Airstrike or bombing: What happened at Iran’s Natanz nuclear site?

The July 2 explosion at the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran targeting an advance centrifuge assembly lab has everyone talking. There has been speculation and experts are weighing the possibility of an industrial incident, a cyber-attack, sabotage with explosives and even an airstrike.

2

The possibility of an airstrike with manned aircraft, such as F-16s or F-35s, is next to none. Why? Other than the long range and refueling demands, the amount of damage caused is not worth the risk. Such an airstrike would only be allowed if it renders massive damage and a long-term strategic setback.

3

Why? Because such an operation cannot be repeated and bears the risks of pilots being shot down and arrested. Therefore, taking such a risk would not be logical for striking just one building of a single nuclear site, as important as it may be.

If the United States and/or Israel decided to launch manned aircraft airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program, they would deliver a wide-range blow aimed at forcing Iran to halt its ambitions in its entirety, and thus bend the knee before their demands. And rest assured Iran would feel the need to respond through conventional and non-conventional means.

While the Iranian regime is denying any airstrikes, the possibility of using drones for such a surgical attack is not unlikely. On August 25, 2014, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency, affiliated to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Quds Force, reported that the IRGC shot down an Israeli Elbit Hermes 450 spy drone near Natanz.

To save face regarding such a brazen infiltration into Iranian airspace, state media focused on beating their chests about the regime’s “air defense capabilities.” No one ever thought to answer why was Israel able to penetrate so far into Iran’s airspace? And if so, couldn’t that or a larger, more advanced drone launch missile(s) targeting sensitive sites deep inside Iran?

In contrast to the recent explosion at a military complex in Khojir, east of Tehran, a normal industrial incident in Natanz is also unlikely. Due to various reasons, including massive investing and constant advice provided by experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Natanz site is most likely one of Iran’s most advanced industrial complexes when it comes to health, safety and environmental considerations.

7

The destroyed building that exploded was used for the mechanic assembly of centrifuges, meaning there were no special explosive material inside. Furthermore, a night shift is unlikely in such a building. Images indicate a pressure wave (explosion) inside the building.

The possibility of sabotage through an unauthorized entrance into the site (special forces) is near to none. The possibility of people with access inside to secretly transfer explosives into the site is doubtable due to the security measures taken at the site that are stronger than airports these days. It appears that everyone is tested for explosives before entrance.

11

Back in November 2019 Iran alleged that the U.N. inspector it blocked from entering a nuclear site tested positive for suspected traces of explosive nitrates, according to the Associated Press.

12

Moreover, if this explosion was deliberate, considering its small proportions, it appears the attackers sought a specific objective and to inflict a psychological blow, as if such measures can be repeated in the future.

However, since preventing such a future attack through any form of sabotage would be quite easy with further inspections and security measures, the sought psychological impact cannot be realized through sabotage.

13

The possibility of a cyberattack is even less than sabotage considering the abovementioned reasoning (lack of explosive material) and escalated security measures following the Stuxnet attack.

A recent New York Times piece citing an IRGC member and a Middle East intelligence official is quite suspicious due to its very timely nature and mysterious sources.

Keep in mind:

a. It is written by Farnaz Fassihi, who has a long report card of being described as an Iran apologist, praising both Zarif & Qasim Soliemani in previous NYT pieces.

19

20

b. The possibility of an advanced air/cruise missile strike targeting Natanz would deliver a major and humiliating setback to the regime after all its propaganda about purchasing the S300 air defense system from Russia and claiming to have produced indigenous missile defense system “even more advanced than the S300”!

Another example of an Iran apologist rushing to Tehran’s rescue is Babak Taghvaee who in a July 6 Farsi article published in the Independent claims the attack on Natanz could be anything but an airstrike. Like Fassihi, Taghvaee says, “It appears a bombing inside this building rendered significant damage and a fire, not an air strike.”

