Thursday, September 13, 2007
My whereabouts and an open discussion about Iran
I'm around, but I am working very hard. The next time I get some breathing space, though, I'm going to read Thomas Joscelyn's report on "Iran's Proxy War Against America." It is 100 pages, so I can use all the help you can provide. Use this post as an open thread to discuss Iran, your conception of the threat it poses, and realistic suggestions for its containment or interdiction given the domestic and international political climate. Take into account the unpopularity of George W. Bush and Germany's recent declaration that it would oppose new economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Also consider reading Kimberly Kagan's somewhat shorter discussion of the same subject, available through a link at The Belmont Club. I have not read Kagan's piece either -- yes, I am that busy -- but I have printed it off and hope to get to it this weekend.
Release the hounds.
12 Comments:
By 
Denise, at
Thu Sep 13, 02:30:00 PM:
What is there to be done? In a standard (standard defined as: before Daily Kos was more important than national security) situation, most pols would already have decided that Iran had declared war on us, wouldn't they? (Disclaimer: I'm only 26. Vietnam politics is beyond my ken-- maybe the liberal ennui goes back that far?)
As it is, I don't know what on earth we can do, except publish. Shout to high heaven everything we've got: Iran's building IED's and bombs, sending aid to Hezbollah and Hamas, and who knows what else they've got. Maybe if we can make people see... but I gave up on people not blinding themselves after what they said about Petraeus.
By Escort81, at
Thu Sep 13, 05:10:00 PM:
Neither Joscelyn nor Ledeen advocates a military attack against Iran (although I suppose some critics of their writings will say that they are adding to the case for such a response). Both want to continue to apply as much pressure as possible on the Mullahs and support those within Iran who wish to do away with theocracy and desire a more representative form of government.
If Ledeen and Joscelyn are prescribing that plan, given all of the evidence (both solid and circumstantial) that they cite, and their clear feelings regarding the regime in Tehran, I think it is essentially a race against time: will the Iranian people rise up and change the government to one that does not sponsor terrorism (BTW, in that scenario, what happens to all of the former IRGC, IRGC Quds, and Hezbollah-relationship people?) before the current regime obtains a nuclear weapon? I would not bet on an uprising at this point. Maybe if something were to happen, "accidently on purpose," to the single refinery in Iran, people might generally get upset enough to ignite a meaningful political movement. Otherwise, it will be up to the Israelis to deal with Tehran (on a timeline decided upon in Jerusalem), or the U.S. will do so after if there is another attack on U.S. soil and if -- a big if -- it is traceable to Tehran (I am not sure the Iranians would be that clumsy and that stupid). Either way, it's not going to end well.
By 
, at
Thu Sep 13, 07:42:00 PM:
Escort ... I don't know ... seems like Iranian-made goods are showing up in Iraq.
The big "if" for me is who's in office when the opportunity/provocation comes. If it's a pacifist, we do nothing but talk. If it's an American, we go kick some ass.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Sep 13, 07:54:00 PM:
"will the Iranian people rise up and change the government"
They did it in 1979. But I'm not optimistic. The suffering people in Zimbabwe haven't changed their government yet. Neither have the suffering citizens of North Korea.
By , at
Thu Sep 13, 08:43:00 PM:
With the security apparatus in Iran and the general attitudes at present in Iran, I think the hope of a popular uprising is Fool's Gold. Time to wage a proxy war against Iran
1. Flood the country with counterfeit currency, producing inflation.
2. Try every subtle means to slow down and delay oil shipments out of Iran. That is their main means of getting hard foreign currency to finance purchases of goods that they need but can't produce.
Wait for economic turmoil to bring down the government of Iran.
And don't ever expect an embargo to work either. Our European friends will not help us here.
-David
By SR, at
Thu Sep 13, 10:55:00 PM:
Put a strong military presence on the Iraq/Iran border, and seal it to ALL traffic from Iran. Oh wait, the US doesn't know how to seal a border.
By Escort81, at
Thu Sep 13, 11:37:00 PM:
TH asked us to think about our conception of the threat Iran poses, which, in one sense, asks us to contemplate what it is the Mullahs want -- if they look out a decade from now and could have something close to their reasonable best case scenario in place, what would it look like?
