Monday, January 15, 2007
Rumors of war and actual diplomacy
The Arab Times of Kuwait quotes an anonymous source as reporting that the United States plans to attack Iran in April of this year. We would launch the attack from sea, rather than any particular Arab country, with the goal of disabling Iran's oil installations and nuclear facilities. Why April? Supposedly, it is Tony Blair's last month in office. The object of the attack would be manifold, including to calm down Iraq and weaken the Syrian regime.
He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.
This strikes me as highly unlikely, notwithstanding the president's recent candor regarding Iran in particular. It is probably the usual conspiracy-mongering that is so common in the Arab media.
That having been said, the United States is clearly making a series of moves that are designed to blunt Arab criticism, including particularly sucking up to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader favored among the establishment Sunni Arab states. One can't help but wonder whether we aren't trying to build at least tacit Sunni support for an escalation against Iran. However nauseating it may be to see our Secretary of State characterize the head of Fatah as a "moderate," he and his supporters are obviously not friends of Iran, which arms and bankrolls Hamas. Abbas is no moderate, but compared to the alternative he is definitely the lesser of two evils, or even the least of multiple evils. If Rice's genuflection creates room to brush back Iran, I suppose even Israel might support it. Iran, after all, is a much greater long term threat to Israel than the Palestinians.
The other possibility is that the United States deliberately planted the Arab Times story as part of a strategy to increase the uncertainty of Iran's decision-makers. If Tehran's mullahs decide that they cannot reliably predict what we will do if the confrontation escalates, they may be less likely to escalate and that will improve our position.
Either way, the Bush administration is, in fact, engaged in regional "diplomacy" with a view toward improving our position versus Iran, including particularly in Iraq. The difference between the approach of the administration and its critics is not the choice between "diplomacy" and military action, but the idiom of the diplomacy. The Bush administration obviously believes that force, or the explicit or implicit threat of force, is one potentially useful basis for negotiating with Iran. In order for an explicit or implicit threat to support the diplomatic effort, however, it must be credible. We are obviously trying to improve the credibility of our threats by various means, including with naval power in the Persian Gulf, greater support from the Sunni Arab establishment (even at the price of strengthening Fatah), and perhaps a disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the mullahs. All these strategies and others improve our bargaining power with Iran, whether we negotiate with the Islamic Republic "directly" or not.
CWCID: Reader Julius Martov.
20 Comments:
By 
skipsailing, at
Mon Jan 15, 02:06:00 PM:
My guess is that this has nothing to do with the US government. Still the point that the Iranians have to react to this story is well taken. A disinformation campaign aimed at keeping the pressure on the mullahs is an excellent idea.
By 
, at
Mon Jan 15, 02:34:00 PM:
With our forces in theater and available, Iran would frankly clean our clock. The fact is we can't even keep the road from Baghdad to the airport open after 4 years. How long do you think our single supply line through Kuwait would be open if say 10 Iranian Armored divisons supported by Russian air defense systems took Basra? If Iran truly believed we were going to attack them, they'd pre-emptively hit us in Iraq. Then follow-up by disrupting the oil flow through the strait of Hormuz in a minute. Why do people continue to treat Iran as both crazy and weak when the opposite is so obviously true?
By , at
Mon Jan 15, 02:47:00 PM:
Looks like KUWAIT has its own NEW YORK TIMES too bad they need better news
By SR, at
Mon Jan 15, 03:03:00 PM:
Perfect. Bring up the ten armored divisions and park'em where they could be destroyed from the air in an hour. Russian air defenses? Light'em up boys, and then duck for cover. The StraightsofHormuz are Iran's lifeline as well as all the oil consuming countries of the world. Even China might object to their closing.
Back to Princeton for a refresher '73
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jan 15, 03:14:00 PM:
Do you recall, 73, the Gulf War? When thousands of Iraqi armored fighting vehicles were incinerated by hundreds of ours in two days for the loss of, if I remember correctly, 2 disabled Abrams that later returned to service?
Or Operation Preying Mantis perhaps, where the US Navy destroyed almost the entire Iranian surface fleet in 24 hours?
Doctrine, technology, and training all heavily favor the US. I'm talking orders of magnitude differences. The differences are more drastic than between Israel and the Arabs in 73, where dozens of Israeli tanks blunted a Syrian offensive of hundreds.
Also, it is completely impossible for Iran to achieve a strategic surprise for the very simple reason that we have satellites, listening stations, and so forth watching their country 24 hours a day.
Also, Iran doesn't have 10 Armored Divisions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army-orbat.htm
Thanks for contributing though.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Jan 15, 03:25:00 PM:
I doubt that Iran could muster much of an army right now. As the power struggle in Teheran continues, killing military officials has become a bloodsport.
Abizaid stated that Iran has the capacity to "defend in depth". but for how long?
By skipsailing, at
Mon Jan 15, 03:27:00 PM:
DF: as I recall no Iraqi tank fired a second round.
the supply line issue is real though and something we need to consider.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jan 15, 03:29:00 PM:
How long do you think our single supply line through Kuwait would be open if say 10 Iranian Armored divisons supported by Russian air defense systems took Basra?
7X24
What makes you think those armor divisions wouldn't face the same fate as Saddam's did?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jan 15, 05:17:00 PM:
TH: "...quotes an anonymous source..."