Again, the concern is to divert any and all attention from the airstrike scenario, knowing how humiliating this would be for the regime in Iran. For those unfamiliar with Taghvaee, he has long been under heavy criticism from Iranians living abroad for justifying and whitewashing the regime’ crimes, such as his claims about technical errors leading to the IRGC shooting down the Ukrainian airliner PS752 back in early January.

And a lesser discussed aspect of Natanz is the material damage the mullahs’ regime has inflicted on the Iranian people with this 300-hectare complex in the past 18 years.
Reminder: Iran has spent at least $800 billion dollars in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Initial higher resolution satellite images of the centrifuge assembly building in Natanz show a major explosion. Some believe this raises the possibility of an “air projectile impact” scenario.

Yellow dot shows the possible point of impact and the arrow indicates the general direction of the projectile.

Before we examine the destruction caused in the Natanz site, let us evaluate similar situations seen in the aftermaths of airstrikes in Syria.

This 48m x 26m building was destroyed in Homs, central Syria. It’s around two thirds of the 45m x 75m building in Natanz. A portion of the Homs building remained intact after the strike.

This is another target near the Damascus Int’l Airport around half of the Natanz building. One fifth of this Damascus building remained intact after the strike. Pay close attention to how the building’s remnants and shrapnel are spread (seen in green arrows).

In this attack two flat-bed trucks next to the building were apparently the target of an airstrike. However, the attack inflicted damage to parts of the building.

Now let us return to Natanz:

The damage is Category B (50% to 75% of external brickwork destroyed, remaining walls have gaping cracks that are unrepairable) inflicted in the yellow circle area of 20m radius. This amount of damage needs around 200 to 300 kgs of TNT-equivalent explosives (with initial velocity).

Moreover, the building remnants spreading in east to west direction to a distance of more than 50m (light yellow lines) support the possibility of a foreign projectile impact from the general east direction.

A cruise missile with a medium-size warhead cannot create a crater as it explodes aboveground to inflict maximum damage on the target, not the ground.

Looking at these filtered images one realizes that a corner of the building is completely gone. There is a low number of small remnants and they are blown far away. A wall of about 5m height is completely gone. We don’t even see any columns.

Iranian officials should know by now what type of projectile was used (possibility a cruise missile). Air-launched weapons, be it cruise missiles or glide bombs (most likely not used in this attack), leave remnants that can be quickly analyzed at the site.

Reminder:

Iranian officials claim they are informed of the source of this attack but refrain from public announcements due to security considerations (most likely due to the psychological impact). Determining an airstrike is far easier than sabotage or cyber-attacks.

If “advanced equipment and precision measurement devices” have been damaged in this attack, it will set back Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons for many weeks and even months. Some are saying a year. Considering IAEA inspections, we may see more bits of intelligence leaking in the future.

Better images show a possible second point of impact on the asphalt road outside the Natanz building. Considering the destruction and shrapnel both inside and outside the building, two projectiles could have been used in this attack.

Remarks made by Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesperson of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, about the possibility of reconstructing the building at the same site, or another location “with air defense considerations” further the possibility of an airstrike in this attack.

“Air defense considerations” is the key to the Natanz riddle here. It is worth noting that building another site in another location other than Natanz is a violation of the 2015 nuclear deal that can result in a strong international backlash even from Russia and China.

And its quite interesting that Reuters, after four days, continues to deliberately provide false and face-saving reporting for Iran’s regime. Of course, one shouldn’t be surprised considering the piece was written by Parisa Hafezi, a known Iran apologist at Reuters.

Reminder:

-2007 doc, mentioning Parisa Hafezi, shows how the Reuters team needs approval from #Iran’s Intelligence Ministry to visit the city of Qom.

-All foreign media reports in Iran must abide by Intel Ministry guidelines.

-Shame on Reuters for falling to such lows.

When sabotage bombing doesn’t convince, Iran’s state media are even going the distance in claiming the strike targeting Natanz was a “deliberate attack” to thus claim “an airstrike is nearly impossible.”

Conclusion, you ask?

For me, this is looking more and more like a precision and surgical airstrike carried out by Israel with U.S. support and maybe even U.S. allies in the region. Remember that Iran first claimed the building was nothing but a shed and now we know it was probably the regime’s most advanced centrifuge assembly lab.

