A War Begins
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Since May 1, 2003 the war in Iraq has been fought on several fronts and the US and the Coalition have been remarkably successful in dodging the bullet, often seeming to epitomize the aphorism that it is better to be lucky than to be good.
The flood of foreign jihadis never materialized. Sistani and his followers have proven to be much more Iraqi nationalists than Iranian tools. Moqtada al-Sadr’s abortive rising resulted in a sound thrashing even though he remains unfinished business. Zarqawi’s AQIZ is on the verge of open warfare with its erstwhile allies in the insurgency. Three very successful elections have been held despite calls for their cancellation by “realists” concerned by security issues. Sunnis participated in the last election and are negotiating their way into the government. There is less and less reason to be concerned about Iraq descending into some kind of Buchananite fantasy of internecine warfare involving the wholesale slaughter of religious and ethnic minorities. Syria seems to have looked into the abyss and, though not reformed, stepped back.
The real war may now be just beginning.
Read on.
Iran’s strategy has seemed to mirror that of Syria in Iraq. While both Iran and Syria desire a stable and unitary Iraq both also want to bleed the United States sufficiently that we will be reluctant to get involved in the Arab world, or southwest Asia, again but at the same time they want the damage to be sufficiently free of fingerprints to prevent an incident that would lead to a substantial US military response. That strategy may be unraveling and rapidly so.
Iranian meddling in Iraq has been evident since the fall of Saddam. Within days of the Thunder Run through downtown Baghdad, Iran was beginning to dominate the Iraqi broadcast spectrum. Iranian intelligence operatives have been linked to the insurgency. Iranian manufactured munitions, munitions tailor-made for the insurgents, have appeared on the battlefield. Evidence indicates the Iranians instigated the rising by Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in April 2004.
Some of this has been aided and abetted by the go-along-get-along-Officer-Friendly approach the Brits have taken in Southern Iraq. They have allowed the police force there to be dominated by Mahdi Army thugs, internally and externally, and have shown a general reluctance to take the necessary actions to bring Basra under the control of the Interior Ministry in Baghdad. However, since the abduction of two British SAS troopers in September 2005 and the ensuing jail break the Brits have become more concerned and more proactive.
Unfortunately, the low-level Spy versus Spy conflict playing out in southern and eastern Iraq has escalated in recent weeks into something that closely resembles a prelude for full blown conflict. The catalyst is Iran’s ongoing danse macabre with the IAEA and the EU-3 over its rather transparent effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Belatedly discovering what the West has known for a decade, that the Russians can’t be bought and they are an unreliable and surly rented commodity, Iran is faced with the prospect of a crippling regime of economic sanctions. Unlike the thoroughly bovine population of Iraq under Saddam, there is reason to hope that the level of unhappiness and discomfort brought on by economic sanctions could result in a Ceaucescu-like exit for the mullahs who aren’t receiving very many Ramadan cards anyway.
Events over the past half year lead one to believe there is more of a strategy underway than hope-and-pray.
- 115 people, including 84 journalists were killed when an Iranian Air Force C-130 crashed shortly after takeoff on December 6, 2005.
- The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and at least ten other senior Pasdaran officers were killed in a plane crash on January 9, 2006.
Even by the abysmal standards of Iranian military aviation this quite a coincidence for two high profile flights to auger in in two months.
- In December, an assassination attempt on Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad left one of his bodyguards dead. The attack took place on the Zabol to Saravan highway in Sistan-Baluchistan province which borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both countries rife with anti-Iranian ethnic groups and easily accessible to British and US special forces.
- Since June 2005 the Iranian border city of Ahwaz has been hit by several bomb attacks. In October, the Iranians blamed the Brits. More bombs went off yesterday and this time the Brits and the Great Satan were blamed.
Some analysts believe this is part and parcel of a fierce struggle between Ahmadinejad and the mullahs for control of Iran. This might be true but a mafia-style going to the mattresses in the midst of a high stakes negotiation with the IAEA seems a bit much even for those wacky, fun-loving Iranians.
Even the staid Stratfor notes that the attack on the presidential motorcade and the bombings in Ahwaz might be calculated to keep Ahmadinejad off balance:
Though the regime is not lacking enemies within the Islamic Republic, these dissident groups in two wildly disparate regions of Iran could be backed by Western intelligence forces with an interest in undermining the regime. On both occasions, militants followed through with the attacks quite possibly with the knowledge that Ahmadinejad would not be there. Moreover, the Jan. 24 attacks took place at sites far from where Ahmadinejad was scheduled to be. Though Ahmadinejad was not directly targeted in either attack, the message sent threatened Iran's firebrand president sufficiently to sow fear within the ruling regime.
