There is an article by Simon Heffer with the simple title of Doing nothing in Iran is not an option which seems to be stating the obvious to me. Given the leadership of Iran are self-declared apocalypse enthusiasts, I for one do not regard just waiting until Tel Aviv gets nuked as acceptable and I rather suspect the Israelis heartily concur. The shit is going to hit the fan soon, that much is certain and no amount of risible European diplomacy will change that.
As for something that could be done more or less immediately, it was gratifying to see Mark Steyn has come around to my view on how to apply pressure in ways that might really destabilise this regime… do to the Iranians security services exactly what they are doing to British troops in Southern Iraq: fight a proxy war with them, only do it openly and without apology.
Fact is, Britain is already at war with Iranian backed forced in Iraq and has been for months. So the government just needs to take this to its logical conclusion and escalate the war so that the Iranian state finds itself at war with British backed Iranian insurgent forces in Iran. It is not like there is any shortage of Iranians who want to be rid of their theocratic nutters. Sounds like a nice convergence of interests to me.
While I would endorse supporting “insurgent” action against Iran, with a view to eventually getting the Mad Mullahs replaced, I’m not sure whether that does anything to reduce their nuclear belligerence.
I would also be careful in supporting just any insurgent movement. Backing Osama and his boys 20 years ago gave them a sense of inflated self-importance (amongst other things).
I can’t pretend to know the strength of internal opposition to the psychotic regime in charge of Iran, though I have heard it suggested that it isn’t as great as we in the West might hope.
Clearly, however, something drastic is going to have to be done, and it is inconceivable that this will not involve force. It seems equally likely that this force will have to be American. International reaction to an Israeli strike (assuming Israel is capable – which is not at all certain) would be too extreme. France probably could do it, but is too craven. Britain could, but it seems unlikely we will, given the political state of the country, post-Iraq. So, once again, poor old Uncle Sam will have to get the baseball bat out from beneath the stairs and, no doubt, will receive the usual howls of outrage from all the usual sources, once he has finished saving their sorry arses.
One cannot help wondering just how many times the cowardly half-wits in the EU (including, sad to say, this hapless country’s hapless government) are going to need the lessons of the late 1930s repeated before they finally grasp the point: the appeasement of lunatics doesn’t work!
The idea is to help insurgents overthrow the belligerent government in question. As it is already a theocratic state with a fantasist head of state who has realisable nuclear aspirations and a stated desire to ‘wipe Israel of the map’, so I cannot off hand think how what comes next could be any worse.
“Backing Osama and his boys 20 years ago gave them a sense of inflated self-importance ”
I assume you are referring to the CIA backing of bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan — except that they never supported or aided bin Laden. His support such as it was came from the Saudis et al.
Perry: Mark Steyn’s “coming round to your point of view” may be drawing a long bow. Steyn’s point of view is long established and, if there is a coming-together of minds that can only be a good & reasonable thing.
Iran: for what it’s worth, many, many years ago I had a very good friend, a Hongkong Chinese from a wealthy family, staunchly anti-Communist & (pro-British? Who knows.) ….and I hope he is still amomg us. I remember meeting him one day, his face happily wreathed in smiles. “What’s made your day, Shu-wan?” I enquired, expecting news of a new girlfriend or such. “Oh,” he replied, “haven’t you heared….we’ve just exploded an atom bomb.”
I suggest an alternative course of action to that of Mr’s Steyn and de Havilland here (readers do have to be familiar with the terminology from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War):
http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=686
Oh I agree that is the best course of action, particularly considering the time element and close proximity of forces, but I am not sure the political will and dispassion needed to do that is present.
BTW, why do people not make their links embedded? It is rather easy to do.
Missed the “link” button before, apologies to all.
http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=686(Link)
I don’t follow any links that aren’t embedded. Why would I have the confidence that someone who couldn’t even do an embedded link had something to tell me?
Wow, Verity!
Are you saying that someone who can’t do an embedded link isn’t worth your attention? Remember that when you’re next on safari or receiving directions when you’re hopelessly lost…….or at your hairdresser.
Is it really in the best interests of the United States to send troops – or cruise missiles – into Iran? Isn’t the realpolitik thing to do to allow Iran and Israel to knock each other off and thus take care of both problems at the same time and gain lasting leverage in the Middle East? It’s not like Iran can seriously threaten the continental US.
