Target Centermass

Category: Central Asia

  • Could This War Produce a Sunni-Israeli Alliance?

    My quick one-word answer to that headline’s question: no. Now, please allow me to elaborate on that answer: hell no.

    It’s not often — if ever — that I post an article that has so many points with which I disagree unless I’m dissecting it. Still, this interview with Martin Indyk raised enough interesting thoughts that I’d still recommend reading it. Please note that a political slant is made obvious early, as displayed in the following (emphasis added):

    Indyk currently heads the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. He is waiting, though he will not admit this publicly, for another opportunity to try to make peace – an option that could be realized if a Democrat wins the U.S. presidential elections in 2008.

    Despite this wonderfully biased intro that a Democrat U.S. president is the course to possible peace, there are still some tasty tidbits in the interview, and I would like to highlight a couple of them.

    First, when asked who won the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in southern Lebanon, Indyk gave the following response:

    “I think the verdict is still out. Militarily Hezbollah put on an impressive performance and was able to stand up to Israeli forces. Even if in the end it turns out that they lost every encounter, in the Middle East perception is reality, and the perception is that they gave as good as they got, and the perception is that they achieved more than Israel achieved. When the Israeli Chief of Staff says that ‘Israel won on points,’ that’s not a very reassuring verdict.

    “On the other hand, to paraphrase von Clausewitz, the question is who manages to turn the results on the battlefield into political gains, and there I’m a bit more optimistic. The campaign in Lebanon highlighted the dangers facing the Sunni Arab world from the Iranian-led Shia axis, from Iran to Iraq – which has a Shi’ite-dominated government – to the minority Alawite regime in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. That actually provides a common interest to the Sunni Arab world and Israel.

    “And you can see that in interesting ways, including the fact that Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have now had a spat with Syria over their intent to relaunch Saudi King Abdullah’s peace initiative, which provided conditions for ending the conflict, recognition of Israel and normalization of relations.

    “And there is the fact that the Sunni Lebanese prime minister, while taking the world press on a tour of the rubble of southern Beirut and accusing Israel of war crimes – is nonetheless holding out an olive branch to Israel.[“]

    Secondly, when discussing his earlier contentions that Israel should focus on making peace with Syria, Indyk reversed his long-held stance as follows:

    “Look, I was personally involved in trying to achieve a peace treaty between Israel and Syria during eight years of the Clinton Administration. I personally argued throughout that period that the U.S. needed to give priority to a Syrian-Israeli deal, because it had obvious strategic benefits: breaking off Syria from Iran as well as the ability to disarm Hezbollah with the 15,000 troops that Syria had in Lebanon at the time, and to increase the pressure on the Palestinians to move forward and to break the logjam. There were lots of advantages then to doing a deal with ‘Syria first.’

    “But I don’t feel the same way now. There’s nothing wrong with talking about talking with Syria. Israel should always be interested in negotiating peace – but as a matter of strategy I think it’s a mistake.

    […]

    “Syria is allied with Iran, for good reasons of strategy, from their point of view. And the notion that you can somehow split them is, I think, fanciful. And to talk to Assad now would have the effect of inviting him back into Lebanon, because surely the purpose of talking to him is to get him to control Hezbollah, and I think that’s a mistake.

    “Israel should at least try to work with the Lebanese government, which is an anti-Syrian government. Because that government is signaling that it wants to deal with Israel, that it wants to return to the provisions of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between the two countries, and the Lebanese prime minister had made it even more explicit in recent days.[“]

    While I find much to disagree with in the interview, including especially the fundamental point that this war sets up a grand opportunity with the Sunnis for Israel, there is also much that is intriguing and still a good bit more to chew on and digest.

  • Today’s Dump o’ Links

    All courtesy of the fine sites on my blogroll.

    Fox Journalists Still Missing: Malkin Calls for a Blogburst

    Sowell: Point of No Return? (Hat tip for this must-read to Rightwingsparkle)

    Hezbollah sinks Australian warship (Hat tip to Argghhh!!!)

