Will Iran retaliate if attacked? Israeli intelligence officials and neo-conservative pundits in the United States argue that Iran is bluffing – that it wouldn’t dare.

But on Tuesday, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. powerfully rebutted this view. Clapper argued not only that Iran would retaliate, but that some Iranian officials are now even willing to carry out attacks on U.S. soil.

In his unclassified statement submitted to the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, Clapper said: “Iran’s willingness to sponsor future attacks in the United States or against our interests abroad probably will be shaped by Tehran’s evaluation of the costs it bears for the plot…as well as Iranian leader’s perception of U.S. threats against the regime.”

The issue of survival is not taken lightly by the Iranian military and political establishments. According to an article published by the Guardian, an Iranian idiom is quite popular among military officials, “If we drown, we’ll drown everyone with us.” The Iranian regime is prepared to fight until the end.

Many foreign leaders, such as France’s Nicholas Sarkozy are also very worried about the implications of a potential military conflict with Iran. As reported by the German publication Spiegel, during his New Year’s address to diplomats in Paris, Sarkozy stated, “A military intervention [in Iran] would not solve the problem [of Iran's nuclear program], but would trigger war and chaos in the Middle East and maybe the world.

Such conclusions are far more realistic than that of a retired Israeli official who told the New York Times: “I am not saying Iran will not react. But it will be nothing like London during World War II.”

In the eyes of the Iranian regime, this is a fight for survival far more threatening than the domestic challenge presented by the protest movement of millions of Iranian demonstrators in 2009.

The recent pronouncements from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other Iranian officials should be taken seriously. In November, Khamenei said: “Iran is not a nation to sit still and just observe threats from fragile materialist powers which are being eaten by worms from inside.

“Anyone who harbors any thought of invading the Islamic Republic of Iran – or even if the thought crosses their mind – should be prepared to receive strong blows and the steel fists of the military, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, and the Basij, backed by the entire Iranian nation,” he said.

Is he bluffing? There is no way to know for sure, but are Israel and the United States willing to accept the potential risks?

There are a number of political, economic, and military retaliatory moves Iran is perfectly capable of and willing to carry out in the short and long-term.

- According to Clapper’s Worldwide Threat Assessment, “Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and it is expanding the scale, reach, and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces.” Iran can use its missile abilities to strike Israel.

- Some might make the argument that Iran’s military capabilities are not on par with Israel or the United States. It does not matter. Even if Israel succeeds in short-term air strikes, Iran is willing and able to cause and promote instability in the region. This is in direct contradiction with the United States’ broad interest in the Middle East, which is stability.

- Iran may not be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed indefinitely, but even threats and potential attempts will cause volatility in the Persian Gulf.

Some point to recent history and argue that Iran has never launched a large-scale retaliatory attack. But times have changed, and Iran’s position has shifted. Iran is now preparing for an attack on its soil, and part of this strategy includes an effective second strike.

Iran’s Oil Minister, Rostam Ghasemi, announced that Iran is working on a plan to stop exporting oil to “some countries,” and the European Union’s ban of the country’s oil imports has no impact on Iran’s crude production.

According to many Iranian media sources, as reported by BBC Persian Service on January 30, Ghasemi reacted to the news of the European Union’s decision to embargo Iran’s oil by stating, “Based on the future plans of the Oil Ministry, [Iran] will soon stop its oil exports to some countries.”

Ghasemi indicated that Iran will always find a market for its oil and it is the European countries that should worry about finding an alternative source of petroleum. Ghasemi completely dismissed any concern about the European Union’s embargo, which will be implemented by July 1, adding, “Iran has a market for its oil exports even with cuts [in sales] to Europe and will face no problem in this regard.”

According to IRNA, addressing reporters on Tuesday, Iran’ Oil Minister stated, “Iran’s oil cannot be omitted [removed] from the international market…European countries have imposed the oil sanctions against Iran themselves and the impacts of these sanctions will definitely turn back to themselves.”

