In order to understand what's going on in the Middle East, you have to understand what the key players are up to, and focus beyond the United States. Iranfilter has a couple of useful articles. We'll start with Iran's objectives in Iraq:
bq. "Anyone in the White House who imagines that the Iranians are running scared because more than 100,000 U.S. troops are bivouacked next door hasn't been reading the papers. From Iran's standpoint, the United States is pinned down and vulnerable. And because of Tehran's overt and covert influence among Iraq's Shiite majority, the mullahs may actually be in a position to shape the terms and timing of America's departure."
It's actually a bit more complex than that, though the Washington Post article is useful as a summary of Iran's intentions and plans. The next step is to look to Iran's position and interests, in order to understand why hostility to America and subversion of its neighbours are really the only options open to the mullahs' theocratic dictatorship - regardless of America's actions.
The Demands of Power & The Mullahs' Strategy
Reuel Marc Gerecht is correct that the "realist" school of foreign policy is ill-equipped to deal with the Iranian regime. While his arguments have merit, a detailed analysis of Iran's regime and its strategic requirements reveals the full depth of the realist failure - a failure whose ironic fatal flaw lies in its refusal to face the power politics driving the Iranian regime itself.
Let's start with the situation in Iran. The mullahs are well aware that their support among Iranians is crumbling, and that their only remaining move is open repression of a largely apathetic but hostile populace. Their recent farce of an "election" represents both a clear demonstration of that reality and the beginning of that shift in practice.
As December 9th, 2003 demonstrated, the mullahs are prepared to use whatever force is necessary in order to maintain their rule within Iran. The Basij, the importation of "Arab" (read: Palestinian) bully boys and even the shelter given to al-Qaeda gives Iran's dictatorship a range set of tools it can rely upon to carry out any orders given, without having to worry about loyalty or second thoughts among the army. Given Iranians' apathy, the lack of serious leadership among the Iranian opposition, and historical precedent, I believe that this strategy will work. It is a belief that the mullahs appear to share.
Implications: The Core Strategy
Given that belief, all that's left to do in order to assure the continued survival of Iran's theocratic dictatorship is to [a] prevent an American invasion; and [b] ensure that no competing political models arise among Shi'ite populations on its borders. If they do arise, they must be rendered unsuccessful or unattractive to Iran's populace.
All else follows from that. Once one understands these rational requirements of a dictatorial power-state in Iran's position, its policies can be seen to be both predictable and largely immune to significant change. While American and European actions may influence the mullahs' exact strategy, their aims are largely non-negotiable. And therein lie the problems for the realist / accomodationist view.
The Border Shi'ites
Shi'ites in border states who live in more freedom than Iranians are an obvious threat to the Iranian theocrats, especially given the tendency of news and relationships to filter across borders. The Iranian mullahcracy's position is especially imperiled if those border state Shi'ites are allied with the Americans in any way. Even if America could somehow be convinced to overlook Iran's status as the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism and turn its back on active support for democrats in Iran, its example, cultural magnetism, and activities with neighbouring Shi'a populations would constitute a potentially deadly "transmission belt". A regime that must keep its masses quiet at all costs simply cannot afford that.
The conclusion is both simple, and inescapable: the Americans must be tied down in conflicts, especially if they are present in states that border on Iran. Above all, they must not be given a respite in their war that would allow them to mobilize the Iranian people and/or end Iran's theocratic dictatorship by force.
Afghanistan: Inside the Sphere
In Afghanistan, the NW Hazara area of Afghanistan must either remain under strong Iranian influence or become a source of trouble, with Iranian "advisors," "border posts" inside Afghanistan, and paramilitaries present in force to ensure this. Friendly Afghanis like the warlord Hekmatyar add an additional layer of intrigue, as Iran plays a multi-sided "Great Game" with India, Pakistan, and the United States.
This pretty much describes Iran's approach to date, with the added twist that the mullahs are using 'anti-drug' efforts as a cover for some of these activities. I say 'ironic' because the first 2 sentences of the recent U.S. Department of State Narcotics Control Report for Iran read as follows (Hat tip to Iranfilter):
bq. "The Islamic Republic of Iran is a major transit route for opiates smuggled from Afghanistan and through Pakistan to the Persian Gulf, Turkey, Russia, and Europe...."