    The Many Faces of Belgian Fascism (Hat tip to CDR Salamander, who adds other related links and some thoughts of his own)

    Steyn: World is Watching as Iraq War Tests U.S. Mettle (Hat tip to Alan at Petrified Truth, who also has an interesting look at geysers on Mars)

    Three Iranian factories ‘mass-produce bombs to kill British in Iraq’ (Hat tip to Richard at Hyscience who closes with the key question in just about any story these days involving Iran)

    And on a lighter note … Bill Watterson’s Rarest (Hat tip to JohnL at TexasBestGrok, who adds a few thoughts and other links on the greatness that will always be Calvin and Hobbes

  • U.S. Demands Action, Global Yawn Expected

    My, but we Americans are a demanding and, at times, pathetically optimistic bunch.

    On Iran:
    U.S. demands swift action for Iran’s nuclear noncompliance

    As the deadline set by the UN approaches, the US is pushing for swift sanctions against Iran for its lack of compliance with the international committee’s demand to stop its nuclear enrichment program, American officials said Monday.

    Iran is expected to provide its response to the European incentive package on Tuesday, but the US is looking ahead to the UN deadline set August 31. Sources in Washington speculated that the Iranian response to the incentive package would not be conclusive, yet would include no sign of willingness to stop the uranium enrichment process.

    US President George W. Bush said Monday he hoped the international community moved quickly to impose sanctions against Iran in case it decides to go ahead with its nuclear project.

    On Lebanon:
    UN force must be deployed immediately, says Bush

    George Bush called yesterday for the urgent deployment of a UN force in southern Lebanon, while offering American help with logistics, communications and intelligence. He also urged France to contribute more troops.

    Mr Bush was speaking as the week-old ceasefire was in danger of unravelling, following an Israeli raid into Lebanon and an increasing reluctance among European countries to contribute soldiers to an expanded UN force.

    Under the terms of a UN resolution passed this month, the force was to number 15,000 and be joined by a similar contingent of Lebanese government troops at the southern border, providing a buffer between Hizbullah and Israel.

    But France, which was supposed to lead the expanded UN force, has offered only 200 troops, while Israel has blocked the participation of countries with which it has no diplomatic relations, ruling out Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh.

    Romano Prodi, Italy’s prime minister, said yesterday he was willing to accept Israel’s request for it to command the peacekeeping force, but said that the UN secretary general would have the final say in who should lead the peacekeepers.

    On Sudan:
    U.S. Urges UN Force in Darfur ‘Without Delay’

    The United States Monday called on the government of Sudan to allow deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur “without delay.” The current African Union observer mission in the region is ill-equipped and under-funded, and lost two members killed in an ambush Saturday.

    Officials here are pointing to Saturday’s ambush as further evidence of a deteriorating security situation in Darfur that they say requires the early deployment of a full-scale U.N. peace force.

    The United States and Britain last week introduced a resolution in the Security Council that would re-make the current African Union mission in Darfur into a United Nations peacekeeping force.

    But the Sudanese government continues to oppose the idea, with President Omar al-Bashir threatening to forcibly resist its introduction.

    Of these three stories, I expect the U.N. and the global community to respond quickly with grumblings, stutterings and grandiose pronouncements of nothingness, respectively. If not respectively, then in any order the reader elects to apply the three courses of inaction to the three stories.

  • John Batchelor: Prelude to War

    Interesting, though not exactly cheerful.

    Why is America waiting to be attacked by Iran? Why do we sit on the sidelines while Tehran makes war on our ally Israel in order to provoke America to join the fighting, first against Syria and then against Tehran itself? Why do we listen to the European appeasers as they pretend the Lebanon front is a regional conflict, a national liberation contest, when it is demonstrably the prelude to the wider war — the Spain 1936 to the continental war of 1939? What is the explanation for America’s willful fiction that the United Nations Security Council can engineer an accommodation in Lebanon, when it is vivid to every member state that this is a replay of September 1938, when Europe fed Hitler the Sudetenland as the U.N. now wants to feed the jihadists the sovereignty of Israel?

    The most threatening answer is that America waits to be bloodied because it has lost its will to defend itself after five years of chasing rogue-state-sponsored gangsters and after three years of occupation in failed-state Iraq against Tehran- and Damascus-backed agents. A grave possibility is that America is now drained, bowed, ready to surrender to the tyrants of Tehran.

