News

IRCG & Khamenei: Should we return the favor?

It's clear from the video that Iran's IRCG was up to its neck in attacks that targeted US and British troops in an effort to force both armies out of Iran.  After all, those kidnapped were investigating $15 milliobn dollars, taken from Iran's people, and being used to finance Al Sadr's Ah Mahdi army and other militias--an Iraqi counterpart to the Basilj. 

Does anyone have any doubt that the Supreme Leader himseld approved these operations or what he hoped to accomplish in Iraq if the Brits and Americans did leave?  Why would Khamenei not want democracy to succeed in Iraq?   Can anyone suggest reasons?

It's clear that, despite all denials, Iran's regime which has expansionist ambitions and thinks nothing of lying for its actions and blaming others loves for covert action directed at neightbors (Lebanon since the eighties, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen) while willing to express outrage if others were to do the same inside its borders.  As it is, the regime makes up plots by foreigners.   Doesn't it deserve the real deal?  Hasn't it earned it?  If we start doing ther same, would Khamenei have the right to howl in outrage? 

Should the Supreme Leader attempt to institute mass executions again in Iran as he did in Iraq, there is no doubt the opposition will have no choice but to defend themselves.  How can they do that lacking weapons or training?   Will they be slaughtered as Shiites were in Basra after rising up against Saddam following the first Gulf War (the peace agreement overlooked helicopters and banned fixed-wing aircraft only giving Saddam decisive control of the air that assured victory).

In event of any of the events above, should the US stay out of it or should it limit assistance only to enough to allow Iranians to do the job themselvers?  I mean supplying no ground troops, except for special force operations and "neutralizing" regime air power to give the opposition a fair chance.

ANOTHER SCENARIO: Suppose the regime attempted a slaughter but some military forces defected.  The opposition forms a provisional government but isn't losing to a much better armed and trained IRCG.   Would it really be unpatriotic to form a limited alliance with foreign powers--one providing for air assistance only, no ground troops other than special force trainers and missions and substantial ground arms?  

Remember that during the American Revolution, Washington and the Continental Congress found themselves in that position, winning only after an alliance with the French whose main contribution was naval forces to balance out where the Brits had an advantage.  It played a key role in the decisive battle--Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown.

Also recall how Britain's holdout after the fall of France in 1940 made no sense except in the hope the Americans would eventually enter the war.   On the day following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill remarked, "The Germans just lost the war."

Even Stalin, fiercely suspicious of foreign powers and determined to keep his people isolated from foreign influence, snapped at the chance for alliances with the West when he found his back to the wall.