Ghasemi also reiterated that his ministry is awaiting a decision from the Iranian parliament that is working on a proposal to halt oil exports to Europe. IRNA quoted Ghasemi as saying, “This motion is being examined in the parliament, but it hasn’t been finalized yet and we are waiting for its final results.”

Last week the Foreign Ministers of 27 countries in the European Union sanctioned Iran’s oil in order to force the country to abide by the United Nation’s Security Council resolutions demanding Iran to stop its nuclear activities.

Many western foreign policy experts claim the international sanctions are designed to pressure the Iranian regime and not the people. However, with the recent announcement of the inability of grain shipments to reach the country, this argument becomes harder to make.

According to Reuters, European Union sanctions have halted food import deals to Iran leaving about 400,000 tons of grain held up on at least 10 ships outside Iranian ports.

IAEA Inspections and Iran’s Seemingly Cooperative Reaction

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s foreign minister, announced that the IAEA inspection team is allowed to extend its trip, if they wish.

According to IRNA, Salehi announced on Monday that Iran is “very optimistic about the mission and the outcome” of the IAEA’s inspection trip to Tehran. He added, “The trip was planned for three days, but if the IAEA wishes, the trip can be extended.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister seemed to be trying to diffuse the already tense situation exacerbated due to the recent military threats by Israel and western governments. He urged the United States and the European Union to “replace the sanctions with a policy of engagement.”

The three-day inspection tour by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team began on Sunday.

Editor’s Note: The following article is based upon interviews conducted with Iranians living inside Iran, but written by an author outside the country. The names stated in the article are pseudonyms in order to protect the safety of those interviewed.

When Iranian state-run television was updating its viewers about the latest developments of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the EU embargoed Iran’s oil. Immediately, the rate of the Iranian currency fell; one US dollar was sold for 21,000 rials. In addition, each government- issued gold coin was sold for ten million rials. The average Iranian’s reaction to the unstable and chaotic market varied from panic to depression to anger.

Reza Javadi, a carpet seller says: “Everything is in a stagnant state. People are all afraid. You can feel the silent before a disaster about to happen. Until yesterday, I talked to people who used to say nothing has happened yet, but following the European Union’s oil sanctions, people are really afraid now.”

Negar Rouhi, author and translator, says: “Every day in my office I translate a lot of documents for university students who are racing each other to leave the country. These days, more than ever, I feel the sense of fear and distrust on their faces. They don’t want to believe that the currency crisis is serious. But with the EU sanctions, it is impossible for the price of U.S. dollar to decrease.”

Soheil, a 35- year-old supermarket owner in central Tehran, is worried about potential food shortages in the upcoming months. “The situation is hopeless. We are reverting back to the worst days of the Iran-Iraq war. I am worried everything will be rationed again. With Iran’s currency problems, the price of meat has already gone up. Given the irresponsibility of Ahmadinejad’s government, the situation will even become more dangerous.”

Zohreh Davari, a worker in a drug factory who makes $400 a month and has four children, says: “I am already feeling the shortages. I don’t care about the price of the U.S. dollar or gold. I have never bought foreign currency or gold. What makes me afraid is the food price increases. Even now with my salary, I can only afford food for my children until the middle of every month. If the prices go up and salaries stay the same, we will die.”

Where are Khamenei and Ahmadinejad?

Mansour, a 30-year-old living in Tehran is afraid and worried after receiving the news of the EU’s oil embargo. He says, “I want to know why Ahmadinejad, who always has something to say about any topic, is now silent? I am sure he is going to say that these sanctions have no impact on Iran’s economy. However, we saw today that just the news of sanctions caused the increase of prices on many products. The sanctions have not even been implemented yet. By the middle of July, these sanctions will cause us to run out of foreign exchange reserves, which will result in more serious pressure on the people. Khamenei should walk out of his house on Palestine Street and explain our fate to us in the coming days.”

Sajdeh Hosseini, a father in Tehran, has a daughter who suffers from multiple sclerosis. He is forced to spend $500 a month on medication, while his entire capital amounts to only $4,000. He says: “This is my question for Mr. Khamenei, why have you let a madman like Ahmadinejad waste the wealth of a nation? What if we become like Iraq and the Food- for- Oil program? What if medicine is sanctioned and we cannot produce medicine for the sick? What if there is a war?”

