Scenarios of Iran's war on the Arabs

[+GKABS 8,343]

Scenarios of Iran's war on the Arabs

 Tehran needs tight control of Iraq and a strategic base in Yemen

 Walid Fares, Secretary-General of the Atlantic Parliamentary Group
 Tuesday 30 November 2021 The Independent

 Over the past fifteen years, we have had opportunities to take part in theoretical War Games scenarios, conducted by the US defense and intelligence services, with specialists from the private sector, in analytical retreats organized by the Pentagon's contractors, or by the military and intelligence universities in Washington.  Among these retreats are those that focused on Iranian strategic goals in the Middle East, and have allocated research and discussion spaces about Iranian strategies, based on intelligence information, published material, and evaluations of file followers from various defense agencies or sectors.

 In simpler words, what are the war scenarios that have been displayed, or "cooked", over the years in the Iranian camp - even in theory - to be applied in its wars to the Arab countries opposed to it, especially the Gulf states, and the "colonial countries" in the Fertile Crescent.

 This is a summary of several retreats devoted to possible, difficult, and easier scenarios, based on geopolitical conditions that are not yet available, but possible, and finally, scenarios related to US policies, agendas, and strategies, foremost of which is the nuclear agreement.

 This executive summary reflects those exercises, not necessarily the opinion of the US government or agencies.

 The nature of the scenarios

 The nature of the war Games Scenarios is hypothetical, but it is based on several objective factors, the most important of which are the following:

 1- Iran's ultimate goal.

 2- Interim goals.

 3- Existing military capabilities and estimating achievable capabilities.

 4- The existing regional equation.

 5- The existing international equation.

 6- Changing governments in the West.

 7- The internal situation in Iran.

 8- Iran's major military alliances with Russia and China.

 9 - Iran's influence within Europe and the United States.

 Scenarios take into account these data, add the end goal to it, analyze the variables and relate them to the equation.

 Big goals

 The Iranian regime has well-known long-term goals, which are to control the Shiite areas in the Arab world and to link them together in a single geopolitical space.  And then, the control of the world's Islamic holy sites located in the Hijaz announce the unified global Islamic legitimacy proclaimed by Ayatollah Khomeini when he declared the "Islamic Republic" in 1979.

 This is a dramatic global goal that must be achieved by achieving two paving goals, the first is to control Arab countries and regions with a Shiite majority and to abolish opposition to the Khomeinists in them, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. This agenda has been planned and implemented by the regime since the liquidation of the internal opposition in Iran itself in  1979-1988, whether against royalists, nationalists, leftists, or even the Mojahedin-e-Khalq.  The first achievement was the establishment of an alliance axis with the regime of Hafez al-Assad and the consolidation of control over the Alawites, the "Baath Party" and the Syrian army, and that was the control of the first Arab country.  Through the regime forces that have occupied Lebanon since 1976, the "Pasdaran" entered the second member state of the Arab League, penetrated its Shiite sect, and gradually took control of the whole country through Assad and Hezbollah.  The Iranian leadership returned to Iraq, and stormed it through its militias since 2011 completely, after infiltrating its Shiite sect, in a similar methodology, and this country, which is also a member of the Arab League, became in the grip of Tehran.  As for the fourth member of the League, Yemen, its north fell to the Houthis through their military control over the Shiites and Iran's support for them.

 The second goal: Saudi Arabia

 After the completion of the first goal, Iran moved to achieve the second goal, which is targeting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Arab and Islamic identity.  Hijaz, including Mecca and Medina, without a fierce war against the kingdom by all possible means and under all slogans.  This is in terms of the goal, and in terms of implementation, the Iranian leadership has worked for three decades since the end of the Cold War, to try to destabilize the security of the Kingdom, and to open fronts against it, politically, internally, security and diplomatically.  In the first stage, Tehran penetrated communities in the region from Iraq to Lebanon to Yemen to the Saudi interior, to install intelligence and security networks that work against the security of the Saudis.  In a second stage, according to the geopolitical assessment, the Iranian regime has struggled for years to reach the same Saudi borders through two Arab countries, namely Iraq and Yemen.  He reached the northern borders of Saudi Arabia through Iraq through focused campaigns to expel the Americans between 2003 and 2011.  After its setback, with ISIS between 2014 and 2018, its militias returned to attack the American forces that returned to Iraq, and are still there, to strike ISIS.  The Iranians reached the southern borders of the Kingdom through the Houthi militia, which began its military campaigns in 2011.