While legitimate Iranian efforts to stem this trade are detailed elsewhere in the report, this certainly caught my eye:
bq. "Iranian seizures in the first nine months of 2003 display some surprising trends. In contrast to recent years, the quantity of heroin seized in Iran, expressed as a share of all opiates seized (i.e., heroin, morphine and opium), has fallen sharply from 19 percent of all opiates seized in 2002 to just 10.4 percent in the nine month statistics available for 2003. The absolute quantity of opium seized is also down even more sharply, by about 70 percent. It is hard to account for this shift analytically, as expectations were for a continuing increase in heroin seizures, as heroin consumption in Iran continues to grow."
Unless, of course, a blind eye was being turned to certain shipments from Afghanistan, which consist mostly of opiates.
Iraq: More of the Same
The status of Karbala and Najaf as Shi'ite pilgrimage destinations makes Iraq a country of particular concern to Iran's mullahs. Afghanistan is simply a convenient distraction that may distract the Americans and their allies - but Iraq is truly strategic. A successful Iraqi state with a Shi'a population that offered both a political and religious alternative to Iran's mullahcracy is Khameni's worst nightmare. If his regime wishes to survive, therefore, this outcome must be prevented at all costs.
Those efforts are well underway. Inflitration of allied terrorists from Lebanon and Syria, plus open efforts to seize power in the Shi'ite areas via agents like Sadr and infiltration of Badr militias, are designed to keep the Americans fighting fires rather than planning their next moves. They have been partially successful in these efforts, and the Washington Post article describes the next phase of the mullahs' gambits.
In addition, Alphabet City notes that the Iranian mullahs are transmitting into Iraq - in Arabic - propaganda that accuses the US and "Jews" of fomenting sectarian discord to insure that the United States will have an excuse for continued occupation of Iraq. Further details can be found in this FBIS Report on Iranian Al-Alam TV's charges that Americans and 'Zionists' are behind Iraqi 'unrest'. Note recent news reports from AP that show echoes of these very themes appearing in the wake of the recent Baghdad and Karbala bombings:
bq. "This is the work of Jews and American occupation forces," a loudspeaker outside Kazimiya blared. Inside, cleric Hassan Toaima told an angry crowd, "We demand to know who did this so that we can avenge our martyrs."
An acceptable medium-term outcome for the mullahs would have the Americans working hard to prop up a weak government in an Iraq riven by ethnic strife. In such an environment, it is then hoped that the Shi'ites could be radicalized over time and induced to seek Iranian support. The ideal outcome would of course be a Shi'ite Islamic state in Iraq, whether or not it follows the Iranian model. Even a situation in which Shi'ite clergy had an effective right of paralysis or veto similar to that of Iran's Guardian Council would effectively remove the threat of a competing political model on Iran's borders, seal off Iraq as a potential base for the Americans to use against Iran, and potentially destroy America's policy since 9/11 of ending terror-sponsoring regimes and sponsoring a wave of reform in the Middle East.
In short, this outcome would virtually guarantee Iran's mullahs another 5-10 years in power - more than enough time to develop nuclear weapons and therefore create the wherewithal to rule almost indefinitely.
Which is why Iran's current rulers can never give up their efforts to destabilize Iraq, whatever they claim to the contrary. Their motivations for this conduct are structural, not opportunistic. Which means accomodation is not a winning strategy, because it won't really change behaviour. At best it can produce the illusion of progress, followed by one or more rude wake-up calls.
Of course, one can lie about this in order to get room to maneuver - and given the long standing predisposition of the lib-left faction within the West to take all such lies at face value, we can surely expect this behaviour in spades as long as the Iranian regime survives. Which brings us to...
Insurance, Enablers & Proxies
While Afghanistan and especially Iraq may be primary battlefields in Iran's proxy wars, they are not the regime's only theaters of war. In ascending order of cooperation:
The Europeans mean little, except as a convenient shield for Iran's nuclear program: "useful idiots," to borrow an apt old Soviet phrase. Given the object lesson of North Korea - that signing a treaty and cheating on it to develop nuclear weapons guarantees security against the United States - the Europeans are proving very useful indeed.
Russia is a more potent ally, and their joint wish to limit American influence in Central Asia makes the two countries natural allies up to a point. Reactor technology and fuel, scientific expertise, weapons, and more can all be had for a price. Unlike the EU, therefore, Russia is actively accelerating Iran's capabilities. So is China. Yet neither nation can successfully act as a shield against U.S. attempts to undermine the regime. At best, they can combine with the EU to fight a delaying action and raise the perceived costs of active intervention, until Iran's possession of atomic weapons makes the question moot.