I would guess that scenario would have the following characteristics:
1) A nuclear arsenal larger than France's, with a decent, if non-Western, ability to deliver weapons with some precision up to 2,500 miles away.
2) Israel is effectively reduced to its 1967 borders, with near daily attacks emanating from Hamas-controlled Gaza, Hezbollah-controlled south Lebanon, Syrian-controlled Golan Heights, and Hezbollah-influenced West Bank that has been returned to Jordan. Succesive Israeli Labor PMs have argued against air strikes in Iran, but try to D up as best they can against the daily attacks. Others vote with their feet, as almost 5,000 Israeli Jews per week (net) have had enough and are leaving to move elsewhere.
3) No U.S. troops remain in Iraq, and the Shia-dominated government there is as much a puppet of Tehran as is the regime in Damascus. Sunni insurgents quit a few years back, after most of them were wiped out by IRGC-directed assassinations.
4) The Saudi Royal family maintains a loose grip on power, but largely takes is direction from Tehran on all matters relating to oil production and international relations. The thousands of members of the family have had their allowances cut, with the difference going to Tehran in the form of tribute -- the Saudi royals know that if they do not toe the line, significant increases in terrorist attacks will occur and they will be completely out of power with nothing but their Swiss Bank doggy bags left. The Saudis no longer fund Wahabi mosques around the world, but Shia mosques are funded instead with the same money once it is funneled through Tehran.
5) NATO has left Afghanistan, and it has returned to a status quo ante circa 1970.
6) Spot oil is $120/bbl., and Chavez makes semi-annual visits to Iran to check on his allocated production level.
In summary, there is a Shia crescent from western Pakistan to the eastern Med, and Tehran has a nuclear arsenal and controls spot oil prices, and Israel is being worn away.
By , at
Fri Sep 14, 02:21:00 AM:
Our first conceptual issue must be:
1. Do we trust Iran and the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons? Are we willing to bet our cities on their goodwill?
If we are not, we must take action to stop their reaching nuclear status.
That action might be any or all or some combination of JFK:Cuba Blockade, No-Fly Zones, sinking the Iranian Navy, destroying Iranian Air Force and Air Defenses, destroying some or all of Iranian refining capacity, some or all of Iranian electrical grid, some or all of Iranian transport system, some or all of Iranian nuclear sites.
[As VDH points out, no one cared in the least how many Serbs were killed in Clinton's "War of Choice" over Serbian skies. No American was killed and that was all that mattered. So Iranian losses need not concern us with domestic political issues. Dems hardly cared about Serbian civilians or Chinese embassies, they won't care about Iran's losses either.]
We essentially have an existential choice: either submit to Iran's willingness to either hand off nukes to AQ or Hezbollah to attack us with deniable nukes (we don't have samples of their weapons grade material so we won't be able to "prove" it was them in case of attack). Or fight. Let's also consider that Soviet ICBMs are over forty years old. Given enough time Iran will be able to destroy without warning US cities directly. North Korea, China, Russia, and Pakistan will all assist in ICBM development which is not THAT hard. The USSR did it with very limited resources.
Dems will of course argue that we can bargain and make nice with Iran, because Iran is a nation like say, Switzerland or Norway. Most everyone else is likely to view Iran as a mortal threat they cannot trust.
The Soviet Union and China were deterrable through MAD. It is pretty dicey to bet on that with a nation that opens every ceremony with "Death to America!" and has engaged in acts of war against us continually since 1979.
Given the insane nature of Ahmadinejad (world leaders did not blink when he spoke for 40 minutes, a "green light" emanated from him, he's the Mahdi, US and Israel's destruction is at hand, etc.) if you argue that we can live with Iran's nukes you are arguing that Ahmadinejad both does not NOW have power to act on his own and will be FOREVER restricted from acting on his own to nuke us.
[How does he differ from Kim Jong-Il? Kim only wants money. He does not have the means to conquer even South Korea and certainly not outside it. His policy of Juche i.e. making weapons to sell for cash means if you have enough money you can buy his weapons production out. Assuming he's not cheating on you. Ahmadinejad thinks he's the Mahdi and will usher in Paradise by starting a World War. He's said so often enough.]