Iran has been in the spotlight for its defiance of international opinion regarding the pursuit of its nuclear agenda and its determination to achieve its objective of a Shiite-dominated Iraq. There is now more incentive than ever to bring the regime down from its high horse through covert intelligence operations with an aim to reveal a growing wave of dissent in the country and destabilize the Iranian government.
This linkage between the Iraq and Iran and the IAEA negotiations were brought into clearer view yesterday with Moqtada al-Sadr proclaiming that the Mahdi Army would ”support” Iran if it were attacked. This announcement, as much as the general intolerable situation, may have energized the Brits into action in Basra. Today, for instance, British and Danish troops arrested five Basra policemen, including a senior intelligence officer, on charges of murder.
I’m not a believer in conspiracy theories. But I do believe there is more afoot here that a string of unrelated misadventures. Bizarrely, I find myself in substantial agreement with accused perv and former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter.
[I can’t believe I wrote that. I agreed with Scott Ritter. Excuse me, I feel the sudden need to bathe with a wire brush and lye soap.
Whew. Okay. Back now.]
Though I am ambivalent about the use of Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) as proxies. Even by the Rafael Trujillo standard they have an unsavory history. But the recent bombings in Ahwaz bear a lot of MEK hallmarks.
The MEK may soon get at least a figleaf of respectability making it much easier for the US and UK to cooperate with them. They have a date in court in early February to seek removal from Europe’s list of terrorist groups. Their removal from the US State Department’s list may soon follow as much of the discussion around MEK, these days, follows the line of a question lobbed at Condi Rice at Georgetown:
QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Rice. Raymond Tanter, Political Science and --
SECRETARY RICE: How are you, Ray? Good to see you.
QUESTION: Good to see you. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
Madame Secretary, congratulations on holding the Permanent Five members of the Security Council together on Iran. That's the good news. The bad news is that it seems as if Tehran is using negotiations as a means of continuing with enrichment or breaking the seals at Natanz, breaking the seals at Isfahan and violating the terms of its agreement with the European-3 concerning reprocessing. There's wild speculation about military action as a result of the fact that the diplomacy seems to be stymied. Meanwhile, you have a situation where the Iranian opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, is on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list of the Department, the Department of State, and I believe that these are the pro-democratic forces with which we should be working in the West.
My personal view is that the preparation of the battlefield in Iran is well underway. Iran knows it. At the moment they are trying to create a low-tech version of Mutual Assured Destruction where they are attempting to hold hostage the fate of some 145,000 Coalition troops based on the chimera of a Shi’ite rising if Iran is attacked. The Tehran regime though is about to discover that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That roadside bombs kill on both sides of the frontier and that insurgents can be found in Iran just as easily as they can be found in Iraq.
How this plays out is anyone’s guess what is increasingly sure is that we are at war with Iran in all but name.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Hating the Troops:
One Lefty Says What Most Others Probably Really Think — Comments (102) »
A War Begins 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that we are aiding and abetting the internal pressures on the Mullahs, which I certainly hope is true, do you think that such pressures are intended to make them back off from the nuclear posturing or as genuine efforts to foment regime change? Between the MEK, the Kurds, disaffected Azeris, Baluchis and the Arab minority there are more than enough potential guerrillas to make life difficult for the Mullocracy - what`s our strategy here?
only have to reflect on the Axis of Evil speech to come to the conclusion that the administration is serious about settling their hash before January 2009.
from your post that the battlefield underway will not be high intensity with say B2 strikes and 3rd ID racing towards Tehran, but rather a low intensity one where we take covert action and use proxies like MEK to destabilize the government and possibly take out Amenijhad? For obvious domestic reasons, the low intensity angle is more attractive, but it seems to me it wouldn't really solve the underlying issue of Iran acquiring nukes- even if they have their hands full with internal conflict their nuke R&D can continue full force. But maybe the real problem is not Iran developing nukes but the current Iranian government developing nukes, and if we can destabilize the President A. and the mullahs they would be replaced with a (hopefully democratically supported) goverment that might still want to posess nukes but that we could live with, like with Pakistan.