On a more active front, Iran's recent discussions with Syria re: military cooperation are hardly new, given that the 2 states have been cooperating closely for some time now. In addition, the alliance with Syria is critical to Iran's ongoing support of client organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, as well as Arafat's Fatah.
These organizations give Iran a truly global reach, and they have been used for operations as far away as Latin America (more here) and as close as the area around Israel. Expect violence in and around Israel to ratchet up sharply if Iran believes the USA is close to a major move or applying successful pressure, accompanied by more insistence that the problems of the Middle East cannot be solved until the Palestinian situation is resolved. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only locales in which an entanglement strategy can be pursued.
Each of these gambits may seem inadequate against a strong and determined America, and they are. The border Shi'ites are a 2-edged sword, many Iranians are hostile to the regime and positively inclined towards America, and a truly determined USA could always undertake full mobilization and crush the regime in an invasion.
Nevertheless, time changes many things in politics. America's will may shift, or a change in leadership may cause a shift in policy that gives the mullahs the breathing room they need to succeed. A wise power-state acts to prepare for such possibilities - and Iran is certainly preparing.
The great game for the mullahs' regime is one of victory or death, and they're not dead yet.
Fix that, please.
The issue of "Iranians' apathy" is one that really needs to be looked at before we simply confirm that "apathy" is the overall feeling and mindset of the Iranian people. Some argue that it is plausible to link "apathy" to the Iranian's mindest due to the fact that as the so-called "Reformers" and "Hardliners" were "battling it out" in the weeks before the "fake elections" the Iranian people did not take to the streets and showed very little interest in the "pseudo-dispute". We caution everyone not to jump to these conclusions and assume this "reasoning", although many who perceive the elections as a big loss for the reformers often do make this assumption. The key to understanding the "election game" lies in the fact that many months prior to the February elections, Iranians had already decided to BOYCOTT - in a show of opposition to the entire regime (Reformers, Hardliners, all parties) - knowing this, the regime choose to create a dispute between the "reformers" and "hardliners" so that the Mullahs as well as ignorant journalists and pro-regime politicians/governments could attribute the boycott to the fact that "reformers" were not allowed to participate. This was the "BIG TRICK" and it seems to have worked, in a sense. It would be a mistake for the regime to assume that the Iranians are merely apathetic schoolchildren who will simply wander the streets day in and day out without any care or any hope for the future, and will simply remain silent as the dictators who rule over them continue to take the Iranian people and their beloved country "southward". We believe the butchers in Tehran are smarter than this and that they know Iranians are far from "apathetic" and so they must watch the populus closely and be extremely vigilent and pro-active when it comes to repression and beating down/silencing popular uprisings, which have been occuring since the elections.(Such public disconent and protests in Iran are rarely talked about in the Media) Regardless of how much of the regional geopolitics and possible outcomes the Mullahs try to control, the one obstacle that they cannot control entirely, is the one and only "wildcard" that in the end will likely be the variable that shatters the Mullah's equation, the Iranian people.
As far as the Europeans go, we don't think there's much disagreement to the fact that they would like to keep the regime in power for as long as possible, due to the immense oil-wealth and other lucrative businesses that thrive at the hands of such a repressive regime... America's alliances with the Europeans - INCLUDING ENGLAND must increasingly be looked at and scrutinized much more carefully in the weeks and months ahead, because in the end, WE must only settle for a Middle East that is goverened by human rights, freedom for all, and justice. Anything less, even if it means discarding dictatorships who happily repress their societies in exchange for cheap oil and assurances that they can continue to rule, would be a deadly repeat of past policies that are guided by shot-term interests, rather than long-term sustainable ones..
Take Care,
ActivistChat.com
Another big thing that we feel has gotten little if any attention is the EXTENSIVE Human Rights Report on Iran released by the State Department last week.
It can be found at this link.
It is such a damning report, yet we here no major condemnations of the regime publicly by government or media outlets.. A great report that goes in one ear or out the other -- or does it? You may want to comment on the Human Rights Report!!!!
