Following is New Silk Strategy’s Russian-to-English translation of an in-depth analysis of the terror in Teheran, from EADaily. Some will recall that the troubles between Iran and the West began when the CIA initiated a coup to oust popular president Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953. That is not speculation. The CIA admitted their role decades later. Now, well over a half-century later, a new war seems to be in the making and keen observers believe the CIA and its partners are up to their old tricks again. Their case is compelling.
“Roger’s” Iranian debut: a terrorist attack in Tehran as a prologue to a big war
The double attack in Tehran on June 7 was called a "savage act" by the Iranian authorities, while calling it “minor.” What they meant was the absence of serious consequences for Iran's resilience to external threats. No one can disagree with this. In fact, Iran's state bodies, its internal security forces have demonstrated coordinated and operational work to neutralize attacks. In addition, one sensed a praiseworthy coolness in the actions of the entire state apparatus of the country. This is demonstrated merely by the fact that the Iranian parliament stayed in session for the duration of the counter-terrorist operation in the building of the legislative body. In Europe, in such cases, everything stops with subsequent evacuation, as was clear, for example, on March 22, when a single terrorist committed a no less "savage act" near the British parliament.
Still, with 17 dead and more than 50 victims of two attacks in Tehran, at least in moral terms, we can hardly call the incident “minor.” The same applies to the geopolitical context of terrorist attacks, which is undoubtedly present.
Responsibility for coordinated attacks was assumed by the terrorist group Daesh ("Islamic State", IS, ISIS). As a confirmation of this, the "Caliphate" conducted a practically direct broadcast of the insurgents' attack on the Iranian parliament, something that had never happened before. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terrorist acts after, and not while, committing them. In this regard, the Tehran ISIS attacks differ from everything that had previously occurred in European cities.
Already in the first hours of terrorist attacks in the parliament and on the territory of the mausoleum of Imam Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, an impression was formed that external forces, which cannot be reduced to only the "caliphate" alone, may have been behind the daring attack. This version has seemed logical so far, because the logic of recent events in the Middle East region, preceding the terrorist attacks in the Iranian capital, points to the interest of geopolitical opponents of Iran. However, the very next day, on June 8, the Iranian authorities somewhat dispelled these suspicions, saying that the perpetrators of the attacks were citizens of the country, among whom militants were identified who had managed to fight in Iraq and Syria on the side of ISIS.
Two subversive groups (with 4-5 militants each), that attacked the parliament and the mausoleum were completely liquidated. But the Iranian special services reported a third group of saboteurs, whose members had been detained before they could carry out another attack. Therefore, there are still hitches to the investigation, and, most likely, the first interrogations of the members of the neutralized group pointed to their intra-Iranian trail and intervention on behalf of ISIS.
Thus, much, if not everything, started to point to activities of so-called "sleeper cells" of a local nature, and not subversive groups infiltrating Tehran from abroad. Apparently, this is true, but the "awakening" and the formation of "sleeper cells" in Iran in the first place need not be limited to the activities of only one external force. The timing of the attacks raises two questions. Either the "Caliphate" contains visionary strategists who clearly caught the current "nerve" of the geopolitical confrontation of Israel and Saudi Arabia with Iran, and pressed this "sore spot" at the right time and the right places or strategists who were not only ISIS members intervened to activate the "sleeper cells."
The organizers of the attacks prioritized the demonstration of Iran's vulnerability to external threats. The symbols of such vulnerability were selected with particular care and contained great subtext significance. When a "savage act" is committed in the mausoleum of Imam Khomeini, it is not so much an act of terrorism as a geopolitical challenge. ISIS is now clearly not in a position to single-handedly conduct such sabotage with such an intricately selected set of goals. Then who was it, if not ISIS or not ISIS alone?
In the region there are only two powerful intelligence services that could be involved in what happened in Tehran. These are the Israeli Mossad and the Saudi General Intelligence Service (GIP). Their main partner in everything concerning the containment and weakening of Iran is the American CIA. At the current stage, the aggregate "sabotage potential" of these special services with regard to Iran has reached a historic high. For them, ISIS is a tool, an object of manipulation, and ultimately, cover. Iranian citizens - executors of terrorist acts my not have guessed that they were "led" not by ISIS strategists, but by operatives of these intelligence services.
