You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So are we allowed to talk about Iran?
Last week an Iranian military official in Syria was killed in an airstrike. A couple of days ago an airstrike killed a Hamas leader in Beirut. Yesterday a bombing in Iran killed more than a hundred at a memorial service for the previously assassinated Quds force leader.
Is it just me or is Iran exercising surprising levels of restraint at the moment?
I can't for one moment imagine who might've supplied that level of technology to Sunni extremists.
is Iran exercising surprising levels of restraint at the moment?
Given they have been arming various terrorist groups to the teeth and supplying Russia with over 1500 drones used to kill civilians in Ukraine. No.
By restraint, do you mean funding and supplying the Houthi with military equipment while sending vast quantities of drones and other weapons to the Russians?
Frankly the entirely of the Iranian government and religious leadership could be picked off by Mossad and I really wouldn’t give a damn.
Edit: oops, crossed with Andy.
Given they have been arming various terrorist groups to the teeth and supplying Russia with over 1500 drones used to kill civilians in Ukraine.
Shocking isn't it? Foreign govts supplying weapons to another country which are then used to kill civilians indiscriminately. Someone really should put a stop to it. 🙄
Is it just me or is Iran exercising surprising levels of restraint at the moment?
It's just you. Iran has been trying to destabilize the region for many years, supporting violent groups in many countries. They aren't exercising restraint, they just know that getting into an open conflict with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, or the U.S. would be devastating so they try to keep their involvement at the plausible deniability level.
Someone really should put a stop to it. 🙄
If only we were the sort of country to supply arms to others. We can only wish, eh...
Shocking isn’t it? Foreign govts supplying weapons to another country which are then used to kill civilians indiscriminately. Someone really should put a stop to it.
Is this thread about Iran or are you hoping to start a thread about something else? If it's about Iran, they are one of the most repressive regimes in the world and arm violent groups across the region.
If you want it to be about something else, you should start a thread about that.
So are we allowed to talk about Iran?
Yeah of course; Iran is the 'enemy', so it's absolutely fine.
I can’t for one moment imagine who might’ve supplied that level of technology to Sunni extremists.
Neither can I. I mean; it's not like a belligerent Western superpower has a vested interest in destroying the Iranian regime in order to be able to gain control if Iran's vast oil and natural resources, is it?
Frankly the entirely of the Iranian government and religious leadership could be picked off by Mossad and I really wouldn’t give a damn.
I would. Because it would lead to massive instability with various Western and Russian backed groups waging an unwinnable war that would devastate the country and lead to the deaths of countless innocent people, as well as huge displacement ofIranians who would be forced to feel to seek shelter. See; Iraq.
Given they have been arming various terrorist groups to the teeth and supplying Russia with over 1500 drones used to kill civilians in Ukraine. No.
Western nations such as the US and the UK have been supplying weapons to nations such as Saudi Arabia and the One We Cannot Mention for decades. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. And at enormous profit for some. Can we at least be unilateral in our criticism of warmongerers?
Wow, that was quick, you don't post for weeks and weeks and then pow, all of sudden when a particular type of thread starts up...It's like a bat signal, huh?
If you want it to be about something else, you should start a thread about that.
Nope I have no wish to start a thread about that because it's not allowed as per this forum's censorship policy. It's illustrative though how the usual western imperialist cheerleaders like yourself don't want to talk about the other thing.
So how many attacks should a 'sovereign country' (I know you like this phrase) like Iran tolerate before before it responds in kind?
to answer the OP, no. im surprised its taken 24hrs to come up, but expect this to be locked within the coming 24
Well said, @brownperson
Was listening to the news the other night thinking whether we'll look back and look at this period of world history in a similar vein to late 1930s Europe.
Iran isnt exercising restraint Iran is biding its time. None of the acts of terrorism or war described above can ever be justified especially not as a response to acts of terrorism or war.
As for supplying unsavoury regimes or organisations with weapons, that trail just ends up unpleasantly close to our own doorsteps..
I watched Kandahar on Prime over Xmas, those Irani chaps are not always nice but they have some lovely haircuts and moustaches.
Maybe the Saudi regime are behind this? Who's behind the Saudis? Who's behind the groups behind the Saudis behind the bad guys?
is Iran exercising surprising levels of restraint at the moment?