Take Care,
ActivistChat.com
As far as human rights goes - here is a recently compiled report that addresses human rights abuses thus far for the year 2004 -
It can be found here
We cannot release the compiler, but rest assured - it is a very reliable source.
But the boycott failed. Official figures showed 50-55% turnout, and I haven't seen any unofficial figures with any claim to certainty. So all we can do is ballpark the actual turnout at around 40%. That means 40% of the population is either pro-mullah or has surrendered to apathy. Plus, a certain percentage of the nonvoters must be characterized as apathetic.
Okay, so you attribute little credibility to NON-REGIME numbers and maximum credibility to REGIME's numbers that they released through reuters and other media, etc..? Hmmm, your logic doesn't make much sense to me.. 2nd: If you had family or friends inside Iran then you would know the truth, that the streets of Tehran and various cities were completely dead... My Uncle told me that for the first time in 20+ years you could drive (if you wanted to, most people stayed home on election day) straight through Tehran at 60 mph.. As you may know, the traffic in Tehran is extremely BAD!!!
Just a little pet peeve of mine: the people of Afghanistan are known as Afghans -- only their currency is called "Afghani"
so how do we counter the power moves of the mullahs?
A very interesting report, as always, Joe. One thing I would like to hear your thoughts on is the following. (I'm not going to say anything about what the Iranian people might do because I have no relevant knowledge. But I do not mean to deny that they will have a role as ActivistChat suggests.) As a psychologist, one of the things I'm interested in is expertise - who has it? How did they get it? What does it make possible?
So, are the mullahs experts? Your post makes it sound like they are, like they have the game planned out in detail years into the future. But there's one serious problem for the mullahs, one that I think will be their undoing: they're dictators. That means, of course, that they get no input other than their own feverish ramblings about how the world works.
The U.S. this year is rife with opinion and argument. Many voices are speaking, many ideas are being heard, and in the giant frontal lobe that is a free and fair election, a wise decision will be made about how the U.S. should proceed. In Iran, meanwhile, tinpot thimblebrains pay Palestinian thugs to prevent anyone from offering them a clue.
I don't mean that the U.S. never makes foreign policy mistakes. But the record shows that they do the right thing more often than anyone else - they go exploring, they reach into space, they help out when people elsewhere are in extremis, and they thrash dictators and rebuild societies. That's all signal. The foreign policy errors are noise. The U.S. signal to noise ratio is better than anyone else's (certainly better than Canada's). And the reason, imho, is because there's more input from more voices in the great democracy.
To cut a long story short, or at least shortish, The mullahs are going to make mistakes. They're going to not see something coming. They're going to over-reach, or misunderstand, or forget something. And it's going to kill them. Trashing their own election deprived them of the input they needed. Meanwhile, though much moaning will be heard about the incivility and stridency of the arguments in the U.S. election, the very fact that it occurs - that the head of government and commander in chief of the armed forces allows someone who disagrees with him and dislikes him so much to speak freely - means that all possibilities will be considered and judged by millions of people. Those people will vote and thus will determine where the U.S. goes from here. It's 200 million American voters against a hundred Iranian lunatics. The mullahs can't win.
But the mullahs can make it very expensive in both lives and treasure for us to prevail.
Patrick, the dynamic you describe is certainly in place. I just hope the big mistake comes in time. (If we can trace the recent Ashura massacres back in their direction, they may even have made it already.)
As for planned out years in advance, no. Both sides are in fact improvising, though they're doing so according to some pretty ingrained ideological patterns and cultural scripts.... 'cooking from a recipe,' as it were.
The Persian model of diplomacy and politics has featured covert action, secret socieities, and rings of influence as centerpieces for quite a few centuries. So the mullahs' Great Game isn't exactly a huge departure.