    Then again, perhaps America has been here before, and it is part of America’s destiny as the New Jerusalem that we rarely start wars but that we are unusually good at finishing them.

    There is a strange parallel right now to the first days of December 1941, before the Japanese sneak attack. America was still not in the war in Asia and Europe, but it was busy getting ready for a momentous calamity and was filled with the presentiment of doom.

    Go read the whole article, which actually becomes more of a look back at a moment in time when the U.S. stood on the brink of World War II (hat tip to Smash).

    Something that adds to the intriguing nature of the column is that it’s the second time this week that I’ve linked to someone comparing current events to the Spanish Civil War with expectations of a wider war to follow. The first was by Grim at Blackfive and was included with a couple of other pieces to chew on just two days ago.

  • Tonight’s Good Reads

    We’re Losing World War IV

    The Shiite mullahs who rule Iran and have seized the leadership of the Islamofascist war against us are as dangerous an enemy as America has ever faced. Although we have chosen to be deaf to them, their war aims have never been secret. They have been shouting them out on the world stage to a billion listening Muslims, ever since they handed us the first of many humiliating defeats in 1979. These Persian mullahs and their followers aim to restore Islamic supremacy in the 21st century by leading all Muslims everywhere to victory in a great global jihad against America, Israel, and what is left of the free world. In the time since their first act of war against us — invading our sovereign embassy territory in Tehran and holding our people hostage for 444 agonizing days — they have made enormous progress towards their goal, despite the double handicap of belonging to a minority Muslim sect and a non-Arab ethnic group.

    In the 1980s, Iran’s mullahs created Hezbollah, a Shiite Arab terrorist group in Lebanon, and used it to drive us from that country the way they drove us from Iran, but this time, they didn’t just humiliate us and mock our impotence; they tortured and murdered our embassy people in Beirut, and blew up 241 of our marines. In the 1990s, Iran’s mullahs took control of Syria, turning it into a puppet terror state and transit hub, and transformed Hezbollah from a purely local terrorist army into a sophisticated global terrorist network. In this decade, these Shiite mullahs reached across the great Sunni-Shia religious divide, establishing close ties with Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood; took control of the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, Hamas; and reached across the world to forge close military ties with nuclear-armed Asian states like North Korea and oil-rich enemies to our south like Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Along the way, they pioneered the terrorist arts of airplane hijacking and suicide bombing.

    And all this time, the Iranians — and their ever-growing legion of followers and fans — have been waging an increasingly successful propaganda war against America, Israel, and the West, among Muslims in the Middle East and far beyond it.

    Average Americans — if they remember them at all — consider the series of American defeats chronicled above and a host of others as an unconnected jumble of unfortunate events.

    It’s easy to do: Our media treats them that way. Muslim media do not.

    […]

    Today, Iran’s emboldened mullahs are on a triumphant roll, waging a bloody, three-front proxy war against us, using the Mahdi army to assassinate dreams of peace and democracy in Iraq, using Hezbollah to blow up those same dreams in Lebanon, again, and using Hamas to make a grotesque mockery of them in the Holy Land. Now they threaten to activate Hezbollah terror cells, here in America and throughout the world, to kill and maim us at home and inflict more carnage on our allies. This week, they mocked our efforts to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, announcing that nothing we do — in the U.N. or elsewhere — will stop them from going nuclear, and sharing their WMDs with other rogue states and Islamofascist terror groups at will. More ominous yet, they threaten to unleash an apocalyptic surprise on us on August 22, the night they believe Mohammed lit up the skies by ascending to heaven from the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

    Despite all this and more, we have yet to admit that Iran is at war with us, or to seriously consider striking back at her, and, in speaking of our own war aims, we never dare use the v-word — victory — anymore.

    Go read the whole thing. In case one is confused by the title, many people, myself included, often choose now to refer to the Cold War and its many, smaller hot wars (e.g. Korea, Viet Nam and Afghanistan) as World War III.

    Where Are We Going?

    I suspect that we will one day speak of the war in Iraq the way we speak of the Spanish Civil War — that is, rarely by comparison to the greater war that followed it. Peace is not in the cards. Things are going to get worse.