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 12:45:00 AM:
Hey i understand where hillary wants to build a WOODSTOCK MUSEUM and guess who will be footing this massive pork barrel project it will be JOHN Q. PUBLIC as always planed by left-wing liberal demacrats and their TAX AND SPEND ideas
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 04:20:00 AM:
I yield to no one in hating the Iranian Mullahcracy. In my opinion, Islamic revolution in 1979 was one of the major unfortunate historical reversals in recent times. Having said that, I still can't help but to conclude that the Mullahs are plotting possibly the only smart and sensible course for themselves and the whole country of Iran.
History tells that for many centuries Iran was at war with their Muslim brethren (Turks and Arabs) and Infidels alike. Necessarily, Iranians became resilient, tenacious and scheming. They learned to cultivate supporters deep within enemy territories. Iranians learned the precious value of influence derived from supporting numerous, restless and rebellious groups among their enemies. Perhaps when Iranians support Hizbollah, Hamas and Sadr brigades, they do it not because they want to "destroy America and Israel" but to maintain their influence throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world.
Now, we want them to cut off all the ties with those radical forces and don't do anything that might cause us any harm. Why should they?
Suppose they will do as we wish. They will lose all the influence they have and what would they get in return? Specifically regarding the situation in Iraq: suppose they will stop any cooperation with Sadr militants. They will lose all influence inside their neighbor's territory and what will they gain? Our gratitude? How much good is it to them? Will it make a speck of a difference in US political wrangling about Iraq?
US cannot decide whether to stay or leave Iraq. At any moment the opposite political faction might prevail and Iraq might be abandoned. US can afford such luxury due to its strength and fortunate geographical situation but Iran can't. They can't put all their hopes on the US only to see it withdraw. Iranians might well remember what happened to the Shah who trusted US too much.
If US withdraws from Iraq and all hell brakes loose there, what is better for Iran: to be an outsider or to have powerful clients inside Iraq with long history of mutual support and cooperation?
On top of all that we have the Revolutionary Heritage. Those memories take long time to live out. Animosity towards the US is part of that heritage, culminating in the infamous regular chants, "Death to America!" It might seem strange to us now, but when Dickens traveled in the US in 1840-s he described how at almost any public event somebody would inevitably start a passionate oration denouncing "the British Lion". That was 60 years after the War of Independence! That was part of American Revolutionary heritage.
To conclude, Iran is not such a big threat. What US needs is to determine the firm course of its own actions, first of all in Iraq; secondary countries will fall along sooner or later.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 15, 01:29:00 PM:
"when Dickens traveled in the US in 1840-s he described how at almost any public event somebody would inevitably start a passionate oration denouncing "the British Lion". That was 60 years after the War of Independence!"
It was also only about 25 years after the War of 1812. It was also during the 1840's that Americans and British traded bullets over the Oregon territory, a border dispute that raised the possibility of a full-on war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute#Slogans_and_war_crisis
The US and Britain almost went to war again in the 1860's during the Civil War, and the possibility was raised again after World War I.
The 'special relationship' with the UK is a relatively recent invention.
"To conclude, Iran is not such a big threat."
To whom? To us? Sure, I suppose, if you don't count their continuous and large scale support of terrorists. But the Gulf Arabs are terrified of them and the Israelis have, of course, been threatened with annihilation.
By , at
Sun Sep 16, 01:38:00 AM:
"...if you don't count their continuous and large scale support of terrorists. But the Gulf Arabs are terrified of them and the Israelis have, of course, been threatened with annihilation."
But who are the "terrorists" that Iranians support? If they are Hizbollah, Hamas and Sadr brigades, perhaps Iranians value them not as "terrorists" but as powerful rebellious movements inside the countries historically hostile to Iran?
I think it's important to understand what possible rational reasons might lie behind actions of our adversaries. Too many people see international politics as struggle of demonic forces of good (us) and evil (them). For example, many Americans seem to believe that everything Iranians or Russians do is calculated to hurt the US just for the sake of it. Likewise many Iranians or Russians appear to be absolutely convinced that the US is trying to take over the whole world just because that's what the US wants. Obviously, both of those positions are based on circular reasoning.
Of course the sad fact is that anti-semitism is a valuable political currency in the Middle East, so there is always easy to score a few cheap political points by trashing and threatening Israel.
Israel is probably stronger than ever, though.