Personally, I hold the rationales for a "Stupid Saddam", where iff despite having no WMDS Saddam HUssein mysteriously and deliberately risked his dynasty-legacy, his family, and his regime by deceiving the UNO and the US coalition, to be similar for the Iranian mullahs, and that is someone, ie yet unknown groups, orgs, andor world states, will be covering their butt no matter if they seemingly "lose" vis-a-vis the US or the UNSC! IOW, Saddam and perhaps the mullahs are willing to wilfuly and temporarily sacrifice their current power because they believe or know they'll get it back someday - JUDGING BY THE DISCOVERIES DURING AND AFTER IRAQI FREEDOM THAT CERTAIN EURO-STATES, RUSSIA, AND CHINA, ETAL. WERE ADVISING SADDAM AND VIOLATING UN TRADE RESTRICTIONS BY SELLING OR GIVING HIM MILITARY GOODS WHILST CRITICIZING THE US, BEARS
THIS OUT, ALBEIT NOMINALLY! Israel's famed MOSSAD before, during, and after IRAQI FREEDOM, even now, insists Saddam secretly transferred much of his WMD caches to SYRIA and LEBANON, while non-MOSSAD sources indicate IRAN may have also received some of Saddam's WMD caches. Presuming that the US, or the US and Great Britain, etal. invade Iran, its already well-reported that the Russians, despite critisms by the US, the EU and even the UNIAEA, refuses to stop assisting in the "nuclearization" of Iran, ostensibly in the devlopment of nuclear energy for alleged Iranian domestic power generation. THere are differentiated news reports, unconfirmed, that suggests Iran may already be in the possession of a indigenously-developed primitive nuclear device(s); or that Iran potentially possesses WMD "dual-use" technologies. Even without an indigenous nuclear or WMD weapon, one can generally make the argument that Tehran, like North Korea or Cuba, probably has QUICK ACCESS to one or a few devices/systems courtesy of states with an anti-American agenda - like the aforementioned "Stupid Hussein" scenario, access or even per se possession of one or more nulcear or WMD devices does NOT MEAN TEHRAN WILL USE IT IMMEDIATELY UPON A US OR US-LED INVASION! If Tehran's mullahs believe that other [dynamic] politicized forces in the world will work for them, e.g. the anti-American and Communist Clintons from within America's own political establishment, and Russia and China from within the UNO, the mullah's may choose to order loyalist/nationalist militias and armed forces units to mount an IRAQ-style Islamist local insurgency, as opposed to suicidal conventional military-specific national resistance! It is very possible Tehran may withhold using "the bomb" until a high point of debilitive controversy or confrontation is achieved amongst the world's major military powers - read, US etal. vs. Russia-China-UNO! If as theocrats and Islamofascists - read, theo-Socialists and Islamic Rightist Socialists - believe that surreal GLOBAL ANTI-AMERICANISM will inevitably result in the de facto strategic destruction of America and its subjugation to under INTERNATIONAL AND GLOBALIST SOCIALIST-CONTROLLED OWG, AMERICANS THUS SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT THE LEFT'S RABID ALTERIORIST CRITICISMS OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S [PRUDENT] NON-ACTION AGAINST NORTH KOREA, IRAN, ETC. REMEMBER, THE FAILED LEFT IS NO LONGER INTERESTED IN DIFFERENTIATED COMPETITION AGAINST RIGHTISM - THEY SEEK TO FORCE AMERICA TO ACCEPT SOCIALISM, AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONTROL OF AMERICA'S HYPERPOWER ECONOMY VIA OWG! THE WANT EMPIRE, BUT NOT DIRECT OR PC-INCORRECT LINKAGE TO EMPIRE OR CONSPIRACY FOR EMPIRE! The Communist Clintons are no friends to Democrat or Republican alike - Clintonian CENTRISM or more accurately UNITARIANISM, is more about IMPERSONATING the GOP and American Right in order to DISCREDIT and ULTIMATELY DESTROY THEM, from within like the Clintons themselves, with DEMOCRATS AKIN TO "TO KILL LATER/AFTERWARDS"! Americans, Americanists, Westernists, Republicans, Rightists, and Capitalism-/Freedom-lovers, etc. have to understand the BIG PICTURE as a consequence of 9-11, Reaganism, and the fall of the USSR, and must realize and comprehend the very REAL DANGER ALL AMERICANS, AMERICA, AND WESTERN DEMOCRACY IS IN!
Western and American Capitalism, Rightism, and hyperpower-and-growing America per se, is too successful, too overwhelming, and too powerful for any world state, including America's own friendly international allies, to successfully achieve state-specific "GREAT POWER" ambitions without a genuine, en masse' congregate effort!
TAKE AWAY FASCISM'S HOMOGENOUS ETHNIC HATREDS AND SUPER-/HYPERNATIONALISMS, WHAT ONE GETS IS MERELY DE-REGULATED, "COMPETITIVE", COMMUNISM, ETAL. - OH, GORBACHEV, OUR GORBACHEV, WHERE FOR ART THOU!?