    Normally I would refrain from quoting someone’s closing thoughts in this manner, but the meat of Grim’s piece is in his short-term predictions for the Iraqi theater and his anticipation for the wider war that is bearing down on its heels.

    Hezbollah’s Army Revisited

    We began discussing Hezbollah’s military capabilities on July 21, after it became clear during the ambush of the Golani Brigade forced the unit to retreat near Maroun al-Ras that Hezbollah was not your average militia. On that date we noted “Hezbollah also possesses mortars, RPGs, anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, anti-tank missiles and possibly surface to air missiles…. Hezbollah is using infantry tactics and fighting at the squad and platoon level.” The IDF’s slow advance (over two days) into Bint Jubayl and the ambush on a tank unit were clear indications of Hezbollah’s abilities to stand up to the IDF as well as the IDF’s cautious nature on the battlefield. Yesterday we confirmed Hezbollah is fighting at the company level, has specialized units (mortars, antitank, logistics, etc.) in its combat units and is using sophisticated communications equipment, body armor and other gear.

    This is not to say the IDF cannot defeat Hezbollah’s army on the battlefield; the IDF can, and has done so at Maroun al-Ras, Bint Jubayl and elsewhere. But this comes at a cost in casualties, a cost the Israeli government seems unwilling to pay.

    Hezbollah’s actions on the battlefields of southern Lebanon should give the Israelis, the West and neighboring Arab governments reason to worry.

    Are we looking at the next evolution in the conflict with Iran and its proxies? Are we now on the verge of actually seeing somewhat of a stand-up fight or is Hezbollah’s limited degree of success (read success as avoiding crushing defeat) more a matter of Israel’s electing to fight this with practically both hands tied behind its back? My suspicions lean toward the latter, as Israel is hoping for a more lasting victory by slowly wearing down the enemy while focusing tremendous efforts to keeping world opinion and condemnation at bay by minimizing collateral damage.

  • Brit Takes Control of Nato Troops against Taliban

    Our NATO allies have stepped up to the plate, unsurprisingly led by one of our staunchest allies, the British.

    A British general took command of an expanded Nato force in Afghanistan today, vowing to “strike ruthlessly” against the Taliban as the west’s military alliance prepared to conduct land combat operations for the first time in its 57-year history.

    Lieutenant General David Richards, commander of Nato’s international security assistance force, Isaf, based in Kabul, took over a multinational force in southern Afghanistan where British, US, Canadian, Dutch, and other troops face a dangerous mix of Taliban fighters, corrupt officials, opium farmers and drug dealers.

    Of course, NATO has had a presence in Afghanistan for some time; the significance of this development, the approval of which I discussed last December, is huge — our allies in the Cold War-era alliance are finally expanding from the relatively safe peacekeeping role into some of the more dangerous Afghan regions.

    The importance of this endeavor, both historically and as a test of NATO, should not be understated.

    Gen Richards, a veteran of successful peacemaking missions in Sierra Leone and East Timor, is the first British officer to command American troops in ground operations since the second world war. Nato officials have described his task as a vital test, to demonstrate the continuing relevance of an organisation set up in 1949 to fight the cold war.

    “We will retain the capability and will to strike ruthlessly at the enemies of Afghanistan when required,” the British general said.

    Nato forces are now deployed in northern, western, and southern Afghanistan. By the end of the year, the US wants Nato troops to take over from American ground forces now deployed in the east of the country. That would leave the US in command of its continuing Operation Enduring Freedom, with its special forces and aircraft trying to track down al-Qaida remnants in the mountains bordering Pakistan.

    Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato secretary general, said yesterday: “This is one of the most challenging tasks Nato has ever taken on, but it is a critical contribution to international security, and a demonstration of our commitment to the people of Afghanistan.”

    On this blog, I have also repeatedly question the relevance of NATO in post-Cold War times. Believe me, I would be quite happy were my concerns to be laid to rest.

    Gen Richards said his new command was “in one sense historic”. He added: “Also it is important for the world that Afghanistan is not allowed to be tipped back to its pre-9/11 state and allow a Taliban lookalike government with its sympathies to come back into power.”

