Iran’s Supreme Leader Played Military Pawns
In an unexpected decree in September 1st. 2007, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran (IRI) and Chief Commander of the Armed Forces, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appointed a new commander for the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). Brigadier General Mohammad-Ali (Aziz) Jaafari takes over from Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi who was 10 years in this position and in a separate decree was appointed as Supreme Armed Forces Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Republic’s Armed Forces. Mr. Jaafari was the head of the Supreme National Security Council’s directorate for internal security.
Mr. Safavi’s mildness was recently criticised by the hardliners who did not see his resolute perseverance in the face of the US presence in the region. He was also criticised for his role to release the 15 Brit servicemen seized in April by his Revolutionary Guards and were two weeks in the captivity.
Mr. Safavi was one of the IRI’s negotiators of recent meetings in Iraq with the US delegation over Iraqi security problems. He was also in charge of the country’s nuclear programme and often reacted to the issues of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
For some commentators, Jaafari’s promotion is regarded as a victory for the hardliners whose military colleagues now compose more than the half of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ministers and governors of Iranian provinces.
On the contrary, other idea proposes a, tactical, dismissal of Safavi due to Khamenei’s alternative for the next President; he can stop Ahamadinejad’s second president mandate, which seems to be already planned. With his presently new position as Khamenei’s military supervisor, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s influence over the IRGC will be further reduced.
An Iranian internet site, Peik net, belonging to the spectrum of Tudeh-Party, and a site which supported Mr.Rafsanjani’s candidature in the last presidential election, wrote in its Persian article today, “… this removal is a Khamenei’s intention to pick Mr.Safavi to replace the President Ahmadinejad”, exceptionally, after his first incompetent term.
This speculation shows the fact that the IRGC is not only the military support of the regime, but also a complex network of different branches of economic institutions. Its powerful sphere of economic activities extends from domestic companies to trades with outside. The IRGC is also a springboard for the later IRI’s officials. It is a stranglehold on the political key positions.
Mr. Safavi represents this powerful pole of the country’s economy and politics, he is a closed figure to the other powerful pole of the regime, Mr. Rafsanjani’s political influence and business-domain. In totalitarian regimes, including the IRI, most key positions are offered to the devoted insiders of the system with military, especially security, background. These all privileges gather in Mr. Safavi’s perspective.
Contrary to some political career of his predecessor, Gen. Jaafari has not yet a bright political background. He is a military with the experience of some semi secret activities in the ongoing sectarian war in Iraq, where, early this year he could escape an US-let raid on his cachet in Iraq while five of his colleagues were captured, all belonging to the Quds force of the IRGC, a brigade which is engaged in the sectarian conflicts in Iraq. He is far from a political career and can simply be used as a scapegoat of IRI’s repression apparatus. His new position will strengthen the IRGC’s control on the population.
Gen Jaafari designation may also mean to raise a few eyebrows to Bush administration whose US military presence in the region threats to attack Iran. It seems also a defiant reaction to Bush administration contemplating adding the IRGC to its list of Foreign Terrorist.
No wonder that this sudden change coincides with a new manoeuvre of the IRGC in the Persian Gulf, where the IRGG as a direct army of Mullahs is omnipresent. “Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps holds third Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) Manoeuvre in west of Iran. “This manoeuvre is being held in Kermanshah (west of Iran) so to raise the defence abilities of Basij forces in this province,” said General Ali Salehi Moghadam, quoted ISNA. “This manoeuvre is to continue to the 3rd of September” wrote ISNA today.
The 125,000-strong IRGC are a fanatical army of the IRI with a separate organisation of command structure from the regular military and answers directly to the Supreme Leader. The IRGC include sea, land and air forces and its military logistics. It controls vast swathes of the national economy and run the sensible nuclear weapons programme.
“Gen. Mohammad Ali Jaafari, who was in charge of anti-American activities in Iraq, is known to be more bullish about the guards’ fighting ability, and has taken an active role in Iran’s clandestine activities in neighbouring Iraq.”: wrote the Guardian.
This new pawn-move does not seem a significant change of IRI’s policy in the region, but more significantly prepares to further tighten the noose of repressive organs of the IRGC round people’s neck.
Join the Conversation
you got your info wrong, safavi never headed or controlled in any way the nuclear negotiations with anyone! That’s ali larijani’s job!!!
I’m no expert (from over here in America just tryin’ to keep up on the news), but it looks like Safavi was often around AFTER each negotiation session to make the statements to the press. I’d bet these guys (Mideast youth) just made a typo error if anything.