Iran doesn't have to do anything, Western governments (incl Israel) have been doing all the heavy work for them.
In the last twenty years, as a direct result of Western interference and mind-boggling miscalculations, Iran has been able to sit back and watch its power and influence grow ever greater.
Israel certainly does not want a military conflict with Iran, but what Netanyahu appears to be attempting to do is provoke Hezbollah resulting in a northern front opening up.
Politically Netanyahu is a dead man walking. He knows full well, like everyone else, including Joe Biden, that only the conflict in Gaza is keeping him in power and that as soon as the fighting stops he is finished.
He also knows that the IDF cannot keep pounding rubble in Gaza indefinitely, nor that global public opinion (incl US) will allow him to carry on killing hundreds of women and children everyday indefinitely.
He has no doubt calculated that a long protracted war with Hezbollah could possibly save his political skin domestically, and that global opinion might rally behind Israel.
The first part of the calculation is almost certainly just wishful thinking but judging by the reactions already on this thread the second part of the calculation is probably more achievable.
"Stand with Israel!"
Israel certainly does not want a military conflict with Iran,
Actually, Israel has been wanting to bomb Iran's nuclear program for years but the U.S. has told them not to. The U.S. does not want a regional war, but pretty much every regime in the region is dislikeable. That leaves the U.S. with the choice of either walking away and letting it all go up in flames or working with some very dislikeable regimes. AIUI, part of the deal in the 1970s to get Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty was to pledge military and economic support for both countries. Having done that, the U.S. is now stuck with two allies with serious human rights problems, but withdrawing support is likely to lead to another regional war, which would be even worse.
Same with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. Extremely unpleasant regimes but if the U.S. withdrew support, Saudi Arabia would probably develop nuclear weapons because they are afraid of Iran. That would be much worse than trying to keep S.A. as an ally. Same goes with Turkey - nasty regime, but dropping them as an ally would probably just make things worse.
In these things, there are no easy decisions, only choices between unpleasant options. If the U.S. stopped support for Israel or any of the other countries that is supplies weapons to, there's a high likelihood of a regional war, possibly a nuclear one.
What the hell just happened argee? Someone just brought up a major news story whose consequences are very likely to affect your shopping bills in the very near future.
And scupper any vague desperate hopes that Rishi Sunak might have had of avoiding electoral Armageddon in a few months time.
That leaves the U.S. with the choice of either walking away and letting it all go up in flames or working with some very dislikeable regimes.
The US has wanted to disengage from the region for a long time, the normalisation of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel and the military alliance/pact which was supposed to go with it was intended to be a step in that direction. The Hamas attack on Oct 7th scuppered all that.
A huge win for Iran and a massive blow for both the US and Israel, and one which imo they will never recover.
A regional war would benefit no one. Certainly not Iran for whom everything is going in their favour, which is precisely why they have no intention of getting drawn into one. No doubt some far-right hawks in both the US and Israel see the risk of regional war as less of a worry, and not least because the situation is so desperate for them.
Maybe having the 2 largest aircraft carrier groups in the world in the eastern Mediterranean might give the revolutionary guards something to think about.
Because the Iraq war was like a walk in the park?
The reason the decision was made to attack Iraq, rather the more obvious target Iran, was precisely because Iraq was seen as very weak and easy to defeat.
Start with the easy stuff first - Afghanistan, then something a tad more challenging - Iraq, next Syria, then the big prize - Iran.
The plan was binned some time during the Iraq war when things started to go tits up.
Btw the USS Gerald R. Ford has left the region to return to its home port.
Although Joe Biden didn't stand on its deck to announce "Mission Accomplished". Don't US presidents do that anymore?
I'm going out on a limb and saying this thread will be closed before 3 o'clock (pm).
Edit: posted at 14:26.
Why would it get closed when everyone is playing so nicely?
It always starts that way.
And there is no reason why it shouldn't stay that way.
Given the individuals involved it won't stay nice for long...
rather the more obvious target Iran
Iran's geography means its more or less impregnable There are mountains on some borders, and you'd need to go through either Afghanistan or Turkey and neither of those is an option. You could try the way Saddam Hussein did during the Iran-Iraq war; up through Iran’s southwest. But it’s swampy, and relatively easy to protect. Plus, your army would run up against the Zagros Mountains after passing through, just like Saddam...