Now that more signs are indicating a foreign attack, Tehran needs to save face. In my opinion, that is why an Iran apologist such as Farnaz Fassihi published a New York Times piece claiming the explosion was caused by a sabotage bombing.

This video from July 5, four days after the attack, shows Iran moving air defense missile batteries to the Natanz nuclear site. If it was a sabotage bombing, why move such strategic units to Natanz?

Finally, as I explained earlier, Iran acknowledging a foreign airstrike targeting its most advanced nuclear site in the heart of the country would deliver a humiliating blow and weaken the regime at a time when domestic crises are already overflowing.

Anyhow, time will tell.

ANALYSIS: Iran feeling US policy shift after Obama

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, known to lead a regime based on a mantra of “Death to America,” has been cautiously silent ever since US President Donald Trump took the helm in the White House.

With a recent medium-range ballistic missile test launch backfiring severely, both politically and substantially–the vessel exploded during reentry into Earth’s orbit–the regime leader, who has the final word on all national security and foreign affairs, is maintaining a low profile.

The new White House lashed back with a series of measures Tehran has not been used to, especially after enjoying eight years of the Obama administration’s highly flawed appeasement policy.

Tensions escalated last week following Iran’s missile test confirmation, triggering US National Security Advisor Michael Flynn using his first public appearance to lash back a staunch warning, placing Tehran “on notice.” Trump has been very active, to say the least, taking to Twitter and warning Iran about the high contrast between he and his predecessor. “Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how “kind” President Obama was to them. Not me!

Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how “kind” President Obama was to them. Not me!

And his administration wasted no time before the weekend by slapping a new slate of economic sanctions targeting 25 Iranian individuals and entities involved in Iran’s missile program, while suggesting the possibility of more to come. “President Donald Trump’s press secretary suggested Friday afternoon that more sanctions, and even military action, could be on the way,” reports indicate.

Khamenei’s silence

And to add insult to injury, US Defense Secretary James Mattis, in his first foreign visit, labelled Iran as the world’s “biggest state sponsor of terrorism.”

Despite Fridays traditionally providing a platform for senior Iranian officials to voice positions over foreign affairs and pump back the spirit lost among their dwindling social base, Khamenei remained silent. And this is a time where his Revolutionary Guards and paramilitary Basijis are in most need of his so-called guidance.

These are all signs of the Iranian regime establishment being caught off guard after trekking into uncharted Trump waters. With its ballistic missile Tehran was actually testing the new Trump administration. The mullahs are now highly regretting such a poorly calculated measure.

Interesting is the fact that the pro-appeasement camp is continuing their old tactics of warning how Iran may do this and that. “…terrorist attacks against Americans, attacks by Shiite militias against the thousands of American troops in Iraq, or pressure on the Iraqi government to deny the United States access to the bases where it trains Iraqi security forces,” wrote Philip Gordon in The New York Times. Gordon was Obama’s White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region from 2013 to 2015.

After leaving the entire region in mayhem by handing Iraq over to Iran in a silver plate and cowardly failing to take any meaningful measure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad after declaring a so-called chemical attack “red line”, any individual in any way even merely affiliated to the Obama Doctrine is not in any position to make any comment about how the new White House should blueprint its Middle East policy.

The golden era

Iran understands very well that the Obama “golden era”, as one figure close to former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani put it, is over. And the recent saga, from Tehran’s January 29th missile test to the sanctions imposed by the Trump White House on February 3rd, forecasts stormy weather conditions for the mullahs.

As the Trump administration weighs various measures vis-à-vis Iran, there are a few issues worth keeping in mind. The past 16 years have proven that foreign military intervention and an appeasement/engagement/rapprochement approach have failed miserably. And yet, there is a third option for the US to consider: standing alongside the Iranian people in their struggle to establish freedom and democracy in their country.