He continued: “With sanctions, poverty, and a government that knows nothing but force, the condition of our society will only get worse. We will witness more drug addicts, thieve, and depressed people in the country. I am very worried about the dark days ahead of the Iranian people. I know the regime will save its own political demise with the help of its friends, China and Russia. But, the people and the structure of the society will erode from within. At the end, no one will be held accountable just like in the days of the eight-year war and the years after.”

Iranian Facebook users from inside the country were absorbed with the news of the EU oil sanctions. Maryam, a senior student at the University of Tehran, writes about her fear of sanctions: “I am afraid that one day we will be in dire need for our most basic needs such as food and clothing. Taxis have already increased their fairs.”

Mona, who works at the Shahid Beheshti Hospital, wrote on her Facebook page: “Now, I know how the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus felt after they woke up and realized their money is worthless. The only difference is that they slept for 300 years, but we have that feeling every morning we wake up.”

Parvaneh Vahidmanesh is a journalist and researcher of Iran’s contemporary history. She often writes about human rights issues in Iran. Vahidmanesh left Iran in 2009. She currently works for Freedom House as a Program Officer in Washington DC.

I was the chief editor of the Sokhangooyeh Do’alat, the official website for the Iranian government in 2003-2004. I was also a reporter who extensively wrote for various Iranian publications about military and security matters. During my career, I have had many meetings and interviews with military commanders from various ranks and even was awarded a prize for my work by the Foundation for Preservation of the Holy Defense Values, which is a state organization in charge of preserving and promoting the revolutionary values of the Iran-Iraq war.

For more than ten years–during many formal and informal meetings– as a journalist in Iran, I have always been curious about the strategies the Iranian military is planning for a potential confrontation with the United States.
I recall a famous Iranian idiom that was quite popular among the military officials: “If we drown, we’ll drown everyone with us.” They were pretty clear about their intention. If attacked by a Western power, the war would not be contained within the Iranian boarders. The entire world would become Iran’s battleground – at least this was their thinking.

Serious of tactics and strategies were continually discussed in public and private gatherings, including the following:

A Manual for Causing Damage to the United States and Asymmetrical Warfare

On September 23, 2007, the Etemad Meli newspaper published my interview with General Ezatollah Ghafourzadeh, the chief of the Iranian Army’s Strategic Research Center. I believe he felt comfortable talking to me because I knew him well and we were from the same city.

In this interview, Ghafourzadeh announced the news of the publication of a classified book entitled, “Methods for Causing Damage to Trans-Regional Enemies” by Iran’s Army. He was, of course, referring to the United States. According to the statements by the Iranian General, various strategies for causing damage to the United States in different areas has been studied and spelled out in this manual. He also talked about the formation of a group called, the Council of Future Studies, which meets every three months and updates the manual and a defensive plan for a potential war.

This council also studies and plans for a potential “disproportionate war” with the United States. They have conducted other studies under various titles such as “Armored Unites,” “Applications for Mortar Units,” “Psychological Operations,” and the “Application of Artillery Units in Asymmetrical Warfare.”

The findings of the aforementioned studies has been that by dividing the army into many independently operating units, in an event of a military conflict with the United States, each post would be able to autonomously make decisions without communicating with the headquarters.

A Global War with the United States

During our conversation, Ghafourizadeh stated: “We will force the enemy to fight us [on our terms], when we want to and where we want to…by observing and studying America’s war in Iraq, and the Kosovo War, the Lebanon War, and the tactics used by Hamas, we have developed a native style of warfare. We have incorporated the [aforementioned lessons] with our own abilities and understanding and created a new native combat style.”

Simply put, the new styles of warfare the Iranian commanders speak about are newer and wider subversive operations. These are similar to strategies used by Hezbollah in Lebanon or even groups like Al-Qaeda. Iranians have learned from such tactics, have added their own knowledge and expertise, and will potentially implement them in a geographically wider and more devastating manner. Such a war might even be launched against the United States and European countries.

