Tim Kirby
One of the key players in Iran's nuclear program has been assassinated. This has led to a lot of posturing, finger pointing and narrative spinning about what the ramifications of this event will be down the line. It isn't every day that a scientist gets taken out by organized killers but someone at this very point in history seems desperate to create some change in the status quo in Iran. As we wait to hear the final verdict of the Electoral College the atomic heart of Persia has been ripped out very loudly. So who killed Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, why now and why did they even bother?
Well, who else could it be?
Not surprisingly, Tehran and groups that have a pro-Iranian slant (like Hezbollah) quickly blamed some combination of Israel and/or the United States for killing. Since Iran sees itself as being locked in a 40+ year lukewarm conflict with these two nations they are always going to be to blame when something like this happens. This is especially true, when there are no other serious potential perpetrators. This killing of a nuclear scientist is unlikely to be some sort of 3D chess move by an unusual foreign power suspect or the actions of some mobsters over a debt.
Looking deeper into this "who done it" there is always the conspiratorial option that Mr. Fakhrizadeh was killed by his own side for some sort of gain. The problem is that there is no obvious benefit to taking him out that is of public knowledge. It would be very hard to just fire the lead of your nuclear program when the most powerful nation on Earth wants to stop it.
Alternatively, the BBC threw out the possibility that the attack could have been done by an Iranian dissident group called the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK). But this begs the question, if they could pull off a brilliant assassination losing zero men in the process, then why kill an important but replaceable scientist? The death of one man has not collapsed Iran's nuclear potential. Then again if we look at the history of deaths related to the IRA, it would seem their choice in whom to kill was not blatantly obvious, including a bus conductor who among several others witnessed some IRA related crime. Perhaps the MEK or someone like them just wanted to kill anyone high profile to prove a point.
Image: The list of plausible suspects in Mohsen Fakhrizadeh's death is rather short.
In contrast to the lack of willingness to admit or rebuke guilt by Israel and the U.S. it was not that long ago, when Donald Trump openly admitted to authorizing the drone strike assassination of Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani. Trump, exiting the White House, simply stated to reporters that Soleimani was planning something against America and that " ...it should've been done 20 years ago". At least he is honest, but this willingness to directly take down Iranians certainly doesn't help in this situation. Especially, if the U.S. didn't actually have any involvement. That one move by Trump will allow the Iranian government to blame Washington for anything bad that happens for the next 20 years.
No matter when bad things go down in Iran, the U.S. and Israel, rightly or not, are going to get blamed for occurrences like this and that is exactly what is happening.
Irregularities in the assassination are appearing
Interestingly, stories of the assassination are starting to diverge with his car being hit by bullets from gunmen in one account, to other Iranian views saying it may have been a " remote controlled machinegun". So were there gunmen or not?
With today's cheap digital technology, making a homemade turret is not nearly as difficult as you'd think meaning this type of attack is not an automatic piece of proof of U.S. involvement. There is also a story of a car bomb going off as well inside of a nearby Nissan pickup truck.
Perhaps all three just happened to take place at the same time in the same place by random chance or maybe more simply Iran's security forces absolutely dropped the ball on protecting Fakhrizadeh and they are dreaming up juicy excuses for their failure.
Image: Photos are few but versions are many when it comes to the assassination.
Iranian intelligence now claims they knew an attack was coming, which means they either did not take their own intelligence seriously or were completely unable to protect Mr. Fakhrizadeh. Then again these statements are coming from vague "sources" in the Western Media which still expects us to take these sorts of statements on blind faith. Certainly, without any links or proof being given to anything other than angry tweets by certain Tehran officials, how can we really trust any CNN interpretations?
The drone strike killing of Soleimani was open and shut, this time the story seems to be growing by the day, meaning that there is a battle for one version of the "truth" to win out over the others.
