Is The BIG Mideast War Coming?

[Paulhoff]

U. N. C. L. E.

That works

Paul

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat A "first strike" from Iran does not need to be a stupid one. I can be one where they supply arms and people to someone else willing to kill Americans in the region.

Well, they've already been doing that for a long time. But unless they want to step that up a LOT (which poses the risk of exposing their involvement directly, at which point they lose the advantage of having acted through a proxy), then it won't do them much good.

Additionally, if Iran directly attacked US soldiers on Iraqi or Saudia Arabia soil does that give Bush the right to declare war on their country?

It gives him the right to retaliate, which from a legal perspective is different from declaring war (among other things, I believe he has to go to congress to get authorization for further action after some specified period of time has elapsed), but as a practical matter he can get the ball rolling on his own. But any major attack on US forces anywhere (we aren't in Saudi Arabia anymore, BTW) that can be traced directly to Iran would indeed invite immediate military reprisals, and if it involved significant US casualties, approval from congress within that time period for further action would almost certainly be forthcoming. There's no popular support for not punching back when you've been directly hit.

Bush does not need congressional approval to attack Iran at all. He has already given complete authority to do whatever is required. That's the message we got from that law passed shortly after 911 that allows him to bypass FISA laws. He already feels that he has carte' blanche to do whatever it takes "to defend us".

No. That's a complete misreading of both the AUMF act and the administration's interpretation of that act. That act authorized a war against Al Quaeda, and the administration argues that it gives them extensive latitude to act against Al Quaeda. The bypassing of FISA statutes is ONLY in regard to communications believed to be with AQ members. But Iran is not Al Quaeda. Unless we're striking specifically AQ targets within Iran (and their nuclear facilities don't qualify), the administration's position regarding the AUMF does not (nor have they ever claimed it to) permit them to strike at Iran without further congressional approval.

 

[CapelDodger]

The mullahs do not seem big into thinking.

But they're not alone in that. By putting an army into the Euphrates valley, the US has handed Iran a hostage. (I suspect that's implicit in your post.)

Mullah-power is definitely waning in Iran, increasingly rapidly IMO. Idiocy has a lot to do with that, because it's idiocy in power. Idiocy without power is less obvious, it can even appear as wisdom. (Check out how many people fall for Libertarianism, some of them not actually brain-damaged.) That's why they've been reduced to Ahmedinejad - Mr Smith Goes to Tehran. All he's done - as a country rube - is rack up the diplomatic stakes while being clearly incapable of handling his own incitements. That will require thinking about more than how the folks back in the village will respond. As a representative of Iran he's an embarrassment, which rebounds on the mullahs. He has set in train events that require delicate, intelligent, educated handling if they are to end in advantage to Iran. That won't happen without the eclipse of the mullahs.

I predict eek: ) that within five years the Iranian democracy will become sovereign, in all but name and probably in name as well. The mullahs, via the A-man - who they've been trying to rein in - will provoke a crisis that they will have to turn to Parliament to handle. Parliament will be able to name its own price, which will be sovereignty.

The worst thing the West can do is physically assault Iran. The only more worst thing the West can do is use Israel - the only Western colony in the Middle East - as a cats-paw. Sanctions on Iran could actually work. They'd be going with the grain.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's no coincidence. The Soviets were the primary backers of the more despotic and aggressive players in the region, and once the soviet union was gone, they found themselves with more free reign.

Ba'athist Iraq attacked Iran long before the demise of the USSR, so what is this freed-rein aggression you refer to? The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? That would seem to be it. Would the Soviets have frowned on that earlier? I doubt it. It cost them nothing, it cost the US a lot, and the Ba'athist regime - presumably what you mean by a Soviet-backed player - survived it. What, specifically, has changed in the Middle East since the Fall of The Wall?