After my interview with Ghafourzadeh, I attempted to verify his statements, so I searched for his remarks published in other news media. In another interview with Mehr News, a semi-official news agency, on October 20, 2007, Ghafourzadeh stated: “At any time and in any place, we are able to engage the enemy in unorganized and tactical warfare. In the past, Iran’s military was only able to combat the enemy in an organized fashion. However today, our troops have the ability to engage the enemy with any type of clothing; in any style of warfare.”

A Quick and Decisive War

The tactics Ghafourzadeh and other Iranian commanders refer to as “new methods of fighting,” include a short duration of fighting, immense firepower, and an extensive geographic area. He publically explained part of this strategy in his interview with the Hamshahri newspaper on March 9, 2009:

“In future wars, the enemy will showcase its ground ability via high mobility mechanized offensive units…today the military operations take place around the clock. The enemy will operate night and day. Instead of direct running battles [with the enemy], the modern [Iranian] operations are vast, three dimensional, and multifaceted… It is no longer true that a war would, for example, start at the Iran-Iraq border and end there. An outbreak of a possible war could directly impact all the countries and the region as a whole.”

According to this commander’s statements and based on my other numerous encounters with other Iranian military officials, I believe Iran is planning to respond with a war of attrition and sabotage in the region and across the globe.

Using Propaganda as Deterrence

When I encountered the Iranian official’s public rants and propaganda against the West, I always wondered why, despite the highly classified nature of these strategies, military officials announce them publically.

I found my answer during a conference with Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s former Defense Minister, with government officials. In that meeting, Shamkhani was asked about the reason behind the heightened propaganda about Iran’s military abilities. Shamkhani’s response was illuminating. Iran’s Defense Ministry was implementing the strategy of deterring a foreign attack by publically announcing Iran’s military capabilities. The officials believed by declaring, and perhaps exaggerating the Islamic Republic’s abilities, the United States would be dissuaded from attacking the country.

According to Shamkhani, this policy was reviewed and approved by Iran’s political elites and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. During the same time period an organization by the name of the Central Military Propaganda Office was established in the Defense Ministry. This newly-founded center was tasked with advertising the military capabilities of the Islamic Republic in order to paint a harsh outcome for the United States if it decides to attack Iran.

This strategy would in turn increase the morale of internal forces and the population as well. Shamkhani labeled this tactic as “strengthening psychological operations.” These psychological operations are still taking place and they are aimed at strengthening the moral of the Iranian troops against the enemy’s damage.

Mandatory Readiness Training

The Iranian commanders talk about modern means of warfare, but their reliance on unconventional warfare requires a great deal of manpower. According to my discussion with various military officials, which were censored by the Army’s Intelligence Office and never published, another strategy, which is being discussed but has yet to be executed, is the implementation of a mandatory readiness training service. Each individual who has already completed his military service will be asked to annually report to various military bases and renew his military training.

Planning for a confrontation after the United States invasion of Iraq

However, despite their official statements dismissing the possibility of a military attack by the United States, the Iranian officials are taking the threats very seriously. Since the day the United States invaded Iraq, the Iranian officials began their planning for a potential confrontation. The Ministers of Commerce and Agriculture were tasked with planning and preparing for a potential war with the West and finding ways to provide the country with the necessary food supplies. These trends continue to this day and all officials are required to keep the possibility of a potential war in mind as they are planning for future.

Ehsan Mehrabi is a distinguished Iranian journalist who has written about the Islamic Republic’s military, parliamentary politics, and various other socio-political issues for more than a decade. He has worked as the parliamentary reporter for the reformist newspapers Etemad Meli and Tose’eh, and as a reporter and political editor for Hambastegi newspaper. During his career he has interviewed many Iranian military commanders and officials. He left Iran a few months ago.

The evidence of Khamenei’s belief can be found in his public speech in Qom on January 9, “The current conditions in Iran are the same as Badr and Kheybar, and not Shaab-e-Abu Talib,” Khamenei said.