The narrative is being spun softly anti-Trump
CNN promotes a narrative that this event will make things much harder for Biden, implying that either Trump may be trying to spite him on the way out (getting in one good last jab just in case the Electoral College does not shift its votes keeping him in power) and that Biden will somehow actually try to build peace with Iran. As stated above Trump has used assassination and a strange massed missile strikes on Syria (that proved to be highly ineffective) as part of his tool kit. The irony is that as the only POTUS during our lifetimes not to start a war (which Biden partook of under Obama in Libya/Syria) Trump's era should be seen as a rare mini Pax Americana of sorts, but no, sadly the Mainstream Media thinks Biden will push for a non-violent foreign policy of words and pen pushing.
After 40 years of various U.S. Presidents and Congresses, hostilities with Iran persist and it is unlikely that Biden will be able to hold hands with the Ayatollah and resolve every issue between these nations. Although Obama did make what many consider to be progress, with Iran's nuclear program, we shouldn't forget that having atomic weapons is the prime reason the United States goes to the negotiating table with Tehran and Pyongyang in the first place. Iran as a threat gets negotiations, a disarmed Iran will become "Democratic" from the skies. Maybe if Saddam Hussein had actually gotten his hands on "weapons of mass destruction" he'd still be alive today.
The message being given to the public is a gentle one - Biden will come in and try to rework things with Iran and maybe even lift some sanctions for good behavior. Biden > Trump.
In conclusion...
- Nuclear threat is really the only bargaining chip Iran has, they may never give it up.
- Iran has lived with sanctions for decades, does the U.S. have any more real financial weapons at their disposal? If out of financial options maybe murder is just easier.
- The versions of history regarding the assassination keep changing and growing.
- The media narrative of this event is softyly anti-Trump.
- Iran's nuclear ambitions will not be ended by the death of one important man.
- Regardless of who is the POTUS, relations with Iran will continue to be hostile as they have been for the last 40 years.
- Iran will continue to blame the U.S. and Israel for this and other events for the foreseeable future whether they are guilty or not.
One of the key players in Iran's nuclear program has been assassinated. This has led to a lot of posturing, finger pointing and narrative spinning about what the ramifications of this event will be down the line. It isn't every day that a scientist gets taken out by organized killers but someone at this very point in history seems desperate to create some change in the status quo in Iran. As we wait to hear the final verdict of the Electoral College the atomic heart of Persia has been ripped out very loudly. So who killed Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, why now and why did they even bother?
Well, who else could it be?
Not surprisingly, Tehran and groups that have a pro-Iranian slant (like Hezbollah) quickly blamed some combination of Israel and/or the United States for killing. Since Iran sees itself as being locked in a 40+ year lukewarm conflict with these two nations they are always going to be to blame when something like this happens. This is especially true, when there are no other serious potential perpetrators. This killing of a nuclear scientist is unlikely to be some sort of 3D chess move by an unusual foreign power suspect or the actions of some mobsters over a debt.
Looking deeper into this "who done it" there is always the conspiratorial option that Mr. Fakhrizadeh was killed by his own side for some sort of gain. The problem is that there is no obvious benefit to taking him out that is of public knowledge. It would be very hard to just fire the lead of your nuclear program when the most powerful nation on Earth wants to stop it.
Alternatively, the BBC threw out the possibility that the attack could have been done by an Iranian dissident group called the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK). But this begs the question, if they could pull off a brilliant assassination losing zero men in the process, then why kill an important but replaceable scientist? The death of one man has not collapsed Iran's nuclear potential. Then again if we look at the history of deaths related to the IRA, it would seem their choice in whom to kill was not blatantly obvious, including a bus conductor who among several others witnessed some IRA related crime. Perhaps the MEK or someone like them just wanted to kill anyone high profile to prove a point.
Image: The list of plausible suspects in Mohsen Fakhrizadeh's death is rather short.