Meanwhile, the Islamists thought that they defeated the tougher of the two superpowers and decided to keep up what they thought was a winning streak, and we simultaneously became more complacent about our own involvement in the region (and hence confirming their impression of us as cowardly and unwilling to defend ourselves). It was a deadly mixture, but it was neither coincidence nor an "automatic" emergence of a new threat.

The USSR has never backed Islamists, and for good reasons. Godless Communism had some internal problems on that front. Consider recent Russian experience. The USSR never had sexual relations with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Trust me on that.

US "complacency" is at odds with the hysteria of the Iranian hostage crisis and the response to the Kuwait invasion - of course, that had nothing to do with Islamism, but how did it indicate US cowardice? Or an unwillingness to defend an ally, let alone itself?

Osama Bin Laden and his like clearly never regarded the USSR as the tougher of the two superpowers. Bin Laden grew up in a Westernised family in a country with an ever-present US influence. That's why there's nothing wrong with Bush family members being friendly with Bin Laden family members. Osama is actually very conformist. He rebels against what his dominant culture tells him is the thing to rebel against.

 

[Zbu]

U. N. C. L. E.

That works

Paul

Let's not thr--rush to conclusions, here!

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, they've already been doing that for a long time.

To whom, says who, since when?

But unless they want to step that up a LOT (which poses the risk of exposing their involvement directly, at which point they lose the advantage of having acted through a proxy), then it won't do them much good.

Apparently their involvement has been exposed to you. Assuming you don't have access to privileged information, what extra exposure are they risking?

The US has had a noisy beef with Syria over the inusurgency. Syria has a desert border with Iraq and a regime that fears only Islamism. Iran has a much longer, generally mountainous border with Iraq. I can't help thinking that they could cause a lot more trouble than Syria if they wanted.

 

[Kopji]

Ziggurat

No. That's a complete misreading of both the AUMF act and the administration's interpretation of that act. That act authorized a war against Al Quaeda, and the administration argues that it gives them extensive latitude to act against Al Quaeda. The bypassing of FISA statutes is ONLY in regard to communications believed to be with AQ members. But Iran is not Al Quaeda. Unless we're striking specifically AQ targets within Iran (and their nuclear facilities don't qualify), the administration's position regarding the AUMF does not (nor have they ever claimed it to) permit them to strike at Iran without further congressional approval.

You may need to give me a link to support that I'm wrong. I have the following to support my position that I'm right:

You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

As I said, the president most likely interprets the 2001 act as giving him the authority to attack Iran preemptively. There is no mention of something as limited as Al Qaeda, but maybe I'm missing something. Post away.

Saudi Arabia was just a mistake on my part. Eskan village came under some kind of attack a while ago and recent reports on the oil refinery attack mentioned the air base. I presumed US troops were still hanging out there in larger numbers.

The Prince Sultan Air Base is located 80km south of Riyadh. During the decade following Operation Desert Storm, it was host to upwards of 4,500 US military personnel and an undisclosed number of aircraft. During mid-2003 the roughly 4,500 US troops at Prince Sultan redeployed from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, leaving about 500 in Saudi Arabia, primarily at Eskan Village.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/prince-sultan.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/saudi-arabia.htm

capeldoger
Probably a larger subject, that would take us off topic. I'd honestly like to see a good example of sanctions that work, or do what they were intended to do. Waging economic war via sanctions makes people suffer too, just over a longer period of time.

The Mullahs probably think that if they have nuclear weapons we will treat them with more respect, like we do in Pakistan.
I don't think Mullahs are going to go away soon, they are part of the whole Islamic Fundamentalist package.

I'd hesitate to call the troops in Iraq 'hostages'. More like pieces on a chessboard of value.

If Iran drove a nuke over near the green zone and set it off, but denied it, there might be enough of a delay in US military reaction where a US political groundswell could build up to just "get out". It must be occurring to our enemies that what they need is large US causalities, but nobody can deliver on that yet.