According to Islamic history Shaab-e-Abu Talib is a region in Saudi Arabia, where during the early days of Islam, the Prophet Mohammad and his followers were forced to live under an economic and social blockade for three years. According to Islamic literature, the situation was so bad that “they had to tie rocks to their stomachs” in order to alleviate the pain resulting from prolonged hunger.

Similar language emerged in an unprecedented statement by Mahmoud Bahmani, head of Iran’s Central Bank, announced on December 21, 2011, “We have to manage the society in a way to survive for two years. Just like if were trapped in Shaab-e-Abu Talib.”

Khamenei dismissed the head of the Central Bank’s statements, but by recognizing the situation similar to Badr and Kheybar, he has indirectly confessed that the Islamic Republic is isolated domestically, regionally, and internationally.

However, he believes, just like the Prophet of Islam, he should face his opponents with the small army at his disposal.

The Battles of Badr and Kheybar were two important battles fought by the Prophet of Islam against the enemies of the newly-established religion. He fought the enemies, despite the small size of his army, and was victorious in both battles.

Despite the current harsh economic conditions, this history indicates Khamenei is hopeful that by adopting the policies of “patience and endurance” and “threats against threats,” he and his supporters could stand against the United States and the West.

The threats coming from Iran, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, influencing Arab states in transition, publishing reports about capturing U.S. spies, and increasing the levels of domestic oppression are all tactics used by Iran in order to deal with the internal and external crisis.

By threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, the clerics in Iran are hoping to force the United States and the West to take a step back. They also hope to intimidate the regional countries and demonstrate Iran’s military might in order to improve their shaky legitimacy internally.

Iran has welcomed the recent developments in the Arab world with this strategy. The Islamic Republic is trying to convince its people that the citizens of the Arab world have chosen the same path as Iranians chose thirty-two years ago.

In the meanwhile, the Islamic Republic is trying to exploit its deteriorating relationship with the United States. Iran is holding the United States responsible for the majority of its own flaws, shortcomings, and internal problems. The regime has also tried to connect the members of the opposition to Western governments in order to legitimize the harsh repression against activists fighting for change.

His devotees, only one day after the storming of the British embassy in Tehran, confessed that they were “deceived” by a seven-member council whose members belong to the student basij (affiliated with the IRGC) in Tehran universities.

After two years of silence, Hassan Alaei, former IRGC Navy Chief, in a controversial op-ed published in Ettelaat newspaper, a publication under the direct supervision of Khamenei, implicitly advised the Supreme Leader to learn from Mohammad Reza Shah, who was toppled in the 1979 Islamic revolution. Alaei suggested that the oppression of the regime’s critics should be stopped.

For more than 10 months, a great number of Khamenei’s supporters have been clearly declaring that the Supreme Leader’s personal support for Ahmadinejad was a mistake. They believe that Ahmadinejad “deviated” from the political mainstream and plans to force the clergy from the country’s power structure.

In the meantime, after the implementation of the first phase of the subsidy reform program and the recent set of sanctions, Iran’s economic situation is more dreadful than ever. According to Asadollah Asgar Oladi, the head of Chamber of Iran-China Commerce, the inflation rate is close to 40%. Asgar Oladi warns that if the situation continues during the next six months, the country may face supply shortages.

The international sanctions on Iran, imposed due to the country’s defiance of UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program, are expanding day by day.

After nearly six years of establishing sanctions against Iran due to its nuclear program, Fereydoun Abbasi, Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy, admitted that some Iranian nuclear scientists are not willing to cooperate with Tehran on nuclear projects due to risks of sanctions.

Despite all the internal and external problems, the Islamic Republic has reacted to the recent set of Western sanctions with the “threats against threats” strategy.

Iran’s actions and statements show us how worried the government is of internal opposition and a threat of external wars.

Contrary to what the Iranian government claims, the foundations of its legitimacy have been shaken due to the crackdown of the protesters following the 2009 presidential election. Threatening the United States and the West and repressing the people domestically is not a sign of bravery. These actions are signals of an internal fear expressed in various forms by the Islamic Republic.

