Friday, January 20, 2006

 

The Problem of Iran

Joe Katzman, writing at Winds of Change, presents a highly logical if chilling analysis of various Iranian scenarios. Some commenters offer more hope for more viable options to avert the catastrophes Joe articulates. Armed Liberal promises some brighter options this weekend. Grim, difficult, seconds to midnight fare. All too probable.

Like the question posed by Scrooge, confronting the visions of Christmases future:

Are these the visions of what will be, or what might be without an altered course for the present? Must we be condemned to an inevitable future, or is there time to change the outcomes that look all so certain now?

The fierce opponents of the Bush Administration’s policies on Iraq and the Global War on Terror have long used North Korea and Iran as the strawmen for a “there are greater dangers” line of political attack. Where are they now?

Does President Bush and his team have the strength of will to take on yet one more challenge in the face of the inner opposition? Can they overcome the fifth column? Can they eliminate the nuclear threat yet preserve the Iranian people’s hopes and dreams for democracy for them, too?

Can they even move fast enough now, or is it already too late? Must an Israel or Great Britain or other ally already suffer an ultimate consequence of receiving a final death throe from an Iran who has already acquired nuclear weapons?

I’m afraid I agree with commenters who warn there is no way near enough time to use a “topple from within” strategy of aiding and enabling democracy movement within Iran. I do think someone in the last day or two suggested sponsoring a military coup that deposes the mullahs and turns power over to a civilian authority (in time). (Unless of course, those who might have led such an effort died in the recent suspicious Iranian military plane crash.)

Many of us long suspected Iraq was selected after Afghanistan in large part due to its potential as the tipping point in destroying the Middle East as it was, and creating the conditions to thereby unleash the natural and long suppressed aspirations of people in the Middle East for freedom and democracy, to work in concert with military and diplomatic efforts.

Yet this takes place within a very fractured and insubordinate coalition. No, I’m not talking the insubordination of allied nation states, but the almost traitorous rebellion of agencies and agents within the Federal Government. Department of State, the CIA, FBI, members of Congress – all have seen their share of counter-counter insurgency efforts. For political gain, for turf, to exact vendetta, for partisan advantage, for policy control or supremacy. Not to mention a very divided and sometimes ambivalent public, made increasingly skeptical beyond reason by a hostile media.

The battle of our times is upon us, greater than we have ever known in our history, greater perhaps than the twilight years of fascist ascendancy in the 30s and 40s, or the threat of encroaching communism in the 60s and 70s. Nuclear weaponry and global destructive capability has final devolved down to the logical endstate of technical capability. In the hands of madman, surely.

We could stand by and see what happens, we could, and in the face of great uncertainly, fear, and the potential costs of action and mistake, we possibly will.

The problem is, with this technology, it won’t mean that everyone around the world will have to deal with noxious American syndicated television or culturally abusive motion pictures as a consequence. Or a bar on every corner, or earplugs in every ear.

Rather, we’ll all be faced with the kind of nuclear exchange that many of us who lived through the Cold War thought we had averted. And as the mushroom clouds expand, and the world as we know it ends, will we be prepared for what is left?

Not just the damage to our allies or our cities. But to ourselves? To the nation we will and must become, to finally, completely, for once and for all, really fight back against this enemy and vanquish them from the face of the Earth?

For at that point, as we in anguish mourn the extermination of the Israelis or Iranians or Iraqis or whoever else gets caught in the carnage, we will finally have the will to act, and act with extreme violence. And in the killing and the conquering and the elimination of this enemy, we may in the end pay a higher price for victory than ever we imagined.

But fight we will. Now, or later.


Links: Mudville Gazette, Jo's Cafe, Outside the Beltway

Comments:
Well written, sir.

No outcome is certain until it happens. "Always in motion, the future is" says Master Yoda. Yet the darkness is rising, and time is running short.
 
OK, I find it worth writing a comment here because you've been to Iraq. Whatever you are, you are not a chickenhawk dreaming grand strategic dreams from the comfort of home.

I'm in Iraq right now, and have been here for awhile.

What happens in Iraq when the fever dreams of these "warbloggers" become reality? Say Iran is bombed, by the US or Israel?