This just a "what if" thread, right? I have no illusions that we are in a risky place. To say we "are winning" seems foolish, if that's what we are saying. Little things could matter a lot and it's not over yet.

 

[CapelDodger]

Probably a larger subject, that would take us off topic. I'd honestly like to see a good example of sanctions that work, or do what they were intended to do. Waging economic war via sanctions makes people suffer too, just over a longer period of time.

Examples would engorge the subject even further ... In this particular example limited sanctions pushing up the price (or down the quality) of must-have techno-junk would go with the grain of Iranian society. Nobody starves, nobody lacks medicines they wouldn't have lacked anyway, and all for what?

The Mullahs probably think that if they have nuclear weapons we will treat them with more respect, like we do in Pakistan.

If by "we" you mean the US, that's not an Iranian priority. Iran has nuclear-capable China to the East, India to the ESE, Pakistan to the South-East, Israel to the West, and Russia to the North. That's their constituency. A democratic Iran will probably carry along the path to nuclear capability. Why not? Iran has spent far more of the last few millenia as a superpower than the US has.

I don't think Mullahs are going to go away soon, they are part of the whole Islamic Fundamentalist package.

Which might well turn out to be a flash-in-the-pan.

I'd hesitate to call the troops in Iraq 'hostages'. More like pieces on a chessboard of value.

En prise as a compromise position?

 

[AWPrime]

Or the populations at large become fed up and experience some sort of enlightenment that takes them out of the 14th century. Which, since they kill anyone who tries that, will not happen soon.

I agree, they already had a periode which a slightly enlightend, but it was shattered by fundies.

 

[Ziggurat]

To whom, says who, since when?

They've been helping Palestinian terrorists, who kill Americans on occassion, since they came to power. They've been stirring up trouble, most visibly when Mooky Sadr had has little uprising, since shortly after we invaded Iraq. The former is something they admit to themselves, the later is something that gets reported frequently by both US troops and Iraqis themselves.

Apparently their involvement has been exposed to you. Assuming you don't have access to privileged information, what extra exposure are they risking?

It's a tipping point problem: we'll tolerate levels of Iranian involvement up to a point, but do it enough and it will demand a direct response.

The US has had a noisy beef with Syria over the inusurgency. Syria has a desert border with Iraq and a regime that fears only Islamism. Iran has a much longer, generally mountainous border with Iraq. I can't help thinking that they could cause a lot more trouble than Syria if they wanted.

You've actually got the borders backwards. The flat desert border with Syria means you can drive cars or trucks across the border anywhere, not just on roads, making it an incredibly porous border. Not so with much of the Iranian border.

 

[CapelDodger]

They've been helping Palestinian terrorists, who kill Americans on occassion, since they came to power. They've been stirring up trouble, most visibly when Mooky Sadr had has little uprising, since shortly after we invaded Iraq. The former is something they admit to themselves, the later is something that gets reported frequently by both US troops and Iraqis themselves.

If the Iranians provide assistance to Palestinians - something which Hamas has requested of them recently - that's no different from the Saudis. Al-Sadr represents an anti-Iranian faction. I wouldn't put any faith in the reports of US troops, who may not have the foggiest clue about Iraqi politics, or Iraqis who may well have political axes to grind.

It's a tipping point problem: we'll tolerate levels of Iranian involvement up to a point, but do it enough and it will demand a direct response.

The US will only respond to something they know is happening when enough of the US public find out? That seems odd. I suspect a majority of 'Murricans alread assume it's happening, without needing evidence. "Iranians are bad people, the insurgents are bad people, ergo Iran is helping the insurgency", that sort of logic. So if the US isn't responding, it's because they can't, or they're deterred, or perhaps because there's nothing to respond to.

You've actually got the borders backwards. The flat desert border with Syria means you can drive cars or trucks across the border anywhere, not just on roads, making it an incredibly porous border. Not so with much of the Iranian border.