It was somehow forgotten that a series of physical eliminations of Iranian nuclear scientists in Tehran, which took place before the conclusion of the nuclear agreement of the world powers with Iran, remained largely unsolved. After all, this too was sabotage, albeit point-like, but requiring no less thorough preparation and, of course, reduced to the filigree level of intelligence inside Iran. Did some have doubts then as to what special services of the region were behind the attacks by motorcyclists in Tehran? In this case, should we discard the version that what occurred in Tehran on June 7 was the result of several years of training in "savage acts" by Israeli, Saudi Arabian and US intelligence agencies
In Iran, on this score, it is understandable that the opinions of the country's law enforcement agencies are divided. The leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) immediately pointed to the United States, Saudi Arabia and the "Zionist regime" (Israel) as "initiators and organizers" of terrorist attacks (by the way, the special forces of the IRGC - the rapid reaction force "Saberin" - liquidated the militants subversive group that stormed into the parliament). This was clearly stated by the second in command of the IRGC, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, who called the attack a joint US-Israeli-Saudi project. The Supreme Council of National Security and the Ministry of Intelligence of Iran recommended not to rush to conclusions, pointing out that the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were Iranian citizens "from several provinces of the country."
The position of the IRGC is understandable. The corps is directly subordinate to the supreme leader (El Rajbar) of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic last Friday was limited to the following, somewhat ambiguous, statement: “the terrorist attacks in Tehran added to the Iranian people hatred for the United States and Saudi Arabia.” Interestingly, Ayatollah Khamenei did not mention the "Zionist regime". However, what El Rajbar did not say, was said by the IRGC, fighters and commanders who participate in counter-terrorist missions in Iraq and Syria.
The sabotage in Tehran highlighted the reality of the current confrontation between Iran and these states, its irreconcilable geopolitical rivals in the Middle East. In this reality, the main struggle, albeit invisible to the general public, is unfolding between the special services of Iran on one side and the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia - on the other. Accordingly, the IRGC and the above-mentioned three foreign intelligence services, which set the tone for the whole of the Middle East, act as the "tip" of this struggle. The balance sheet in this fight, given the powerful aggregate potential of the CIA, the Mossad and the GIP, obviously favors the opponents of the IRGC. After the terrorist attacks in Tehran, this result became even more pronounced.
American, Israeli and Saudi intelligence are at the forefront of the tasks assigned to them by their political leadership. First of all, at this point, there is a need to demonstrate Iran’s weaknesses, its insecurity in the face of terrorist threats. It was believed that in this regard, Iran was practically invulnerable, given the Shiite nature of the country, and therefore the minimal opportunities for Sunni radicals to create "sleeper cells" inside the country. Three reconnaissance missions were supposed to dispel this "myth", and on June 7 they succeeded in general. Iran has, for example, the Arab-populated Khuzestan province. Here it is possible to "pivot" not only to the ISIS recruiters, but also to the intelligence services of the "Middle East triumvirate."
Further, the mission is to limit the penetration of Iran into the strategic depth of regional processes affecting the vital interests of the "Middle East triumvirate." Teheran is increasingly giving Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh major headaches in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. The pro-Iranian Shiite militia of Iraq, "Hasd al-Sha'abi," took control of an extensive section of the Iraqi-Syrian border. Along the Syrian-Jordanian and Syrian-Lebanese borders, the activation of pro-government groups oriented toward Tehran is also noticeable.
Iran with its ubiquitous IRGC began to invade even the zone of direct influence of the largest Arab monarchy of the Persian Gulf - in the relations of the Al-Saud family with other ruling dynasties of this subregion. In Bahrain, the prerequisites for a "Shiite spring" were outlined. Qatar began to intrigue with Iran at the peak of its Arab neighbors in the Gulf. In view of this it was necessary to do something, and in urgent order, without shrinking from the harshest measures.
