Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Truth matrix: Russian intelligence spots an American build-up against Iran
Whether true or not, the fact of this news report is interesting:
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
At this writing, the Western press does not seem to have picked up on this story, so -- and I can't believe I'm writing this -- there is no confirmation from sources that do not habitually make stuff up. Still, it is worth considering the possibilities. What does the truth matrix look like? From my barstool in a Frankfurt hotel -- admittedly, not the best perspective -- the alternatives seem to be:
- The United States is preparing an attack on Iran, and Russian intelligence has accurately detected it and leaked the finding to the press to stoke opposition or for some other nefarious Russki purpose.
- The United States is not preparing an attack on Iran, but wants Iran to believe that it is. There are at least three permutations of this scenario. (1) Russian intelligence has fallen for the American bluff; (2) Russian intelligence has not fallen for the American bluff, but leaked it to the press in order to build pressure against the United States for its own purposes; or (3) Russian intelligence has not only not fallen for the American bluff, but is cooperating -- the leak is therefore a calculated attempt to lend credibility to the American bluff, perhaps to encourage Iran to make quick concessions and thereby avoid a war that Russia, certainly, does not want.
- The United States is not preparing an attack on Iran and is not bluffing Iran, but Russian intelligence is reading the information wrong and blabbing about it to the press (call this the "CIA scenario"), perhaps to make trouble for the U.S. among other relevant actors (European voters, for instance).
Any of these scenarios could be true, but some seem less likely than others. The United States has made a great show of force in the Persian Gulf in the last couple of months, reaching a crescendo this week with the largest naval exercise in the region since the invasion of Iraq. With "senior military officials" running around telling network correspondants that the point of the exercise is to "send a message" to the mullahs, it is hard to say that the United States isn't attempting a bluff. That eliminates the third bullet point.
Similarly, it seems unlikely that the United States is preparing an attack just now. The American strategy in Iraq hinges on conciliation between the Sunnis and the Shiites; it is unlikely that an actual attack -- as opposed to intimidation by other means -- would increase the chances of that conciliation. Also, the Bush administration's Iraq policy hangs in the balance in a Democratic Congress that is itching to impose new limitations on presidential war powers. Finally, the UN Security Council has just imposed new sanctions with the support of the United States. Even this White House must know that it has to give those sanctions a reasonable period of time to fail (as they will), or risk the extended outrage of the international chattering classes and other problems (such as the total alienation of the Iranian opposition, our most useful ally over the long run).
My guess, therefore, is that the United States has extended its build-up from sea to land, and that Russian intelligence knows this. Since it is unlikely that Russian intelligence has fallen for the bluff, it leaked the story to achieve geopolitcal advantage. Since it is more likely that the Russians are hoping to embarrass the United States than sustain the credibility of the American bluff, the most probable result is the second scenario under the second bullet: the Russians are using the American build-up against Iran -- which they know to be a bluff -- to create an imagined escalation from which the United States will then have to "back down," and thereby lose prestige.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Release the hounds.
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Mar 28, 03:05:00 PM:
Everything I see one of these articles from the Russian press about anything American, it looks as if somebody pulled the whole thing out of his sphincter. If I had to guess, I'd take option 4 (not on your list) - somebody made up stuff to (i) sell papers and make them interesting and/or (ii) keep the Russian populace afraid/distrustful of the US, as much as possible
By 
Angevin13, at
Wed Mar 28, 03:30:00 PM:
Seems like Russian intelligence missed a key point: the USS John C. Stennis is not en route, as the Novosti article claims, but is in fact in the Gulf taking part in the exercises there.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Mar 28, 04:17:00 PM:
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost.
Well, that would have nothing to do with the borders, and everything to do with the terminals where they import all their gasoline (Iran's gasoline refining capability is extremely limited)
By Habu, at
Wed Mar 28, 04:29:00 PM:
The American exersice could also serve another purpose. I personally have no doubt we or the Israeli's will strike Iran. Hopefully both of us.
But this particular movement may have been to gather intelligence data on how much the Russians have in the way of ELINT ,etc covering Iran and to see Iran's military movements with that much firepower on their doorstep.
Also the moonphases is wrong for an attack at this moment.
Look for the Carriers to get out of the Gulf, past the Strait of Hormuz, leaving several attack subs in the gulf. Then wait for the dark of the moon.
The attack should be comprehensive with the purpose to make Iran into another Warsaw type pile of rubble.
With their construction techniques it shouldn't take much to level Tehran and then use the heavy stuff on the natanz type facilities. Intel first to judge reaction. We might have even spooked the Iranians inot lightig up some of their secret Soviet gear.
By Diane Wilson, at
Wed Mar 28, 07:00:00 PM:
I'll go with option 1.5. It's a real build-up with a real war-plan behind it, but with the hope that it won't have to go that far. It's not a bluff, unless a bluff is all it takes to get the job done.
