I wonder how an attack (not invasion) would be perceived in Iran. It would have to be quite substantial to take out the geographically interspersed and protected targets. Even if the regime's position is not immediately threatened, it is not impossible that they would feel it to be long term jeopardized. Quiet, or indirect, or otherwise in the eyes of the population not powerful responses, would that be enough for them to secure their position (if the population does not support them by holy recognition)? So if they feel jumpy, what are they going to do? Attack their own people and thus maybe open them up to foreign influence rather than fear induced calm, due to foreign interest in the region? Escalate to the point of almost going overt in Iraq? Would that motivate or alienate and agitate Iraqis, and just what do they think the USA would do to them after already having passed the threshold of launching strikes in Iran?
I think they would keep trying to accomplish three things in Iraq, only one of which has to succeed:Any of these would move the US intervention far back and could play on US political deficiencies. I think number three is most likely to be the main focus, having the first two along as supportive elements also keeping their enemy busy with multiple focus. Thus, they should be able to win in Iraq even if they lose first. Depends on the will of the Iraqis.
- Incite civil war.
- Subvert the current governmental system.
- Infiltrate and realign the government, military and police forces. Militia forces to enforce effect.
Pakistan is interesting too.
If the west, including Europe but of course most especially the US can stay the course, this can go very well, for us, if we do not have an armageddon. IMHO.
Martin
Bookmarks