Flat desert makes for great visibility. Mountains don't. Mules don't need roads either. The Zagros mountains aren't exactly the Hindu Kush, but there's an analogy in the Afghan-Pakistan border, which is not easily-sealed. The Soviets found that out.

 

[CapelDodger]

I agree, they already had a periode which a slightly enlightend, but it was shattered by fundies.

The "enlightened" opposition in Iran was destroyed by the Shah's torture-state, not by fundies. Iraq's democracy was destroyed by Saddam's gangsterism, not by fundies. Lebanon is a sectarian stew because it was created that way by the French, not because of fundies. Saudi Arabia has never been enlightened anyway, but Jordan or Dubai? Aren't they "slightly enlightened"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Al-Sadr represents an anti-Iranian faction.

Where'd you ever get that idea? Let me guess: Juan Cole? Doesn't really matter, but I am curious.

Anyways, Sadr is getting paid off by the mullahs. It takes money to run a militia - where do you think that money comes from? Not from his own pocket book, that's for damned sure, and those thugs won't stay in line for free. That he might imagine himself the equal to Khamenei (and thus be "anti"-Iranian) doesn't mean Iran isn't paying him to stir up trouble and push for a Shia-dominated religious state, or that he wouldn't accept money to do precisely that.

I wouldn't put any faith in the reports of US troops, who may not have the foggiest clue about Iraqi politics, or Iraqis who may well have political axes to grind.

They're on the scene, and in much closer and more extensive contact than the press, that's for damned sure. But it's not just US troops saying this, it's also Iraqis - and yes, some of them may have political axes to grind, but that's a charge that could be leveled almost universally, and is of little use unless you want to talk about the unreliability of a particular source. An example of Iraqis I pay some attention to are the Iraq the Model bloggers. Here's a nice little quote from their site regarding Sadr's anti-Iranianism:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/01/being-good-neighbor.html
"Muqtada al-Sadr announced from Tehran during his latest visit to Iran that al-Mehdi Army will defend any neighboring or Muslim nation that comes under foreign invasion.
The statement was made during a meeting with Ali Larijani, Iran’s national security advisor who is also in charge of Iran’s nuclear program.

Poor Jacques Chirac, he didn’t put in his calculations that Mehdi Army would stand by Iran’s side!"

The US will only respond to something they know is happening when enough of the US public find out? That seems odd.

You misunderstood me (though in this case I concede I was ambiguous). It's not that too little of the public knows (I don't actually have a good sense about how many people are aware of that), it's the fact that the cost of not responding against Iran right now isn't perceived as very high, and so the public isn't going to want to take significant risks in responding to it. If Iran cranks up the violence significantly, that could easily change.

 

[CapelDodger]

Where'd you ever get that idea? Let me guess: Juan Cole? Doesn't really matter, but I am curious.

The idea is the result of my own analysis of available data. I do that.

Anyways, Sadr is getting paid off by the mullahs. It takes money to run a militia - where do you think that money comes from? Not from his own pocket book, that's for damned sure, and those thugs won't stay in line for free. That he might imagine himself the equal to Khamenei (and thus be "anti"-Iranian) doesn't mean Iran isn't paying him to stir up trouble and push for a Shia-dominated religious state, or that he wouldn't accept money to do precisely that.

I appreciate that you don't like the Mehdi Army, but that doesn't make them thugs in it for the money. Most of them are young males convinced they have a righteous cause; it's not difficult to recruit such people to violence. It's rather more difficult to stop them being violent. It doesn't require Iranian Gold to pay for it, there's enough money available from Iraqi donations. Their armaments are battered ex-Iraqi Army kit, which isn't terribly dependable.

The Iranians can exert their influence through the Badr Brigades, which they are definitely linked to. They don't need to promote an independent like al-Sadr, in fact it's not in their interests to do so. Al-Sadr constantly plays the nationalist card, damning the occupation and the federalist Constitution. Iraqi nationalism and Iranian influence in Iraq are incompatible. An autonomous Shia region in the South is more susceptible to Iranian influence than a more centralised Iraq, Shia-dominated or not. Ergo, it's damn' unlikely that Iran is supporting al-Sadr.