Like the US, Its part of the reason Iran behaves like it does.
Yup, its geography and vastness is daunting. So too is its military hardware.
Edit: I can't comment on its accuracy but this certainly makes very interesting reading:
3am then....
Yup, its geography and vastness is daunting. So too is its military hardware
Iran's drone technology shouldn't be underestimated but in a direct confrontation with the U.S. or other nations in the region with modern weapons, their air defenses would be destroyed in a day or two, so would their navy and port facilities, and then they would be blockaded and any military targets destroyed by airstrikes. Iran's conventional military is extremely weak, that's why they try to avoid direct confrontation and use proxy groups to carry out attacks on civilian targets.
It's interesting to see how Western rhetoric plays out after the murder of dozens of people by a terrorist attack, depending on where that event happens. A couple of months ago, many of us on here were united in condemning the cowardly attacks on innocent people in another middle eastern country, yet so far on here there hasn't been a single mention of the human cost of this latest attack. For me, this signifies just how deeply entrenched Western propaganda is, and just how much it influences people's reactions and opinions. Putting all the partisan rhetoric aside, this is yet another such attack on humanity, and yet another obstacle on the road to any kind of peace, anywhere. Any time something like this happens, regardless of what nationality, race or creed the victims or perpetrators, I just feel even more saddened by the senseless waste of life, and the deeper divisions between people everywhere. Today, hundreds, thousand of people and families will be mourning the loss of their loved ones. And meanwhile, those who seek to divide us crawl just a little bit nearer to their goal.
in a direct confrontation with the U.S. or other nations in the region with modern weapons, their air defenses would be destroyed in a day or two, so would their navy and port facilities, and then they would be blockaded and any military targets destroyed by airstrikes.
If that was likely it would have happened a very long time ago.
Iran is "tolerated" by the US precisely because they have little choice, not for any other reason.
I think you'll find brownperson that the majority of us find the violence on all sides abhorrent. I certainly do. However the question here was about Iran.
Iran has lots of potential internal strife too.
It has a large well educated young population who would like to have a more modern, open country. It also has an old theocratic elite who would like to see the opposite.
Its this internal tension rather than external forces that are probably the biggest issues facing Iran
Iran is “tolerated” by the US precisely because they have little choice, not for any other reason.
It's tolerated by many more, we spent a lot of time in iraq doing vehicle interdictions to intercept vehicles driven by associates of the IRG into Iraq loaded with munitions for the insurgency, they then switched it up to bringing it in by reed boats.
Not a word in the press or across the wider battlegroups. Kit was confiscated for destruction and they where sent back across the border.
Geopolitics is a funny old game on the ground.
I may have some pictures that won't land me in a heap of trouble somewhere.
yet so far on here there hasn’t been a single mention of the human cost of this latest attack.
Well no because firstly no one knows who was responsible, it certainly doesn't seem to have been Israel. And secondly the death toll is about half of the death toll on a typical day in Gaza.
George W. Bush's 2002 axis of evil has been resurrected, as reported a few weeks ago https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/11/29/axis-of-evil-russia-china-iran-north-korea-bush-era/
Let's hope that it's about trade rather than war this time
Aaaand in before the ban...
Iran has lots of potential internal strife too.
It has a large well educated young population who would like to have a more modern, open country. It also has an old theocratic elite who would like to see the opposite.
Its this internal tension rather than external forces that are probably the biggest issues facing Iran
Yes. I think this kind of conversation is far more productive than military fetishists arguing over who's got the biggest weapon. Iran was once a thriving, modern, progressive 'western' state, before the 'Islamic Revolution' which imposed a totalitarian dictatorship whose ideals were some way from any decent human being's interpretation of the faith. But behind the failure of modern Iran, and its slide towards extremist totalitarianism, is the familiar spectre of British and US imperialism.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/08/how-britain-crushed-democracy-in-iran
We can now only imagine what Iran might be like today, had it continued along a progressive and democratic path. And indeed how that may have influenced the entire region. I think it's safe to say there'd be a lot less conflict and tension.
Iran was once a thriving, modern, progressive ‘western’ state, before the ‘Islamic Revolution’ which imposed a totalitarian dictatorship
I don't get that. You yourself provided the link which shows that before the ‘Islamic Revolution' Iran was a much hated western backed totalitarian dictatorship.
