And let me tell you, THEY are concerned not just with losing their nuclear program, but that the strike to remove it, will in fact, be one prolonged to remove them.
And they had better be right.
MEMRI:
Despite confident pronouncements by Iranian leaders that the West will not dare to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, [1] the Iranian regime has, on orders from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, been preparing for this eventuality by means of a comprehensive emergency plan called "Passive Defense." [2] Examination of the plan reveals that the regime's main fear is of an attack on Iran's vital infrastructures, which would ultimately lead to its downfall. Therefore, alongside a defense doctrine based on preemptive attack, long-range ballistic missiles, and asymmetric guerilla warfare, [3] it has formulated a doctrine of "passive defense," based mainly on cooperation between regional Passive Defense Councils and the regime's popular militia, the Basij.
In fact, analysis of the plan reveals that the Basij plays a central role in it.The Nature of a Possible U.S. Attack
Jalali expressed Iran's concern that the West would attack Iran from the sea and air with the aim of destroying vital infrastructure, ultimately bringing about the downfall of the regime. He said:
"With military bases and forces around [Iran], America has access to the entire territory of the country. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a political regime that relies upon the [Iranian] people... If the enemy aims to change the regime, it can achieve this by disrupting the [regime's ability] to administer the population. To this end, the enemy will attempt to paralyze infrastructures and the vital institutions of the regime, in order to sow dissatisfaction among the people.
"Under these circumstances, the war and the administration of the population are inseparably linked. That is, the enemy will try to destroy the infrastructures [vital to] people's lives, and we must protect the people while providing necessary services. According to some analyses, the [2006] Lebanon war was 'a war of bridges,' because Israel destroyed all bridges in Lebanon, large and small, in order to cut off all land routes. In other words, in that war, the immediate aim was to [destroy] the infrastructures [that permit] administering the population, but the ultimate aim was to render such administration impossible.
"Asked in an interview about the nature of a possible attack on Iran, and [in particular] on Tehran, a U.S. colonel said that... [U.S. forces] would be deployed around the city, would strike its infrastructures from the air, and would, with the help of elements affiliated with [the U.S.], sow dissatisfaction among people. In other words, using these two methods - destruction of infrastructure and psychological warfare - [they] will instigate a popular uprising against the government. To confront this kind of threat, we must employ all [our] defense strategies and abilities. This is asymmetrical warfare, since our military capabilities are not on par with those of the U.S. Hence, if we want to stand up [to the U.S.], we must employ 'passive defense' along with 'active defense' [i.e. military warfare], striving to achieve a 'combined defense' [strategy]." [22]
Ironically this attitude of the IRGC argues that Iran is a deterrable entity, after all the supreme
leader of supreme leaders said:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
If Iran is not apocalyptic, then they can be treated as the USSR. The attitude of the IRGC seems concerned with preserving the regime. So who are they...typical corrupt despots wearing funny hats, or lunatic apocalyptoids of the deep, trying to arrange getting 72 pieces of ass in some imagined heaven?
No comments:
Post a Comment