Thursday, March 08, 2007
Why Would a Senior Iranian General Defect?
This is all massive speculation, but let me go for it. There have been -- now widespread -- reports that a very senior leader of the Iranian military has chosen to "switch sides." And he is reputedly the fellow who built Hezbollah. He may have been the leader responsible for the attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. If this is true, why would he come our way now?
I haven't seen too much discussion about this spun the way I will now make the argument, but Iran has not had a better strategic friend that George W. Bush. The current administration eliminated Iran's bitter and implacable foe, Saddam Hussein, and his Baathist regime. Before that, the current administration eliminated another contiguous foe (though less dangerous), the Sunni Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In fact, the current administration has done more to elevate the status of Arab Shiites vis a vis their Sunni brethren -- and therefore improve Iran's strategic posture in the Middle East -- than anybody, ever. These were all changes a shrewd Iranian General would clearly understand and appreciate.
And this strategic shift to re-level the balance as between Sunni and Shiite in Arabia was unprecedented in American diplomatic history. Of course, that's what happens when you face an unprecendented and truly horrifying domestic attack on your country perpetrated by Arab Sunni radicals.
At the same time, the US has -- as a military and diplomatic matter -- been exceedingly polite in dealing with Iran. That may seem a surprising claim, but the US has absolutely stood aside in allowing the European powers to try to forge an accomodation with Iran. The US has probably advised Israel to exercise restraint in coping with Iran's re-supply of Hezbollah. And again, the US has allowed a regime that would ostensibly be friendly to Iran assume its rightful democratic place in Iraq. Finally, the US has not responded in an aggressive way to naked Iranian interference in Iraq, even to the point of causing American deaths. American forbearance in Iraq would be noticed by a shrewd Iranian General. A nutty Iranian politician might perceive it as weakness. A shrewd Iranian General would understand that it was a reflection of strength.
And yet, despite these strategic shifts which have (again) realigned the US and Iran as natural allies, Iran's governing theocracy has become only more threatening to the US and its interests. I have no idea what this defector is like, but Generals -- really effective fighting soldiers -- tend to be pragmatic. They also tend to fight for a reason. For some it's God, but for many it's country (or both). And if he has come to the view that the US has aligned itself to be, in fact, friend to the Iranian people rather than foe, he may have concluded that the current ruling regime is too distant from its people and its country's best interests.
It speaks to the vast potential Iran holds as a pluralistic and open country -- whereas the absence of any such defections in Iraq or North Korea speaks to the autarchic and ultimately hopeless nature of their regimes.
Let's hope so.
33 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Mar 08, 03:16:00 PM:
Incorrect on nearly all counts.
Saddam's sons-in-law defected (Uday was going to kill them). And this guy is probably defecting for the same reason: power struggles where he's losing (and could literally lose his head).
Probably over corruption issues, endemic in Iran.
Iran's leadership sees the US as weak and running away from the ME, offering various surrender options (closing Gitmo and treating terrorists as criminals, etc).
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Thu Mar 08, 03:58:00 PM:
Treason is almost always motivated by intensely personal reasons; usually ego and debt/money. To betray one's own nation for ideological reasons is relatively rare, and somehow I doubt that the fellow responsible for Hezb Allah is a committed democrat.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 08, 04:09:00 PM:
First question: Is this a defection? I sure hope so. A defection at this level is a huge victory for the good guys.
next question: If this is a defection, what were the motivations?
Its likely that we'll never really know so theories will abound. The theory offered by Cardinal Park is not one I'd considered myself. Let me restate it just to check my understanding: this man defected because he's an Iranian who is perhaps disenchanted with the current regime and recognizes that the US has worked hard to focus it ire on the rulers of his country and not on its citizens.
I have another theory, it is more in line with the first comment. here's my guess:
There is a purge underway in the Iranian tents of power. It is reported that Katami is gravely ill and revolutionary governments don't always handle the transfer of power well.
One important aspect of this power struggle is the mandatory demonstration of fealty. Each faction lines up its internal support and each faction works to minimize the opponent's forces. The military becomes a battle ground.
On January 9, 2006 the Iranians reported that a plane crash:
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards ground forces and at least 10 other senior officers were killed in a plane crash in the northwest of the country, state media reported
In November of 2006 another plane crash killed 32 "servicemen".