    The general continued: “Nato is here for the long term, for as long as the government and people of Afghanistan require our assistance. We are committed to Afghanistan and its future.” He referred to malign forces “perpetuating a cycle of oppression, murder and poverty”.

    Gen Richards has not been afraid to speak his mind in the past, notably over arguments between competing foreign agencies in Afghanistan and the role of private security companies. He has also made it clear that Nato forces are short of equipment, including helicopters and medical support.

    He will command some 18,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan, including 4,500 British soldiers based in Helmand province, a centre of opium poppy cultivation where the writ of President Hamid Karzai’s central government scarcely runs.

    The general’s priority will be to set up “secure zones” in southern Afghanistan and build up the local infrastructure – measures designed to show the local population that Nato troops are improving their life in practical ways, for example through building roads and irrigation schemes.

    Luckily, it seems like Gen. Richards is the sort that just may lead NATO to answer at least some of my concerns.

    It should be noted that the British, fighting along side the Americans, already seeming to perform well against the Taliban enemy.

    Over recent weeks US and British troops, mainly from Third Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, have confronted Taliban fighters and their supporters in a surge of violence that has killed an estimated 700 militants and 19 western troops, including six British soldiers. British commanders have been surprised by what they refer to as the “virulence” of Taliban fighters. They have also expressed concern about their soldiers being overextended in forward bases.

    The troops may or may not be overextended. The Taliban may or may not be virulent. One thing is certain: 700-19 is one heck of dominant scoreboard tally.

    UPDATE: In the comments, Damian Brooks of Babbling Brooks seemed to believe that I felt that the NATO allies had, to date, not been contributing. That was not at all the impression I meant to convey. I know that NATO has played a large role in the security of the Kandahar area and the training of the forces for the new Afghan government.

    No, my post was not meant to ignore previous efforts by our allies; instead, I wanted to point out the historical significance of a Brit being the first to command American forces since WWII and give a blog-pat on the back to NATO for stepping into the fight as an organization. In no way did I mean to short-shrift our allies that were already contributing with precious blood and sweat. Indeed, when the U.S. first proposed an expansion of NATO’s role in Afghanistan to the more dangerous southern regions, I would like to point out to Damian that I blogged that it was several European members that balked at the idea, and I later blogged that it was Britain, Australia and other nations of the Commonwealth, including and Canada, that shortly afterwards proudly stepped forth in NATO’s period of hesitation.

    I am glad that NATO has decided to carry a greater burden, but that in no way means I devalue the sacrifices of our friends who don’t need a NATO banner above them to prove their worth.

  • Osama Tape: Reactions and Rejections

    A new tape from terrorist-mastermind-in-hiding, Osama bin Laden, surfaced yesterday.

    Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden urged his followers to prepare for a drawn-out conflict with the Western world in a new audiotape broadcast Sunday, blaming what he called “a Crusader-Zionist war” for a long list of attacks on Islam in places from Darfur to Denmark.

    “Your aircraft and tanks are destroying houses over the heads of our kinfolk and children in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Pakistan. Meanwhile, you smile in our faces, saying: ‘We are not hostile to Islam; we are hostile to terrorists,’ ” bin Laden said, according to excerpts of the audiotape attributed to him and broadcast by the al-Jazeera network.

    It was the first time bin Laden had been heard from since Jan. 19, when he offered “a long-term truce” if the United States and its allies withdrew their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and allowed Islamic fundamentalists to rebuild those countries instead.

    Before that, the 49-year-old Saudi had been publicly silent for more than a year. His face has not been seen since he appeared in a video recording broadcast a few days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election.

    The Counterterrorism Blog‘s Walid Phares does a solid job of narrowing Osama’s ramblings down to ten key bullet points. Of course the overblown Islamist talking point of the Danish Mohammed cartoons is on the list, as are the following:

    1. Hamas: Despite the fact that we (including Ayman Zawahiri) warned (Muslim Palestinians) not to take part in elections in general, the victory of Hamas shows that there is a “Crusader Zionist War against Islam.” Cutting foreign aid to the Palestinians because of Hamas victory proves that war.

    […]

    3. Sudan: The Bashir Government is failing in stopping the Crusader War in Sudan. The Crusaders (Britain) has pushed the southerners (Blacks) to separate. The US has armed them and is supporting them. And now, because of tribal tensions in Darfour, the Crusaders are planning on intervening there. We are calling on the Jihadists to fight them in Darfour and Southern Sudan.

