Tehran Bombings

[ISiddiqui]

Islamic State Claims Deadly Iran Attacks on Parliament and Khomeini Tomb

At least 12 people were killed and 42 others were wounded Wednesday morning in a pair of devastating attacks on two of Iran’s most potent symbols: the national Parliament and the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The Islamic State immediately said it was behind the attacks, the first time that the Sunni Muslim extremist group has claimed responsibility for an assault inside Iran, which is predominately Shiite Muslim. The terrorist group is battling with Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and in Syria, and it views Shiite Muslims as apostates.

Tensions in the region were already high; after a visit by President Trump, Saudi Arabia and several Sunni allies led a regional effort on Monday to isolate Qatar, the one Persian Gulf country that maintains relations with Iran.

So with the attack on Kabul and now on Tehran, it looks as if ISIS is escalating. Right at the time when some Arab countries are isolating Qatar - partially for, as the article says maintaining relations with Iran, which just got bombed. It looks more like 'when' rather than 'if' for a multiple state war in the Middle East.

[Butter]

Why are they bombing Khomeini?

[Logan]

I'm not smart enough to follow this either. They're now bombing Muslim targets? Is that a first?

[ISiddiqui]

ISIS are Sunni, Iran are Shiite. They are basically trying to start an inter-sect warfare.

Think Protestants vs. Catholics in the 1600s.

edit: I mean it was in the blurb I posted in the OP...

[JPhillips]

This is all a part of the Shia/Sunni split. ISIS is Sunni and Syrian government forces are backed by the Shia in Iran.

[bhlloy]

Iran is Shia and are basically heretics to Sunni extremists like ISIS I had thought

Where it does get fuzzy is

Sunni Qatar allegedly funding Sunni Extremists in Syria allegedly with the support of Shia Iran being opposed by other Sunni governments in the Middle East

Now with Turkey and Russia allegedly getting involved on the Qatar/Iran side

Deep breath... did I get all of that right?

And no, ISIS has killed a LOT of Muslims and attacked a lot of Muslim targets before, although not in Iran

[ISiddiqui]

Later on in the NY Times article:

In the view of many in Iran, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is inextricably linked to Saudi Arabia. Hamidreza Taraghi, a hard-line analyst with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said, “ISIS ideologically, financially and logistically is fully supported and sponsored by Saudi Arabia — they are one and the same.”

Iran and Saudi Arabia are the leading nations on the opposing sides of the Middle East split between Shiite and Sunni Islam. Iran has military advisers in Iraq and Syria, and it controls and finances militias in those countries and in Lebanon. Tehran also has some influence over the Houthis fighting the government in Yemen, and it often speaks out in support of Shiites in Bahrain, a majority group that Iran says is repressed by the Sunni monarchy.

So it almost seems that at some point a war will break out between Saudi Arabia and Iran (one can argue the one in Iraq and Syria has been a proxy war between the two).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

And no, ISIS has killed a LOT of Muslims and attacked a lot of Muslim targets before, although not in Iran

They've killed more Muslims than any one else.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Later on in the NY Times article:



So it almost seems that at some point a war will break out between Saudi Arabia and Iran (one can argue the one in Iraq and Syria has been a proxy war between the two).

With the US and NATO on one side, and Turkey and Russia on the other potentially. So yay?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It looks more like 'when' rather than 'if' for a multiple state war in the Middle East.

That's ok, though, since we have a White House that will no doubt carefully consider the best course of action and respond rationally and diplomatically. I'm sure America will lead and help defuse the situation.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

With the US and NATO on one side, and Turkey and Russia on the other potentially. So yay?

I am having bad thought comparisons to World War 1, where a localized war ended up encompassing the world due to the entanglement of alliances.

[Butter]

The Sunni / Shiite thing is just something I haven't ever taken time to try to wrap my head around.

So, even though it stated those things in the headline, it still didn't register with me. Obviously something I need to take time to understand, considering we'll all be fighting Ruskies off our roofs soon enough.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Butter

The Sunni / Shiite thing is just something I haven't ever taken time to try to wrap my head around.

So, even though it stated those things in the headline, it still didn't register with me. Obviously something I need to take time to understand, considering we'll all be fighting Ruskies off our roofs soon enough.

Same here, but at least I think OSU basketball has had some success.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So it almost seems that at some point a war will break out between Saudi Arabia and Iran (one can argue the one in Iraq and Syria has been a proxy war between the two).

They've been fighting proxy wars and trying to buy influence in poorer countries for 30 years. Saudi Arabia will never escalate it to a real war because the royal family focuses on keeping the violence abroad & has no desire to get in a war, and Iran will never escalate it to a real war since the United States backs Saudi Arabia and has a military base there.

But different militias in Iraq like the al-Sadr brigade, or the Houthi rebels in Yemen have been sponsored by the Iranians, and vice versa with groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda getting their funding from Saudi donors. As the 3rd regional power broker Egypt also has their own power centers, mainly the Muslim Brotherhood groups. Iran then has official state groups like Quds Force in Iraq & Syria, but hey, the US also has official military advisors and is bombing targets there, so not like we can complain.

Which is also why our Syria policy has always been insane. Let's tepidly support some rebels, but not enough to overthrow the government, and we'll let them get massacred if it's in one part of the country, but we'll protect them with airstrikes in a different part, but then never establish an official protected no-fly zone like we did with Kurdistan. Which is why as much as overthrowing Saddam without a good post-Saddam plan wasn't great, I'll take it everyday over tepidly supporting rebels and then abandoning them when the other side pushes back too far. (That doesn't mean I wanted to get involved in Syria, if you make the decision to start bombing targets & putting boots on the ground either go win or split the country in two & protect civilians & allies in one part.)

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They've killed more Muslims than any one else.

And it's not even close

[stevew]

Remember when the Sunni we're the ultra chill secular Muslims and the Shiites were the evil extremist ones. So confusing

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by stevew

Remember when the Sunni we're the ultra chill secular Muslims and the Shiites were the evil extremist ones. So confusing

No, I don't.

[ISiddiqui]

You don't remember the 1980s?

[CraigSca]

Yep, I remember in high school Social Studies learning about the Middle East and wondering why the Shiites couldn't be more like the Sunnis. So much for that.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You don't remember the 1980s?

No, I don't.

(From the late 90's I remember the Salafists being touted as the model Muslim sect. Wahhabism was already a known danger, since I wouldn't have paid any attention until after the US Embassy attacks.)

[ISiddiqui]

You mean Sufis? Because Salafists are the super conservative sect.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You mean Sufis? Because Salafists are the super conservative sect.

Yes, my bad.