A former Iraqi government official I was talking to yesterday said it best: "The American Soldiers in Iraq are hostages to Iran." That's a fact, Jack, and if you have been here you know how we now depend on the Iraqis for a lot of things, including security. This man said that Iranian intelligence operates openly in the southern governorates and they disburse money openly to the ruling political parties. I have heard from other sources about Iranian penetration of Iraqi ministries and security forces. This man (a secular Shia) said that Al-Hakim, the leader of the largest party, SCIRI, was wholly owned by Iran.

In other words, there are enough Iranian assets already in place in Iraq to make our further presence in Iraq impossible, should the Iranians choose to operate.

Imagine Iranian special forces raids on the International (Green) Zone and other US and coalition installations, with concurrent mass demonstrations and the deployment of the Badr corps and Mahdi Army against us.

I was in the south during the Mahdi Army uprising, and believe me, that was hairy enough.

We needed a bigger Army three years ago - but that crazy old man Rumsfeld kept fighting expanding the size of the Army.

Maybe we should do something about Iran, but we can't - unless we abandon Iraq. A fine mess Bush has gotten us into.
 
Anonymous, I don't blame you for being angry with Rumsfeld for keeping the army at 2001 levels. We should have six more divisions now than we already do. However, despite the efforts of the Pasdaran and other Iranian intelligence services, this problem directly affects the national security of two countries: Israel and the United States.

Simply stating that Bush screwed up is another way to kick the can down the road. Some day, you just have to bite the bullet and pick up the can.

The losses we are taking now will be infinitesimally small compared to those that could be inflicted by some jumped-up Persian Fuhrer with atomic bombs to spare.
 
Who you talkin "we," when you say the losses "we" are taking, Chris?

Where are you? I'm in the IZ of Baghdad.

What is the solution to the dilemma I posed: not enough Army to secure Iraq in the face of an offense on the part of neighboring Iran, the ex-Ba'athists, al-Qaida in Iraq, the Mahdi Army and the Badr corps. No way can we hold on. No wonder the Ukrainians, Italians, Poles and others are on their way out.

This is a win-win for the Iranians: even if we bomb their nuclear facilities, the resulting uprising will give them leave to annex southern Iraq.
 
Anonymous,

I appreciate your input. I am sure you are anonymous for a reason, but can you please specify the context of your role there? Civilian? Military? Are you a US citizen? Member of the media?

I only ask that we can put your perspective in context.

That said, I wonder if the Secular Shia you quote might exaggerate or amplify the degree of influence Iran has. I don't doubt Iran wnats that much influence, but I have read extensively elsewhere that Iraqi Shia aren't nearly as beholden to Iran (nor desirous of being their lapdogs) as what your friend implies.

And I think you overestimate the power and degree of effectiveness that Iran would have using Shia in Iraq as a surrogate for their own foreign policy in any borader or hotter conflict between the US and Iran.

Let's face it, Iran is at war with us NOW. Thet encouraged terrorism against us before 9/11 and since. They actively support and initiate terrorist acts against us in Iraq and promote more elsewhere.

If they had the power to influence a Shia militia of any magnitude in Iraq, they'd be doing it already (and probably are). I don't think they've got this hidden, reserved, "if we really get mad, watch out" capability. I think we're already seeign about as much as they've got on that score.

No, what they have is nukes or they're about to get them. That's the threat they represent, not something more as you suggest.

Which again causes me to ask. Why do you conclude there's so much more to what they can do? How do you gain that viewpoint, becuase it sounds like DNC taking points.

Just asking.
 
Joe, thanks for stopping by, and for the compliment. Very much appreciate your work, even if it scares the crap out of me!
 
I am a US civilian contractor, been here since 2003, on and off. 18 months total on the ground. Ex-military, 10 years active duty.

I am in the IZ, and I've already heard two bombs go off this morning as I write this, 10:19 am.