 Two Fronts: Strategic Objectives

 The Iranian regime intends to establish a "strategic pincer" around Saudi Arabia, that is, to besiege and threaten it from two fronts in the north (Iraq) and the south (Yemen), and across the waters of the Gulf, and as much as possible, to disrupt its security in the Red Sea.

 What are the terms of these strategies?

 read more

 
 Nuclear negotiations... the possibility of failure and cancellation
 
 The Mossad and the Quds Force in Africa
 
  The Arabs in the face of regional and international expansion
 a.  First: Iran needs tight control over Iraq, that is, without internal or external disputes.  This means confining the Kurds to the north, keeping the Sunni force in Anbar under control, and curbing the Shiite opposition in the center and south.  This is almost what the Iranian militias have achieved in Iraq, but their complete and unchallenged control is facing more than one obstacle.  Civil society, especially Shiites, has not calmed down yet, especially since the fall of 2019. The Kurdish force has not fully complied, despite its internal divisions.  As for the "Sunni resistance", it is embers under the ashes, which may ignite again behind the Iranian supply lines.  The most dangerous thing is the US military presence in Iraq, which will not allow the targeting of Saudi Arabia from Iraq, as long as it is present.  So, despite Iran's control of Iraq, the "colony" is not yet ready for a major Iranian military action against the kingdom across its northern border.

 NS.  Iran needs a strategic base in Yemen, through which it works to strike targets in the Saudi depth, from airports, cities, and oil gatherings, all the way to the capital, Riyadh, to break Saudi national security, in preparation for spreading chaos within the Kingdom and overthrowing its institutions.  The regime in Tehran has armed and armed the Houthis for this purpose and has succeeded in establishing a pro-Khomeinist entity in Yemen, and its military force has been able to invade large areas of the country and bomb Saudi Arabia with "drones" and ballistic missiles.  So far, Iran has succeeded in advancing on its southern front against Saudi Arabia more than on its northern front through Iraq.  However, the Arab coalition led by Riyadh repelled progress and turned the confrontation into a war of attrition that Iran may not be able to win.  Therefore, Iran's priority in this arena is to "stop the Saudi war on the Houthis", that is, to stop the coalition from launching military operations against the "Iranian militias" in Yemen.  Why?  Because unless Iran can move the northern front across Iraq, the kingdom will have enough time to finish off the Houthis in the south.

 Iranian strategic scenario

 Iranian strategic plans against the heart of the Arab alliance are becoming clear.  Tehran is working on pincers, with a northern jaw that has not yet been prepared, and a southern jaw that is being exhausted now. Therefore, the assessment we presented in the analytical reviews in Washington is that Tehran has two priorities in its current confrontation with the Kingdom.  It is seeking with all its pressure in the American capital to stop the Saudi military action against the Houthis, at any cost.  On the other hand, it is pressing to withdraw US forces as quickly as possible from Iraq.  The conclusion is that the Iranian leadership is targeting the Saudis to stop advancing, and the Americans to get out.

 Will Iran succeed in achieving these goals?  This is another analysis in a future article.

https://www.independentarabia.com/node/281646

 

[Wilches 1,156]

Wow! You should be writing a novel!!!

[+GKABS 8,343]

I wish I have the time lol. I only translated the article.

[bazillius 1,252]

Interesting fanfic :)

Edited December 4, 2021 by bazillius

[+GKABS 8,343]

This isn't fiction, if you go to the article I cited you can see it's from Independent Arabia. All I did was translate the article to English to give some insight. Also the events taking place on the ground reflect what the article states. That being Iran is in control/influence of 4 Arab countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

[bazillius 1,252]

15 minutes ago, GKABS said:

 All I did was translate

I am not familiar with the situation in the region. It was interesting to read. Thanks for the translation. How said Wilches its nice written

[+mehlhorndirk 6]

Hi, 

 

Do we still have Terrain or do someone can create a terrain covering: 

 

Saudi Arabia (complete area) 

Yemen (complete area) 

UAE (complete area) 

Bahrain (complete area) 

Oman (complete area) 

Katar (complete area) 

Iran (full, if possible, otherwise just the coast line)? 