Actually it should be Britain and Israel who do it (the two current ‘front line’ states, but that ain’t gonna happen. Never mind that within 10 years Iran could have theatre nukes capable of hitting European targets…
Well, Robert Speirs, you’ve just made a lot of Israeli friends………..and as for harm to the continental US of A, is 9/11 so soon forgotten? You (we, sorry) are dealing with Islamic fundamentalists & they don’t all live in Chad or Sokotu.
In fact the Iranians are great believers in unconventional weapons delivery,a container or a freighter would suit then just as well
Never mind the mushroom cloud–a dirty bomb would suit their purpose just fine. I think they’re stringing the West along in the same way North Korea is. Posturing for domestic consumtion.
There’s plenty of radioactive material in the world and it’s beyond belief that an oil-rich state couldn’t get hold of enough to build a couple of dirty bombs, delivered by van and jihadists to the centres of-say-London and New York. The resulting chaos would be huge. And the materials could at best be traced back to a source that wasn’t Iran, so they’d be home free.
*consumption*
Maybe I can’t write, but I can at least spell.
It’s not like Iran can seriously threaten the continental US.
Via a missile, no.
Doing such a thing would be suicide- the inbound would be tracked, and there would be no way for the Iranians to stop a massively escalated counterstrike short of the direct intervention of Allah himself.
Via a shipping container, yes.
A detonation in a port would devastate a major urban area, kill thousands of people, and make it extremely difficult to determine where the nuclear warhead originated from- which, of the hundreds of containers on a given ship, was the warhead in? Who do you hold accountable? Who do you demand cooperation from? Who do you retaliate against?
I’m not worried about a missile. But I live midway between the 4th and 5th largest ports (by tonnage) on the west coast of the US (they’re maybe 30 miles from each other), so I am more than a little concerned about what may be in a shipping container.
That is the main danger of proliferation- when more governments have nukes, the more difficult it becomes to figure out where any particular one came from.
It is interesting to read blogs by Iranians in English – here is a link: (Link)
These are written by nationals in iran in English and are an eye-opener
Link doesn’t work, Julian.
Sorry about that
the link is http://blogsbyiranians.com/
Does this work? (Link)
Verity will not read this now – I do not know how to post a link on Samizdata!
John Steele wrote:
“I assume you are referring to the CIA backing of bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan — except that they never supported or aided bin Laden. His support such as it was came from the Saudis et al.”
True in the strict sense. It is also true that the USA never paid for Saddam to purchase weapons from Europe to fight Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
Instead, the US used agricultural credits to send wheat to Iraq in the understanding that the money not spent by Saddam importing food would then be used to buy arms from the British and the French. The fact that both the UK and the Iraqi forces used the same APC caused several blue on blue incidents during GW1. The US also sent intelligence.
Bin Laden was considered a significant intelligence asset by the CIA. Bin Laden was a very close associate of of Hekmatyar, and Hekmatyar recieved significant US aid. The CIA was also pushing for global recruitment for the mujaheddin. This policy greatly enhanced the Bin Laden network, whether we meant that to happen or no.
Assistance does not have to be direct to be assistance none the less. Thus it was with Bin Laden.
One cannot know what will arise 20 years after the event. Look at the Taliban, which rose on the back of the excesses of the warlords like Hekmatyar who we the west supported. Look at how support for the Shah of Iran (after toppling an elected government no less) and his brutal regime led to a bloody Islamic revolution in Iran that was worse than the regime of the Shah, but at least it was a home grown tyranny.
That then led to support for Saddam that has left us with the current situation.
I’m no policy expert by any means, but damned sure if someone suggests a repeat of the past methods of support client regimes by imposing rulers and supporting insurgents I’m going to be sending my children to war in that region again in 20 years.
The unintended consequences of any action we may take in Iran are far too hard to predict, be it a direct strike or an insurgent war.
Juat to add I’m not suggesting doing nothing, but anyone who tells me thay have a solid solution that is going to last beyond the time my children are too old to go to war might just as well try and sell me a bridge in Arizona.
Any action we take will have immediate unintended consequences and will have long reaching consequences we cannot foresee.
What we do, we do for the here and now, and should do so in the full understanding that it may actually destabilze the region even more and hence require further commitments in the future that we cannot currently quantify.
To say otherwise is tantamount to a blatent lie.
All that is true. So what we are left with is the indisputable fact we do not know what will come of the US/UK/Israel contronting Iran. And likewise we cannot be sure what will come of US/UK/Israel not confronting Iran.
My theory (call it an educated guess even) is that the risks of doing something drastic (i.e. going to war again in some form or other) are less than the risks of doing nothing. It is hard to see even the possibility of a better result coming from doing nothing and just hoping that Ahmadinejad does not really mean the things he says.