They're on the scene, and in much closer and more extensive contact than the press, that's for damned sure.

Some of "the press" are Iraqi themselves, some others are very well-informed on Iraq, its history, culture and politics. Some of them have been following and reporting on events in Iraq for decades. Are US troops likely to be that well-informed, in the main? And how much actual contact do US troops actually have with ordinary Iraqis to discuss local politics over a coffee?

But it's not just US troops saying this, it's also Iraqis - and yes, some of them may have political axes to grind, but that's a charge that could be leveled almost universally, and is of little use unless you want to talk about the unreliability of a particular source. An example of Iraqis I pay some attention to are the Iraq the Model bloggers. Here's a nice little quote from their site regarding Sadr's anti-Iranianism:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/01/being-good-neighbor.html
"Muqtada al-Sadr announced from Tehran during his latest visit to Iran that al-Mehdi Army will defend any neighboring or Muslim nation that comes under foreign invasion.
The statement was made during a meeting with Ali Larijani, Iran’s national security advisor who is also in charge of Iran’s nuclear program.

Poor Jacques Chirac, he didn’t put in his calculations that Mehdi Army would stand by Iran’s side!"

And there we see it. Al-Sadr promotes himself and the Mehdi Army as the protectors of Iran, not vice versa. He also associates himself with Iranian defiance of the West over the nuclear issue, reinforcing his anti-occupation, Iraqi nationalist image. I doubt that's what the Iranians intended, but their current administration is not very bright, frankly.

You misunderstood me (though in this case I concede I was ambiguous). It's not that too little of the public knows (I don't actually have a good sense about how many people are aware of that), it's the fact that the cost of not responding against Iran right now isn't perceived as very high, and so the public isn't going to want to take significant risks in responding to it. If Iran cranks up the violence significantly, that could easily change.

The response could be to stop doing whatever it was that caused the Iranians to get more involved. It's not as if the US forces in Iraq don't have enough to keep them busy at the moment, nor is there a bottomless pot of money and manpower to be fed into the situation. Some 'Murricans would no doubt claim that the US would never back-down under pressure, but we're both men of the world, aren't we ?

 

[Kopji]

CapelDoger
I don't see much to disagree with here.

I stumbled across my favorite kind of information a while back (raw data). Apparently the Iranians have been busy gluing together shredded papers from the US Embassy there they sacked back in 1979. Still classified as secret or confidential. (I'm obviously not a particularly big believer in secrets).
http://www.thememoryhole.org/espionage_den/

I am still reading through here but the papers give some interesting clues of some of the mistakes & misjudgments that brought about the current religious regime in Iran. It is also a little comforting to read that we (yeah the US) are not completely stupid and were trying to do some right things.

Iran could be an ally in the region, that's partly why our stance against them is sometimes annoying to me.

My conclusion from the 'ex-secret' documents though, is that Islamic fundamentalism is not a flash in the pan but something that goes fairly deep. It had the support of many young people now in power (like the current president).

I'm sure Islamic fundamentalism could change, but I'm not how sure rapidly. it might be an unfortunate truth that wrecking a large part of the Islamic world could make fundamentalism less attractive. What a waste though.


:

 

[AWPrime]

The "enlightened" opposition in Iran was destroyed by the Shah's torture-state, not by fundies. Iraq's democracy was destroyed by Saddam's gangsterism, not by fundies. Lebanon is a sectarian stew because it was created that way by the French, not because of fundies. Saudi Arabia has never been enlightened anyway, but Jordan or Dubai? Aren't they "slightly enlightened"?

I was talking about the dark ages!!!

 

[CapelDodger]

I was talking about the dark ages!!!