Patrick, you're forgetting one thing, they are getting advice and support from the outside - it's called the EU. Some of the Mullahs biggest allies are the British, French and Germans who are constantly advising them on what to do, what moves to make, and how to thrwart any effort from the United States and internally which are working against the regime.. Yes, much of the Mullahs game is a guessing game, but they're also getting a lot of good advice - and they have a lot of money to play with both at home and abroad (ie: even lobbyists here in Washington D.C. - and we wonder why the Bush Administration has yet to reveal any solid policy on Iran..)
My belief from insufficient evidence is that Sidney Riley is operating inside Iran.
To get a feel for the real news I visit here every day:
http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/cat_index_30.shtml
Dear Joe:
We shouldn't forget that among the many reasons the "mullahcracy" exists is the Carter administration's conviction that America must operate in the world using moral suasion alone. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, and the Khomeinist Iranian revolution all took place on Carter's watch. My main concern about a Kerry presidency is the possibility that a man who has built his political career on being anti-war would return us to the failed Carter experiment.
My primary criticism of the Bush plan for the Middle East is that time is just not on our side. The revelations of nuclear proliferation in recent months have reduced the time frame in which that plan must operate. The kabuki dance of the recent elections in Iran strongly suggest that reform will not occur there by peaceful democratic means. Either there will be another Iranian revolution, we will intervene soon militarily, a nuclear-armed mullahcracy will retain power indefinitely, or we will have to face a nuclear-armed mullahcracy militarily.
so no one has thoughts on how to counter the developments in iran and bring down the mullahs?
if everything is as bad as we say (and im convinced it is), then is it enough to sit on the sidelines analysing only the threat involved but not actively discussing how to confront it?
It's not that bad. Look at this picture, and pay attention to the reasons the regime has to take this course. Would you really want to sit in their shoes, with these high-risk games the only way to avoid disaster for the regime?
If America stands firm and makes the mullahs' fall a priority, it will almost certainly happen.
i agree with you joe, but im asking how.
strategically, standing firm must be fleshed out.
we cant expect to pin down every move up front, but we would benefit i think from stepping up the pressure and putting ourselves on the offensive. a few ideas as to how we can do that are what we need now.
without them we find ourselves back at the treading water point we have been stalled in again and again.
for the sake of the iranian people, for the sake of the american election and economy, and for the sake of the larger war, we must have better arguments than we do now. we must fight back against the drifting that has happened since the capture of saddam, the sham elections in iran, and the insufficiently challeneged barrage of doomsaying produced by the democratic primaries.
for military, political, and personal strategy winds of change is as good a place to come to as can be found on the internet. i am hoping some of the many provocative thinkers here can shed some light on what more can be done in greater detail to counter the mullahs of tehran.
Dear Joe:
If America stands firm and makes the mullahs' fall a priority, it will almost certainly happen.
Yes, I agree with this. But look at the options I listed in my comments above. Are there others? I don't think that if we just show the mullahs our steely jaw they're going to say "Oh, well, in that case we'll leave power!"
Dave - the situation in Iran is thus. The Iranian people have no problem coming out into the streets by the millions - no problem at all, as long as they know that the United States supports them 100% (FOR REAL) and that the Europeans are not going to aid the Mullahs in anyway.. Unfrotunately the reason the regime is still in power is because the Europeans want them there.. Eventhough Bush calls Tony Blair and England a friend - they are one of the primary supporters and sustaining force of the regime in Iran. We need to really be saying - SCREW SUPPORTING THE MULLAHS/Even if you are getting cheap oil, because in the end, security cannot be sacraficed at the price of freedom..
Anyhow: Watch ABC 20/20 tonight at 10pm ET - Barbara Walters will be interviewing Empress Farah Pahlavi!
Great post, Joe.
What I'm not sure about is Bush's great game. Why the low low profile on Iran? In previous seasons I'd thought it was to not steal the stage from internal anti-regime elements, but they seem to have been successfully repressed.