Considering its significant role in domestic crackdown, foreign military intervention and most significantly the involvement in Syria, and Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile drive, the first and very effective step forward in this roadmap is to blacklist Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

To this end, all deals and trade with IRGC-affiliated companies will be banned, as proposed by Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

Welcoming the new US sanctions on Iran, the NCRI is an alliance of dissident organs, including the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), best known for first blowing the whistle on Tehran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.

After Obama turned its back on the Iranian people back in 2009 and sold them out to the mullahs’, the Trump administration placing the IRGC in its crosshairs sends a message to the Iranian people that this new administration stands shoulder to shoulder in their efforts to be free.

The Iran opportunity before Donald Trump

Donald Trump Holds Meetings At Trump Tower
If the Trump administration seeks to make Iran more amenable to take meaningful measures, they can be reminded with reference to the NCRI that their days are numbered. (AFP)

By Heshmat Alavi
Friday, 20 January 2017

Obama’s doctrine has allowed Iran to launch a string of anti-American measures and remarks throughout the course of his two terms, and most recently refuse any renegotiation of the nuclear deal sealed between the P5+1 and Tehran.

In response, sources say President-elect Donald Trump has received a hand-delivered letter signed by 23 top former US officials urging the adoption of a new approach vis-à-vis the regime in Iran. The text calls on the incoming Trump administration to engage and actively work with the Iranian opposition, an opportunity neglected and set aside by previous administrations.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) is an umbrella group of Iranian dissident groups, including mainly the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), known to first blow the whistle on Tehran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.

The letter is signed by a colorful slate of bipartisan civil and military officials, including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former senator Joe Lieberman, former attorney general Michael Mukasey and General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, to name a few.

“President Obama expressed the hope that nuclear negotiations would induce Iran’s leaders to act with greater consideration of American interests. It is now clear that Iran’s leaders have shown no interest in reciprocating… Iran’s rulers have directly targeted US strategic interests, policies and principles, and those of our allies and friends in the Middle East…” the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News, reads. “…to restore American influence and credibility in the world, the United States needs a revised policy,” the text adds.

Obama’s Iran doctrine

This prominent slate of influential American dignitaries has touched on a very right tone, calling for an overhaul of Obama’s Iran doctrine in its entirety. Ever since day one after hijacking the Iranian revolution back in 1979, the basic problem has been none other than the very mullahs’ regime sitting on the throne in Tehran.

While in this day and age many talk about terrorism and refer to ISIS and al-Qaeda, Tehran remains the true source of terrorism across the globe. The US State Department continues to designate this regime as a—if not the—leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is the world’s central banker of international terrorism by funding Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah and a long slate of other extremist Shiite militia groups rampaging Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

This letter, signaling a significant gathering very rare in Washington politics for the past 8 years and beyond, is underscoring the fact that the unpopular regime in Iran is the source of a variety of dilemmas. The mullahs are maintaining their control over 80 million Iranians through the ruthless Revolutionary Guards, the paramilitary Basij Revomilitia and other security entities.

These oppressive entities showed their wrath in 2009 following the highly disputed reelection–read reselection of firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad–as the regime’s president and quelling any and all dissent. The Obama administration missed the opportunity and turned its back on the Iranian people then.

Days numbered?

There is an alternative to the mullahs’ regime in Iran. If the Trump administration seeks to make Iran more amenable to actually take meaningful measures, they can be reminded with reference to the NCRI that their days are numbered, and counting down fast.

It would represent a remarkable message to Tehran if the new administration in Washington made a direct call to NCRI President Maryam Rajavi, a progressive Muslim woman who has devoted her life to regime change in Iran based on a 10-point plan aiming to bring about freedom, democracy, human rights, gender-religious-ethnic equality and a non-nuclear Iran.

Such a policy is not only in the best interest of the United States, but the Middle East and all nations who have suffered from Iran’s mischievous meddling policies. Of course, the mullahs and their lobbies in the US will not be happy at all if President Trump or members of his administration establish direct contact with the NCRI.

However, this should signal Tehran’s soft spot to Washington, and make the Trump administration even more interested about what can be done to support Iran’s legitimate opposition.