The Islamic Revolution actually brought in some democracy which wasn't previously present. And today Iran, for all its failings, is a tad more democratic than western backed Saudi Arabia.
Approximately half of the world's population will be voting in elections in 2024, including in Iran, I don't think there will be any elections occurring in Saudi Arabia, who I believe take their advice from a former UK Prime Minister.
The Islamic Revolution actually brought in some democracy
Hardly
Iran: Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report | Freedom House
I don't understand the need to contextualise it really. Iran is undemocratic, and so is SA.
The Islamic Revolution actually brought in some democracy
Yeah, right…
Iran is an abhorrent terrorist state that is arming extremist militias and stoking proxy wars all over the region and has been doing for decades
It knows it’s own people would rather it had a completely different set of priorities to this, to say the least, but as it’s a brutal dictatorship it ruthlessly suppresses any hint of dissent
Democratic, my arse!
I don’t get that. You yourself provided the link which shows that before the ‘Islamic Revolution’ Iran was a much hated western backed totalitarian dictatorship.
It's very complex. Iranian friends (who fled to the UK as refugees from the IR) enjoyed life in Iran in spite of Shah's regime. I'm not saying Iran was perfect, but it was a lot less repressive than it is now, with women being beaten and tortured by the 'morality police'. Women in '60s and '70s Iran could wear whatever they liked, and weren't forced to cover up like they are now. Yes, the country was riven with social and economic issues, largely as a result of the oil money being syphoned out of the country. And behind it all, western imperialism. That was my point.
The Islamic Revolution actually brought in some democracy which wasn’t previously present. And today Iran, for all its failings, is a tad more democratic than western backed Saudi Arabia.
That's just like saying one dog doesn't bite you quite as hard as the other. As for SA; I believe it to be one of the most vile regimes on the planet. The Wahabists make the Iranian regime look like moderates. But Saudi Arabia is our friend, so they're ok.
I don’t understand the need to contextualise it really. Iran is undemocratic, and so is SA.
Except that however undemocratic you might feel Iran is it is still a tad more democratic than western-backed Saudi Arabia.
There are a multitude of candidates in their elections, thousands I believe, and a multitude of political parties.
The US would much prefer if there were no political parties, candidates, and general elections, just like in Saudi Arabia.
A lack of democracy is obviously not a problem for the western powers. And yet the issue always gets dragged up.
Which is the reason to contextualise it.
Iran is an abhorrent terrorist state that is arming extremist militias and stoking proxy wars all over the region and has been doing for decades<br /><br />
The USA has been doing that globally, for a lot longer. And with far more devastating consequences.
It knows it’s own people would rather it had a completely different set of priorities to this, to say the least, but as it’s a brutal dictatorship it ruthlessly suppresses any hint of dissent
Democratic, my arse!
I agree, but it's very important to separate the people of a country, from the regime. There are many Iranians who would love nothing more than an end to the current regime, but at the same time, do not want Iran to become yet another puppet state of the West. Understandable. And we in the UK aren't exactly giving them much hope by setting a good example right now.
Iran has lots of potential internal strife too.
This is something that is often very underplayed in the West quite apart from the 'Religious conservatives Vs modernisers" tensions that exploded last year over the murder of Mahsa Amini there are serious ethnic tensions as well.
Only 51% of Iran is 'Persian' the rest are Arabs, Balochs, Yazidis etc, many of who are Sunni Muslims and who are repressed to varying degrees by the Tehran regime and as well as managing Iran's disruption operations around the region Soleimani was a major player in the security apparatus carrying out this repression.
If the US had done this it would have been a drone or air strike, If it was Mossad it would have been are targeted assassination at a prominent figure in the crowd, it's not that they'd be above a bombing of this nature but the juice would have to worth the squeeze and there so far seems to have been no such person present that would warrant such a risky operation.
My money is firmly on one of the ethnic groups who've been on the receiving end of Soleimani over the years, the methodology fits, they have plenty of motive and any former or current IS fighters in their ranks would have the skills and resources to carry it out.
Obviously, it's 100% in Iran's interest to blame the US and/or Israel to avoid inflaming internal tensions so I'd be stunned if they ever publicly acknowledge that it was a domestic faction that carried this out.
Except that however undemocratic you might feel Iran is it is still a tad more democratic than western-backed Saudi Arabia.