Then there is this:
TEHRAN (AFP) - Fourteen Iranian military personnel were killed in a helicopter crash last week during an operation against rebels close to the Turkish border, the Revolutionary Guards confirmed on Monday.
A statement carried by the ISNA agency said that two commanders of the Guards' ground force and 12 other military personnel were killed in Friday's accident. Kurdish rebels had claimed they shot down the aircraft.
We have no way to know how many other such incidents, too small to gain the attention of the western press, have thinned the ranks of the military.
It is possible to look at these incidents and conclude that the IRGC is experiencing a purge as each faction seeks to soldify its base of support.
Now to piggyback on CP's analysis, it is also quite possible that some in the Iranian ruling class have reached the conclusion that if America strikes the retribution from the mullahs will be brutal. Would a general in the Iranian Army, knowing what he knows about his battle readiness, be feeling cozy about his chances of surviving the wrath of the madmen in Teheran if the Americans successfully destroy the installation he's assigned to protect? I doubt it.
The mullahs rose to power via a revolution. Revolutionary governments have a bad habit of consuming themselves. Ultimately the Jacobins lead robespierre to the guillotine.
so there's plenty of reason to run for cover right now. If one is not a religious zealot and one is fairly high up in the iranian regimes power structure the west might be looking very tempting.
It would certainly be nice if this were a defection and it would be even nicer if this were the first of many.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 08, 04:14:00 PM:
Almost all military generals are patriots. At the same time, many generals in the Middle East view themselves as citizens of the world. Many speak three or four languages fluently.
Generals in the Middle East seldom look at the world through rose-colored glasses. Years ago I chatted with an Egyptian general who had spent time in the Soviet Union. The relationship between Egypt and the Soviet Union was close in those days. "The happiest day of my life was the day I left the Soviet Union," he said.
Corruption? Corruption is an integral part of life in Iran and the Arab states. If you had fears over some kind of issue involving corruption, you would go to France, not the United States.
Dawnfire82's comment is accurate in my experience.
By Habu, at
Thu Mar 08, 04:27:00 PM:
Reason's...
1. hot babes
2. CIA promised him a MacDonalds franchise
3. 4 ply toilet paper
4. Home Depot
By Habu, at
Thu Mar 08, 04:35:00 PM:
Remembering my tradecraft there is an acronym for defections M.I.C.E.
Almost all defections can be placed in one or more of these areas.
M...money
I...ideology
C...compromised or coerced
E...ego
Take your pick.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 04:59:00 PM:
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 08, 05:03:00 PM:
By The Leading Wedge, at
Thu Mar 08, 05:59:00 PM:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702241_pf.html
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 08, 06:25:00 PM:
Sorry Screwy -- it's been all over the place, but The Leading Wedge links to it above. TH wrote about it yesterday.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 06:38:00 PM:
Corruption is an issue if the general is on the losing side of a power struggle.
Yes everyone is corrupt but it's often the means to nail someone's hide to the wall.
Or perhaps he merely stole from the wrong people.
We got an Al Qaeda defector because he embezzled funds. It happens.
By allen, at
Thu Mar 08, 07:11:00 PM:
“Iran's economy is in desperate need of reform. It is crippled by corruption, with an estimated 40 percent of Iranian GDP accounted for by the Bonyads--nominally charitable foundations established to administer the Shah's assets on behalf of the Iranian people, but in actuality massive corruption machines that bankroll the senior leadership.”
Iran: Three Alternative Futures
As suggested earlier, politics may be the problem, with corruption as the pretext.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 07:54:00 PM:
CardinalPark writes:
"Finally, the US has not responded in an aggressive way to naked Iranian interference in Iraq, even to the point of causing American deaths. American forbearance in Iraq would be noticed by a shrewd Iranian General. A nutty Iranian politician might perceive it as weakness. A shrewd Iranian General would understand that it was a reflection of strength."
180 degrees wrong, and the Administration's five years of absolute donothingism to depose Iran's regime prove that the American government is no friend of the Iranian people. Quite the contrary.
Further, our "Commander in Chief" has pointedly looked the other way while the Iranians (via their proxies) have killed hundreds of our troops in Iraq.
That's a legacy of absolute failure, and the Iranian general would see it that way. If he's defected, he's done so for other reasons than a high-minded alignment with our useless, punchless, politically-motivated White House and Administration.