    Today, Sudan and Hamas rejected Osama’s accusations.

    The Sudanese Government and Hamas have rejected Osama bin Laden’s criticism of the West for waging war against Islam.

    In a tape broadcast on al-Jazeera TV, which US intelligence believes is authentic, bin Laden criticised the Sudanese Government for agreeing to a US-backed peace deal for the troubled south of the country.

    He also inveighed against the Palestinians’ Hamas-led Government for breaking what he said was a taboo against “joining infidel assemblies” and entering Parliament.

    Despite moves taken by Sudan and Hamas that might be seen as in step with Washington’s stated goal of peace and democracy for the region, bin Laden said the US was planning to send troops to southern Sudan “to steal its oil”.

    The West’s rejection of Hamas showed it was waging “a Crusader-Zionist war” against Muslims.

    […]

    A Hamas spokesman said: “We are interested in good relations with the West.” In Sudan, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Sudan was not concerned with mujahideen or any crusade.

    Polimom, Too‘s Daryl Hooper looks at these and other negative reactions from the world of Islam after making the following observation:

    Perhaps Polimom’s missing something (won’t be the first time), but from where I’m sitting this morning, the biggest reaction to Osama bin Laden’s latest tape is from the West. Polimom wonders whether Osama has spent just a tad too long in his cave – because he’s looking somewhat out of step.

    Besides the obligatory Crusader references and unsurprising cartoon squawking, Osama had to mention Israel. I mean, he just had to — it’s in the radical Islamist handbook. This time, though, Chad Evans over at In the Bullpen fears there may be more than just hot air and checking off an Osama-tape requirement behind this Israel reference.

    This latest audio tape is in a long line of Al Qaida communications that speak about Israel, but the group has always treated the Israeli situation like a red headed step-child only pulling it out when it needs support. As I have stated in regards to previous communications pertaining to the increased rhetoric over Israel, I think Al Qaida is making inroads into attack Israel and I think their first real hit will be a large one. We already know Al Qaida is in Gaza, and AQ in Iraq did launch a rocket into Northern Israel. Because the Hamas-run government won’t do anything about it, AQ will likely hit Israel. The group needs the support such an attack would garner.

    Here’s hoping Chad is wrong about this, though unfortunately it does pass the sniff test. And that dovetails in nicely with my initial reaction to the tape — Osama has seen the focus in the war against radical Islamist expansionism shift away from him as events of late have elevated the stories of Hamas’ attempt to take the political reins of the Palestinian Authority and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iraq recently appears to have been a break-even, as the terrorists, Saddamites and insurgent Sunnis plod along (hat tip to the western media who have facilitated this appearance) against the fledgling Iraqi government, its Coalition military allies, a determined American president and an majority of the Iraqi people growing sick of the bloodshed.

    As I have often stated, our war is against far more than Osama bin Laden; rather, it is against the twisted aspects of his civilization that allowed his likes to fester. Osama, however, needs the concentration to be on him, meaning the both attentions of the West and the world of Islam, for the war to be the brand of jihad he desires. Of late, his organization has been unable to pull off anything of substance, and even the lesser accomplishments have only been small but bloody strikes by affiliates such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that, while effective in many western news reports, may be actually backfiring locally. No, bin Laden built his biography on fighting the great fights, be they as part of the efforts against the Soviets in Afghanistan or dramatic strikes against the United States. A large stab at Israel might suffice to rekindle Osama’s importance in the Islamist world and return the war to the jihad of his choice … until Iran counters.

  • Iran’s Enemy Lies Within

    The Guardian brings us a viewpoint opposing American military reaction against Iran and its nuclear ambitions, a view with some valid points.

    Internal political divisions and economic weaknesses may present a bigger threat to the longevity of the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than the US and Israeli air forces combined, a report published yesterday suggests.

    The study, entitled Understanding Iran and produced by the Foreign Policy Centre, warns that military action against Iran’s suspect nuclear facilities could have disastrous consequences. “The only chance of modifying Iran’s behaviour in the short term will come from a serious effort to engage with the current leadership,” it says.