Behnam Gholipour is an Iranian journalist with more than 15 years of experience. He has written for various Iranian publications such as Abrar, Tose-eh, and Etedal. Gholipour also worked as a political analyst and reporter for Radio Zamaneh. He is currently the chief editor of the Digarban website.

This council was formed abroad following the disputed 2009 presidential elections. In its statement, the Coordination Council commended that reformists and other political opposition groups  boycott  the upcoming parliamentary election in March. The statement was first published  on  January 17 on Kalameh website, an online reformist publication close to Mir Hossein Mousavi.

As reported by BBC Persian this statement declared, “Different parts of the Green Movement… have demonstrated good capacity for transforming the ninth parliamentary election into a decisive civil struggle against tyranny.”  The statement did not offer any specific means to organize or combat the ruling regime in Iran.

The Coordinating Council believes the Iranian government will use the upcoming elections to bolster its declining legitimacy. The statement adds: “The government hopes to advertise the competition between its own inner circles among various social groups. In this theatrical manner, [the government] will implement a seemingly competitive elections.”

“The authorities are trying to use all their propaganda, political, security, and police forces to force the people into participating in the elections,” the statement adds.

The statement also accuses the Iranian regime of trying to stay in power by all means. “In order to stay in power, [the Iranian government] disregards the country’s national and security interests. Therefore, it should not be surprising if until the Election Day we witness the implementation of various scenarios, which will result in the escalation of tensions and foreign threats. They [Iranian government] will use such events for propaganda purposes in order to provoke the patriotic sentiments of the people during elections.”

The Coordination Council has asked the members of the Green Movement to “play an important part in exposing the “theatrical and forced” March elections.” The statement also asks supporters to expose the government’s common scenarios designed for “fooling the people.”

In its statement, the Coordination Council of the Green Path of Hope has declared the period between February 15 until the Election Day, March 3, as an appropriate time to revitalize the protest movement in Iran. They called on all supports, especially the youth and university students, to “pursue the prospects of this movement during this time.” They have not provided any additional details.

Yahya Rahim Safavi, former Chief Commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the current military advisor to the Supreme Leader, highlighted Iran’s ability to guarantee security of global energy supplies in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, but at the same time warned about Iran’s ability to defend its interests by taking actions in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to Fars News, a semi-official news agency close to the IRGC, Rahim Safavi made a reference to the letter sent by the United States and noted, “Iran is the most powerful country in the region and since its coastal lines stretch from the Al-Faw Peninsula to the Gulf of Oman, Iran ensures the global energy security, which is shared security…however if Iran faces any dangers it will use all political and non-political tools at its disposal to defend its interests.”

Last Friday, the New York Times, citing unnamed US officials, reported that Washington had used a secret channel to warn Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that closing the narrow strategic waterway would cross a “red line” and provoke a response.

According to IRNA, on Sunday January 15, Ramin Mehmanparast, the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman, confirmed the news by announcing, “The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, sent a letter to Mohammad Khazaie, Iran’s UN representative, which was conveyed by the Swiss ambassador, and finally Iraqi President Jalal Talabani delivered its contents to officials” in Iran.

Israeli plans, the Journal asserts, constitute the most enigmatic and potentially volatile factor in determining the resolution of the nuclear dispute. The United States’ military forces have drawn up plans for defending against Iranian retaliation in the event of an Israeli strike, and moved thousands of military personnel and a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf region.

Planned joint military drills between the United States and Israel, among the largest to date, were postponed as of January 15 in what may be an attempt by the U.S. military to defuse the situation somewhat. Meanwhile, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey is travelling to Israel January 19 largely to discuss the unpredictable situation, reflecting concern in the higher echelons of the American military that some sort of conflict could be forthcoming.

To stall both Iran’s accelerating nuclear program as well as the potential eruption of conflict, the United States and its European allies are pushing additional sanctions on Iran’s oil industry which would penalize any companies doing business with Iran’s oil sector. British Foreign Secretary William Hague announced January 15 that he believed the European Union would enact sanctions akin to those of the United States’ aimed at removing most of the international demand for Iranian oil.

However, other major economic powers, such as China and India, appear reluctant to agree to any major oil embargo on Iran.