On that same website; Freedom House, they score SA higher (freer) than Iran, so no, it isn't. But again, neither country needs comparing with the other just becasue one is backed by western states and the other isn't and had a revolution. Both countries are undemocratic and their citizens not free.
You’re aware that it’s possible to hold the view that both the Iranian and Saudi regimes are abhorrent, right?
Both countries are undemocratic and their citizens not free.
Exactly, so democracy is not the issue behind western opposition to the regime in Tehran. Sorted! 😊
Hatter knocks the nail on the head imo. It obviously wasn't Israel or the US behind the double blast. Most likely to be Isis I would have thought.
On a side note, when I'm talking Iranian internal ethnic groups being responsible I'm strictly only talking about the strike on the Soleimani memorial.
The assassination of the senior Hamas leader in Lebanon was 100% Israel.
A couple of days ago an airstrike killed a Hamas leader in Beirut.
A couple of Russian secret service operatives enter the UK and murder a Russian dissident. UK, tabloids, government up in arms.
X country fires a missile into another sovereign country's capital city that it's not actually at war with, and nobody gives a hoot.
Perhaps thats where Russia went wrong. They should have used an airstrike on the dissident, instead of trying to poison him.
IsraelUSA fires a missile into a sovereign country and nobody gives a hoot.
For balance.😉
Obama, the President often held in high regard has the dubious honour of ordering more extra-judicial killings and operations on foreign sovereign nations soil but yet he is oft cited as a good president.
Interesting flexible morality measurement system people have I guess. Geopolitics is a funny old game.
The assassination of the senior Hamas leader in Lebanon was 100% Israel.
Yup. And in an area under the control of Hezbollah. Which is why it is probably Netanyahu trying to provoke Hezbollah into launching a serious assault on Israel, rather than the current daily exchanges.
Netanyahu and his ilk will never pass up an excuse to keep themselves in power by making sure this conflict will go on as long as possible, whether it provokes Iran into carrying out a direct strike I doubt it, but they will retaliate by using a proxy of some sort.
X country fires a missile into another sovereign country’s capital city that it’s not actually at war with, and nobody gives a hoot.
It's a digression, but you could also cite the USA's 9-year campaign of dropping bombs and landmines into Laos; an atrocity that still kills innocent people, half of them children, to this day.
Over 20,000 innocent people dead. And barely a whisper in western media.
Iran has lots of potential internal strife too.
It has a large well educated young population who would like to have a more modern, open country. It also has an old theocratic elite who would like to see the opposite.
Its this internal tension rather than external forces that are probably the biggest issues facing Iran
Good post.
I've spent a bit of time with a few Iranians recently whilst I've been in the region & most of them seem quite happy to talk quite openly with regards to how they would like to see their country. Unsurprisingly they are quite like us, they want a decent house to live in, they want a good education for their children, good healthcare, good employment opportunities etc etc. They do't care that much about what is going on in the UK or elsewhere as they have enough to deal with ensuring they get the best lives they can under the current ruling classes. They know they have little chance of changing their government or the direction their government is heading. They really don't like the restrictions their passport offers or western sanctions. Their country is beautiful and they like showing it off. The Iranians I've recently met have been lovely, very generous, intelligent & well informed.
The latest slaughter just creates more problems and division, it certainly doesn't help ordinary Iranians. I hope that one day Iranians will get the country that ordinary Iranians appear to want. That's what we should all be hoping for. I'm not sure any outside interference would be constructive but at the same time it's hard to know what can be done.
Edit - to those that keep adding that one side is worse than the other & vice versa etc. please stop, as it adds little to the conversation. The world really needs less armchair generals.
My memory's a bit rusty on all this but I seem to remember it was the West who led the coup against the democratically elected Mossadeq who proposed nationalising Iranian oil. The Pahlavis were put in place and the people were told 'BP' stood for 'Benzini Pars'. The Pahalvi's secret police were everywhere and I remember an Iranian refugee in Stoke Newington having to have metal grills put over the windows after they were shot at. They may have allowed bikinis but not an exemplary regime.
that it’s not actually at war with, and nobody gives a hoot.
It is one of the privileges of being President of the United States of America....... you don't have to worry about international law!
For me one of the best example of how US presidents use their unchallenged power for personal advantages is Bill Clinton's unprovoked attack on Afghanistan in August 1998.