Recall that on June 5th a crisis of unprecedented harshness flared up around Qatar which its Arabian partners have subjected to a sophisticated form of "flogging.” Such categories as "isolation", "blockade", "embargo,” that had for years been part of the lexicon of the Gulf Arabs with reference to Iran, were suddenly deployed against Qatar. Whether or not the ill-fated telephone conversation of the Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani with Iranian President Hassain Rouhani made Saudi Arabia’s cup of patience overflow is not so important. The main thing is that 48 hours after the break in diplomatic relations with Doha and the establishment of a virtually total blockade against it, another unprecedented event took place in Tehran in the form of a double terrorist attack.
In this regard, we need to recall a landmark episode in those 48 hours. In the evening of June 5, Iran, together with Turkey and Iraq, proposed the convening of a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, within which an inter-Arab crisis could be resolved. Before that, Tehran initiated a trilateral meeting of representatives of Iran, Iraq and Turkey in Baghdad. This turn of events only provoked the geopolitical opponents of the Islamic Republic who publicly stated that it was inadmissible for them that Qatar should request help and support from non-Arab countries. Of these, Turkey was also a target, but the tip of Riyadh's wrath was drawn to the prospect of Tehran's involvement in the "dismemberment" of the Arabs of the Gulf.
The intrigue with Iran's peacekeeping proposal did not last long. After the June 7 terrorist attacks, they simply forgot about it. Hence another result of the "savage act" in Tehran, for which it was worthwhile for the enemies of Iran to activate the "sleeper cells".
At the forefront of Iran's stern clashing with the "Middle Eastern triumvirate" is not only the IRGC and the foreign intelligence services that oppose it. This story, which is far from over, has its own "heroes" in a personal capacity. Many these days are talking about the straightforwardness of actions in the Middle East inherent in all the Republican administrations in the White House. This is the way it is, no reason to argue about it. But the administration of Donald Trump has brought this "straightforwardness" to its historic maximum not only due to a confluence of geopolitical circumstances. Those who make political decisions or who are very close to this person in the United States and Saudi Arabia are young people with the disposition "to act and act once again." The story was brought down by the 31-year-old Saudi Vice-Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (son of King Salman ibn Abdul-Aziz al-Saud) and the 36-year-old son-in-law of the American president, whom Washington calls "secretary of everything," Jared Kushner. The energy of young people, mostly turned against Iran, is complemented by the desire of the equally vigorous leadership of the Israeli Mossad "to put Iran in its place" once and for all.”
If we add to this the latest changes in the CIA hierarchy toward Iran, then the actively hostile attitude toward Iran is consummated. In the first days of June, the "Iranian dossier" in the CIA fell into the hands of just a legendary person under the apparently fictitious name Michael D'André (alias "the undertaker", alias "Ayatollah Mike", alias "dark prince", alias " Roger"). The walking legend of the CIA (by the way, Roger became an employee of the US foreign intelligence in 1979, when the Islamic Revolution happened in Iran); before that he was the head of the Langley Counterterrorism Center. And who, if not the chiefs of the American "anti-terror" services, and one with such a rich anti-Iranian biography in the CIA system, is better able to understand both the intricacies around the "sleeper cells" and when exactly their resurrection is expedient.
"Roger’s" debut in the new post took place on June 7. His "success" is ready to be shared by young people in power in the US and in Saudi Arabia. The initial results are discouraging. Conversation in the language of sabotage heats up an already explosive situation to critical levels. Iran will certainly respond if the IRGC’s version of a joint trace of Americans, Israelis and Saudis in the "minor" incident on June 7 is confirmed. This means that the risk of a regional war increases, which has been raised with alarm in Europe and the Middle East.
Middle East edition of EADaily
More information: https://eadaily.com/en/news/2017/06/11/iranskiy-debyut-rodzhera-terakt-v-tegerane-kak-prolog-k-bolshoy-voyne?utm_source=push
An article appearing in Die Zeit since the attack on the Iranian parliament confirms the author’s contention that Europe is already worried about a war breaking out over Iran:
The author quotes Mohammed bin Salman saying about Iran: “But we will not wait until they bring the war to Saudi soil. We will see to it that the war takes place in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia.” (our translation from the German)
The sale of $400 billion of US arms to this bloody dictatorship couldn’t have come at a worse time.
As if to confirm the above analysis, Al Masdar just posted an article titled “US congressman suggests his country should back ISIS against Iran following Tehran attacks”