Iranian Mentality

As I'm sure you have all heard by now, last week Iran captured two British RHIBs with fifteen Sailors and Marines aboard. You may or may not have heard that this isn't at all unprecedented; Iran has aggressively claimed waters it doesn't own for many years, and has "captured" British and Iraqi servicemembers it claims were in its territory. In some cases, they have even crossed into Iraq and fired on American troops, thankfully without hurting any. This particular incident, however, is unique in that Iran doesn't seem inclined to return the Brits any time soon. There's reporting that Iran has moved them to Tehran, and is preparing for long-scale negotiations.


The question each of us should be asking ourselves is "What does Iran think it has to gain?" There was a lot of speculation that the capture was meant to influence the sanctions vote last week. That's ridiculous -- the capture was only a day before the vote, and previous captures have resulted in a release within two or three days. Britain, at the time of the vote, had no reason to believe Iran wouldn't release the servicemembers by Monday.

A lot of Iranian press has talked about various Iranian "diplomats" kidnapped by Americans, and a possible prisoner exchange. The Iranian Majles has been considering adopting a bill requiring that the Brits only be released when these Iranians are released (although it's doubtful the Council of Guardians would allow such a bill). The "kidnapped" Iranians include a defector whom the West would never force to return to Iran, and a number of imprisoned Iranians caught red-handed providing explosives to terrorists in Iraq. I don't see either President Bush nor PM Tony Blair as being willing to release them at this point, especially with Iran continuing to defy the UNSC.

So what's Iran's problem? The first problem is that this wasn't a pre-planned capture, as many have speculated. The timing was awful, and the choice of British over Americans was careless. The erratic response shows a lack of coordination, and various branches of the convoluted Iranian government are still trying to sort each other out and come to a consensus on what to do.

The next problem is that this crises couldn't have come at a worse time for Iran. Engaged in a game of brinkmanship with the West, Iran would view a release of the Brits as a sign of weakness. The Iranian leadership has an attitude not too different from inner-city gangs -- it's all about appearance. They instruct the IRGC to harass multi-national forces and occasionally "capture" foreign forces, because they think it makes them look "tough." This time, however, the nuclear crises has left them without a nice out. No exit strategy, as it were.

So what will Iran do next? It's hard to predict such an irrational beast. The most likely scenario is they will hold onto the prisoners until the nuclear crises defuses, try them for made-up crimes in a kangaroo court, and sentence them to some long incarceration -- then quietly commute it to time served and let them go without any attention.

What if the crises doesn't defuse? We all remember the Iranian hostage crises; Iran's played this game before. Iran won the last crises by waiting for the next election and releasing them as a sign of goodwill to Ronald Reagan. But unlike Reagan, who saw no problem in treating enemies like friends just to stab the Soviet Union in the eye, I don't see any of the contenders for the White House or 10 Downing Street as being willing to work with Iran. And frankly, I don't see either Bush or Blair as being willing to tolerate a hostage situation lasting into elections.

So if Iran doesn't quietly let these fifteen Brits go, what happens next? The Nervous Rodent predicts a series of strikes against IRGC, leadership, and nuclear facilities to continue until the Brits are released. The problem is Iran isn't very good at giving up when it's outmatched... When you believe God is on your side, you tend to think you'll survive any fight. Iran is likely to retaliate outside its own borders, which is a sure trigger for war.

The ball is in Iran's court. They've kicked out the inspectors, and they've captured the Brits. You'd think they would have seen what happened to their neighbors when they refused the demands of the civilized world, but this isn't a rational country. It's a country powered by emotion and prestige, and they aren't going to back down. Whatever Iran does, it's going to be a bumpy ride.


In other news, events are conspiring to keep me off blogging. I'll be unable to blog for the most part over the next few months. Rather than leave the blog idle as before, I've invited a friend (The Swamp Fox) to make some guest posts. Please give him a warm welcome!

Labels: iran, nukes, terrorism, UK

Permalink

Israel Fingers the Big Red Button

Israel today talked about its plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. Lots of folks are freaking out, but I think we should be clear that the fact that Israel is talking about it means Israeli isn't doing it -- yet. If the intention were to launch a strike this week, the last thing Israel would do is talk about it. Instead, this press conference was intended as a warning to Iran that Israel will not stand idly by while Iran develops nukes.

There's no doubt that Israel can do it. They've got the weaponry, they've got the training and the long-strike capability. The question is whether Israel, the most hated nation in the Middle East, would be willing to provoke retaliatory strikes from virtually all its neighbors by becoming the first country since the Second World War to split atoms in anger.

In the Nervous Rodent's opinion, yes, they would.

But that doesn't mean they will. This saber-rattling isn't intended to influence Iran. Ahmadinejad won't back down to threats from Israel, and neither will the Supreme Leader. But America will probably go out of its way, to include changing foreign policy, to keep Israel from starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Perhaps they're scared the US is going soft on Iran?

On one hand, we've been saber-rattling ourselves. Russia complained today about the U.S. imposing sanctions on Russian firms selling goods to Iran. The appointment of Admiral Fallon, a Navy admiral, to lead USCENTCOM, embroiled in two ground wars, is interesting. It's a direct warning to Iran, since a war with Iran would place America in a naval war. Add to this the fact that USCENTCOM changed policy last month and ceased considering Iranians "off-limits," upsetting both Iran and Iraq.

