Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Iranian Belligerence is Putinesque
A few pertinent questions: why is Iran so vocal and belligerent at the moment?; why is Russia being so helpful, and publicly so, to rogue nations whose anti American belligerence is such a source of irritation? What is the US to do about it?
On Iran, I think the Mullahs are trying hard to position Jaafari and Sadr as the political winners in Iraq, and they are doing everything they can to defocus the US in Iraq, even if that means bombing runs over Tehran. Paradoxically, bombing runs over Tehran while the Iraqi political situation is still in flux justifies Iranian intervention in Iraq on behalf of Sadrists, and justifies internal repression within Iran. An American raid on Iran before Iraq is politically and militarily stable is a high risk proposition. I think the Iranians understand that their moment of maximum leverage and opportunity is now, and have therefore ramped up the volume.
As to Russia, it is now public that they provided Saddam intelligence, training and military advice just prior to the American invasion. It is also clear that Russia helped bridge the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athists and moved material - records and other items, into Syria prior to the war. They did this for both commercial and strategic reasons, as high oil prices benefit Russia and difficult military encounters for the US benefit Russia. The same set of rationales holds for Russia and Iran.
The only thing one has to wonder is why hasn't anybody figured out that having Russia as your sponsor ain't so great? Their weapons don't work. They haven't fared terribly well against the American military juggernaut. Their intelligence and advice didn't stop the US military from getting to Baghdad in days, with minimal loss of life, and capturing Saddam. Being Russia's tool generally doesn't look so good. If people in the Middle East think the US hasn't been a reliable ally, Russia (and, by entension, France and Germany) makes us look like Muslim brothers. And lest we go off the deep end blasting the Russians, we should recall that we have given them a very hard time and put our troops in countries surrounding them which they view as their satellite states (besides giving them a hard time on Chechnya, a huge sore spot for them). We shouldn't be shocked by their efforts to make inroads in Iran.
The US seems to be on an appropriately patient course with Iran at the moment, working feverishly to stabilize the polity in Iraq, get Iraq's military to stand up, and minimize US troop exposure in Iraq. Once that is complete, then the US will be more free to deal with Syria and Iran.
That's one person's opinion.
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Apr 04, 09:14:00 PM:
Dear Mr. TigerHawk:
We respond to this post on our blog,
Iran is still rushing to confrontation.
Summary: try as we have, we can't figure out the logic of Iran's actions or diplomatic strategy. The Iranian regime seems to be digging itself deeper into a hole.
Westhawk
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 05, 11:25:00 AM:
Westhawk:
I read your post. Iran isn't delusional. But they are trapped in a very difficult position, and it is leading them to be highly confrontational (verbally), not unlike Khrushchev in 1960-1962. External enemies and conflict create and foster legitimacy for the illegitimate.
It would be delusional for Iran to take the next step, what some might suggest they should do if they believe their own PR -- that would be to invade Iraq. Just as Khrushchev took the missiles out of Cuba when pressed, notwithstanding 2 irreconcileable telegrams to JFK, so Iran will not invade Iraq.
They know full well they that would be the end of the Mullahcracy. But by painting the Great Satan and the Little Satan as mortal external enemies, the Mullahs bolster their internal legitimacy without increasing the risk that they are attacked. It's just words, not deeds. They are acting exactly like North Korea -- big talk, little action.
That's what tyrants do. They are only built to repress their people, not fight a real war against a deadly and capable America (or Israel). And talk alot.
If they were serious, they would invade Iraq and try to put our military in a tough spot.
They won't do that, because they have NO BALLS. Watch.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Apr 06, 01:37:00 AM:
It's a mistake to think of Iran as a rational actor in our sense of the concept. They do things that make rational sense... but rational sense to them. That the twelfth imam will return from occultation and lead a world cleansing jihad is fact to them. That Pasdaran who explode themselves to kill Americans and Jews go directly to Paradise without suffering in the grave is fact. That America and Israel are in league with Iblis and are unholy before God and completely deserving of being utterly destroyed and fast forwarded to Hell is fact. These aren't just personal moral codes and beliefs; they help set public policy. This is a Mullahcracy.
There's also the issue of perceptions. It is widely regarded among strategic thinkers that Hitler's invasion of the USSR cost him eventual military victory and regional hegemony. Why did he do it? Because he thought he could win, two-front war notwithstanding. What was the famous quotation? "Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse"? Something like that. Anyway, my point is that the reality of the situation is irrelevant with regard to predicting a nation's actions. What matters is their perception of that reality. (among other things, like domestic political constraints) If it is skewed, they will not behave like we expect them to behave. Likewise, nations balance tangibles (pros/cons of certain action in real world terms; power, prestige, and treasure) and intangibles (values and beliefs) when making policy. A people is far more accepting of mass casualties if something they hold dear is at stake (independence/self-determination, inalienable rights, religious beliefs, and what have you) than if the conflict occurred in a vacuum or was over measurable resources.
Blood for oil? Hell no, we won't go!
Blood for freedom? Sign me up.
Blood for Islam...
"If they were serious, they would invade Iraq and try to put our military in a tough spot."
That all depends on your definition of 'invade.' The Iranians are more aggressive than North Korea and are active in Iraq. Recall that naval engagements and N. Korean commando teams in the South and Japan are not exactly uncommon.
"They won't do that, because they have NO BALLS."
They won't do that because they don't think that they can win an offensive conventional war alone. However, Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. Maybe they think that if they can goad the US into attacking they could get the US into a two-front war. It would also solidify Iranian public opinion, at least for a while, behind the government. So... the real question should be 'how big are Bashar's balls?'