Will we see a full-scale ratcheting up of rhetoric after June 30? (Or maybe next week, or whenever this latest stupid Sistani power play is neutralized.)
thats exactly what i would like some insight into. what exactly should americas great game be in re the mullahs of iran.
will it ratchet up soon? i have no idea. but i sure as hell hope so.
anyone have any thoughts on how the u.s. should be telling the europeans "SCREW SUPPORTING THE MULLAHS/Even if you are getting cheap oil, because in the end, security cannot be sacraficed at the price of freedom."
i agree with the emotion of that, and with the suggestion that iranians would be in the streets in massive numbers if it were clear the support is truly there. (wonder if they remember the post gulf war shia uprising in iraq which saddam crushed)
i do think we need the strategy to go hand in hand with the emotion we so obviously all share.
Good questions - once this thread becomes older feel free to visit ActivistChat.com message forum where we are asking the questions and demanding action:
http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1540
Joe,
I said before and I will say again, the Mullah's will be put down by an American military conquest. This conquest will happen in the next 9-18 months.
The only reason America hasn't done so yet is that it is reorganizing its ground forces for a long war. The cancellation of the Commanche was but one sign of that effort. There are others. I am going to be working on an effort to rebuild up to 2000 2&1/2 and 5-ton trucks in the next few months.
There are also solicitations out from Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) for the complete rebuild of the HMMWV ("Humvee") fleet that I have been involved in on the preliminary review level.
The 3rd Mechanized Infantry and 101st Airborne (Air Assault) divisions are being reorganized from three ground combat brigades with aviation and artillery support into five seperately deployable combined arms brigades -- four ground combat brigades with an air cavalry brigade. This model will be applied to the whole of the US Army ground forces over the next few years.
The only question I have is what is going to happen to the US Army and USMC Reserves and the Army National Guard?
None of those institution will survive another prolonged occupation campaign in Iran, as is, and there will be one.
Tom Holsinger and I have been talking about this at length and our joint conclusion is that the Guard and Reserve is being used by the Active Duty Brass hats -- particularly in the Army -- as a shield against change for the active forces. By "shield against change" I mean things like this piece from Dunnigan:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200433.asp
Setting up a seperate military foreign service in competition with the State Department is one thing. Dealing with FASO generals in competition with the "killer branch" (infantry, armor, artillery) generals for theater command slots is another. The key development to watch for here is whether Rummie gives this new intelligence/diplomacy branch control of its own promotions either seperately or as a part of the reforms that are coming for the Special Forces.
The second Bush Administration -- which I think likely -- will be forced by events to increase the active Army ground forces from 480,000 back to 750,000 and the USMC from 150,000 to 180,000, when the Army and Marine Reserves and the Army National Guard fall apart from over use.
The mullahs will have little time to interfere in other nations, if they are involved in a civil war inside their own.
If the mullahs do not desist from their instigating of violence inside Iraq, the US might be forced to initiate forceful destabilization efforts inside Iran. Not an invasion. Forceful destabilization.
Every time an Iraqi oil pipeline is sabotaged, an Iranian pipeline is destroyed. Every time a power line is destroyed in Iraq, a generating plant in Iran is destroyed. Tit for tat, or perhaps 10 tits for a tat.
The UK might receive a warning 36 hours in advance, time to pull out important personnel.
thank you for your perspective trent. that helps.
the next question i think is what other alternatives are there? what could be done to either speed up the downfall of the regime, with all the regional benefits that would entail (iraq, syria, lebanon, hezbollah, arafat, afghanistan, etc), or to pave the way for an eventual military confrontation?
either way the people of iran must be empowered to battle their own demons. we all wish for a second iranian revolution to shatter the calculus in this war and gain much more legitimacy in world manuverings for the pro-freedom, pro-american, anti-islamism side. if this is possible, what can be done by america to further this along? what could be done by iranians themselves or by their worldwide supporters?
i dont think the answer to iran is sit tight and wait while the american military retools. this war cant be stuck in neutral even if some of our strategic interests are being served by it. we must be on the offensive and keep our enemies, including the mullahs of tehran, on their heels.
so any more insightful perspectives like the one given to us by trent?
forceful destabilization is interesting, but who would do it?
i do not get the impression the population of iran is ready for or seeking a civil war.
ActivistChat - The great game is won or lost on the field, not on the sidelines. I think registered Democrats understand that – they chose Kerry as a way of saying, “You do what you’ve gotta do. We’ll just wait over here.” I’m more optimistic since Kerry locked up the nomination: as the man who says Yes and No to every question, he’s made for this moment. Voting for him is, psychologically, an act of stepping aside. That’s much better than getting in the way, which was the only alternative for some people who hate the GOP.
