Now that the dust has almost settled on last week’s terror attacks in Tehran, it’s a good time to take a sober look at who could be behind the attacks on the Islamic Majlis and Khomeini’s shrine, the two important symbols of the Islamic Republic. It is also worthwhile to pay attention to what the Iranians abroad, the political analysts and the radio/TV personalities presented as the motives for the attacks.
Right off the bat and within hours after the attacks, the predominantly monarchist Los Angeles TV’s were saying that an uprising by the Iranian people was underway and they tied the attacks to Trump’s Saudi Arabia trip, Saudi’s declaration of “taking the battle inside Iran”, the appointment of “take no prisoner” Ayatollah Mike (D’Andrea) at CIA and the tough stance of “Mad Dog” Mattice at the Pentagon.
Finally, the long-awaited regime change was here, and if some poor soul called the stations and mentioned that the attack video clips were uploaded and posted on ISIS site AMAQ from Majlis, the caller would have been called a regime agent and shouted down. On one TV channel, they spent more than an hour praising the heroics of Babak Khoramdin who 14 centuries ago fought the Arabs for years and defended Iran. And right after that segment, they praised the strategic alliance of Trump and the Saudis to invade and free Iran!
But after 24 hours or so and when there was no indication of any protests or uprising from Iran, the story line changed quickly.
“The Regime is behind the attacks.”
All of a sudden, the Iranian analysts and TV personalities had all the motives nailed. “There is infighting inside the Regime to replace the ailing Khamenei. There’s a coup by Sepah underway. This is the continuation of the killing of Rafsanjani. Did you see how easy they got inside Majlis and the shrine? This could not be ISIS because they only behead people.”
That line of reasoning still persists today. Never mind the fact that the Regime considers the “security” of the Islamic Republic and its symbols as its highest redline, articulated by the slogan, “We are fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq so that we won’t have to fight them in Iran.”
So who were these folks who attacked Tehran and got killed after several hours of gun battle?
Most likely, they were Sunni Iranians from border provinces with major grievances against the Regime. They probably received training and arms in Iraq and Syria and came back to Iran to do the suicide attacks.
Were they affiliated with ISIS?
Here is my problem with the whole notion of who is an ISIS member and who is not. Something is wrong when every Tom, Dick and Harry that commits acts of terrorism around the world declares to be ISIS members. In the good ol’ days when IRA, PLO, the Red Army or Carlos the Jackal were regarded as terrorists, they actually had a resume that they could post on Linkedin that highlighted each terrorist’s upbringing, training, subgroup affiliation, list of projects and accomplishments. So you could easily say that a claim of involvement was authentic or not.
Today’s terrorists are a bunch of sick people who are more like sports fans. Being an ISIS member is more like being a Chelsea or Arsenal fan. If the team is winning and having a good season, then everyone become fans and start wearing their uniforms without knowing much about the team’s past history, management, philosophy, etc.
Now, I am happy to report that the LA TV stations are now completely focused on US Secretary of State Tillerson’s comment about a “peaceful regime change” in Iran and believe that a regime change is finally here. And what is a “peaceful change?” That’s when your team is ahead 4-0 with 10 minutes left to play and the coach replaces its star players with some young guys from the bench.
Well, I don’t think that Khamenei, Soleimani, Sepah and Basij are quite ready to leave the game and sit on the bench!