- Lastango
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 08, 08:29:00 PM:
Anonymous: "Yes everyone is corrupt but it's often the means to nail someone's hide to the wall."
Not everyone there is corrupt.
In Iran the way you nail someone's hide to a wall is to take a hammer and nail him to a wall.
The current head of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and National Security reportedly was the deputy director of SAVAK, the Shah's dreaded secret police force.
In a serious Iranian power struggle, it is unlikely anyone is going to bother playing American-style rule-of-law games with corruption charges in a court system with a backlog of roughly 5 million cases. Yes, it's possible, I guess. It's also possible your computer will get hit by a meteorite.
Besides, who in the Middle East wants to do all that work? It is much easier to arrange a car or plane crash.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 08, 10:06:00 PM:
Allen: "It is crippled by corruption..."
Allow me to explain how government corruption works in many Muslim and other countries. Government officials don't simply accept bribes. Typically, there is an elaborate procedure to enable government officials to justify kickbacks in their minds.
Here are the typical steps in the developing and undeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East:
1. A governments want to buy something. The government requires three bids. The official in charge of buying the item obtains three legitimate bids in accordance with the regulations. At this point, an honest buyer would issue a purchase order to the lowest bidder. Let's say the lowest bid was $2 million.
2. A dishonest buyer tries to better the deal. He negotiates with the suppliers and he searches for other possible sources until he can find a significantly lower bid. Let's say, one of the original bidders is a pragmatic French company. The French company agrees to lower its price to $1.5 million and work with the dishonest buyer.
3. The dishonest buyer tells the French company to submit a bid to the government for $1.9 million ($100,000 less than the $2 million an honest buyer would have paid for the item). The French company follows the instructions. The French company gets the order, delivers the item, collects the money, keeps $1.5 million, and gives the remaining $400,000 to the buyer personally.
The bottom line:
1. The government that employs the dishonest buyer saved $100,000. (An honest buyer would have paid $100.000 more.)
2. The buyer got $400,000 personally.
3. The French company received less than it originally wanted to get for its item. (Who cares about the French, anyway?)
4. The only loser was a "rich Western company."
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 08, 10:26:00 PM:
P.S. There may have been another "loser"--the company that would have gotten the order under a completely honest procedure (if the French company wasn't the lowest bidder the first time around). But the second "loser" probably was a "rich Western company," too.
By allen, at
Thu Mar 08, 11:42:00 PM:
DEC,
Thanks.
The possible scams are as numerous as the imaginations of the players, it would be safe to say.
Personally, the 40% of GDP was more impressive than the mechanics.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Mar 09, 12:18:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Mar 09, 12:26:00 AM:
More than 50 other countries of world's top 163 nations probably have more corruption, Allen. That's what the most recent survey of Transparency International indicated.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 02:31:00 AM:
Clearly, in terms of the perception of transparency, many countries score lower than Iran; i.e. Iran is perceived as being potentially less corrupt.
When looking at nominal GDP, however, Iran dwarfs most of those nations deemed less transparent than Iran. In short, for most of these less transparent nations, one is left comparing the nominal GDP of an elephant (Iran) to that of a flea (Mali). Clearly, no matter the degree of corruption in Mali, the impact on the world economy, for any number of reasons, will be nil.
For a country such as Iran with a five year plan requiring annual capital inflows of $20B, the loss to corruption of $79B per annum creates grossly unfavorable conditions to stimulate foreign capital. And although Iran believes this capital can be found outside the West and Japan, in China and India, Brookings predicts that these two capital markets, even if agreeable, will lack the necessary liquidity for another decade.
The level of corruption within Iran is staggering in size. And the shear size of the dollar amounts lost to corruption make large aggregates of equally or greater perceived corruption irrelevant.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Mar 09, 08:36:00 AM:
Allen: "When looking at nominal GDP, however, Iran dwarfs most of those nations deemed less transparent than Iran. In short, for most of these less transparent nations, one is left comparing the nominal GDP of an elephant (Iran) to that of a flea (Mali)."
And No. 1 on the list of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita is Luxembourg. Who cares about GDP numbers in this case? I don't.
