US Intelligence Community Assessed That Massive US Attack 'Unlikely' To Oust Iranian Regime: WaPo
Tyler Durden

Tulsi Gabbard is the United States Director of National Intelligence>

Even a massive military assault on Iran is unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran and its state system, according to a classified assessment produced by the US intelligence community shortly before the US and Israel launched their current 'shock and awe-style' military campaign on Tehran. The Washington Post first reported it, perhaps based on some kind of leak or briefing by an anonymous intelligence official, and calls it—

a sobering assessment as the Trump administration raises the specter of an extended military campaign that officials say has "only just begun."

The report, compiled by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) roughly a week before the war began, concluded that Iran's political system is structured to survive even major leadership losses, The Washington Post reports. However, this should really come as no surprise to anyone awake and observant throughout the past two plus decades of America's 'nation building' efforts in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya. 

Already, Israel and the US have touted that 'all' of Iran's top leadership has been decimated, and yet clearly the governing system and its military - led specially by the elite IRGC - is not only in control but is still fighting back.

According to the assessment, Tehran has long prepared for such contingencies - and likely there's an emergency plan now in place in the wake of Ayatollah's Khamenei's death.

Intelligence officials say Iran long ago established clear succession protocols designed to maintain continuity of power even if senior leaders are killed. In other words, the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would likely trigger an internal transition process rather than cause the system to collapse - again, something which should be the obvious scenario. 

The intelligence report also poured cold water on the idea that Iran's opposition could quickly fill any power vacuum. US intelligence analysts assessed that the country's fragmented opposition movements remain too divided to seize control, regardless of whether Washington pursued limited strikes against leadership targets or a broader assault on state institutions.

Equally unlikely, according to current and former US officials familiar with the analysis, is the prospect of a spontaneous nationwide uprising. We could speculate that this possibility may have had a chance of some degree of success within the opening one or two days of the mass US-Israel bombing campaign, but it clearly didn't materialize.

On this prospect WaPo quotes Brookings:

“There’s no other force within Iran that can confront the remaining power that the regime has,” Suzanne Maloney, an Iran scholar and vice president of the Brookings Institution, told The Post. “Even if they’re not able to project that power very effectively against their neighbors, they can certainly dominate inside the country.”

The National Intelligence Council synthesizes the analytical work of all 18 US intelligence agencies, and produces classified estimates meant to guide policymakers on major geopolitical risks.

Much of the American public, raised on Hollywood movies, tends to have an overblown and inaccurate understanding of US intelligence agencies like the CIA. While the CIA certainly has a very powerful and secretive covert, operations side (and an even tinier Ground Branch)  - the bulk of its personnel and overseers/top officials are analysts. So there is an overt side and a covert side, with the analyst side tasked with providing the IC and White House with a 'realistic' picture of the world, ideally devoid of policy or ideology. Their job is also often to 'game out' all worst possible scenarios, given a certain course of action.

Meanwhile, the White House has not said whether Trump was briefed on the assessment before approving the operation. But likely such an assessment would have made it into the CIA's daily briefing for the president, also given reports from last week that the Pentagon also tried to inject some realism in terms of the 'unknowns' once Tehran is attacked.

 

our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

 

www.zerohedge.com