China has made it clear to Western nations that its economic concerns would dictate its political actions towards the Islamic Republic. China depends upon Iran for up to 11% of its oil–a massive and critical portion of its domestic energy, given the country’s growth and economic needs. China has already strongly denounced American sanctions on a Chinese firm that sold refined petroleum products to Iran.

India appears to be pursuing a similar policy. Reuters reports that an Indian cabinet minister asserted that India would continue to buy oil from the Islamic Republic. Iranian imports currently amount to 12% of India’s oil consumption, a figure similar to China’s and equally vital to India’s economy. While Indian companies appear to be seeking alternative supplies given the potential disruption of Iran’s oil in the event of a military conflict, demand for Iran’s oil does not appear to be falling off.

Turkey, another major economic power with political and economic ties linking it to both Iran and the United States, also seems to be spurning the push for oil sanctions. Turkey currently obtains about a third of its crude oil supply from Iran.

However, despite these notable setbacks in the push spearheaded by the United States to essentially destroy the Iranian economy, Iran’s oil market has already been hit by the tensions its nuclear program have produced. Iran’s oil is already selling at a discounted rate compared to mere months ago, and significant customers, such as Japan and South Korea, have opted to cooperate with the United States by weaning themselves off of Iranian oil.

It is too soon to say with certainty what the effect of the oil sanctions will be either on Iran’s economy or its desire for a nuclear program. The sanctions will likely prove to be a significant blow to Iran’s already anemic economy, though the scope of the damage is unclear.

As for Iran’s motivation to continue with its nuclear program, the threat of an oil embargo so far seems to have been more provocative than dampening to the Islamic Republic’s pride and bellicosity. Iran has already issued a strong warning to the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, saying that any states producing a surplus of oil to stabilize markets in the event of an embargo or conflict will be punished.

Iran’s threats both against regional Arab states–who have long opposed Iran’s expanding influence in the region–and the United States have centered on the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for 17 million barrels of oil per day, or 35% of all global maritime oil shipments. The United States promised to destroy any Iranian attempt to blockade the Strait, though senior American officials admitted that shipments would be stopped for a time with definite global economic repercussions. Iran and the United States are reportedly corresponding over the current crisis as it relates to the Strait of Hormuz via letters, though as yet the content of the exchange is unknown.

Despite the extremely precarious situations between the United States and Iran, Israel may be the deciding factor in determining whether the next stage of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program becomes violent.

Israeli leadership has a shorter timetable than the United States for making a decision on attacking Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated that he thought the oil sanctions would only work if Iran believed America would also be willing to attack the Islamic Republic as well.

Senior Israeli officials are also striking a more hawkish tone than usual, going so far as to accuse the Obama administration of trying to keep oil prices down before an election year while Iran’s nuclear program accelerates. If Israel decides they aren’t satisfied with the results of sanctions and covert operations against Iran, a regionally destabilizing conflict with global economic impacts may be on the horizon.

Based on reports by the Iranian media, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed due the explosion of a bomb near Seyed Khandan, a neighborhood in northern Tehran. According to Fars News, a semiofficial news agency close to the IRGC, Roshan was the Commerce Deputy Director of the Natanz enrichment facility and a professor at the Sharif University, Iran’s leading university in technology, engineering and physical sciences.

According to Fars News, a magnetic bomb was planted under the car of Ahmadi Roshan by an unknown motorcyclist. Iranian officials are blaming Israel and Mojahedin khalq Organization (MKO) for the attack. Mohammd Reza Rahimi, Iran’s first vice-president labeled the event as “state terrorism.”

According to Fars News, a few hours ago Reza Qashqayee, the driver of the assassinated professor who was severely injured in the blast died from his wounds in the hospital. The third victim of the explosion is a wounded pedestrian who has been transferred to a hospital.

Iranian officials seem persistent to continue their nuclear ambitions despite the most recent assassination of their leading nuclear scientists. According to Fars News, addressing a parliament session on Wednesday, vice-speaker of the parliament, Seyed Shahabeddin Sadr, mentioned that terrorist attacks on the lives of Iranian scientists are aimed at stopping Iran’s progress.