Originally posted in Al Arabiya English

Time to end the Iran “reformist-moderate” hoax

lopBy Heshmat Alavi

Eight years of Barack Obama’s tenure has come to an end. We are also winding down on the first, and maybe last, term of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. This should mark the long overdue end of the U.S.-Iran appeasement doctrine, based on a mirage of “reformists” and/or “moderates” actually existing inside the extremist establishment ruling Iran.

If you search mainstream media for news about Iran, there has always seemed to be an ongoing deafening chorus of “reformists” gaining the upper hand. This has a long history.

When then senior cleric Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani became president back in 1989, many claimed he was a newly found “reformists,” forgetting his role as commander of Iran’s armed forces through the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq War and the horrific summer 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners across Iran. Rafsanjani can also be dubbed the father of Iran’s nuclear weapons drive, and went on to launch an atrocious series of assassinations targeting exiled dissidents, dubbed the “chain murders.”

Then came Mohammad Khatami and the appeasement camp in the West went mad claiming he, too, was a “reformist” and “moderate,” with their sole argument most likely based on the fact that he smiled. During his first term Khatami showed his true face by blessing the vicious crackdown of the 1999 student uprisings that rattled the very foundations of the mullahs’ entire establishment.

When Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei needed to tighten his regime’s belts following the toppling the occupation of neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan, he selected–yes, selected–firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president to pursue his nuclear weapons drive, parallel to the covert meddling in Iraq and across the entire Middle East.

During this phase instead of admitting to their failure in finding any so-called “reformist” or “moderate” in Iran, the West appeasement entourage claimed their initiative was neglected and did not receive the support it deserves. They seemingly forgot the support they enjoyed from the long slate of governments and mainstream outlets.

In 2013 when Khamenei realized he could no longer continue his macho tactics in the face of international sanctions bringing his economy to its knees, he pulled another “reformist” out of his hat. Hassan Rouhani, another grinning mullah, was appointed–yes, appointed by Khamenei since there is no such concept of elections, as understood in the West, in Iran–to facilitate his decision to backtrack on his regime’s drive for nuclear weapons, and save face during the process.

Despite the West appeasement camp going the limits in portraying Rouhani as a “reformist/moderate” figure, they quickly forgot how he served as secretary the regime’s Supreme National Security Council, and boasted of deceiving the Europeans during the 2003 Paris nuclear negotiations. During his tenure, Rouhani has presided over nearly 3,000 executions, leaving a record far worse than his predecessors.

On the Syria conflict, Rouhani has continuously supported Iran’s backing of ruthless dictator Bashar Assad, and even opposed calls to halt the violence.

“Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Thursday joined in opposing a call by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to halt all flights over Syria in efforts to get relief shipments through,” as reported by Daily Mail.

Obama is departing the White House, signaling the end of a “golden era” for the Iranian regime, and the new Donald Trump administration and Republican Congress is taking over in Washington. To this end, the time has come for America to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Iranian people and their long struggle for freedom and democracy.

Nearly two dozen former senior U.S. government officials hand-delivered a letter to now President Trump urging him to work with the Iranian opposition, symbolized in Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella group including the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

This represents the best possible launching pad to end the appeasement policy based on the illusion of any such notion of “reformists” or “moderates” inside the brutal Iranian regime.

Originally posted in American Thinker

 

The Future Of Iran Following Rafsanjani’s Death

960x00
Former Iran’s president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaks during Friday prayer ceremony in Tehran on Friday May, 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

Originally published in Forbes

By Heshmat Alavi

The regime in Iran suffered a major setback after former president and figurehead Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani died of a heart attack on Sunday. He was 82.

Following the 1979 revolution, Rafsanjani played an influential role in structuring the regime’s policies, and his death will leave a significant power vacuum, coming less than four months prior to significant presidential elections.

Known for his persuasive role in shaping the regime’s politics following the 1979 revolution, Rafsanjani will leave a power vacuum in his wake.

