| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Why Iran probably isn’t behind the attacks on U.S. warships |
| 2016-10-24 |
| [Rooters] The conflict in Yemen is intensifying. The U.S. Navy launched cruise missiles at radar sites in areas controlled by Iran-backed Houthi forces in retaliation for attempted missile strikes on U.S. vessels, and Iran reportedly sent warships to the waters off Yemen. The moves risked bringing Iran into direct confrontation with the United States and Saudi Arabia, its ally. But while Iran will not skip an opportunity to poke its regional rival in the eye, Tehran does not want overt confrontation with the United States in Yemen. The missiles were launched from Houthi-controlled territory in the north of Yemen, but it’s still unclear by whom. The Houthi rebels virulently denied carrying out the strikes. The U.S. response coincided with a report by Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency about Tehran’s deployment of its military vessels off Yemen. The timing of the report by Tasnim, which has close links to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, implied that the Iranian deployment was a response to the U.S. strikes — and that the strikes could lead to greater Iranian involvement in Yemen. But that’s not the case. First, Iran’s Alvand and Bushehr warships were sent to patrol the Gulf of Aden, then on to Somalia followed by Tanzania on an anti-piracy patrol. Importantly, the ships were dispatched on October 5, eight days before the Tasnim announcement. The announcement by Tasnim, which has close links to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was typical hard-line Iranian grandstanding at a time when the United States was preparing to respond to the missile attacks. More generally, Tehran, which has repeatedly asked the United States to leave the region, clearly wants to avoid direct confrontation with U.S. forces. While Iranian rhetoric, particularly from hardline elements and the Revolutionary Guards, highlights Iranian strength and its ability to withstand confrontation with Washington, Iranian officials see this as a losing battle. Tehran doesn’t want to get stuck in Yemen— especially at a time when Iran feels it’s succeeding in its efforts to showcase itself as a viable regional partner for the United States. Washington is reviewing its support for Saudi Arabia after Riyadh admitted it bombed a funeral without first following mandatory procedures to avoid civilian targets. Depending on its findings, the review could result in less U.S involvement in this war--which is what Iran wants. Tehran would not condone missile strikes on U.S ships that risked entrenching both Iranian and U.S. involvement in Yemen. The Houthis may have taken action without Iranian consent. After all, Iran’s patron-to-proxy relation with the Houthis is not as clear-cut as often assumed. The rebels do not report to Iran in the same manner as Lebanon’s Hezbollah does, for example. Rather, the Houthis are similar to the Palestinian Hamas movement: They receive some help and support from Iran without taking direct orders from it. What’s more, Yemen is not a priority for Iran. Iran is more concerned about neighboring Iraq, where it has important religious, trade and political interests, and Syria, which gives Tehran access both to Hezbollah and the Mediterranean. But Tehran’s Yemen policy is inconsistent and lacks an objective. Early on in the conflict, Iran limited itself to voicing support and providing some material supplies to the Houthi rebels. But as the Saudi intervention ramped up, Iran increasingly saw the conflict as a low-cost opportunity to be a nuisance to its rival. But that’s all Yemen is to Iran — an opportunity. Tehran is loath to get dragged into another conflict when it is already involved on multiple regional fronts. Washington, for its part, is keen to disengage from backing the Saudis in a conflict with no end in sight. The United States also does not want greater Iranian involvement in Yemen. That would make disengagement impossible and akin to abandoning its Saudi ally. Washington also knows that while Tehran is no match for U.S. forces, it has shown its proxies can cause serious disruption in the region. Despite repeated calls for a ceasefire, the war in Yemen continues. But so far, Tehran and Washington have managed to limit their involvement. The attempted missile strikes cannot be allowed to escalate because that would risk dragging both countries deeper into the conflict. Neither side wants that. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #7 #1 All very interesting but fails to discuss how the Houthi's came by the sophisticated Russian missile and radar systems. Clinton Foundation? |
| Posted by: Blossom Unains5562 2016-10-24 21:39 |
| #6 This story is witch's brew of convoluted crap. The Houthi are proxies of Iran much like Hezbollah or Hamas. Obean sent Iran a ton of U.S. money, some of which most likely ended up with the Houthi. Iran hasn't shown any respect for the U.S. in the past. They refer to us as the large satan. Obean has not garnered any respect from them and most likely they think he is a fool. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-10-24 11:04 |
| #5 as usual, look for ValJar's fingerprints. They are always there when we see the administration talking about Iran. |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2016-10-24 10:16 |
| #4 Iranian or Russian? Which is worse? |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-10-24 09:43 |
| #3 She is a propagandist for the Iranian Government. See: Washington Post, 28 April 2015, "Why an Iran Deal Won't Lead to Nuclear Proliferation." |
| Posted by: Craique the Kid6652 2016-10-24 05:43 |
| #2 Dina graduated from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva I'm convinced. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-24 03:16 |
| #1 All very interesting but fails to discuss how the Houthi's came by the sophisticated Russian missile and radar systems. Also (once again) fails to mention casualties.... which may indicate there were none. Are we spinning the Iranians away from the blame line ? About the author, you decide: Dina Esfandiary - Research Analyst, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme, IISS Dina graduated from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, and completed a Master's degree in Intelligence and International Security at King’s College London. Dina initially interned at IISS in the Non-Proliferation programme, before working for the UN, a Geneva-based think-tank, and a humanitarian and disarmament NGO focusing on non-state actors. Her current research interests include nuclear and other non-proliferation issues, intelligence and the Middle East. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-10-24 00:42 |