As I’ve said before, the problem with Iran sponsoring terrorism, nuclear or otherwise, is that they don’t get credit for it if they’re not openly connected to the plot and if they are openly connected, they risk retaliation. That’s why they want their own missiles. Otherwise, why bother? They could just make a dirty bomb the Palestinians can fit onto a Qassam and let them get all the credit. It’s all about power.
Any action we take will have immediate unintended consequences and will have long reaching consequences we cannot foresee.
And any action NOT TAKEN will also have immediate unintended consequences and will have long reaching consequences we cannot foresee.
I’m pessimistic. Nobody’s going to do anything but talk, and talk, even sanctions, won’t deterr the mad mullahs. Only force could, but it’s not going to happen.
The Iranians will have the Bomb, just like the Norks, and sooner or later some nuklear exchange will take place.
The only hope is that the regime in Iran will tumble somehow; these things happen, usually in the most unexpected way. I doubt that the West can do much toward regime change. It’s a verry small hope in a very glum situation.
permanent expat – We are on a blog, not in the desert. I am in my own house; not “hopelessly lost”. My hairdresser comes to me.
Maybe it won’t be the US or Israel after all. Jaques Chirac says France may do it. (Link)
I agree with both Perry and Jacob.
We have to do something, otherwise we will be seen to be weak. That is not good for the short term. Longer term we will have to accept that we have a lot of work to do to deal with the consequences of our short term action.
Having just finished the The Prince by Nicolò Machiavelli I am struck by how little politics changes.
We are faced with mostly the same problems with mostly the same tools to fix it as “The Prince” woudl have had in 1515. Only the technology has changed.
My gut feel is if we do something then we merely postpone the enevitable. There is a small part of me that wants to say to nothing, just to bring it to a head, so my children don’t have to face the problem.
It fits with my philosophy that wars are always fought to correct the mistakes of the fathers.
Bringing down the regime in Iran would effectively deliver victory to the west in their war against islamic fascism. Like many people I regard the beginning of this conflict as 1979, when the mullahs came to power. Since then they have become the inspiration, both ideologically and operationally, for the jihad. Removing them would take away an immense platform of patronage and protection for the fighters across the mid East and beyond.
The only way this will be achieved is through the use of non-conventional weapons or a massive bombing campaign. In a sense we created the mess and so we must fix it, before they get nukes.
“we created the mess”?? How? By becoming modern, rational, civilized people?
No Robert
We created the mess by not destroying the regime when it was created.
The only thing that interests me in this whole affair is what country is going to attack Iran and probably Syria. I found the comments of Chirac today more than interesting. I also find the whole ‘diplomacy at all costs’ approach, enjoying wide media coverage, interesting.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if an attack is planned and we are currently in phony negotiations, trying to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security. Countries involved ? US, UK, France, Turkey, Israel – perhaps Germany, maybe Russia – a country that has the most to lose from a nuke armed Iran. This would not be the first time that major powers have acted in secret concert with each other against a common threat.
On the other hand perhaps the western powers really are pursuing appeasement, which only delays the inevitable.
The modern roots of the mess that is now the middle east go back to the opening days of the cold war.
Both the then USSR and the US created a bunch of client regimes, tolerated gross abuses of human rights by those client powers and threw arms into the arena as was needed to keep the then balance of power. Democracy was nascent in the region in the 50’s. It just got stamped out a it was a threat at the time.
So in that respect, Ted and Robert, we did indeed create the mess in the middle east, along with the USSR. I could go back futher to the Great Game between Russia, France and the UK in the late 1700 and 1800s and the roots of radical islam in the 1800s as a response to French and British colonial rule, but I shan’t bother going back that far.
To state now that we should have destroyed the regime of the Mullahs and impose our own man in Tehran is to ignore how the Shah came to power and his subsequent demise. Hence my comment about us beating down the same old path again.
It was exactly because the Shah was so hated that the Islamists came to power. Not the result that the movement to dipose the Shah probably intended, but that is the history of violent revolutions.
To dipose the current regime in Iran would likely result in another revolution in 20 years, unless we do something very different.
And there is the rub. If we do not allow our man to rule with an iron fist he will likely be deposed in the short term as a US puppet ruler.
If we do allow him to rule with an iron fist then he gets deposed later and it is more he is likely replaced by a radical faction.
