Brian M Downing
Last week Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, leader of his country’s nuclear program, was shot to death near Tehran. It’s the most recent attack going back to the Islamic Republic’s early years. The Sunni powers waged a long war that killed several hundred thousand Iranians. Since its inconclusive end, Iran has endured assassinations, bombings, insurgencies, and years of sanctions. The incidents can be listed in analytic terms but that’s not how they’re felt in Iranian streets, bureaus, and military bases. The must be a Farsi word for “payback”.
Fakhrizadeh’s assassination was almost certainly the work of the MEK – an opportunistic terrorist cult backed by Israel, funded by Saudi Arabia, and quartered on a US military base in Albania. Tehran has promised to respond and they have a range of options, including American, Israeli, and Saudi targets.
Americans
Iran could respond now, as it did after Soleimani’s death, by firing missiles at GIs in Iraq. Notably, however, the rhetoric out of Tehran is directed against Israel. Mossad of course has been responsible for a slew of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, usually by MEK personnel with the bombs and Berettas.
If not followed by attacks on GIs, Tehran’s words will signal its desire to cool things with the US. But how much. The view here is that Iran will not seek cordial relations with Washington as it’s reasonably sure another anti-Iran administration will come in one day. Biden may only be respite.
Iran does, however, want sanctions relief. The economy and public are suffering badly. A deadly strike on US personnel, in Iraq or elsewhere, would be a serious obstacle to talks leading to lifting the sanctions. Iran, however, may opt for a small-scale attack for appearances abroad and mollification at home.
Israelis
Tehran’s rhetoric makes Israelis likely targets. However, the mullahs and generals know the consequences. The IRGC could press Hisbollah to fire missiles into Israel, perhaps even into major cities. Alternately, the IRGC could assassinate Israeli personnel abroad or prominent Jewish figures.
The Israeli response to Hisbollah fire would be fearsome. Counterstrikes would not be limited to Hisbollah missile sites and arms caches. All Lebanon would be targeted – roads, bridges, government buildings – as they were in 2006. And of course Hisbollah and IRGC assets in Syria, already under routine strikes, would be hit all the harder.
Assassinating Israelis would not go well either. Though the IRGC has successfully killed MEK and Arab separatist figures in Europe over the years, it cannot match up with Mossad. Over the years the latter has crippled the leadership of Black September, Fatah, PFLP, Hamas, and other groups. It’s had notable blunders as well. An innocent waiter was killed in Norway in 1973 and an attempt on a Hamas leader in 1997 led to the capture of the would-be assassins.
Nonetheless, Mossad is more adept at this dark undertaking and clearly already has an extensive network inside Iran. Iran would lose quantitatively and qualitatively. Whatever sympathy it has garnered from enduring unfair sanctions would fall away.
Sunnis
Iran could attack Saudi facilities and personnel abroad. Despite Tehran’s anti-Israel words, this is the least problematic approach. Iran has already struck oil sites with a sophisticated drone operation and Houthi allies have fired into the kingdom. A Houthi ground force crossed into Saudi territory and mauled a mechanized infantry unit. This speaks volumes on the Saudi military.
The US and Britain have responded to Iranian attacks on the kingdom with troop deployments. However, these moves were small and desultory and posed little if any risk of escalation. Britain doesn’t want conflict with Iran and neither does the Pentagon. The troops were not sent to guard national security, they were sent to guarantee more Saudi arms purchases.
Both western publics dislike Saudi Arabia, especially its ruthless crown prince who reinforces old images of an oriental despot. A series of strikes in the kingdom will strengthen doubt about American and British ties to an Islamist country whose anti-western beliefs are a wellspring of jihadism and terrorism and whose human rights record is probably worse than Iran’s.
© 2020 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.