is to believed, the US and their allies killed Al-Qaeda's Number 2 in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 ... 2017, 2020. Yawn.
    There is always a number 2 until they're down to one person

  13. #13

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Given the background situation, it seems like these high profile assassinations will further weaken the regime. The thing is, is the alternative any better?
    A new saying is making the rounds in Iran: power is being sucked away from heads to toes, which is to say, from men who wear turbans to men who wear boots. Iran’s new parliament furnishes the most recent evidence. Its speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, is a former brigadier general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Two-thirds of the parliament’s presiding board are either former members or still affiliated with the IRGC and its auxiliary organizations. Many in Iran and in the United States have long foreseen an IRGC takeover of the Iranian government; the next step toward that outcome would be for a candidate affiliated with the IRGC to be elected president in 2021.

    That Iran will soon have a military-run government is not a foregone conclusion, but it seems increasingly to be the most likely. Iranians are frustrated with partisan tensions and compounding crises. U.S. sanctions have drained the country’s economic lifeblood: purchasing power parity has decreased to two-thirds of what it was a decade ago, even as the public’s obsession with wealth has grown exponentially. Wounded pride and resentment that Iranians cannot enjoy the international prestige they deserve is giving rise to a novel form of nationalism.

    President Hassan Rouhani, unable to deliver on either his domestic or foreign policy promises, has apparently thrown in the towel, as his recent management of the pandemic indicates. He was reluctant to recognize the novel coronavirus as a national threat until it was too late, and his contradictory messages on the subject confused the public and even garnered criticism from the supreme leader. By comparison, the IRGC holds a strong hand that is growing only stronger. But the very nature of its advantages may militate against its becoming the custodian of the state.

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...take-over-iran
    With the Ayatollah allegedly abdicating power to his son amid rumors of failing health, I wonder if the IRGC, which already has a huge amount of de facto political power, could further leverage the opportunity. On the one hand, regime change and a state that would hypothetically be run by a military bureaucracy as opposed to a religious leader presents certain opportunities for US interests. On the other, a theocracy that changes from a de facto dictatorship led by an Islamist cleric to a de facto dictatorship controlled by an Islamist terrorist organization doesn’t seem like much of an improvement.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  14. #14

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    How would the assassination of an al-Qaeda operative weaken the government? Your article doesn't claim so, it instead focuses on the much more serious repercussions of the sanctions strangling the Iranian economy. Regarding its analysis, the authors correctly pointed out the economic influence of the Revolutionary Guards in Iranian society, but the rest was marked by self-contradictions. The epilogue disputes the introduction, since, as they accurately explain, the Revolutionary Guards are not a monolithic entity, so examining the internal struggle as a contest between "turbans" and "boots" is by definition wrong. Secondly, the authors warn about the military gaining power at the expense of elected institutions, by measuring the prominence of army officers in said institutions. I genuinely don't understand their reasoning. Anyway, the real image is a bit simpler. The moderates won the popular elections, by promising an increase of the quality of life, as a result of the successful negotiations with the United States. However, once Washington withdrew from the deal, despite Iran abiding with the imposed restrictions, many voters became utterly disillusioned, since they felt (quite justifiably) manipulated and humiliated. Consequently, the more radical elements gained in popularity, since their warnings that America was not diplomatically reliable and that negotiations could not be a long-term solution were verified beyond reasonable doubt. Even if Biden shows more flexibility than his predecessor, I doubt the situation would improve, given how little value the word of the US now holds in the international sphere. For a somewhat similar case, there's the example of North-Korean reaction to the largely US-sponsored military intervention in Libya, despite the latter having normalised its relations with the west and dismantled its programme of weapons of mass-destruction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica
    With the Ayatollah allegedly abdicating power to his son amid rumors of failing health, I wonder if the IRGC, which already has a huge amount of de facto political power, could further leverage the opportunity.
    The rumours are untrue. They are based on a tweet of an Ahwazi separatist, but they ignore the fact that Khamenei does not have the power to appoint his successor. The Supreme Leader is appointed or dismissed by the Assembly of Experts not by himself. This is one of the most essential principles of the Iranian Constitution, so I really have no idea how that journalist bought the story. That's the equivalent of claiming that Donald can declare his successor, instead of the Electoral College. Fun fact: If I remember corrrectly, the same was claimed when the health Ayatollah Khomeini, but the predictions obviously failed.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    The assassination of not just the AQ operative (which Tehran tried and failed to cover up after he was gunned down in the streets of the capital) but also Soleimani and Fakhrizadeh has been a very public embarrassment for the regime which, like any autocratic structure, relies on projecting strength not only externally but internally to survive. This, with the IRGC’s growing power, the economic crisis, the pandemic, and an allegedly ailing Supreme Leader create a cocktail of problematic factors for the regime ahead of the 2021 elections.