If I'm totally missing the mark with where you were going with this, I apologize, but at any rate, great article.
The Pentagon Press should have asked Rummy if he's seen "Brokeback Mountain" yet? Talk about being stuck on stupid.
I don't profess to know what the war plans are other than the one Scott Ritter lays out is improabable in the extreme.
My point is that preparation of the battlefield is underway where large swaths of Iran may be on the verge of being removed from the control of Tehran and strategic targets, such as the Pasdaran high command, destroyed.
I think any fair reading of the situation says that Iran is a candidate for an Afghan style campaign.
just sold 29 Tor-M1 SAM systems to the Iranians. According to the Russians, they`re capable of taking down even cruise missiles. I`ve no idea of the deployment schedule but it certainly seems the Iranians are anticipating air strikes.
and conversely I guess that would indicate the Russians are not anticipating supporting any sanctions.
they are trying to sell before sanctions are imposed.
...that the items will work as advertised.
While I too refrain from drawing the lines between the dots too long, the events pointed out are at the very least thought provoking. Fantastic article!
I would say that our slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, under constant security threat, is an excellent example of just how much a little chaos can slow progress. It would seem that far from lofty goals of unseating the Mullahs, it would be enough to cause enough chaos to render their totalitarian control impotent. Even a failed attack on one of their "secret" facilities would hamper progress.
I too am reticent to throw support behind pseudo-tangos. We've been burned by these little armies too often in our history to support them without caveat. Anything we do must be tempered with the knowledge that once our mutual enemies are no more we may find ourselves directly at odds with our allies, and we should make preparations for that too.
You have to remember, we did not have an "army" in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. We merely had good allies in the Northern Aliance who could ride in and take the ground that had been scorched by American air power thanks to some incredibly brave guys on the ground with a laser painter in one hand and the reigns of a horse in the other. A few men who know what they are doing can turn a rabble of rebels into an unstoppable force with a little help from above. If we are already getting blamed for explosions we may as well actually cause a few.
We can't always choose our allies, and more often than not we have had few options. I think from a historical perspective we have many options in Iran, and I hope CIA and State are making wise choices about whom we support. We may have to live with them should our efforts bear fruit.
Great stuff!
are big arms dealers - 1 billion dollar lemon doesn`t make for good advertising. I do think, however, that we probably know the electronic signatures, ranges and capabilities of such weapons, along with the 8 digit coordinates of the locations where Russian technicians are planning to deploy them. If we`re able to sabotage them on the ground, Russians save face and future contracts.
I wonder what the new King of KSA said to the Chinese about Iran on his recent visit, and I wonder how India will vote on the upcoming series of UN matters?
These are probably the penultimate diplomatic actions encircling Persia. I suppose the ultimate actions are fairly spread across the spectrum.
3 years is a long time, and plenty can be done.
that having provided the radars, missiles, C4I, and technical expertise for the Iraqis... twice... that they market for their wares would be somewhat limited. But there is a sucker born every minute.
what concerns me here is that in the event of a war it`s going to be difficult to define clear military objectives. We know the political objective, but we have to believe that the Iranians have learned something from Iraq, where the concentrated mass of the Iraqi Army just disappeared, only to re-emerge as the so-called insurgency. If we`re unable to concentrate our combat strength against their most threatening formations it`s hard to see how we can avoid the same situation that we endured for two years in Iraq, if not on a much greater scale. The situation seems to call for extensive special ops like we had in Af - but to support whom?
. . . I think.
You are describing the observable, top-of-the-water characteristics of classical Unconventional Warfare . . . most likely (Note the coy qualifying suffix).
I know you know more than a smidgeon about UW 'things'; and appear to have taken great pains in your Iranian research.
You don't need me or anyone else to suggest that if the UW conclusions are correct - there will be boots on the ground somewhere there, and they will be being pursued by many more shod feet.
Outstanding observations. Will you readdress themn from time-to-time?
forces and circumstances underlying your observations may not be as recent as they publicly appear.
I think any fair reading of the situation says that Iran is a candidate for an Afghan style campaign.
... since the approval of the Iraqi Constitution back in late-October.
We can all pray such a campaign would be similarly successful, of course. But I wonder aloud just how intimately involved our SpecForces could be in Iran. I suspect they would need not be - some C^3 and a little "advice" to the MEK would probably be plenty and just might get "below the radar".
