Intervention in Syria could bring Khamenei's downfall


by FG

At present two major fears inhibit the West from arming the Syrian people so they can defend themselve fully:

1.  The fear that Islamists will get their hands on western weapons and eventually turn them on the West.

2.  The fear that Iran would intervene.  

Regarding the first, I think it more than likely that--once Assad falls--such weapons will be used against regimes that enabled the slaughter (Russia and Iran) probably targeting their their proxies first (Lebanon's Hezbollah and Iraq's Al-Maliki).  Is that such a bad thing for the West?  We'd also reduce the chances that Islamists could exploit our present non-action for political gain later.

Regarding direct IRI intervention, I want to argue that if arming the rebels provokes it the probable consequnces to the West would be more desirable than harmful. 

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ASSAD:Like Mussolini after his rescue by German paratroops, Assad will look a puppet kept in power solely by the presence of any ground forces from Iran.   Among Assad's own troops--as among Italians in WWII--defections will increase immensely when--not if--the chant of "Khamenei's imperialism" spreads.

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR "CZAR" KHAMENEI: A deeply unpopular and costly intervention would almost certainly do for a despised mullocracy what World War "accomplished" in 1917 for the Czar and for Russia's Social Democrats.  

The Islamic Republic of Iran woud have entered a war under conditions in which it cannot afford, economically or military, to get bogged down. In that sense,  its state of readiness is a poor as that facing Czar Nicholas II in 1914.  Yet that is exactly what is likely to occur, thereby increasing hardships at home, draining an already depleted treasury and demoralizing the troops.  Many will arrive already disenchanted.  Those feelings will grow along with the mass casualties that urban warfare inflicts (western arms for the FSA can see to that).

Why die to just maintain two tyrants in power?  As conditions worsen, the mass of troops will  be happy with any excuse to leave.  If rebellion breaks out at home Khamenei will miss their presence.  If he recalls them, will they be any more reliable than Czarist troops who abandoned the eastern front in 1917?


This is a legitimate western concern when it comes to avoiding Libya-style invention so avoid the latter.  Losses would be substantially higher.  Geography and population density also makes substantial collateral damage (i.e., civilian casualties) very difficult to avoid no matter how precise one's weapons.  

Setting up a PARTIAL no-fly zone north of Aleppo would be substantially less difficult.  For areas further south, a combination of unmanned drones working in coordintion with well-armed FSA ground troops could do wonders at a place like Aleppo's airport.  Such drones would also eliminate a rationale which deters many Syrian armored troops from defecting along with their vehicles at present.  To stay is to die.


more from FG

Mohammed Taeb: "Iran has a duty to support Assad"

by FG on

From a speech yesterday 



Mohammed Taeb has always been extremely close to Khamenei.  

Working in the Supreme Leader's household during the Khatami presidency, Taeb served as the liason with covert death squads who were assigned the task of murdering journalists, intellectuals and human rights as the best way to thwart reformers after they had won control of both the presidency and the Majlis--a phenomenon no longer possible due to strict vetting instructions to the Guardian Council and outright cheating in presidential elections (See 2005 and 2009).

The Khoumenei family has no doubt one victim of Khamenei's death squad victims was the Founder's own son who had become a dangerous if prescient critic of Khamenei's authoritarian tendencies.  That problem was disposed of via an injection to mimic a heart attack--a tactic also used on a young doctor who inconviently demonstrated a willingness to talk about crimes committed against protestors in 2009. 

Recently Taeb has been involved in eliminating by forced retirement or other mean (untimely deaths)  any IRCG officers who balked at Khamenei's tyranical tendencies.  As the IRCG's director of intelligence, Taeb spends most of his time keeping an eye on the generals for the Supreme Leader.


Khamenei has become quite open about his real nature since 2009 .  One consequence is to open people's eyes regarding his earlier behavior.

No one in Iran seriously doubts anymore that the death squads ienjoyed Khamenei's full protection both while committing the murders.  When the assassins were exposed, Khamenei response was to order the arrest of journalists who responsible and personally authorize the beating and murder of students who protested the new censorship.  

Would a"holy man" who  endorsed such crimes hesitate at rigging elections or committing Assad-like crimes when the people protested afterwards? "Not for a second," say most Iranians, now so politically aware of what the Islamic Republic has become.  They can see that Khamenei is no moe religious than Joseph Stalin.  Both tyrants used their respective systems as devices to advance themselvers.  To accomplish that, anything goes.



Yes good points

by amirkabear4u on

But some how I do not think khamenei is a major decision factor. Iran's politics is far more complicated than that.  

Fairness and Equality in Justice