    Also, there is nothing moderate about a theocracy which has funded and trained terrorists internationally for decades, as well as Islamist militias that have killed hundreds of American troops in Iraq to date, and imprisoned, tortured and butchered its own citizens by the hundreds as recently as last year to halt public protests, and whose institutions are increasingly under the sway of a terrorist military organization. To suggest that the regime was becoming more moderate but for US actions 2 years ago, because a technocratic conservative coalition relatively more open to foreign investment had gained political power in recent years, is laughable.

    I understand that many or most Iranian people are not especially enamored with their government, and would prefer comparatively moderate and democratic leadership that would allow for greater access to the international community as well as sanctions relief. But that’s part of the point. Under the thumb of the clerics and the IRGC, that’s not going to happen, regardless of largely ornamental elections or the actions of foreign entities. The question that remains is how to isolate and curtail the regime’s malign power and influence, preferably without having to reward its nuclear extortion that would allow it to continue and expand those activities while enjoying increased access to the global economy. A regime change to an overtly IRGC controlled government would present new opportunities as well as challenges to that end.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  16. #16

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Alright, I didn't know we jumped into completely irrelevant assassinations. The factions in Iranian politics are universally described as moderate and radical, in comparison to each other, and not on how you perceive their foreign policy. In fact, the label stems exclusively from internal policy, as the Iranian foreign policy is endorsed by pretty much everybody as a necessary mean for survival against aggressive and hostile powers. By the way, just for the record, terrorists killing soldiers is an oxymoron. Perhaps you meant to say insurgents, but that would also be inaccurate, since the militias are legally recognized in Iraq as part of the state law enforcement corps. As for the rogue behaviour of the US indirectly benefiting the hard-liners, it's a commonly accepted theory, endorsed by such flagships of anti-imperialism as the Washington Post. Keep in mind that the author exagerates, because Iranian conservatives were also interested in negotiating with the US, while the popularity of reformists already suffered gravely, due to social upheaval, even before Donald's withdrawal. Still, the failure of the deal was a significant factor, not doubted by anybody, I believe.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Alright, I didn't know we jumped into completely irrelevant assassinations.The factions in Iranian politics are universally described as moderate and radical, in comparison to each other, and not on how you perceive their foreign policy. In fact, the label stems exclusively from internal policy, as the Iranian foreign policy is endorsed by pretty much everybody as a necessary mean for survival against aggressive and hostile powers.
    Pretty weird to insist on a “moderate” label for a government that murders and tortures its own citizens as a matter of internal policy while funding and training terrorists; particularly in a context where the US is supposedly responsible for this “moderate” government’s declining political power vs its own terrorist military force that increasingly dominates its institutions. Protests against the increase in government-controlled fuel prices, as well as the regime’s malign activities abroad, theocratic rule, the murder of protestors and dissidents, and corruption, don’t appear to be motivated by a rejection of the government’s “moderate” politics relative to more hardline factions. Nor does it seem like the widespread discontent was/is especially motivated by a sense of feeling disillusioned by their “moderate” government’s decision to engage in a diplomatic agreement that ultimately fell through.
    By the way, just for the record, terrorists killing soldiers is an oxymoron. Perhaps you meant to say insurgents, but that would also be inaccurate, since the militias are legally recognized in Iraq as part of the state law enforcement corps.
    Not to follow you down the rabbit hole of rhetorical deflections, but perhaps you misread. What I said was that “Islamist militias that have killed hundreds of American troops in Iraq to date,” which would appear to match up with the Pentagon’s assessment.