In contrast to the lack of willingness to admit or rebuke guilt by Israel and the U.S. it was not that long ago, when Donald Trump openly admitted to authorizing the drone strike assassination of Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani. Trump, exiting the White House, simply stated to reporters that Soleimani was planning something against America and that " ...it should've been done 20 years ago". At least he is honest, but this willingness to directly take down Iranians certainly doesn't help in this situation. Especially, if the U.S. didn't actually have any involvement. That one move by Trump will allow the Iranian government to blame Washington for anything bad that happens for the next 20 years.
No matter when bad things go down in Iran, the U.S. and Israel, rightly or not, are going to get blamed for occurrences like this and that is exactly what is happening.
Irregularities in the assassination are appearing
Interestingly, stories of the assassination are starting to diverge with his car being hit by bullets from gunmen in one account, to other Iranian views saying it may have been a " remote controlled machinegun". So were there gunmen or not?
With today's cheap digital technology, making a homemade turret is not nearly as difficult as you'd think meaning this type of attack is not an automatic piece of proof of U.S. involvement. There is also a story of a car bomb going off as well inside of a nearby Nissan pickup truck.
Perhaps all three just happened to take place at the same time in the same place by random chance or maybe more simply Iran's security forces absolutely dropped the ball on protecting Fakhrizadeh and they are dreaming up juicy excuses for their failure.
Image: Photos are few but versions are many when it comes to the assassination.
Iranian intelligence now claims they knew an attack was coming, which means they either did not take their own intelligence seriously or were completely unable to protect Mr. Fakhrizadeh. Then again these statements are coming from vague "sources" in the Western Media which still expects us to take these sorts of statements on blind faith. Certainly, without any links or proof being given to anything other than angry tweets by certain Tehran officials, how can we really trust any CNN interpretations?
The drone strike killing of Soleimani was open and shut, this time the story seems to be growing by the day, meaning that there is a battle for one version of the "truth" to win out over the others.
The narrative is being spun softly anti-Trump
CNN promotes a narrative that this event will make things much harder for Biden, implying that either Trump may be trying to spite him on the way out (getting in one good last jab just in case the Electoral College does not shift its votes keeping him in power) and that Biden will somehow actually try to build peace with Iran. As stated above Trump has used assassination and a strange massed missile strikes on Syria (that proved to be highly ineffective) as part of his tool kit. The irony is that as the only POTUS during our lifetimes not to start a war (which Biden partook of under Obama in Libya/Syria) Trump's era should be seen as a rare mini Pax Americana of sorts, but no, sadly the Mainstream Media thinks Biden will push for a non-violent foreign policy of words and pen pushing.
After 40 years of various U.S. Presidents and Congresses, hostilities with Iran persist and it is unlikely that Biden will be able to hold hands with the Ayatollah and resolve every issue between these nations. Although Obama did make what many consider to be progress, with Iran's nuclear program, we shouldn't forget that having atomic weapons is the prime reason the United States goes to the negotiating table with Tehran and Pyongyang in the first place. Iran as a threat gets negotiations, a disarmed Iran will become "Democratic" from the skies. Maybe if Saddam Hussein had actually gotten his hands on "weapons of mass destruction" he'd still be alive today.
The message being given to the public is a gentle one - Biden will come in and try to rework things with Iran and maybe even lift some sanctions for good behavior. Biden > Trump.
In conclusion...
- Nuclear threat is really the only bargaining chip Iran has, they may never give it up.
- Iran has lived with sanctions for decades, does the U.S. have any more real financial weapons at their disposal? If out of financial options maybe murder is just easier.
- The versions of history regarding the assassination keep changing and growing.
- The media narrative of this event is softyly anti-Trump.
- Iran's nuclear ambitions will not be ended by the death of one important man.
- Regardless of who is the POTUS, relations with Iran will continue to be hostile as they have been for the last 40 years.
- Iran will continue to blame the U.S. and Israel for this and other events for the foreseeable future whether they are guilty or not.