Saturday, September 02, 2006
Will Iran launch a proxy war in the Gulf?
Last night, Stratfor($) passed along a report from a Kuwaiti newspaper that Iran was planning to launch proxy attacks in the Gulf to distract attention from its nuclear program:
An Iranian-sponsored militant organization will carry out attacks in Persian Gulf countries in the near future in an attempt to divert the United States' attention from Iran's nuclear program, Kuwait-based newspaper al Seyassah reported Sept. 1. Al Seyassah intelligence sources in the Persian Gulf claim Moustafa Badr Eldine, who escaped from a Kuwaiti prison in 2003 and is the cousin of Hezbollah's military leader, is likely leading this organization.
It is time, I think, that we started distracting Iran's leadership. We could use a little geopolitical initiative, guys. The administration needs to shake off the Gulliver schtick and get creative. One not need bomb Iran back into the Stone Age or negotiate endlessly with the Russians in order to brush back Iran.
8 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 02, 11:57:00 AM:
Covertly placed charges on oil rigs/refineries/docks might get their attention... nothing hurts quite like a blow to the pocketbook.
By Papa Ray, at
Sat Sep 02, 12:36:00 PM:
Sorry guys, the U.S. is not into covert ops to undermine governments anymore. They might blow up the bad guys in the Afghan or Iraq or even in parts of Africa but Iran, never. The Kurds and other mistreated Arabs are the key to undermining the Mullahs in Iran, give them the weapons, money and training and they might give a big enough distraction. We are being accused of it anyway and the Iranians say they have already captured British and American Special ops troops, so it would be nothing the world media would worry much about.
The most advantagous thing we could do now is to launch an eye in the sky that had the new ground penetrating tech. on board.
We can't destroy what we do not know where it is.
Don't worry about our assets to dig deep, we have them and they work very well. Much better than you can find out about in open source material.
But we don't need to worry, Iran is going to see the light and come around and be nice and allow inspections and make concessions. Or at least that is what they are going to try and convince us of over the next three or four years.
Then they will be ready.
Papa Ray
By Counter Trey, at
Sat Sep 02, 01:40:00 PM:
Correction: "..bomb(ing) Iran back into the Stone Age" presumes that they left it.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 02, 04:19:00 PM:
Unfortunately, Mycroft, those ideas don't take realistic constraints into account, like sovereignty, (like Iran would allow the broadcast of such a thing in their country) acceptable international practices, (openly advocating/facilitating a civil war in another country is a big no no, and rightly so. If every country that disliked another country started agitating for civil wars, the world would be even uglier than it is now. Imagine the KKK and Black Panthers receiving foreign support and encouragement for their agendas) and limited knowledge, (like the #'s of their Swiss accounts, assuming that they have them) as well as the law of unintended consequences.
The drug trade hurts everyone affected by it; the idea that we should 'reprioritize' just because it would hurt our enemies more is silly. It would still hurt us (and other nations) more too, and it would be our own fault.
Such an immigration policy could conceivably work over a long term, but 1) Iran would catch on and start restricting immigration whether by threats or laws and 2) use it against us by infiltrating agents into the US using said program. You might also end up with a 'Cuban' phenomenon wherein a large community of foreign expatriates aggitates for this policy or that in domestic politics.
The fact that Iran is a hostile oil producing theocracy complicates such strategies immensely; they honestly don't care about 'diplomatic pressure' or the well-being of their people insofar as they aren't actively revolting, and totalitarian states cannot be internally threatened (by, say, an opposition political party) short of by violence.
When held by such constraints, I think the old simple methods would work best. Were this 100 years ago, we could simply sink their navy (ala 1988), seize their major ports, threaten their pipelines with aerial strikes and declare that they will not be exporting any more oil (i.e. they will be broke) until they give up their nuclear program, and if they wanted to keep their pipelines they'd better decide soon. Unfortunately, modern politics no longer allow for such elegantly simple solutions.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 02, 04:21:00 PM:
"Seize" = "blockade" but a seizure would work too...
By Tom the Redhunter, at
Sat Sep 02, 05:07:00 PM:
So let me get this straight, Dawnfire82. You tell us that we shouldn't undermine the Iranian regime because of "acceptable international practices", and fall into moral equivalency with a KKK and Black Panthers analogy - but then advocate that we use military force to sink their navy and seize their major ports????
Your position is a whole mess of contradictions.
Rather, TigerHawk and mycroft(love that name) have it exactly right. Most people now are locked into an "either diplomacy or military action" either-or. We need alternatives, such as undermining the regime from within.
By Diane Wilson, at
Sat Sep 02, 05:57:00 PM:
Dawnfire is right that encouraging an internal uprising runs against "acceptable international practices", but it is also equivalent to what Iran is doing in Iraq and Lebanon. Sauce for the goose, etc.
However, it is also not going to produce results in the time frame that we need them. Just as we've run out of time for diplomacy, we've also run out of time for any of the other "soft power" options. Not that Iran would likely respond to them as we'd like, anyway.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 02, 10:16:00 PM:
"Your position is a whole mess of contradictions."
No, it most certainly is not. You just don't understand the differences.
"Dawnfire is right that encouraging an internal uprising runs against "acceptable international practices", but it is also equivalent to what Iran is doing in Iraq and Lebanon. Sauce for the goose, etc."
Oh no doubt, and I suspect (though I do not know personally and couldn't tell you if I did) that we're doing similar things now. After all, what else are Special Forces type units and the CIA for? But it is covert, not open, (which is what I specified above; I thought MC had used that term himself when I replied, but it seems that I misread the line) support. The big policy and political difference between the two was the point I meant to make.