Like a manufacturer of padded bras, the Arab news media often tries to make mountains out of molehills.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Jan 15, 05:45:00 PM:
So DEC, are you declaring a falsie?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jan 15, 06:07:00 PM:
No, Skipsailing, I am attempting to keep you abreast of the situation.
By , at
Mon Jan 15, 06:48:00 PM:
Dawnfire82, & others: Here is your reference from Global Security dated '98-- 9 years ago. Even Jane's doesn't have current info on Iran.
Sources:
Bomba, Ty "Back to Iraq: Speculations on Gulf War II" Command (Issue 50, 1998). Liebl, Vern "The Iranian Armed Forces Today." Command (Issue 41, 1998).
Iran has done a massive rebuilding of their military primarily with Russian and French arms that are frankly competitive with ours just about across the board. If you look at the US order of battle in Iraq, you'll see we have not a tank and very few troops S. of Baghdad. It's all British sector. Our tanks are superior, we just don't have any there. If you read the specs on Iran's recently purchased Russian air defense systems you'll see they are a match and then some for non-stealth aircraft and our AMRAMs. Iran also has an 'in-house' satellite system, and has been totally self-contained in tanks, artillery and support weaponry since the late '80's when their war with Iraq ended. Made necessary by our arms embargo. Iran has 350 fighter & bomber air force. It is a really big country with a really big, well-equipped military and I can't believe you folks don't see it. As to previous wars and sea engagements, reasonably, Iran has learned something from their mistakes.
By , at
Mon Jan 15, 08:06:00 PM:
tiger73,
If the Iranian military is so big and well-equipped, tell me, why do they keep having military transports fall out of the sky with regularity due to maintenance failures?
Could it be that their training and readiness are deplorable?
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Jan 15, 09:15:00 PM:
DEC said:
"Like a manufacturer of padded bras, the Arab news media often tries to make mountains out of molehills."
While I generally disagree with your positions, I like this analogy. Yours?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jan 15, 09:25:00 PM:
Yes, Dan. Thank you for the compliment.
By , at
Mon Jan 15, 09:29:00 PM:
--- the Arab news media often tries to make mountains out of molehills."
While I generally disagree with your positions, I like this analogy. Yours?
"When one's mind is made up, it's useless to confuse them with facts"
By Nicole Tedesco, at
Tue Jan 16, 12:24:00 PM:
Thank you for that post. Unfortunately, it helps to reinforce my own biases about How The World Works, as I stipulated recently in a response to Jane Galt's blog post ('20/20 bias'). The threat of force must be credible against these people. If the Iraqi effort did nothing else, it helped to enforce the idea that any threat of force by the United States (especially by George Bush) must be taken seriously.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jan 16, 07:30:00 PM:
"Even Jane's doesn't have current info on Iran."
Then you admit that you have no idea how many armored divisions Iran has either then?
"As to previous wars and sea engagements, reasonably, Iran has learned something from their mistakes."
I'm sure they have. Which is why they continue to use expendable proxies against us rather than overt action.
I'm glad you've done some homework (it's encouraging) but you're thinking in a vacuum. If we thought that Iran was going to make a play for Basra, and like I said, there's no way that we could not both see and hear it coming, our tanks (and other troops) would just... move. They're not bolted in place, and I'm positive that there is a contingency plan somewhere in the Pentagon for if Iran invades Iraq again. Given a 48 hour warning, their forces would march/roll right into a wall of artillery/naval fire, followed by US/Iraqi troops alert and ready to go.
You can sell me on the idea that Iran is in better shape than many people assume, that they aren't some podunk 3rd world AK republic with rusted BMPs and technicals, but I think that 'they'll clean our clocks' stuff is silly.
By , at
Wed Jan 17, 01:08:00 PM:
anonymous- The maintenance thing was a security cover for the transport plane crash. Actually, some private on the left side yelled "wow, look at those 10 armored divisions down there". Everyone ran to that side of the plane, the plane went out of trim-----RIP.
dawnfire82. There is nothing American between Kut and Kuwait. Just a few Brits. Al Sadr could mobilize enough of his Mahdi army in about 20 minutes to effectivly delay any troop or tank movement headed south for quite a while. Remember he's Shite and so are the Iranians. Again I would point out we can't secure an 8 mile road from the Green Zone to the airport. And you're talking about a 200 mile motor march under fire to actually meet the real enemy army? Are you a college professor or do you work at a 'think tank'?.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 17, 07:32:00 PM:
I'm a professional soldier and I'm fairly sure that I know a damn site more about warfare than you seem to assume.
And judging from your posts, you have access to a current Iranian Order of Battle, a membership roster of the Mahdi Army, an inventory of their equipment that proves that they are packing enough firepower to significantly delay (a MBT moving at 40 miles an hour will cross 200 miles in 5 hours; to be delayed past 48 [the time window I gave] then this militia would have to stall these units for 43 hours) American armored columns moving with a purpose, the training to use them properly, and the organization and planning to bring it all together in 20 minutes. Either you're full of shit, or you need to call the DIA and spill your guts.
And I wasn't going to mention this because I think it's stupid, but this whole 'we can't secure an 8 miles stretch of road' isn't because we can't. We clear and secure lots of roads. It's they keep coming back. No matter how many dozens of jihadis you kill there, that won't prevent 2 more from sneaking in with a mortar or an IED. It in no way reflects on our abilites; it reflects the determination of the enemy. We can't stop them from wanting to die for their religion, can we?