    While the work contains much validity and I have often in the past pointed towards the seething popular desire for democracy among a large portion of the Iranian population, the article trips up slightly here with it’s vague reference to the “short term.” More on that in a bit.

    Echoing calls for direct US-Iran talks made by Germany, the UN’s nuclear agency, and US politicians, the European thinktank’s report urges the creation of a Middle East security organisation similar to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It proposes mechanisms for facilitating dialogue to end the nuclear impasse and address other friction points. But in suggesting increased “economic, cultural, educational and social exchanges as a way of empowering the Iranian people and ultimately forcing the regime to loosen its restrictive practices” it also highlights the potentially fatal schisms and vulnerabilities of a government often portrayed as united in defiance of the west.

    “Behind the scenes a fierce struggle is under way. In one camp is President Ahmadinejad, his supporters in the Revolutionary Guards and the paramilitary force known as the Basijis, and messianic fundamentalists inspired by the teachings of Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi. In the other camp is Iran’s embattled democratic movement [and] an array of forces that benefited from the status quo before Ahmadinejad came to power, including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.”

    The outcome of this battle was uncertain, but what was clear was that direct US intervention would play into the hands of the hardliners. “A strategy that gambles on a popular uprising to bring down the current regime runs the risk of undermining those very forces it purports to want to help.”

    Back to that short-term matter. The article makes no effort to define the short term in length of years but does obliquely mention the messianic fundamentalism of the current leader (much more on that here). Does the short term that this article suggests bearing out fall inside the barrier of nuclear capability and will to use it that a deranged, messianic Iranian leader needs? If so, great for all. If not, the article is pretty much worthless. Also, the article doesn’t imply but clearly states that American military intervention against an Iranian nuclear program would clearly play to the favor of the ruling Iranian radicals. I simply don’t accept that as a certainty — there are far too many variables. What if the assaults were relatively clean? What if they were timed with popular riots that were assisted? The article errs, in my opinion, by speaking with a claimed clairvoyance that the author cannot possess.

    The piece goes on to show some of the domestic factors accumulating against the current radical Iranian government.

    The report looks at other pressures on the government: a population of over 70 million, of whom 65% are younger than 25; a largely state-dominated economy prone to corruption; an energy industry starved of investment that is producing steadily less oil for export, and a youth culture increasingly circumventing controls on foreign media and internet access.

    ‘According to the government’s own estimates some 900,000 new jobs are needed annually to accommodate the burgeoning labour force and prevent an increase in unemployment, officially at 16%, unofficially at over 20%,” the report says. It also focuses on gender discrimination, human rights abuses (including executions of minors and repression of minorities), and attempts to suppress free speech and independent media.

    All these contentious issues, it suggests, carry the seeds of change from within and in the longer term could be catalysts for ending Iran’s post-1979 theocracy. But if the west was to understand Iran, it had to understand itself – and recognise that clumsy outside attempts to jump-start reform were likely to be counterproductive.

    While all valid, the use of these points to support an argument for inaction by the West in the vaguely-declared “short term” actually need to be considered as a reason for possible action — and most assuredly current planning — by the West. While these points may eventually completely undermine the current tyrants of Iran, they very well may be the same factors that force those radical rulers into immediate bloody, fiery action against Israel, Iraq, Europe or other allies within their range … or even possibly on our shores in the form of terror activity.

    While I believe a large chunk of Iranians ache for freedom and democracy, this does not assure that the nation will become friendly before it produces tragedy. Also, American intervention does not guarantee a nationalistic arrousal by the Iranian people for their current government, though that would be a possibility depending on circumstances. Simply put, there are too many alternatives available that undermine the occasional, though possibly deadly if accepted, certainties of this article.

  • Light Blogging Notice and a Warning

    In case y’all hadn’t noticed, my blogging of late has been sparse and sporadic. With my wedding less than three weeks away, expect that trend to continue. Part of that will be because of work. If I’m not working, I’ll be working on the wedding. If not the wedding, I’ll be working on moving in with my new bride. If not working on moving, I’ll be working out — hey, I don’t want to look too shabby on our Hawaiian honeymoon. I’ll try to blog when I can, but I figure I’m just going to need to squeeze in some down time somewhere.