 

It would be great if we can create campaigns once such a terrain would be available. 

[+daddyairplanes 8,662]

6 hours ago, GKABS said:

This isn't fiction, if you go to the article I cited you can see it's from Independent Arabia. All I did was translate the article to English to give some insight. Also the events taking place on the ground reflect what the article states. That being Iran is in control/influence of 4 Arab countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

this is the basis for the best fictions or game campaign scenarios. the real conditions on the ground, with one minor change that changes everything (like an unpopular archduke getting shot on the way to the hospital after escaping an assassination attempt)

[kurdistan1 58]

Please always say "Islamic Republic" instead "Iran" or "Persia"....iran's people hate of this terrorists.they are like ISIS and Taliban but in modern face...

[+GKABS 8,343]

4 hours ago, kurdistan1 said:

Please always say "Islamic Republic" instead "Iran" or "Persia"....iran's people hate of this terrorists.they are like ISIS and Taliban but in modern face...

I can't change or alter the article.  But Iran is a correct name too.

"The modern Persian name of Iran (ایران) means "the land of Aryans". It derives immediately from the 3rd-century Sasanian Middle Persian ērān (Pahlavi spelling: 𐭠𐭩𐭫𐭠𐭭, ʼyrʼn), where it initially meant "of the Iranians", but soon also acquired a geographical connotation in the sense of "(lands inhabited by) Iranians"."

Or is it the dislike of the Pahlavi family?

"When Persia became Iran

Iran was always known as ‘Persia’ to foreign governments and was once heavily influenced by Great Britain and Russia. In 1935, however, the Iranian government requested that all countries with which it had diplomatic relations call the country by its Persian name, Iran. It’s thought that it was the Iranian ambassador to Germany who suggested this change. At that time, Germany had good relations with countries of Aryan descent. To signal the changes that had come to Persia under the rule of Reza Shah, namely that Persia had freed itself from the grip of the British and Russians, it would be known as Iran. As a cognate of the word ‘Aryan’, this name change to Iran was also a nod to the population’s Aryan race and encompassed all ethnicities in the country, not just the Persians.

As history and politics have changed, though, it’s quite interesting to note how the use of the terms ‘Iran’ and ‘Persia’ and ‘Iranian’ and ‘Persian’ have changed with it. Many Iranians, for instance, may opt to use one term over the other, depending on their political views or, more simply, where they live and who their audience is (for example, a more conservative person may call for the use of ‘Persia’). When this name change first took place, ‘Iran’ sounded quite foreign and many even failed to connect it to Persia. But as time went on and Iran made headlines, particularly after Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq nationalized the oil industry, it became more familiar.

In recent years, on the other hand, some Iranians have started to refer to themselves as ‘Persian’ or ‘from Persia’ in an effort to disassociate from the government during a heightened political climate and throw off their audience who may not connect Persia with Iran. Iranian-American comedian Maz Jobrani has even referenced this in his comedy routine in a bit that is arguably one of his most beloved because it speaks to Iranians all around the world."

Are you referring to the government of Iran as modern terrorists? If so then you shouldn't want me to refer to the government as the Islamic Republic of Iran because the government in 1979 changed it during the revolution from Iran to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[kurdistan1 58]

2 hours ago, GKABS said:

I can't change or alter the article.  But Iran is a correct name too.

"The modern Persian name of Iran (ایران) means "the land of Aryans". It derives immediately from the 3rd-century Sasanian Middle Persian ērān (Pahlavi spelling: 𐭠𐭩𐭫𐭠𐭭, ʼyrʼn), where it initially meant "of the Iranians", but soon also acquired a geographical connotation in the sense of "(lands inhabited by) Iranians"."

Or is it the dislike of the Pahlavi family?

