Knowing What Their Audience and Adversaries Want and Can Do: The Mullahs in Tehran
By Fidel Amakye Owusu
5 months ago, on happenings that could help us understand current dynamics:
“Knowing what their audience and adversaries want and can do: the mullahs in Tehran.
1. In 2020, I was uncomfortable but not surprised that President Trump ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani. Where the killing occurred, and the timing were all not too great.
2. While the attack on the commander of Iran’s Quds force signaled an escalation, it was its aftermath that was most intriguing and is worth the attention of security and foreign policy analysts.
3. As usual, thousands poured into the streets of Iran during the funeral calling for retaliation. The right-hand man of Ayatollah Khamenei was killed with others. Then the declaration came: “Iran will avenge his death”. Yes, they did but in an interesting way.
4. Iranian forces fired missiles towards a US base in Iraq. Curiously, despite what was recognized by the US as more accurate missiles than it had known Iran to have, those projectiles were “deliberately” fired to avoid casualties. Yes, the missiles were made to miss the mark on purpose. The mullahs avoided consequences they were not ready to handle.
5. And so, what?
6. Decades before 2020, the Iran hostage crisis that occurred during the Revolution signaled the strategic sophistication of the mullahs from the start. They became more flexible with a “hawkish” US administration—they called Carter’s bluff but knew what Reagan could tolerate, even before he became president. I’m not endorsing the “October surprise theory”.
7. This weekend’s ‘offensive’ by Tehran has been consistent with the masterful act of pleasing domestic audiences while knowing its limits abroad. Decision makers in Iran are not oblivious to the capabilities of their adversaries despite their expertise at exaggerating theirs.
8. The “flight” of drones that departed Iran towards Israel was not going to do any serious harm if at all, to Israel—the mullahs knew it. They backed it with another “threat”: If Israel responded they would hit back again. They simply meant, “We are done and don’t want any further escalation”.
9. A few days ago, I mentioned to a colleague that the Houthi has shown that Iran is more measured in its direct military responses. It has never been able to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz as the rebels have done in recent months in the Red Sea.
10. This brings to the fore the point that what Iran is unable or unwilling to achieve with its direct policies, it does so with its proxies. That’s a whole topic.
11. Essentially, the mullahs have succeeded in cementing their domestic hold on power while “avoiding” an escalated confrontation.
12. Many are surprised that this is the first time Iran has directly launched an “attack” on Israel after decades of issuing threats.
13. Sabre-rattling.”
#mena Riley Risk Inc. DefSEC Analytics Africa Ltd unival group GmbH
By Fidel Amakye Owusu – International Relations and Security Analyst and Writer
Article Reproduced with Permission from Fidel Amakye Owusu
To view the original article by Fidel Amakye Owusu on LinkedIn visit here
We hope you enjoyed the article, you can read more articles from Fidel here and there will be more regular weekly articles from Fidel Amakye Owusu coming soon.