    If anybody is interested in chipping in on the blogging, drop me an email.

    In the meantime, go give this look at the Iranian president’s motivation for his country’s nuclear ambitions and consider yourself warned about the fanatical nature of one of our enemies (hat tip to Chap).

  • Quick Morning Links

    Sorry, but work kept me ’til well past midnight last night, so I just thought I’d throw out a couple of things I’d hoped to comment on before plans went astray.

    From Sgt. Hook, there’s this piece called “No Tears in Heaven.” I don’t really know what to excerpt from it; just read it.

    Also, Chap points us to the latest from one of my favorites, Ralph Peters, as he looks at the festering situation with Iran.

    The most dangerous error we could make in our sharpening confronta tion with Iran is to con vince ourselves that its leaders will act rationally. Few wars are rooted in dispassionate analysis. Self-delusion sparks most such catastrophes.

    The power brokers in Tehran may be on the verge of misjudging America’s will and resources as profoundly as did the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941, or al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001.

    Stalin misread America’s will when he acquiesced in the Korean Communist invasion of the south. So did Castro, when he imagined that he could impose a tyrannical regime on Grenada.

    Saddam Hussein misread America, too. Twice. First, when he convinced himself that he could grab Kuwait with impunity, and, second, when he did his weapons-of-mass-destruction fan dance. (Bulletin for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: Don’t play the I’ve-got-weapons-you’d-better-be-afraid-of card.)

    Given that historical record, what should we expect of a radical-theocrat regime that has no serious grasp of American psychology, that rules an embittered populace it longs to excite and unify, and that believes it’s literally on a mission from God?

    In recent weeks, Tehran has anxiously publicized its tests of surface-to-surface missiles, of air-to-ground missiles and even of torpedoes. The intended point is that, if the shooting starts, Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers – disrupting the global economy – while striking any other target between Israel and Afghanistan.

    The crucial question is whether the Iranians are still playing at brinksmanship, hoping to spook us into passivity as they build nuclear weapons, or if they’ve already convinced themselves that a conflict with the United States is inevitable.

    Given the closed nature of Iran’s ruling clique, it’s impossible to know.

    Indeed, the meaning of such publicly-displayed tests are something to be pondered at, something I’ve trifled with recently. Please read Peters’ column in its entirety, though I want to highlight his conclusion with which I agree most strongly.

    Should Tehran ignite a combat exchange, we need to ensure not only that Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is crippled, but that its broader capabilities are shattered.

    Militarily, it will be time for our Air Force to prove its worth, with the Navy in support. Iran’s recent experience of conflict is of attrition-based land warfare. But there’s no need for us to employ conventional ground forces inside Iran (special operations troops are another matter). We’ll have to watch the Iraqi and Afghan borders, but our fight would be waged from the air and from the sea.

    If we’re pulled into war, we need to strike hard and fast – before Iran’s allies can make mischief in international forums. We should destroy as much of Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure as possible, eliminate its air force and air defenses and wreck its naval facilities beyond repair – no matter the collateral damage. The madmen in Tehran must pay an unbearable price.

    The results within Iran would be unpredictable. Fiercely nationalistic, the country’s core Persian population might unify behind the regime, setting back our hopes for an eventual rapprochement with a post-Islamist government.

    […]

    But a half-hearted military response to Iranian aggres sion would only strengthen the confidence of our enemies and invite future confrontations.

    We pulled too many punches in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now we’re paying the price. If Tehran drags us into war, we should make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies are stunned.

    I’ve expressed similar thoughts, too, about our assault on Iraq and its aftermath when I wrote the following:

    [The] primary difference between the Iraqi occupation and the post-WWII occupations of Japan and Germany was that the people of the former Axis countries absolutely knew that they had been defeated. So much of the Iraq takeover had been intended to diminish the hardship on the populace and wrap things up in a speedy manner that I don’t think this feeling of defeat was ever sent to the Iraqi people and the Arab world. We shredded a military and the world barely knew it.

    That kindness and efficiency has been paid for in blood. Peters is correct when saying, should our hand be forced with Iran, we cannot be seen as so kind again in the eyes of our enemies.