"When Persia became Iran

Iran was always known as ‘Persia’ to foreign governments and was once heavily influenced by Great Britain and Russia. In 1935, however, the Iranian government requested that all countries with which it had diplomatic relations call the country by its Persian name, Iran. It’s thought that it was the Iranian ambassador to Germany who suggested this change. At that time, Germany had good relations with countries of Aryan descent. To signal the changes that had come to Persia under the rule of Reza Shah, namely that Persia had freed itself from the grip of the British and Russians, it would be known as Iran. As a cognate of the word ‘Aryan’, this name change to Iran was also a nod to the population’s Aryan race and encompassed all ethnicities in the country, not just the Persians.

As history and politics have changed, though, it’s quite interesting to note how the use of the terms ‘Iran’ and ‘Persia’ and ‘Iranian’ and ‘Persian’ have changed with it. Many Iranians, for instance, may opt to use one term over the other, depending on their political views or, more simply, where they live and who their audience is (for example, a more conservative person may call for the use of ‘Persia’). When this name change first took place, ‘Iran’ sounded quite foreign and many even failed to connect it to Persia. But as time went on and Iran made headlines, particularly after Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq nationalized the oil industry, it became more familiar.

In recent years, on the other hand, some Iranians have started to refer to themselves as ‘Persian’ or ‘from Persia’ in an effort to disassociate from the government during a heightened political climate and throw off their audience who may not connect Persia with Iran. Iranian-American comedian Maz Jobrani has even referenced this in his comedy routine in a bit that is arguably one of his most beloved because it speaks to Iranians all around the world."

Are you referring to the government of Iran as modern terrorists? If so then you shouldn't want me to refer to the government as the Islamic Republic of Iran because the government in 1979 changed it during the revolution from Iran to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Ok as you wish 

 

[+Gepard 10,251]

The old chinese strategos Sun Zu said, you must try to understand your enemy if you want to get the best for yourself.

Lets try to look with iranian eyes.

Iran is in a weak situation. It has no powerfull allies. Hizballah and Assad are not counting, they are mor a burden than helpfull. Russia is not really an ally. In Syria the Russians play their own game, with the aim to hold and secure their only naval and air base at the Mediterranaen Sea. In the Gulf area the russians ar no existent and their only base south of the arab peninsula (Socotra) they gave up 30 years ago.

With other words, Iran is alone.

And it is surrounded by nuclear powers. There are the Russians in the north, Pakistan and India in the East, Israel in the West and the US Navy in the Gulf. So the Iranians feel encircled and under siege. What they need is a powerfull deterrence. And this can only be the nuclear weapon. They have learned, that the possetion of nuclear weapons makes unassailable. Without nuclear weapons they fear a western, suni, israeli or whatever attempt of regime change, or worse a military invasion. Examples are the so called Arabellion and the annihilation of Ghadaffys Libyan regime by french and british forces. The example for inviolability is North Korea. The fat boy of NK can do what he want, nobody will not touch his regime, because all fear the nuclear detterence. The aim of Iran is to get the same safety level as North Korea. Thatswhy they want the bomb. Not to use them, but for deterrence. (May some iranian hardliners cry bullshit about erase of Israel, they know for sure, that a nuclear strike against the jewish state will be answered by a massive retailiation and afterward you can swim from the Gulf to the Caspian Sea. Iranians may have a martyr cult, but they are not willing to suicide their whole people.)

The economic situation of Iran is bad. There are no powerfull and monetary resources for a longer war.

So on the short Iran is only able to stir up trouble on secondary theatres of war. The same strategy the British used between 1940 and mid 1944 in WW2 against Germany. Try to make the enemy busy to defend against pinbricks, like rocket salvos of Hizballah at Israel or drone attacks at Saudi fuel depots, or support of guerilla activities in Yemen. This does not cost much for the Iran, but the defenders have a lot of trouble and a lot of costs, because they must guard all of their strategic and economic assets. (An old military rule says, for a small war (Guerilla war in modern terms) you need only a tenth of the power of the defending army. In an assymetric war of today this relation is much worse for the defender)

On the long run, the very long run it may change a lot. The world economy is changing. The renewable energies are coming, so the oil is on the long run a discountinued model. And the arab economy is more or less basing on oil alone. When the time is come and the western and chinese economy will not need oil anymore, the arabs will have a major problem. They are running out of money and without money they will have no power.

This will be the time for the Iran to expand his zone of influence. But till then 50 years or more will go.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Gepard