“The enemy assumes that it can hinder the Islamic Republic’s move towards progress and growth through such actions, but the experience gained as a result of the enemy’s blind assassination attempts over the last 30 years shows that these assassinations will not influence our nations,” he said. Sadr also warned that such terrorist attacks may backfire because they result in the Iranian nation’s stronger solidarity and determination.

The blast took place on the second anniversary of the assassination of university professor and nuclear scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, who was killed in a similar fashion in January 2010.

If there were any doubt that Iran has sentenced a young Iranian-American to death purely for political reasons, Amir Hekmati’s family has now provided convincing evidence of Iran’s true motives.

In an interview with the BBC Persian Service, the family said Hekmati, fearful he would find himself exactly in the situation he is in now, visited the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, D.C.,  before  his trip.  He provided detailed information about his background as a former U.S. marine and sought advice from officials at the Interests Section. He asked if they thought this would cause problems for him in Tehran, and they assured him it was safe to make the trip.

Not only did the Iranian officials in Washington mislead Hekmati, but it seems that they alerted the authorities in Tehran, transforming the young man into the latest political pawn in the running conflict between Iran and the United States.

This new information sheds light on both the depth of Iran’s fear of Western intervention and the lengths to which it is resolved to counter mounting pressure from the United States. It should also serve as a warning to many of the Republican Presidential hopefuls that, while it is easy to raise the rhetorical temperature for domestic political gains, taking on the regime in Tehran will be no simple matter.

Whether it is an isolated strike on its nuclear facilities or a larger attack, Iran would retaliate with all its might as would its proxies in the Middle East. Such a development would make the costly, bloody conflict now winding down in Iraq look like a training exercise.

The death sentence for an Iranian-American on charges of “collaborating with a hostile government [the United States], membership in the United States’ intelligence organizations, and attempting to accuse Iran of terrorism” is highly unusual, even for Iran. While Americans have been taken hostage, Iranian-Americans held for long periods in prison, no American in recent memory has received the death sentence.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, Iran maintains that its judiciary is independent from politics. But in fact, the Iranian judicial branch is politicized and the majority of the political cases tried in the Islamic courts are predetermined rulings handed down to the judge by higher officials.

The decisions behind sensitive political cases are often made within the upper echelons of the intelligence and security organizations. Trials and the events surrounding political cases are also used for propaganda purposes, which is true in the case of Hekamti.  His confessions were broadcast on December 18 on Iran’s state-run television on a program entitled “confessions of an American Spy.”

According to a subsequent report published by Fars News, a semi-official news agency close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp, the accused admitted to staying in the Bagram U.S. military air base in Afghanistan for two months prior to his trip to Iran. According to this report, Hekmati confessed to receiving intelligence training during his stay at the base. Now, it is known that this information, according to BBC Persian’s interview with his family, was provided to the Iranian government through their Interests Section in Washington DC.

Judge Abolghasem Salavati, the judge presiding over Hekamti’s trial, is infamous for handing out heavy prison terms and execution sentences to the majority of the accused in his court. He has presided over many sensitive political cases, such as the trials of the three American hikers, the prominent Iranian blogger, Hossein Derakhshan,  Zahra Bahrami, a  Dutch-Iranian citizen who was executed for “drug trafficking,” and the Iranian politician and diplomat Ebrahim Yazdi. He was also the judge who presided over the numerous show trials following the disputed 2009 presidential election, handing out heavy prison sentences to hundreds of Iranian reformists and dissidents.

More proof of the judiciary’s lack of independence is the direct involvement of the Supreme Leader in choosing the head of the judicial branch. Sadegh Larijani, the head of the judicial branch, was handpicked by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2009. He is the brother of Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, with close ties to the military and intelligence agencies.

Given the political nature of the judiciary, and what appears to be a shift in how Iran is dealing with sanctions and other aggressive acts by the United States, it would not be surprising if Hekmati becomes another victim among those who have gotten caught in the crossfire of Tehran and Washington’s perennial cold war.