I just found this site but I’m impressed so far , and glad to have found it. Although it may rub those on BOTH extremes the wrong way. Lots of details, explanations and little bias, if any. Good job!
Since I cannot prove if Safari belonged to any team negotiation (led by Rouhani or Larijani ), I remove this phrase.
I am however sure that, as commaner of the IRGC, he was engaged in the nuclear weapons. Sorry for that.
cool, no biggie, nice article otherwise… its just that i’m such a news/iran geek that I couldn’t let it go without saying. keep up the good work.
The US seems to be amping up the volume, too:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
The most significant aspect of this news item is that it is being announced now. It is the necessary prelude for what could be a final showdown.
I do not believe in the “showdown”. Let’s say in the ultimate animosities, some clashes in Iraq.
This IRI’s chess-move ultimately is to raise nasty eyebrows to the Yankees because the Mullahs know the Yankees do not gun them down.
You’re quite right: “showdown” might be too strong a term. After all, – as outlined in the Times article – a three-day blitz, targeting 1200 sites throughout Iran would still leave the question of what happens afterward.
If such a blitz did happen, it would not necessarily be followed by a ground invasion. The planners might simply leave the Iranian military-industrial complex in ruins. That would suffice. Yet I suspect that such a scenario hopes that the IRI would be reeling politically from such a defeat, so much so that uprisings throughout Iran would be possible.
What do Iranians on this site think about the Pentagon’s plan? Would it be possible to have uprisings after the execution of such a plan?
Finnpundit
In a military blitz air-attack, the IRI and its repressive organs are not the only targets, the whole national infrastructure and even civilians are at risk.
The US military technology boasts they bomb precisely technology boasts they bomb precisely the pre-selected targets. False! In Iraq and Afghanistan we witnessed huge lost of civil and national infrastructures.
Furthermore, I do not convince myself that Bush administration wants to get rid of the IRI in any price; Bush might include a bargain with the IRI or à la Iraqi solution of a Shiite PM from the same regime.
A popular uprising will be possible but a guarantee of the regime change is not at stake.
Finnpundit
In a military blitz air-attack, the IRI and its repressive organs are not the only targets, the whole national infrastructure and even civilians are at risk.
The US military technology boasts they bomb precisely the pre-selected targets. False! In Iraq and Afghanistan we witnessed huge loss of civil and national infrastructures.
Furthermore, I do not convince myself that Bush administration wants to get rid of the IRI in any price; Bush might include a bargain with the IRI or à la Iraqi solution of a Shiite PM from the same regime.
A popular uprising will be possible but a guarantee of the regime change is not at stake.
Finnpundit:
Well, I don’t think so just targeting some military sites will change the regime. I like the idea but it needs more preparation form Iranians – inside and outside of the country.
By the way, in any form I like the idea of destroying military sites specially those outside of cities because I don’t like average people get hurt.
In some news headlines, it was said that there are 2 ‘Jafari’s, one of them the new chief, and the other who was engaged in Iraq affairs and national security issues. at the beginnig, some famous sites (even BBC PERSIAN) made a mistake and mixed 2 figures. it seems that you have also made the same mistake! I still dont know who is who, though it is known that the new chief is not a well-known figure.
and your analysis about Ayatollah Khamenei’s new move: for Safavi, its less likely to win a presidential campaign, I think. therefore it is not reasonable to bet on it.
Yes I made also the same mistakes, sorry for that.
On an Iranian site in France, Iran-resist, a French one, there is an informative article about this and that Jaafari. Although, I do not share their monarchist position, but the site is perfectly informed about all news related to Iran and IRI’s officials.
In a totalitarian regime like Iran, any pre-selected “good” Muslim, including Mr Safavi can be pulled out of the urnes! Who believed that clown Ahmadinejad would be the President?
Finnpundit
Once again, I do not trust the US for such a “humanitarian” task. The US are not to free Iran but merely to fulfil their agenda.
Over a UN mandate to militarily free Iran, we can however think of.
Why would you assume the US would attack Iran for “humanitarian” purposes? The US would attack for its openly stated purpose: to pre-empt Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Whether or not that goes through the UN (I hope it doesn’t) is besides the point. Iran is an enemy bent on America’s destruction. It should be no surprise if America responds in kind.
Keep in mind that the Pentagon plan doesn’t seem to include any sort of ground invasion. The idea seems to be to deliver a devastating blow against the Iranian military-industrial complex, setting back Iranian plans for decades. Many civilians will surely die, but that’s what happens in war.
The big question is: what will happen in Iran, internally, politically, after such a blow?
This question is all the more pertinent, as it seems the Pentagon’s plan will be on the table even with a Democratic president.