How did I gain my viewpoint? By being enough on the inside, and knowing how much influence Badr Corps have in the Interior Ministry, having Iraqis tell me how much Farsi is spoken in the ministry and other government offices in the south. By having seen the Iranian border in 2004 and seeing crowds flow across from Iran. By being around during the Sadr uprising in spring 2004. By reading emails from senior officials warning of the influence of Iran within SCIRI and in the southern governorates. By knowing that Al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI, the biggest party, lived in Iran and trained his Badr militia there. By knowing that Jaafari also lived in Iran. By having talked to many Iraqis and asking them what would happen in Iraq if the US or Israel bombed Iran.

Now, we know that Iran are helping some insurgents somewhat. Once in awhile there will be IEDs set off in the south. Nothing like what your 42nd was facing in their AOR, though. It is in their interest to make us bleed, but not weaken us so much that that Sunni insurgency would be able to depose the government of their friends.

In no way have the full capacities of the Iranian intelligence services and special forces been deployed against us.

The government of (mostly) SCIRI, Dawa and Sadr Current is getting stronger, thanks to our help. The perverse thing is that Bush is right that the Iraqis will be able to stand on their own. And, in a (somewhat) democracy, they will be (somewhat) responsive to public opinion. And when they can stand alone, and the public demands we leave after we bomb in Iran, and Iran special forces teams start operations against us, what will we do? When the IZ is surrounded by a mob of Sadr supporters, and 16 year olds from the Mahdi army start jumping the walls and wading the Tigris with AKs, what then?

I think you are the victim of dangerous illusion, by saying that I am exaggerating the threat. Look at the map. Who has a 906 mile border with Iraq, largely still unguarded? Not to mention the place on the other side, the 580 mile border with Afghanistan, where Iran could also easily make problems for us. Do you know that Dari, the biggest language there, is as closely realted to Farsi as Spanish is to Portuguese? Do you know there is a thriving smuggling trade on that border? Sugar (taxed in Iran) and alcohol in, drugs out.

This is reality, not DNC talking points, I haven't seen anything useful the Democrats have to say. If anything, Hillary is trying to out-demogogue the issue.

You should think about the soldiers you left behind here before you support such reckless plans.
 
Anonymous, I've been meaning to respond to your last, but have been busy.

I think you may misread me as much as I perhaps misread you.

I do object to the idea that because Bush led us into Iraq, we are screwed when it comes to Iran. I think they are flip sides of the same coin, and threat.

I don't know that I "support" any military action against Iran, rather than find such action inevitable.

My primary point is, I think Joe Katzman was right on the money, and Iran looks like it will get very much worse, and could easily explode beyond anyone's ability to limit the damage -- from their reckless behavior or the violence of our response. (Yes, I'm talking nuclear.)

I quite believe you have real information upon which you base your assessment. But I defintely think your experience with Sadr's Army colors and ultimately weakens the validity of your assessment.

I don't care that much what Iran thinks it can do, or what a disgruntled secular Shia thinks of the rising influence of religious based political parties. I care what they will do, what they can do, and what difficulties they would have trying to "take over" Iraq to the degree you describe.

Their intelligence service is no doubt brutal, and invested heavily in Iraq. But there is no way they're anywhere near the class of a CIA, MI5/6, let alone the Mossad.

I do think you misread and exaggerate their power. They are pretty much full throttle against us now. That's the point.

I no longer doubt your bona fides, nor that your opinion is grounded in experience. But I think you decided back in 2004 what your assessment was, and what data you note backs up your foregone conclusion.

I have more faith in the Iraqi people, who I think would still rather be Iraqi, and resent any foreign influence and usurpation. Most of the Iraqi army veterans I met carry on their persons quite visible evidence of the long war with Iran. I don't think the rulers of Iraq will have an easy time ruling Iraq as a satellite of Iran.

I also believe Iran to be in almost as precarious a state -- scratch that, more precarious -- than the Soviet Union some years before their collapse. (That doesn't make them any less dangerous, by the way, just that they are very vulnerable to having their legs knocked out from under them.)

Their people hate the mullahs and ruling theocracy almost more than the Iraqis do.

I confess, I haven't seen any recent intel, nor have I focused much on Iran, but I follow knowledgeable sources who seem to have a good handle (Joe, Austin Bay, Bill Roggio).

I would invite any of my readers to weigh in.

Does anonymous have a good read on the capabilities and influence of Iran?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]