The problems with any potential war plan are very real. It's a big country that we won't be able to domesticate. An attack will alienate any potential allies inside Iran. We can only set back their nuclear program, not stop it. But setting it back, maybe again and again, may be the only way to keep it from happening.
All of this has to be considered in conjunction with the economic pressure that Iran is under, not from sanctions as much as shutting Iran out of the world banking system. Military bluff or the real thing, this is a multi-front war against Iran, conducted at present at low intensity.
I also note that oil prices are going up following the kidnapping. Once again, Iran is using terrorism as an ecomonic tool to keep its funding pipeline flowing.
As with Saddam and Iraq, the situation in Iran will come down to realizing that the current situation is intolerable. Whether that tipping point produces something better or worse, is something we will only realize afterwards.
By , at
Wed Mar 28, 08:25:00 PM:
It's very possible that an attack/invasion of Iran would completely disrupt the insurgency in Iraq and draw AQ from Iraq into Iran to follow the American invasion.
Iraqis just might be ok with a virtual cessation of violence in Iraq coupled with chaos in Iran.
By , at
Wed Mar 28, 08:39:00 PM:
I'm wondering what the Brits are doing. If anything, we'd be there to support them when they lay down the demand to fork over their people. And I'd bet there are plenty of people in DC who wouldn't mind slapping the crap out of Lord Farquat and his band of merry men. Those of us who remember the 400 days our people were held during Jimmy's days remember too well the F Iran sentiment that went unfulfilled wiht that pansy in office. So bring on the sorties and level the nuke facility and weapons-related installations. As, and you (TH) have speculated, make the Russkies happy that we level their billion dollar project before they have to prove it works.
By Unknown, at
Wed Mar 28, 09:13:00 PM:
It seems to me the simpler explanation is that the “flurry of activity” consists of moves to interdict insurgents crossing the Iranian border and Iranian support for same.
By Escort81, at
Wed Mar 28, 09:29:00 PM:
By late Wednesday afternoon EDT 3/28, the AP headline read U.S. wraps up Persian Gulf maneuvers, and while it is clear other Gulf states are nervous about a build up of tensions, there is no evidence to suggest that the exercise was anything more than a bit of gunboat diplomacy (first cleared with the Brits) to help with the return of the 15 U.K. sailors.
Interestingly, at least one network TV report today stated that an Iranian official said that they were not aware of any U.S. naval exercises going on in the gulf. Either their radar and sonar is really bad, or they were doing the Persian version of cold shoulder.
On the western border of Iran, U.S. forces in Iraq are focused on the surge in Bagdhad, and secondarily on better border security to interdict Iranian (Quds) made IEDs and ISCs, so perhaps the Russians picked up on some increased U.S. activity there.
On Iran's eastern border, there are NATO forces (including U.S.) in Afghanistan that are not positioned to move westward and have their hands full with the seasonal increase in Taliban activity.
The Iranians understand that the U.K. military personnel that they are "detaining" (whether or not Turney is released) is a matter between Iran and the U.K. right now, as long Tony Blair wants it that way. Under the status quo, it is not a casus belli for the U.S. to attack Iran, and the Iranians know that and the Russians know that. A change in the status quo, such as an incredibly foolish attack on U.S. forces in international waters in the PG by IRG forces would change everything, but that is not likely to happen.
It's too bad in a way, because I kind of get the feeling that with just a little nudge (and I don't mean a military attack that would make it clear that the U.S. or U.K. was unloading on Iran, which would produce a rally 'round the flag effect in Iran), the Iranian regime could fall. The economy is on poor shape (inexcusable when you sell oil at more than 5-6x your wellhead cost of production), they are behind in paying their bills and owe lots of other countires lots of money, corruption is rampant, and most of the population would like to have better relations with the West. I sort of like the idea of Iran, er, losing contact with one of its subs (such that it's not clear how it sunk). If the Iranian regime were to fall without the West firing a shot, it would indeed be a miracle and would change a great many things in the Middle East.
As to what the motiviation was for the Russian piece, it might be interesting to speculate about, but it doesn't change Putin's calculus or the strategic (or tactical) position of the U.S. and U.K. There is simply the racheting up of pressure short of military action (and, sure, anything that adds to the perception of pressure can be helpful, or perhaps even hurtful with truly paranoid individuals), and a decision to be made by Tehran to release the sailors. Blair's next step is to get the EU to apply pressue, albeit "soft power" on the Mullahs. Blair may also try to persuade China to apply pressure on Iran -- China has an interest in seeing lower oil prices (reducing them from the spike caused by this incident) and China did the right thing early in 2001 with the U.S. Navy aviators. Russia just wants its money from Iran for the nuclear plant related work they've performed. The vig is starting to add up, and you know what happened to the Denzel Washington character at the end of "Training Day" when the Russians came looking for their money.
By , at
Wed Mar 28, 09:34:00 PM:
I think that "nowhere girl" is probably closest to the truth.