On the 17th of August 1998 the FBI concluded after taking a blood sample from Bill Clinton that the semen on a blue dress owned by Monica Lewinsky was his.
https://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/889-lewinskydress
This was obviously hugely embarrassing for the US president as not only was Monica Lewinsky not his wife but it meant that he had publicly lied under oath.
It obviously risked bringing about his downfall so he took immediate action and ordered a cruise missile strike on Afghanistan. People needed to die to deflect attention away from the embarrassment of his semen stains on a blue dress.
He survived so you could arguably claim that it worked. And this was long before 9/11 btw.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/
They may have allowed bikinis but not an exemplary regime.
Aye, but the west has a habit of backing individuals as change agents with a very short sighted view for expediency and convenience for it to rather unsurprisingly blow up ('scuse pun) further down the line.
Some societies are culturally more complex than ours and our idea of what's right may not work, and we really need to grasp that.
But not before the 2 al qaeda embassy bombings that killed 220 on the 7 th of August 1998?
Why do you keep doing this? It has nothing to do with Iran….. Go and start a thread on the subject if it’s so important to you & you want to discuss it.
This. But do check all the relevant facts first, or you'll end up looking like a poor mans jivehoney
But not before the 2 al qaeda embassy bombings that killed 220 on the 7 th of August 1998?
Why do you keep doing this? It has nothing to do with Iran….. Go and start a thread on the subject if it’s so important to you & you want to discuss it.
Eh? Who said anything about it being "so important"? Have a look at the direction the thread went. President Obama came up and the issue of "flexible morality".
Just ignore the point if you think it is irrelevant.
I assume that the diversion to personal attacks is an attempt to put pressure on the mods to close the thread. Just make your point and don't worry too much about attacking other people 💡
Anyway Isis has claimed responsibility for the double blast in Iran. Which is no great surprise imo.
I assume that the diversion to personal attacks is an attempt to put pressure on the mods to close the thread. Just make your point and don’t worry too much about attacking other people
Pointing out the obvious error in the timeline you were claiming to support your tangent is not a personal attack.
The extremist group called the attack a “dual martyrdom operation,” and described how two militants approached a ceremony at the tomb of General Suleimani and detonated explosive belts strapped to their bodies “near the grave of the hypocrite leader.”
Not the first time IS have targeted Iran, having a pop at the 'Apostate' Shi'ites. ****ing tragic and barbaric.
With Islamic State claiming responsibility for this tragic event I believe that the Iranian government now has an additional excuse to introduce more restrictions on its own population.
I really feel for the Iranian people, what a mess they find themselves in.....
Pointing out the obvious error in the timeline you were claiming to support your tangent is not a personal attack.
That is clearly not what I was referring to.
The Qaeda attacks were obviously used as an excuse to justify the cruise missile strike on Afghanistan, which occurred two weeks later and happened to coincide with deeply embarrassing headlines concerning Bill Clinton's sexual escapades and seriously risked his presidency. You can decide for yourself what was foremost on his mind.
Getting back to Iran I suspect that Isis taking responsibility for the attack which killed dozens will only be a boost for the Iranian government in terms of how it is perceived in the region. I don't think Isis has many friends.
The Qaeda attacks were obviously used as an excuse to justify the cruise missile strike on Afghanistan, which occurred two weeks later and happened to coincide with deeply embarrassing headlines concerning Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades and seriously risked his presidency. You can decide for yourself what was foremost on his mind.
yeah alright mate
I don’t think Isis has many friends.
Sadly in the marketplace of Religious headbangers there's always a commercial incentive to be the most extreme, the most strident and the most 'pure' so I suspect ISIS will always have already supply of donations and recruits.
And if they ever mellow or are brought to the negoctiating table we'll immediately see 'Real ISIS' or 'Continuity ISIS' spring up to capture that end of the market.
Undoubtedly hatter, but Iran being seen as a bulwark against Isis is likely to enhance its reputation in the region, not damage it, no?
I can't see Isis carrying out a terrorist act killing dozens in Iran helping their cause in any way. Right now with hundreds dying every day in Gaza the whole of the Middle East sees Israel and her backers as the enemy. The only regional government giving any vague sort of practical support to opposition to Israel is Iran, imo targeting Iran is unlikely to increase support for Isis, especially as Palestinians are Sunni.