Finally, this is a brilliant piece of work, streiff. Simply brilliant.
Cheers.
A lot of this seems speculative, but it is fascinating nonetheless. I do want to point out that there are a number of parties of interest in the Iranian government at the moment.
There is Bonkers the Clown (Ahmadinejad or however his name is spelled), there is the conservative religious establishment ... AND ... there is the liberal reform clique which is not currently represented in government. Ahmadinejad seems to have no clearcut goal besides acting like a Berserker. What are the Mullahs thinking?
And was is the reform clique thinking and is there any way that we can reach them?
It seems like, ideally, our goal in the region would be to 1) neutralize any short-term Iranian nuclear capacity while 2) bringing the country into the mainstream of the world community and 3) helping it eventually modernize its infrastructure and liberalize its domestic policies to make it live more comfortably within the modern world.
How exactly are we going to get there?
It beats me.
I sense that part of it has to do with limiting the Iranian capacity to do harm until the Supreme Council of Super Holy Dudes have all died off and Iran's vast, young, modern and Internet-savvy population is able to assume command.
Will an airstrike accomplish that?
What a mess.
The question is can Iran be flipped without a military overthrow? Does it have a viable reformist which can use existing institutions to drive the mullahs from power and make Iran if not an ally, at least move it off of the Axis fo evil? Is the opposition organized enough to sustain a coup, and if it does so, will it necessarily be better than the current regime?
When anyone other than the US has them. At best, they are tolerable. I don't see it tolerable0 that any potential Iranian regime have nukes. Then again, we manage to tolerate Russia and China with them.
but I guess we're going to find out.
Hold on to your hat.
I would give more opinion, but I don't have any. This is a mess.
The only view that I have any perspective on is one streiff disagrees with.
It does appear to me that a coalition is building, and that it is striving to be serious.
Hello,
I am wondering which does Bush administration prefer, a regime change or stopping the development of nuclear bombs in Iran? Can we really have it both ways?
Granted, if airstrikes or an invasion will not stop Iran from building nuclear bombs or even force a regime change, then shouldn't we teach Iran a brutal lesson? How? By telling Iran, "Okay, if you want nuclear bombs, and we can't stop you from having them, but know this, it's gonna cost you an arm and a leg. Perhaps you might not survive amputation, but as long you want nuclear bombs, then that's the price you must pay."
Instead of focusing airstrikes on nuclear facilities, shouldn't we go after their source of revenues? Iran NEEDS money to finance nuclear programs and everything else. The sanctions aren't going to work on Iran, as there are too many other countries lurking and waiting to capitalize on economic opportunities in Iran, never mind the stability and reliance of Iranian government are called into question. We need to hit Iran fast and hard. That means taking out oil industries, refineries, pipelines, merchant fleets, oil tankers, and everything associated with oil. Moreover, going after agriculture and other second-tier sectors is also a good idea, force average Iranians to wake up and see how crazy mullahs are in managing their country.
Sure, it might cause Iranians to become even more radicalized. I think the question is, which is it worth, a regime change or simply stopping the nuclear program? I don't think we can have it both ways. Iranians made their choice in supporting the current Iranian regime. They had the best chance of knocking it out in 1999, but as Khatami was too relcutant to lead the democratic revolution, Iran probably lost the best chance of becoming a truly democratic country, if only weak democratically, at least without any interference from the West.
At this point, I would rather to have Iranian nuclear program stopped in its track than in forcing a regime change. Let mullahs have their hurrah in Iran, as long they can't finance nuclear programs or enabling them to go on offensive (financing terrorist actions, creating proxies in neighboring countries, setting up intelligence networks, etc.) once they're able to obtain nuclear bombs.
What do you think?
Dan
I agree with the premise of Streiff's argument that the US and Iran are already in the infant stages of a potentially much larger conflict. However, I would argue that the reasons for the increased tensions have more to with commodity manipulation than nuclear proliferation.
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1215iran.html
http://energybulletin.net/12125.html
in part but I see the economic element as simply another weapon Iran is using to convince the West that depriving it of nukes will be too painful. So rather than a motive or a cause, I think it is a tactic.
Don't you lefties ever get tired of chanting No Blood for Oil???
Fascinating piece, I thought those planes dropped a leetle too conveniently. Throw in the bombing attempt on President "What US embassy?!?" A. and things would seem to be adding pressure to a man who might step on the wrong thing.