If we really want to introduce democracy we will have to do it via occupation, which brings another whole set of unpredicable dynamics. Or hope that any push we may give the regime results in it toppling towards demoracy. But that is a very small target to hit. Dictatorship is the more likely outcome should we attempt to topple the regime. (Yes, it is almost a dictatorship now, but there is at least a sliver of a democratic process in Iran)
Of course, there is no USSR any more, but that power vacuum has been filled, at least to a certain extent, by radical Islam, and Russia and now China have interests there that compete directly with the west. So many of the same power dynamics remain.
And just to prevent any confusion on where I stand, I don’t really think we had any option but to run around creating client regimes and imposing strong men in the region in the 50’s and 60’s. We could not have allowed the control of oil to fall completely under the influence of the Soviet sphere.
Knowing that the world of today would be the outcome, I would have planned a bit better for it, but I would in general have acted the same way.
In many ways we are dealing with the legacy of the cold war (which wasn’t that cold in many of the client states) which has left a huge hangover for us. The cure for which, at least in my book, is not to do and get drunk again. You can only do that so often before your body (or your state) pays the price and just becomes completely broken.
Well, I think it’s ridiculous. We had no option but to fight the Cold War the way we did, in general. Soviet Russia and Communism in general was a threat to the freedom and prosperity of the entire world. Their philosophy and their actions were wrong and deserving of their fate. And now to be told because we saved the world from enslavement by them that we are responsible for another set of primitive madmen threatening to drag the world back into the sixth century, to enslave us to a different evil ideology, well, it sticks in my craw. It’s not true.
Earl – I have a headache!
The problem with our approach in the past has been the failure to not impose our system more. By detaching and abdicating responsibility to the local strongman, we actually exposed ourselves. We left monarchy and dictatorship, rather than setting up democratic institutions as we did – successfully – in Japan, Germany, Italy and France in 1944 ff.
It is a delusion (a fatal conceit) to beleive we can impose democracy, decency or anything else upon such a vast part of the globe and of humanity – the ME (or anywhere esle).
Social engineering cannot be done, is impossible.
Societies evolve in their own mysterious, natural ways; we do not know how they evolve, and we are powerless to change these processes in a substantial way.
The ME and it’s pathologies is not something you can blame the West, or the Communists – for. It is fashionable to say “we (Arabs) are the victims, they did it to us, Bush is to blame ….”, but it is not true.
The ME is what it is, because that’s the way it is. It was not created by the US, USSR or GB.
We can only marginally, here and there, deal with some things we perceive as acute threats, maybe. I don’t thing even that is possible.
We can only hope that the mysterious ways of the evolution will result in the quick demise of this awful regime.
Ted – I agree with everything else you say, but Turkey is not a major power. It is not even a minor power. Any mention it gets is due purely to its proximity to civilisation to its west.
Robert Speirs – No. It’s not true. But what do you suggest? I sincerely don’t care if the Muslim Middle East stays mired in the Dark Ages for the next 10,000 years. But they’re encroaching on us and they’ve got to be stopped. And we should not postpone the inevitable. We should choose the time and the place instead of continually reacting to these primevals.
‘Democracy cant be imposed’ : That’s bullshit, Jacob. That’s just a cop out. It’s the trendy excuse we have in the early years of the millenium for doing nothing.
History proves you very wrong indeed. Democracy has been successfully introduced in hostile environments for hundreds of years now. That is because it is the system that most closely reflects human aspirations. Democracy was successfully imposed on Germany, France, Italy and Japan following their defeat in WW2, by the Americans : the latter example being probably the most powerful argument against your negative viewpoint. Democracy has recently been successfully imposed on Grenada. It – or the westminster system -was imposed on Australia, India, Pakistan and other British Empire states when they gradually were cut off from Mother England during the 18th and 19th centuries. It is the fastest growing political form in the world. Democracy will prevail in Iraq, too – probably not fo a decade, but it will happen because the people are too heavile invested in it now.
Its a proven fact that the democratic nations states provide their citizens with more wealth, health and happiness than the alternatives. Thats why asylum seekers flock to democracies from all over the world. Its also a proven fact that democratic nation states are relatively peaceful and usually only attack when threatened. Other than that they are benign, tolerant and promote trade, commerce and interaction between different cultures.
Democracy frightens despots and zealots everywhere. Thats why the Iranians should be taken at their word when they say they want to destroy the west.
Yes, Iranians should be taken at their word. Agreed. M Chirac agrees with you.
However, I don’t agree with: Thats why asylum seekers flock to democracies from all over the world
They flock to democracies because we’re rich and have a concern for the underdog which “asylum seekers” are “wilyly” exploiting. Most of the people “flocking” to the West are not coming because they were denied a vote or a voice on the local school board in their country of origin. They are here to get their gums clamped firmly on the public money tit and then bring in more relatives – hell, whole tribes – in for “marriages”.