The Dark Ages refers to Western Europe 6th-9thCE, give or take. If you're referring to the pre-13thCE Islamic world, that puts the Mongols in the frame for its destruction, not Islamic fundies. That was followed, in the Middle East, with the long dark night of Ottoman imperialism; in Central Asia and the East, Tamurlane and the Moghuls. The later Moghuls were pretty enlightened, though.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am still reading through here but the papers give some interesting clues of some of the mistakes & misjudgments that brought about the current religious regime in Iran. It is also a little comforting to read that we (yeah the US) are not completely stupid and were trying to do some right things.

Iran could be an ally in the region, that's partly why our stance against them is sometimes annoying to me.

If treated with respect it would be a useful partner. It's the lack of respect, dating back to Kermit Roosevelt's days, that has damned the US in Iranian eyes, religious and secular. I'm not at all surprised that some people on the ground - I'm assuming diplomats - had a good grasp of the local realities in the 70's. The problem is, how much influence on policy does the State Department have? The impression I get from US history is that the State Department is regarded as little better than a Fifth Column. And diplomacy as a career ... isn't that a bit gay?

With Condi Rice in charge, bringing the State Department inside the loop, I sleep a little more soundly. I have a goodly amount of respect for Condi's intellect.

My conclusion from the 'ex-secret' documents though, is that Islamic fundamentalism is not a flash in the pan but something that goes fairly deep. It had the support of many young people now in power (like the current president).

There are quite a few young people now in prison for not favouring mullah-rule. Prison has been the nursery of many a revolution.

SAVAK was very efficient - well-resourced, utterly ruthless, untramelled power - and by 1979 had all opposition groups struggling to survive bar one. For all their power, they couldn't shut down Islam. That way lay to-the-death anarchy. Popular opposition to the Shah had only one organised outlet that could get it out on the streets in a co-ordinated manner.

Interestingly, the first issue that brought Khomeini to public prominence was an Iranian nationalist issue - immunity for US military personnel and diplomats, however loosely accredited, for any act, from any Iranian jurisdiction. No respect. Khomeini, an Iranian, was exiled from Iranian soil on which 'Murricans strolled like Brits in the Raj. All the charm of "No Dogs or Natives" signs.

That was 1979. Islam led the charge when the Shah was overthrown, they were winners, Islam was cool. But there's been a generation since then, during which Islamic rule has had the chance to demonstrate its failure. As I always say, it only takes one generation to change a culture.

I'm sure Islamic fundamentalism could change, but I'm not how sure rapidly. it might be an unfortunate truth that wrecking a large part of the Islamic world could make fundamentalism less attractive. What a waste though.

Islamic fundamentalism has always been with us, but it's only recently that it's merited attention, even from Muslims. In a way, Western pre-occupation actually validates it. It's rather sad. Bin Laden regards the US as the Big Beast in the jungle because he's bought into the US-centric thinking he grew up with.

Fundamentalism, in its various guises, doesn't change. Its importance changes.

 

[Ed]

With Condi Rice in charge, bringing the State Department inside the loop, I sleep a little more soundly. I have a goodly amount of respect for Condi's intellect.

Way off topic.

If you could vote, knowing what you know about US political figures, would you vote for Condi for President in '08?

Just curious.

 

[seayakin]

I think it is more likely in the short term (50 years) we will have to put up with Middle East violence and volatility as well as terrorism until we can wean ourselves off oil (spice, but what of CHOAM). I guestimating 50 years which is based purely on hope and speculation.

The Middle East tribes will continue to bicker and divide their nations until enlightenment or annihilation. They will bring others into it until they are either dead or walled off.

I think there is one major wild card. How would China react if an Iranian sponsored terrorist organization hurt them? I do not bring this up on a lark because China has a large enough suppressed Muslim population for a group to work with.

The west will muddle along much like we have done for the last 50 years but how many freedoms will we surrender in the meantime?