    As for the rogue behaviour of the US indirectly benefiting the hard-liners, it's a commonly accepted theory, endorsed by such flagships of anti-imperialism as the Washington Post. Keep in mind that the author exagerates, because Iranian conservatives were also interested in negotiating with the US, while the popularity of reformists already suffered gravely, due to social upheaval, even before Donald's withdrawal. Still, the failure of the deal was a significant factor, not doubted by anybody, I believe.
    This doesn’t seem relevant to the suggestion that the US withdrawal was responsible for the declining fortunes of the “moderate” government in Tehran that murders and tortures its citizens for protesting government-controlled price hikes while the regime expends resources on funding/training/arming terrorist groups and Islamist militias.
    The demonstrations echo the unrest that convulsed Iran in late 2017 and early 2018, although this latest round appears to be more widespread and more violent. The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy has surely contributed to Tehran’s fiscal predicament. However, Iran’s turmoil is not driven by U.S. policies, nor is it merely some circumstantial spasm. The protests are the latest salvo in the Iranian struggle for accountable government that stretches back more than a century. And the fury and desperation of the Iranians on the streets this week strikes at the heart of the legitimacy of the revolutionary system.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...ry-legitimacy/
    While Iraqis oppose Iran’s regime over its violation of their sovereignty, Iranians are critical of it because they see it diverting their resources to adventures abroad despite major problems at home. According to official statistics, 57 million Iranians will be living below the absolute poverty line by the end of March 2020. But this hasn’t deterred the cash flow to Iran’s regional proxies and allied regimes. Since the outbreak of conflict in Syria, the Islamic Republic has spent at least $30 billion to prop up the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and it annually transfers $700 million to fund Hezbollah.

    In 2009, there was a genuine belief that the Islamic Republic could be reformed, expressed primarily in the demand that Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist presidential candidate, be installed as president. Now, the moderate pro-reform slogans that were heard on Iranian streets in 2009 have been replaced with more hostile chants, such as “Death to Khamenei” and “Mullahs have to get lost”—signaling a broader rejection of the entire Islamic revolutionary system.

    Forty years of prioritizing regional interference over domestic duties has today created the biggest wedge between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic. The new wave of anti-regime protests in Iran, which has left hundreds dead and thousands injured in just four days, underscores the worsening mood on the streets.

    Now, as protesters in Iraq chant, “Iran out, Baghdad free,” in Iran they cry, “no to Gaza, no to Lebanon, I give my life only for Iran”—reflecting a growing desire in both countries for governments that put domestic interests above regional considerations. The Iranian government could resort to violence to temporarily quash unrest in both Iran and Iraq, but the revolutionary mood will likely persist.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11...-iraq-lebanon/
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  18. #18

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Alright, I didn't know we jumped into completely irrelevant assassinations. The factions in Iranian politics are universally described as moderate and radical, in comparison to each other, and not on how you perceive their foreign policy. In fact, the label stems exclusively from internal policy, as the Iranian foreign policy is endorsed by pretty much everybody as a necessary mean for survival against aggressive and hostile powers. By the way, just for the record, terrorists killing soldiers is an oxymoron. Perhaps you meant to say insurgents, but that would also be inaccurate, since the militias are legally recognized in Iraq as part of the state law enforcement corps.
    As for the rogue behaviour of the US indirectly benefiting the hard-liners, it's a commonly accepted theory, endorsed by such flagships of anti-imperialism as the Washington Post. Keep in mind that the author exagerates, because Iranian conservatives were also interested in negotiating with the US, while the popularity of reformists already suffered gravely, due to social upheaval, even before Donald's withdrawal. Still, the failure of the deal was a significant factor, not doubted by anybody, I believe.
    It's certainly not the case that the "conservative" Post would have any particular axe to grind with the Trump administration. Interesting too that Iranian hard-liners are allegedly “benefitting” from the US’s “rogue behaviour” when there’s supposedly an internal consensus on foreign policy.