Similarly, I would be surprised if the Europeans were capable of strongly influencing unfolding events, that is, of shaping events so that things work out the way they want them to, in Iran or elsewhere. I don’t think the historical record shows much evidence of states setting out to achieve a goal and then doing it (other than the defeat of Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan and putting a man on the moon, all not so coincidentally done by the great democracy, America). Rather, history is mostly a record of interventions that failed. And that’s my point: most states, historically, have not been democracies truly run by ordinary people. A dictatorship can’t win against a true democracy. It’s never happened. It’s not going to happen, for good reason. The mere fact that the Europeans do something isn't important unless they are especially competent.
Here’s my thesis in a nutshell: A. All good things come from true democracies – all advances in science, medicine, the arts, and interpersonal relations. B. Anybody who does not want to be part of this process is a moron. Therefore, if the European heads of government work for the mullahs, they qualify under B, and must fail. It’s really quite straightforward…
Yasha,
There wil be no Iranian revolution to over throw the Mullahs. The Iranian people had their chance and they blew it. Now irresistable blows delivered by the American military will decide the issue.
The Mad Mullah coalition/faction now in charge of the Iranian state abandoned any pretense at legitimacy in favor of naked force. They think as long as they have Palestinian, Lebonese Shia and Al-Qaeda mercenaries to shoot the Army and the Revolutionary Guard, they can maintain power like the Chinese communists have.
They are wrong in the long term, but all they care about is the next few years and in this they may be right. Everyone in Iran knows that the Mullahs will kill to remain in power and there are not enough people in Iran willing to give their lives right now to over throw them.
In exchange for that regime support, the Mad Mullahs in charge have given sanctuary and state support to Al-Qaeda, which is what Al-Qaeda needs to strike inside the USA again.
So America will be coming for them...and everyone with sense inside Iran knows it.
That is why there will be no popular uprising agaist the Mad Mullahs.
America is coming.
That is why the non-mad Mullahs are getting their wealth out of Iran right now.
America is coming.
This is why you are seeing Europe and North Korea and the Middle Eastern tyrants cheer on the Democrats, because they know with Bush that America is coming and will keep coming until the corrupt kleptocracies that birth terrorism are dead and buried.
The Iranian occupation campaign after the American conquest will be ugly. Al-Qaeda will do to the Iranian Shia on a much larger scale what they have done and are doing to the Iraqi Shia. Just like the Iraqis, the Iranian people will hunt down the terrorists, in self-defense, if nothing else.
Then another American occupation campaign will end and by then the next kleptocratic regime will have volunteered for the American regime change treatment.
"I said before and I will say again, the Mullah's will be put down by an American military conquest. This conquest will happen in the next 9-18 months."
Only if Bush is re-elected. And the antiwar sentiment at home will only swell if he goes into another long occupation UNLESS he explains repeatedly and clearly to the American public what he is doing and why. As someone said on another thread, he can't expect Stephen Den Beste and Victor Davis Hanson to do all his heavy lifting. :-)
Trent, given that the Sunnis represent an even smaller part of the population in Iran than they do in Iraq, thus it should be much easier to isolate their supporters inside the country.
Yehudit,
Bush won't lose in the 2004 election a single state he won in 2000. It is only the margin beyond that which is in question.
FH,
The Mullah's have a popular base of support that is in the rural areas that they recruit their Revolutionary Guard from. These people will act for the deposed Mullahs what the Sunni triangle is for the deposed Ba'athists.
That is why the psywar ops campaign before, during and after the war will be so important. Mullah corruption, especially that connected to the drug trade and the sex slave trade, will have to be heavily pushed to destroy their moral authority over the rural Iranian people.
It is primarily rural girls that are raped and impregnated who are victims of the Mullah run Iranian sex slave trade to the rich Gulf Arab states.
the best analysis ive found so far came from one of the trackback links to this post:
http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/archives/000798.html
id love to see the thoughts there taken into more detail by anyone with the expertise to fill it out more. wonder if den beste has seen it yet...
anyone else here want to take a crack at it?
ActivistChat.com: Unfrotunately the reason the regime is still in power is because the Europeans want them there. ... We need to really be saying - SCREW SUPPORTING THE MULLAHS/Even if you are getting cheap oil, because in the end, security cannot be sacraficed at the price of freedom.
Wouldn't they just point out our support of the House of Saud?