Chirac says France is prepared to use nuclear weapons if France is threatened. However, didn’t the Iranian leader say that it was Israel that needed to be wiped off the map? Was France mentioned at all? Would Chirac be just as willing to defend other countries? He spoke so supportively after 9/11, then protested going into Iraq. I wonder if he’s all talk, unless it has to do with France.
Anyway, from the way Donald Rumsfeld was talking, it sounds as if the comment by the Iranian lunatic is our (the U.S) ticket in. The question is when.
Verity, exactly. And they want to change your culture until it becomes theirs.
They don’t come here for the “democracy”, or to pack in all their relatives to feed off the public tit. They come for many complex reasons, most of which have something to do with this obscure little phenomenon that exists in the west…….I think its called……a market system.
Furthermore, since we “have to do something now!” about Iran, I must ask, who here who agrees with this is willing to physicall go to said country and fight in person, with a weapon, no less, when the war does come. Delusions of warrior grandeur are a poor excuse for the murdered sons and daughters who die in wars which change so little in the long run.
Do you have some alternative idea how to stop the religious lunatics in Iran using nuclear weapons? My son is in the REME and will probably end up there if this happens, and whilst I may not find that thrilling, that would be a far from inappropriate use of his talents if he can help prevent these people from threatening everyone.
Verity:
“…but Turkey is not a major power.”
Turkey is the biggest regional power, strategically located on the border of Iran.
Turkey is bigger in population and area than Britain.
Turkey has an enormous army and airforce, probably also bigger than Britain’s. (Only their navy is smaller…).
Turkey’s army is well trained, and has always performed well, from Galipolli through Korea!
Getting Turkey in on a military effort against Iran would be of immense importance and help! I don’t know what they think about a nuclear Iran, and if they can be recruited to help.
Robert, Jacob
Just to clarify something. I am not playing the “Arabs are victims” card here. I am just stating the facts of actions taken by the superpowers during the cold war. Argue my conclusions from those actions if you wish, but only a fool would say what we did had no effect.
Let us not blind ourselves to the consequences of our own actions because “It sticks in my throat.” I put my dog down, that stuck in my throat too. It doesn’t matter that it was the right thing to do at the time.
In no small part the regional power brokers are the most to blame because they could have mobilized against the Soviet expansion and defended the rights of their people, but chose personal power and influence over the rights and will of their own people.
“…the consequences of our own actions “
You mean – Abdul Nasser was “consequence of our own actions” ? Or Abdel Karim Kassem ?
Etc … Etc…
All foreign powers were trying to set up favorable regimes, but the dynamic of evolution of the Arab regimes cannot be summed up in “we set up bad dictators”
Jacob – People who stop and pray five times a day are not that efficient in the armed forces.
Also, the Turks aren’t going to bomb fellow Muslims.
In addition, we should not get in a position in which we owe Turkey any favours because they must not be allowed into the EU.
“Also, the Turks aren’t going to bomb fellow Muslims. ”
Oh, you don’t know them.
They ruled over the whole lot of Arabs for some 5 centuries. You don’t do that wearing kid gloves. Turkish rule was known for it’s brutality. There is absolutely no love lost between turks and Arabs but I’m not sure about relations with Persians which are a different bunch.
We don’t want them in Europe.
Time for more of the White Man’s Burden!
We have to go and provide democracy to an enslaved people, because they don’t know better! Because they just can’t figure out a better way of life! Have to take out all those craaaaaazy religious zealots.
It’s a shame people can’t live more like us, perfect people. Because we are all democracy-loving people like King “I’d really prefer you call me dictator” George, or Capitalist Cheney with his vast network of contractors spread throughout the middle east.
We come in peace. Our only requirement is you drop your weapons, install our puppet regime, turn over your oil and we will be gone. We promise. Er, yeah, you must let us keep our military bases. How long? Er, well, Japan long? I don’t know. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Just be patient. Let your overlords determine what’s best for you.
I really do not give a damn about Iran being ‘provided’ with democracy. I am also completely uninterested in their ‘way of life’. For a while I used to be in the nuclear weapons ‘business’ and I really just want to see a religious government headed by a religious apocalyptic fanatic who is looking forward to the end of the world some time real soon prevented from getting and soon after using nuclear weapons.
The half-wit left in the USA blather on about how George Bush is some sort of religious nutcase and yet seem strangely unconcerned by a religious madman in Iran who makes George Bush seem like an atheist. And yes, I am an atheist myself.