During the past four decades Rafsanjani preserved a top role in the regime’s domestic crackdown, exporting Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism and extremism, and spearheading Iran’s effort to acquire nuclear weapons through an underground program.

“The death of Rafsanjani, one of the pillars of the religious fascism ruling Iran and its balance factor collapsed, and the regime in its entirety is closer now to its overthrow,” said Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Following the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, serving as Parliament Speaker and deputy commander of armed forces, Rafsanjani reached the presidency in 1989 and held this post until 1997. After two years of the so-called “reformist” Mohammad Khatami as president, Rafsanjani attempted to run for the office once again in 2005, only to succumb to hothead Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Recently Rafsanjani gained a reputation for his aggressive challenge against Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, while playing the role model for Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s so-called “moderate” president.

Of course, Rafsanjani was definitely considered part and parcel to the religious establishment in Iran, bearing in mind his special ties to regime founder Ruhollah Khomeini, who died back in 1989. However, appeasement advocates in the West dubbed him as a “pragmatic conservative” willing to work with the outside world, especially the “Great Satan.”

While Rafsanjani’s power diminished noticeably in recent years, he continued to enjoy a final post as chief of the Expediency Council, assigned to seemingly resolve disputes between the Guardian Council and parliament. The former is an ultra-conservative body closely knitted to Khamenei and known to screen all electoral candidates according to their loyalty to the regime establishment.

Rafsanjani sought last to take part in the 2013 presidential elections as a “reformist,” only to be disqualified by the Guardian Council. Angered at being purged, Rafsanjani lashed back by criticizing the measure as ill-informed.

Parallel to his rivalry with the Supreme Leader, Rafsanjani went on to place his weight behind Rouhani in 2013 when the latter assumed authority as president.

Alongside his political campaign, in the past decades Rafsanjani also used his post to slice his entire family an economic fortune from the country’s organs and natural resources.

“One brother headed the country’s largest copper mine; another took control of the state-owned TV network; a brother-in-law became governor of Kerman province, while a cousin runs an outfit that dominates Iran’s $400 million pistachio export business; a nephew and one of Rafsanjani’s sons took key positions in the Ministry of Oil; another son heads the Tehran Metro construction project (an estimated $700 million spent so far),” states a 2003 Forbes analysis.

The report also mentions billions stashed by the Rafsanjanis in overseas bank accounts.

“Some of the family’s wealth is out there for all to see. Rafsanjani’s youngest son, Yaser, owns a 30-acre horse farm in the super-fashionable Lavasan neighborhood of north Tehran, where land goes for over $4 million an acre. Just where did Yaser get his money? A Belgian-educated businessman, he runs a large export-import firm that includes baby food, bottled water and industrial machinery.”

Despite canvasing as a reasonable negotiator to the West, Rafsanjani was in fact shoulder to shoulder with his “hardline” partners in quelling dissident voices, specifically members and supporters of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the leading opposition group gaining reputation after being the first to blow the whistle on Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.

“Four rulings are a must for the [PMOI]: 1. Be killed; 2. Be hanged; 3. Arms and legs be amputated; 4. Be separated from society,” Rafsanjani said back in 1981. He also played a dominant role in the 1988 massacre of over 30,000 political prisoners in jails across the country.

As president, Rafsanjani supervised a slate of dissident assassinations abroad, such as renowned human rights advocate Dr. Kazem Rajavi, former Iranian ambassador to Italy Mohammad Hossein Naghdi and Iranian Kurdish leader Abdulrahman Ghassemlou.

Continuing this string of terrorist attacks, Rafsanjani has also been indicted for his part in the 1994 Buenos Aires AMIA bombing that left 85 killed and hundreds more wounded.

Rafsanjani has, through the past four decades, acted as the regime’s No. 2 figure and a balancing component, always preserving the regime’s higher interests. His death will considerably weaken the entire regime and spark major disturbances throughout the regime’s ranks and files. If the past is any sign of the possible road ahead, the mullahs will most probably resort to additional violence and the export of extremism, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism to avert this latest crisis from escalating beyond control.