According to Transparency International, countries with more corruption than Iran (68 million people) include oil-producing Russia (142 million people) and oil-producing Nigeria (131 million people). Countries with more alleged corruption also include Pakistan (165 million people) and the Philippines (89 million), not to mention Iraq (26 million people). These countries are not fleas in the scheme of things.
Right now America should not want to see less corruption in Iran. The corruption is one of the things that could prompt Iran's citizens to bring about a change in their country's government.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Mar 09, 09:42:00 AM:
P.S.
Allen: "Clearly, in terms of the perception of transparency...those nations deemed less transparent...In short, for most of these less transparent nations..."
For the record: The Transparency International survey is about perceived levels of corruption, not about perceived levels of "transparency."
More at:
http://www.transparency.org/
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Mar 09, 09:50:00 AM:
It'll be interesting to find out, down the road, what really happened here.
Here's hoping that the General told George W. and the Can't Shoot Straight Gang that there's nary a nuke on the horizon.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 10:22:00 AM:
I linked to a Brookings site, wherein the authors estimated official Iranian corruption at 40% of GDP. Make of that what you will.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 10:42:00 AM:
DEC,
From TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2006 (PDF. Pg. 3)
___Transparency International recommends
“Greater scrutiny of the role of insufficiently transparent financial centres in facilitating corrupt transactions.”
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Mar 09, 11:01:00 AM:
Allen: "I linked to a Brookings site, wherein the authors estimated official Iranian corruption at 40% of GDP."
That's NOT what the Brookings piece says, Allen. Read the quote again: "It is crippled by corruption, with an estimated 40 percent of Iranian GDP accounted for by the Bonyads--nominally charitable foundations established to administer the Shah's assets on behalf of the Iranian people, but in actuality massive corruption machines that bankroll the senior leadership. "
According to the writer Kenneth Pollack, the Bonyads account for 40 percent of the Iranian GDP. And the Bonyads have a massive amount of corruption. That doesn't mean every penny at the Bonyads goes into the pockets of corrupt people. A lot of the money at the Bonyads is spent on legitimate expenses.
Some people contend the Bonyards control closer to 20 percent of Iran's GDP. Wikipedia has a decent description of the Bonyads:
"Today, Bonyads are a consortium of companies which are tax-exempt, receive government subsidies, donations and answer directly to the unelected supreme leader of Iran. The Bonyads are involved in everything from vast Soybean and cotton fields to hotels to soft drinks to auto-manufacturing to shipping lines to…. Bonyads are overstaffed, corrupt, and generally not profitable. In 1999 Mohammad Forouzandeh, a former defense minister, reported that only 20% Iran's Bonyad companies were making a profit."
I stopped playing knights-on-horseback when I was a child, Allen. On this general topic I made my points. Have a nice day.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 11:28:00 AM:
DEC,
For whatever reason, you make a distinction without a difference.
What chivalry has to do with this thread escapes me; but if something transparently obvious has eluded perception, you will point that out.
And, thanks, I generally do have nice days.
You wrote, “GDP (nominal) per capita”
To be perfectly clear as to nomenclature:
“Nominal GDP may be a useful guide for policy because it is closely related to real GDP growth and inflation. By definition, nominal GDP equals the product of real GDP and the price level…”
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
“[A] value of how much a person produces in a year. It is calculated by dividing the Gross Domestic Product for a country by the number of people who live there.”
per capita GDP
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Mar 09, 11:50:00 AM:
GDP per capita is calculated by dividing either nominal or real GDP for a given year by the population in that year.
Run "Nominal per capita GDP" on either Google or Yahoo.
Now I am really done on this thread. I am a businessman, not a schoolteacher.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 01:54:00 PM:
DEC,
Anticipating you, the links came directly from Google. But, of course, you would know that had you bothered to check rather than bloviate.
Admittedly, you could have a far greater understanding of either economics and/or business than the Federal Reserve; but I doubt it.
Maybe you should get back to business.
By K. Pablo, at
Fri Mar 09, 02:57:00 PM:
SOMEBODY got up on the wrong side of the futon this morning....
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Mar 09, 04:03:00 PM:
Allen, this link will help you:
http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/
The Web site provides resources and promotes communication among scholars in economic history and related fields.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 09, 04:16:00 PM:
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Sat Mar 10, 10:43:00 PM:
I've quoted from and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/03/re-why-would-senior-iranian-general.html