On the other hand, we're bogged down in two ground wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping a significant portion of our troops occupied, and more importantly, silenced hawks in our society. Who wants to stand up and say we need a third war? Do we have an exit strategy for that war?

An attack against Iran isn't necessarily a good idea at this stage. But we can't take it completely off the table until we find a way to influence Iran to cease supporting terrorist operations. Put simply, Iran is funding and supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Taliban, and Iraqi terrorists. Excluding the war in Somalia, Iran is supporting terrorism in every conflict in the Middle East. Can we win in Iraq as long as a protected nation sharing a large border is supporting the terrorists? Or does this sound too much like another war in recent history, Vietnam?

I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.

What does all this mean, then? It means we must find a way to convince Iran to cease supporting terrorists around the world. Until we do, we'll remain in a stalemate, with the best possible outcome continued low-level violence as we see in Afghanistan. So if you're wondering why America insists on toeing a hard line with Iran, now you know. Thousands of U.S. lives hang in the balance.

EDIT: AubreyJ put this link in the comments, I think it deserves to be in the body. Check out some additional info about Iran.

Labels: afghanistan, iran, iraq, israel, nukes

Permalink

More News on Iran

Where to start? With Iran trying to minimize the hatemongering spewing from their "elected" leader, the last thing they need is further evidence that they are providing weapons to the terrorists in Iraq. However, it appears the British have found such. Hyscience has the story here.

You would think that this kind of news would put a damper on Iran's attempts at hegemony, right? Not on the anniversary of the 1979 embassy takeover, where over 10,000 demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" outside the former compound (news story).

Well, if Iran is going to be confrontational, then at least we ought to be preparing for war with them, right? Not so, claims Iran, which declared its intention to resume uranium production "for peaceful purposes." (news story) Iran has already produced enough uranium to fuel a nuclear weapon, but apparently it screwed up. The uranium is too impure to convert to UF6, which is needed to enrich uranium into the state required for a nuclear weapon. So, as the old adage goes, "try, try again."

So Iran is arming terrorists, chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!", threatening countries with extinction, and would like, pretty please may I, to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Dream on, Ahmadinejad. Stay the course, President Bush.

In other news, Paulieworld is carrying two new letters from the front. Well worth reading!

Labels: iran, israel

Permalink

Did I Say Holocaust? No, I meant Holocaust.

Yesterday I linked to a new story entitled Arab States Silent on Iran's Remarks. I thought about it some more, and decided it was worthy of further discussion.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." All but a full declaration of war, from a country trying to defend its right to develop nuclear technology. Western nations have been quick to condemn his comments, but Arab states has been mostly silent.

Chad Evans posted in In the Bullpen that this wasn't the first time Iran had called for the destruction of Israel. He linked to a 2003 article in the Guardian where Iran had threatened the same thing.

Some Iranian diplomats are trying to downplay the issue. According to this AP story, the Iranian embassy in Moscow released a statement saying "Mr Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

Hey, I've got a bridge in Moscow I'll sell ya. Would you like to know what Ahmadinejad said when he heard that? "My words are the Iranian nation's words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid."

Pop quiz: Which of these statements was made by Usama bin Laden, and which by President Ahmadinjad:

• "We won't hesitate to kill the Israelis who occupied our land and kill our children and women day and night. And every person who will side with them should blame themselves only."
  
• "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

The complete text of Ahmadinejad's recent speech is here.

Labels: iran, israel

Permalink

Profiting From Dictators

Before I begin, I just want to link to this AP story. Should a later post talk about the Iranian government, I want everyone to know just how dangerous that country is.

In a speech Wednesday, [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

In other news, the Independent Inquiry Committee investigating abuses in the Oil for Food program released its final report that clearly shows who was and wasn't profiting from the program. Not surprisingly, those who profited most (France, Russia, and Germany) were the ones most strongly against the war.
What does the report say?

Iraq received $1.8 billion in kickbacks and bribes from 2,200 companies. That would be one-point-eight billion dollars paid to Saddam Hussein's coffers. American, British, and Japanese companies did not make any such bribes, if only because Saddam Hussein would not allow companies from those countries to obtain contracts. On the other hand, French, Russian, and Chinese companies were given preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts -- a move that successfully split the Security Council on all matters involving Iraq.

Worse, Iraq paid some of this money back out to those it needed to secure support. Most notably, France's ambassador to the United Nations received $165,725 from the Iraqi government.

One issue that was not covered in depth by the report is the $34.5 billion dollars in "humanitarian goods" sold to Iraq. Table Seven of the report (linked above) describes loosely what the UN was allowing Iraq to buy despite the sanctions. Some of the items are clearly humanitarian (e.g., rice). Others are very questionable (e.g., black tea). And still others are just downright confusing (e.g., decorated wall tiles). Since when has decoration been a basic human need? What's the point of sanctions if those sorts of deals are allowed? What were we sanctioning, anyway? Keep searching, and you'll find cars, art supplies, computers, stained glass, office chairs, cigarettes, and other assorted "humanitarian needs." You'll also find items that clearly have military applications, just as mobile radios and radio relay links.

Now that the final report is out, it's time to take action against the companies that profited from supporting Saddam in violation of UN sanctions. With this report we can account for every dollar illegally made by various companies around the world. The United Nations should take that money back, and donate it to Iraqi reconstruction. To let them keep the money would be to reward criminal profiteering.

Labels: iran, iraq, israel, UN

Permalink