Russia and Iran both profit by higher oil prices,as both are oil exporting states. The Russian "intelligence" information may be part of a wider disinformation campaign to aid the Iranians hostage-terror oil shakedown. Recall that the Iranians couldn't or wouldn't pay for their reactor; maybe this is the way they raise extra foriegn currency to pay off the Russians, and the Russians are happy to use their propaganda organs to get the cash they want for the reactor the have built for the Iranians, and get the oil price goosed in the bargain for their economy.
I'm sorry, but there is no will in Washington and certainly nowhere else to attack Iran. This is some kind of pipe dream people have about some kind of military resolution to Iran's potential threat.
But not to worry; Sunni Al Qaeda will soon have access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal (see Bill Roggio's "The Fourth Rail"), as that government will be topling by summer of 2008. And of course, the loyal opposition in this country will "Blame Bush".
Darkness and chaos ahead.
-David
By Escort81, at
Wed Mar 28, 10:29:00 PM:
TH, I assume you clicked through to the Novosti piece through Pajamas Media. Also in that article grouping (once you are at the Novosti page) is this opinion column by Pyotr Goncharov which is reasonably clear-headed and can't really be seen as pro-Iranian, nor does it "tweak" the U.S. or U.K.
Just trying to add to the data points, if we are trying to infer Russian motives.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Mar 29, 01:24:00 AM:
Good comments all.
Escort81 - I did not actually find it at Pajamas, but Lucianne. I'll take a look.
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Mar 29, 06:31:00 AM:
Iraqis just might be ok with a virtual cessation of violence in Iraq coupled with chaos in Iran.
I'd have no problem with that either ;->
By Georg Felis, at
Thu Mar 29, 10:28:00 AM:
Dan, you are displaying not only a pre-9/11 mindset, but a pre-WWII mindset. The Brits and to a larger extent the U.S. are not restricted to an invasion of Iran in order to “physically interfere with their force-projection and nuclear manufacturing efforts”. Bosnia, and parts of Desert Storm I and II proved that the major powers are fully capable of sitting off the coast of a supposed vibrant power in the region and spending a month dismantling any target inside it that we want. Depending on how loosely the targeting criteria are set (tightly in Bosnia, somewhat looser in DS) a country can be reduced to a powerless agent unable to field a formal military force all the way down to refugees scrabbling in the radioactive rubble for canned goods. It says something good about Modern Society that we are unwilling to exert the full force of our military on even a country who’s leadership has repeatedly and energetically sought our own destruction. At this moment, the Iranian’s in Charge are desperate for a war, something small and containable that they can milk for propaganda points in order to stay in power, but unfortunately for them Wars often spiral out of control and provide a bitter milk. (ok, the analogy breaks down, but you get what I mean)
In the event of a conflict with Iran, it will be fought nearly entirely with Air and Naval power (on our end), and will have adverse results neither side wants right now. Well, none of the sane people on either side. However, if Iran’s leadership keeps pushing, there will come a time when the adverse results will be outweighed and the bombs will fall.
By Unknown, at
Thu Mar 29, 03:46:00 PM:
Regardless of the Russian motivation, or the accuracy of the report, what's really interesting to me is the matter-of-fact style of the report and the absence of any condemnatory rhetorical flourishes. This is different from the run-up to Iraq, when the Russians were in full scale political panic. Some friend the mullahs have there.
By , at
Thu Mar 29, 11:41:00 PM:
So who said the SOVIET UNION is dead its now covoring the whole euroweenie continet and run by putrid putin
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Mar 30, 11:18:00 AM:
Whoops, sorry Dan, I misread your original argument and stomped too hard. Let me rephrase, paraphrase, and simplify.
It seems as if your argument is that Iran will not behave until physically smacked with a stick. The US and Britain are presently going through the normal “Pre-Hitting With a Stick” maneuvers, the things that are always done before any of the Major Players take the misbehaving brat out behind the woodshed and tan his hide. (See Bosnia, Falklands, Kuwait) When I first read your comment, I thought you were saying “We don’t have the stones or the ground forces to strike Iran”. Re-reading it a bit leaves me with the conclusion you want us to “radically simplify the situation”, which can be taken one of two ways, either smack ‘em with the stick or… something you left undefined.
I really don’t think a military confrontation will “Simplify” the situation. But I think that’s what we’re going to wind up with if Iran keeps it up.
I’m not even going to *try* to respond to the Bird :)
By , at
Sun Apr 01, 07:46:00 AM:
Well folks, you are truly insane if you think that an attack on Iran is not going to send the world economy into a massive recession. Iran is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. The Saudi oil fields are mostly in a Shiite area of the country and would likely react. Some peoples desire to inflict murder and pain is so strong it overrules self interest. The pro- Iranian Shiite groups in Iraq control the Iraqi government, which the last time I looked wasn't at war with the US. You want them to be?
Collectively,the moral tone of this thread resembles a meeting of the Mafia. One of the out of town bosses has defied you, so they need to be taught a painful lesson. You have more hired thugs with bigger weapons, so get the cement mixers ready.