On a side note, if Iran were to establish it's own market for trading oil, it will be forced to try and establish a secure, world-wide electronic platform for trading (which is what I do, trade, that is) The possible manipulations of such an electronic platform, and its accompanying settlements system would force this new exchange back to paper trading cards, blackboards, and chalk, just to keep out the hackers. I feel quite comfortable that such an exchange would prove to be quite "unreliable". Besides, any trading in crude oil futures, settled in Euros, would probably strip the ECB of any reserves and center them, untaxed no less, in Tehran. I don't think this will last long.
It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up going in the next several months, especially with Ahmadinejihad making like a mad dog and barking the way he's been doing. How much of this is more sabre-rattling to test the mettle of the US and the international "community"? Do we take the man at his word and make the first move, or are there actually cooler heads (if you could call a fanatical Islamist theocrat "cool-headed") which will know when a sort of detente has been achieved and keep their enemies at a safe distance that way?
Those, I think, are questions that no one knows the answer to unless they have more info than what we've been able to gather...
I'm not saying "no blood for oil"; I'm just saying that if I'm going to be fighting I want to know why...- my biggest problem with the republican party is that I don't know when to trust them to be telling the whole truth.
I don't see it as political reality.
While the ends may not jusifiy the means, the ends do justify the bedfellows.
Sub-motives do not matter. Pick YOUR objective, pick YOUR motive, and build a coalition.
Hitchens has.
thinks he tested America's mettle with Jimmie Carter in the late 1970s, unfortunately.
Detente? With people who send their children out to blow themselves up among us; or encourage and train others to do so?
You don't trust the Republicans--thats fine. But you go to the site of the Communist Party of Austrailia to get answers? Do you believe the CPA more?
"No Blood For Oil" morphs into "BushLied" How very original
I don't think they'll be able to pull another Iraq on us.
While hardly sterling recommendations, the Chinese now produce this
system internally under license and our Nato ally Greece purchased
a few in 1999. Probably better than anything Sadam had in 91 but
one always wonders about Russian quality control. Anyone wanting a
summary of the system specs, I wrote here in early Dec.
about the sale. These will be used to defend against relatively slow
moving cruise missiles near HVTs.
One wonders what sales the French will get in under the wire.
The trouble with Iran and we Must solve it NOW.
All this bs talk about the US Army being at the Breaking Point remains BS until and unless we have to hit Iran the same way we did Iraq. We CanNot fight that war. We don't have that many soldiers. Whatever we do there must be Short and sweet and light on manpower.
Probably not, but has Iran ever linked a stand-down on their nukes to a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq? I know it is a blunt diplomatic instrument, but it seems like one that would rest easy in Ahmadinejad's hand. Having said that, it is a confrontational linkage which both sides may be tacitly avoiding in favor of UW and "diplomacy by other means".
they would do this.
It seems they are convinced that they can drive us out of Iraq AND have nukes.
Sorry for the diversion, but I couldn't resist...
Scott Ritter suddenly had an epiphany: "If I can make myself look older, bigger and scarier, then perhaps women my age will appear younger, and more vulnerable. Thus, they will excite me like the young ones! Now, If only I could get some payback for my humiliation that day in Burger King..."
Iran has an ace card with their access to the Straits of Hormuz, where 25% of the world's oil production passes through. Imageine the disruption that it would cause if Iran were able to shut shipments down for even a week.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674159.html
during the Tanker War and Operation PRAYING MANTIS.
They couldn't do it then, they can't do it now.
Iran can assert that they will close the straits does not mean they actually can. I'll bet that there is at least one navy {wink wink nudge nudge} that can keep this from sticking.
And closing the straits would have devastaing effect on most countries; none of them by themselves might be able to counter the threat but combined they would be difficult to resist. When most of Europe and Japan et al are cut off from oil I venture they will suddenly see the wisdom of responding to the mullahs with force.
What gets my goat is that with this going on, the only thing the Pentagon press corps could ask Rumsfeld about today over and over again was about the Krepenevich and Perry reports that the army is "broken." Now we all knew how he would answer this question, no matter how artfully posed, before he walked into the briefing room. Might it have been more interesting to ask a question like the one posed to Secretary Rice? Might it have been more interesting to ask in "Are we at war with Iran in all but name?" Might he have had something to say?
As you point out, this is a deadly serious situation and I think we deserve better from the press covering the military.