  19. #19

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    It's certainly not the case that the "conservative" Post would have any particular axe to grind with the Trump administration. Interesting too that Iranian hard-liners are allegedly “benefitting” from the US’s “rogue behaviour” when there’s supposedly an internal consensus on foreign policy.
    My mistake, I should have clarified that I meant no agreement in general terms, in regards to the inevitable competition with the United States, their allies and their satellites. There are of course differences in what concerns the details, like the level of support for the Syrian government or the value of the nuclear program. The author of the article is Kenneth Pollack, a CIA analyst, a fellow of the Brookings Institution, known for its shady ties with Iran's enemies, like Qatar, and a notorious proponent of the invasion against Iraq. So, yeah, I insist on doubting that Pollack was motivated by anti-imperialism or antipathy against Donald, according to your unsubstantiated allegation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Pretty weird to insist on a “moderate” label for a government that murders and tortures its own citizens as a matter of internal policy while funding and training terrorists; particularly in a context where the US is supposedly responsible for this “moderate” government’s declining political power vs its own terrorist military force that increasingly dominates its institutions. Protests against the increase in government-controlled fuel prices, as well as the regime’s malign activities abroad, theocratic rule, the murder of protestors and dissidents, and corruption, don’t appear to be motivated by a rejection of the government’s “moderate” politics relative to more hardline factions. Nor does it seem like the widespread discontent was/is especially motivated by a sense of feeling disillusioned by their “moderate” government’s decision to engage in a diplomatic agreement that ultimately fell through.
    I already explained the labels between moderate and conservative. It doesn't depend on your malignity scale about their foreign policy, but it's a standard terminology to distinguish the two dominant factions in Iranian politics. You seem to arbitrarily associate moderation with positive traits and clemency towards the people, a claim neither I nor everyone else that uses these labels ever made. As already mentioned, the naming convention is similar to those employed for the Labour party in the United Kingdom or the Republicans in the United States and it's not a sinister attempt to morally justify the American occupation forces suffered in Iraq. As for your article, most of it I already addressed, since I also recognize the fact that discontent against the moderate faction was already growing before the Donald administration went rogue. The author believes the withdrawal played a marginal role, but, since she never corroborates her reasoning, her opinion is not more valid than mine or Pallock's. Meanwhile, as your second article suggests, inflation, largely the result of the imposed sanctions, is destroying the livelihood of numerous Iranians, further adding fuel to the fire, by undermining the incumbent government and by empowering the more radical opposition.

    By the way, as a general tip, I would take the dissertations of any employee of the Tony Blair Institution with a pinch of salt. They are more preoccupied with parroting their donor's narrative than actually contributing to the understanding of Middle Eastern politics.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Abu Muhammad al-Masri allegedly killed in Iran by Israeli agents at the behest of the U.S.

    1. The insinuation was that conservatives should find the theory credible because it was published by the “imperialist” Washington Post. The paper’s notoriously archliberal perspective and Obama/Biden sycophancy were conveniently forgotten.

    2. Whether the Trump administration is strengthening the hard-liners or not is largely irrelevant if one believes the claim that the Iranians are in broad agreement on foreign policy anyway.

    3. Even were it true that the US’s “rogue” policies were strengthening the Iranian hard-liners and that this was substantively affecting Iranian foreign policy, that would still not justify returning to appeasement. There is no reason for the US to accommodate the nuclear blackmail of a despotic theocracy which abets terrorist organizations and has aligned itself with the Assad regime and Moscow.



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •