Israel and Syria

Today the Israeli Air Force carried out a series of air strikes against Syrian military targets around Damascus.  The proximate reason was the impending transfer of new, better missiles from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  They have done this twice before, on Friday they hit some targets around Damascus, and in January they hit a convoy near the Lebanese border carrying missiles to Hezbollah.  However, the target list (including a chemical weapons research facility) suggest the Israelis are trying to send a more complex message than simply no new weapons for Hezbollah.

Remember that Israel has only ever lost one war, and that was to Hezbollah in 2006.  Hezbollah remains the only nearby threat capable of inflicting politically significant damage on Israeli civilians. Right now, the worst case scenario for Israeli security is Hezbollah getting Syrian chemical weapons and the missile systems to deliver them.

The Israelis would probably like to stay out of the Syrian conflict entirely.  There is no military action they can take to ensure a palatable outcome. Obviously, there are no political or diplomatic tools they can use either.  That leaves Israel in a bind.  They can handle Assad, but he is an enabler of the Iran - Hezbollah alliance.  What would follow Assad is unknowable at this time.  Could be worse, could be better, will certainly be Islamist.  But won't be in Iran's pocket and probably won't facilitate Hezbollah. 

All in, it looks like a new regime would suit the Israelis.  But of course they cannot take sides.  Israeli support of the rebels would be the kiss of death and the rebels would reject Israeli help.  On the other hand, strategic developments have taken an unusual turn.  As far as Syria is concerned, Israeli and Saudi interests are starting to converge.  Both are lined up against Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon.  Both would be better off with a Sunni ruled Syria.   Both would be happy with a severely crippled Hezbollah.  Neither is a military threat to the other.  Both are American allies.  I'm not expecting a nice meeting between King Abdullah and Netanyahu in East Jerusalem with lots of hugs and kisses.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find out they are cooperating under the table.

Finally, the chemical weapons are a wild card.  Its hard to divine the truth, but it looks like Assad has been using them in a limited fashion.  Trying to gain a tactical advantage without provoking international response.   This is one area where Israel gets a free pass.  They can bomb the shit out of Assad's chemical weapons capabilities and nobody will blame them. 

Its also worth noting that the Israeli raid shows yet again that the Syrian Air Force is utterly incapable of defending Syrian airspace. 

Syria in October

      Results of an air strike near Damascus October 30, 2012 REUTERS/Maawia Al-Naser/Shaam News Network/Handout

After a very tense summer, the outside parties to Syria's civil war have stepped back from the brink.  The war goes on, but the rebels at least are being starved of weapons by their sponsors.  The Americans are worried about weapons falling into the hands of jihadis.  The Turks, Qataris and Saudis seem to be heeding American doubts.  I have no information on how the Government is doing for supplies, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Russians are quietly starving them as well.

In any case, the Syrian military has been notably ineffective in suppressing the rebels despite huge advantages in equipment and manpower.  I'd give a win on points to the rebels so-far for simply surviving. 

So it seems like there will be a cold, miserable winter in Syria with no resolution.  Nevertheless, Syria remains a powder keg.  By far the most important issue in the Middle East today.  That's because (as I've said before) all the regional fault lines run through it.  Syria may end up like Afghanistan where all the regional players would rather have instability than a solid government favouring a different player.  In Syria, its the Iranians against the Saudis.  Neither will accept a government beholden to the other.  So continued war is the safest bet.  As long as nobody wins it.  The Syrian people don't enter into the calculation, unfortunately. 

Finally, The Last Iran War Post

      A B-52  Photo:US Air Force

This article in the Guardian is the last nail in the Iran War coffin.  The UK's Attorney General has a legal opinion that use of UK bases for a pre-emptive attack on Iran could be illegal.

The war that I've always said wouldn't happen is now dead.  The US Air Force cannot carry out an extended campaign against Iran without UK bases.  They need UK bases for B52s and Diego Garcia for B2s.  Of course the US could still use their bases in the US and Guam, but that radically reduces the tonnage they can drop.  And use of those bases makes for some difficult overflight problems. The US Navy can still attack from aircraft carriers and the Air Force can use regional bases, but they can't stop the Iranians with conventional weapons.  Without strategic bombing, the only way for the US to destroy the Iranian program is with nuclear weapons.  And that's not on.

You can stick a fork in it now.  We will still hear lots about it, because the general public does not grasp the operational constraints.  But it will be just talk.  This game is over.

UPDATE

I should have said that this kind of finding means, in my opinion, that Britain will not go to war over the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons.   This is a policy document pretending to be a legal document.  It moves Britain closer to the overall European position. 

The Syrian Powder Keg

     Aleppo is starting to look like someone's Stalingrad.  Photo by: Niklas Meltio

Things are not going well for Bashar Assad.  His army had pushed the rebels out of Damascus and seemed to be forcing a decisive battle in Aleppo on their terms.  Given the Army's heavy weapons and air assets, it should have been a walkover. But more than a month later, the battle for Aleppo continues.  In addition, after having been driven out of Damascus last month, the rebels are not only back, but seem to have shot down a helicopter.  The Syrian Armed Forces are clearly unable to win this war.  The rebels, on the other hand, have taken everything the government has thrown at them and keep advancing.

The usual scenario in these circumstances is a grinding war until the rebels get the upper hand and the government disintegrates as the players rush for the exits.  Without foreign intervention, that's what will happen here.  Unfortunately, the regional players have upped the stakes in this conflict. And the chemical weapons are a wild card inviting intervention from the US, France, Britain and possibly Russia. 

While we have all been paying attention to Israeli threats against Iran and the Egyptian revolution, a regional war has been brewing to the East.  The US invasion of Iraq upset the regional status quo by shoving Iraq (majority Shia) into Iran's outstretched arms.  Iran gained a straight line of allies all the way to the Mediterranean (Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah).

The Saudis thus feel out-flanked by Iran and threatened by Iranian nukes.  They also felt threatened by Shia demonstrations in the North of the Kingdom, the oil part, and were forced (by their reckoning) to stifle a Shia revolution in Bahrain.  So the emerging power blocks are sectarian; Sunni vs. Shia.  Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Iran's clients on one side, the USA, Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arabs on the other. Egypt is a wild card and Israel irrelevant.

The war in Syria is acting like a magnifying glass to focus all these issues in one place.  Iran and the Saudis both lack the military for a direct conflict. One invading and/or conquering the other is not possible.  So the temptation to fight by proxy in Syria is attractive.  But very, very dangerous.  Expect an international crisis at some point this fall.

Syria Primer

Currently, Syria is run by an Alawite regime headed by Bashar al-Assad. The Alawite are a group of tribes from western Syria and make up between 10% and 20% of the population depending on who you ask. These tribes practice a form of Shia Islam, in contrast to the majority of the population who are Sunni.

The Alawite have been in control since the sixties when Bashar's father, Hafez al-Assad took over in a coup. Hafez was a master politician, though a brutal and repressive dictator. Bashar is not in the same league and many feel he is first among a group that lead the regime, but not a real force on his own.

Last year, public demonstrations against the regime began, like elsewhere in the Arab world. As the government brutally and ineffectually sought to crush the demonstrations, they gradually became a rebellion.  The rebellion itself is divided and includes groups with many different agendas. The only thing they seem to agree on is that the regime has to go (and that they don't like Israel, but that's mom and apple pie in the Arab world).

This year, the rebellion became strong enough to compete with the government in rural areas, and has taken over large swaths of the country. Lately, they have been contesting urban areas, with less success.  However, they have survived a month of combat in Damascus, and three weeks of heavy combat in Aleppo.

Several factors, including the attack on Damascus, and the spectacular assasination of Bashar's top security officials have made it clear that the regime is probably doomed. When the trickle of defections becomes a flood, the end will be at hand.

But nothing is simple in the Middle East. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq Turkey, Qatar and the United States are intervening directly or indirectly. The Russians don't want to lose their last significant Arab client state. The Iranians don't want to see a Shiite regime overthrown, plus Syria is a key strategic ally, helping them get stuff to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Saudis want very much to have a Shiite regime replaced with a Sunni, and they are funneling guns to the rebels, as is the US (presumably via Qatar). Israel is on red alert, but can't do anything to influence events. So they make concerned noises, but will do nothing unless the chemical weapons come into play. 

The chemical weapons are a new factor. The regime moved some out of rebel held areas recently. This was viewed as a good thing by both the US and the Russians. Both remain concerned (as does Israel) that the weapons could fall into the hands of "terrorists". The Russians are said to have warned Assad in very direct language that these weapons must be secured and cannot be used, period.

At the moment, with all the confusion on the ground and the mad spinning by all sides, it is impossible to tell for sure what is going on.

In any case, the most likely outcome is the fall of the regime and the death of many Alawites. Who will replace them and on what terms is unknowable at this point. Just don't believe everything you read.

The War That Wasn't Still Isn't

    Crazy cool shades, bro                                                                                                 Photo from Speigle

There is a lot of talk about a war with Iran.  Faithful readers will recall that I said the best chance for a US strike passed when Tony Blair resigned.  But let's spare the tortuous history,  here are a few points that have mostly been consistent since this started.

• Israel cannot, with conventional weapons, knock out the Iranian atomic program. They simply can't deliver enough ordinance at that distance.  Their problems are most recently outlined here.

• Likewise, the US can do a LOT more damage than Israel, but things may be past the point where they could deliver a knock-out blow either.  At least with conventional weapons. 

• A nuclear attack on Iran is not an option.  The weapons would have to penetrate deeply into the ground before exploding in order to get at buried facilities.  This would result in massive radioactive fallout over Eastern Iran, Pakistan and India. With attendant casualties.

• No action by the US and/or Israel can bring about regime change in Tehran.  So the essential problem can't be solved by military means.

• No matter what, an Iranian bomb is not a threat to the US, Europe, China, Russia or India.  If the world can live with a nuclear Pakistan, then we can live with a nuclear Iran.

Besides these points, there are some new ones.

• Relations between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are terrible.  Neither likes or trusts the other.  Obama will go out on a limb for Israel, but he won't lift a finger to help Netanyahu.

• Jerusalem and Washington are talking the same language, but the words don't mean the same thing.  Obama doesn't want the Iranians to build a bomb.  Netanyahu doesn't want them to be able to build a bomb.  For him, the red line has already been crossed.  For Obama, the line won't be crossed for years, if ever.

• Lastly, the most pressing issue in the Mid-East is Syria.  Syria sits on just about every fault line in the region and is now in civil war.  It won't end well and the implications are both far reaching and difficult to predict.

When you add all these factors together, it looks like war will be harder than peace.  I don't expect an attack by Israel or the US anytime soon.

Iran Again

 
Just as Catholics need saints, the Shia need martyrs. Martyrs brought down the Shah.  Demonstrations produced martyrs, their funerals became demonstrations.  Once sucked into this escalating cycle, the Shah never got out.  Everyone in Iran is acutely aware of this.

Iran appears to be in turmoil. The government's harsh methods had seemed to put the opposition genie, if not back in the bottle, then at least into hiding.  The tectonic splits that were revealed after the election have been band-aided.  We never did know what was going on behind the scenes, but whatever it was didn't amount to anything as far as outsiders could tell.

Its tiresome, but lets re-cap for those not following obsessively.  The incumbent president, Ahmadinejad, was re-elected in June.  The election was obviously stolen, a fact that was subsequently proved in various ways through statistical analysis of the results.  Iranians took to the streets in their millions and used the Internet to get their message out to the world.  In an effort to illegitimize the protesters, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Kahmenei personally endorsed the election results.  As a result, the demonstrations shifted from protesting the election to protesting the regime.  The government used brutal methods to suppress the street demonstrations.  They managed to strike the right balance of violence.  Enough to create fear, but not enough to create outrage. 

At the same time, it became evident that there were splits in the regieme.  Two key issues were revealed.  First, that a powerful minority of Ayatollahs were against the concept of an Islamic Republic on religious grounds.  Meaning they thought governments should have political accountability, and the clergy should not.  So the clergy shouldn't be running governments.

The second, possibly critical, issue was the role of the Republican Guards, known as the Pasdaran.  The Pasdaran are a bit like the SS, a military/political organization outside normal state beuracracy.  They have military, intellegence, and commercial assets. Amahdinejad is their man.  There was speculation in Iran, and in the West, that the stolen election was, in fact, a coup by the Pasdaran.  Some of the available facts are consistent with this hypothesis.  If so, it means the end of democracy and a military government cloaked in an Ayatollah's robe.  Any serious attempt to change who is in charge would mean upheaval and perhaps civil war.  None of this was clear, however.  What was clear was that the government had mostly succeeded in keeping the lid on the opposition without a fatal over-reaction. 

Yet the recent demonstrations, and the governments unprecedented violence to suppress them, suggest several possible developments.  The first is that the opposition has not been cowed, just forced to switch tactics.  In the Economist article linked below, they mention that the central bank is now refusing bank notes with writing on them.  The oppostion has apparently been writing anti-regime slogans on the money.  Those holding such notes, mostly ordinary people and businesses, now have worthless money.  This is not a friendly thing to do and calls the credibility of the central bank into question. International trading partners have very little patience for this kind of thing.

That point leads to the possibility that one of two things are going on.  Either the Pasdaran has decided their control is to total they can do as they pleases with no consequences, or they are scared and desperate.  The Economist article suggests, for the first time I've seen it, that China and Russia perceive the Pasdaran  may not prevail in the long-run.  Being too close to the losing side the last time has cost the Americans dearly.  Iran's new friends don't want to make the same mistake.  The Economist is frequently optimistic with such assessments, but its plausible.  And if that's plausible, then so is another Iranian revolution.

A pretty good article on the current situation is in the Economist here.

Israel, Iran and Nukes

Flight distances via the Saudi option.  Assumes take-off from Negev bases. Israel has 25 F-15 variants with a range of 2,200km and a large number of F-16s with a range of 2,000km.  They have some aerial refueling capability, but not for the 100 planes thought necessary for an effective attack.


As discussed before, some people believe Israel can and should attack Iran to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons.  However, proponents rarely deal with the operational realities of such a strike.  The Israeli Air Force is brilliant, but not magic.  They can do no more than token damage to the Iranian nuclear program for several reasons:

A raid would push Israeli planes to their farthest range, leaving very little time to deliver weapons.  There would be no margin for winds, equipment variation, weather or other unforseeable variables.  Here is an article that discusses range in detail.

The route to Iran has to cross either Turkish or Iraqi airspace.  Also Syria or Jordan, but they don't matter.  The Turks have the means to see the Israelis coming, so use of their airspace would have to blessed ahead of time.  In addition, Turkey is a NATO country.  A violation of their airspace by the Israelis would theoretically put them at war with all the other NATO countries.  Not a happy option for anyone. 

Crossing Iraq is even more problematic.  Iraqi airspace is controlled by the US Air Force.  The Israelis can't sneak through unnoticed, and it would be political suicide for the Americans to allow it.   They can't even pretend not to notice.  A 100+ plane strike force passing twice through USAF defenses suggests that anyone can penetrate US controlled airspace any time they want.

Word surfaced today that Saudi Arabia might allow an Israeli overflight.  I don't know if I buy it.  Even if true, it doesn't do the Israelis much good unless the Saudis allow them to land and refuel.  The Saudi route is well out of the way and at least some Israeli planes wouldn't be able to reach their targets.  Also, the Saudis are a conservative bunch unlikely to take such a spectacular political gamble.

But, let's assume the IAF somehow gets to Iranian airspace and have to cross hundreds of miles to reach their targets.  All the time subject to Iranian air defense measures.  These defenses would be concentrated around the targets the Israelis want to hit.  Significant losses at this stage would jeopardize the effectiveness of the mission. Wrecked Israeli planes on Iranian TV would be bad.  Dead Israeli pilots on Iranian TV would be worse.  But worst of all would be Ahmadinejad on TV sitting beside a captured Israeli.  There are enormous political downsides for Israeli politicians. 

For the sake of argument, however, let's continue with our assumptions and say that the Israelis evade or neutralize Iranian air defenses.  Due to the size of the IAF and the range of their equipment, they would not be able to deliver an overwhelming amount of ordinance.  They could probably destroy the Bushir reactor and other targets.  But the most important sites, like Natanz are underground and would require multiple sequenced precision hits from bunker buster bombs.  And even then the damage might not be catastrophic. 

There are various estimates floating around the web of the total damage the Israelis could inflict.  They vary between no delay at all to the Iranian program up to a five year disruption.  The consensus is a 2 year delay would be the best case.  With conventional weapons, they can do no more. 

If they want to deliver a knock-out blow to the Iranian nuclear program, there is only one option, nuclear weapons.  By using a combination of ballistic and cruise missiles, they could completely destroy the Iranian facilities.  The cruise missiles could be launched by submarines in the Arabian Sea and the ballistic missiles go too high to violate anyone's airspace.  As well, these delivery vehicles are almost impossible to defend against.  So nukes would solve all the Israeli operational issues. Obviously, the use of nuclear weapons would  create significant political problems internally and with their allies.

One thing we learned from the Cold War is that people with nuclear weapons get really serious and really rational really fast. If the Iranians did obtain a weapon, the last thing they'd do is use it against Israel because the result would be annihilation.  As soon as the Iranians had a second-strike capability, the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries would vanish.  Nuclear weapons are only good for one thing, keeping someone else from nuking you.  They can't be used against non-nuclear states for fear of world reaction.  They can't be used against nuclear states with a second strike capability because the result will be a black heap of rubble where your capital city used to be.  What if you attack and some or all of your weapons don't work?  Its just too risky.

But really, its hard to argue with Iran's ambitions.  Given what they've been through and the threats from Jerusalem and Washington over the last 8 years, they'd be fools not to proceed.  And Iran doesn't actually need a warehouse full of completed weapons.  It needs the capability and resources to assemble and deliver several bomb in a short period of time.   If we can live with a nuclear Pakistan, then we can live with a nuclear Iran.

Murky Iran

    An attempt to make the grim Republican Guards crest look inspiring.

Two weeks ago, it looked like street protests might bring down the Islamic Republic.  Then it looked like repression had worked and things would go back to "normal". 

Now it looks like neither is a likely outcome.  There are no other obvious alternatives, but the street protests have not brought down the government and the repression has not put the genie back in the bottle.  Instead, the botched stealing of the election has exposed deep political fault lines. 

The most serious of these seems to be over who is running the government.  There appear to be many in the establishment who worry that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, commonly called the Pasdaran) have functionally taken over the republic and that they will run it in a manner that favors the expansion of their power.  Or put another way, Iran may no longer be an Islamic Republic, but a military dictatorship masquerading as an Islamic government. 

There has been widespread anger at the way protesters have been handled.  Many conservatives, even conservative clergy, apparently feel that the election was obviously stolen and cracking heads is not the best way to deal with the problem.  What is clear is that the Iranian military and police had no appetite for killing protesters.  The repression has been carried out almost entirely by the Pasadaran, and especially by their brownshirts, the Basij. 

That casts the political upheaval in a new light.  The Pasadaran has become something like the SS in Germany.  Not, and I mean this most seriously, in any way like the criminals who made up the SS or the horrendous crimes they committed.  But in a structural sense.  The SS became the most powerful institution in the 3rd Reich.  It was a party institution, not governmental, answerable only to the leader of the Nazi Party.  They had their own army, their own industrial operations and controlled all policing, security and intelligence apparatus. They were also widely appointed to bureaucratic positions in government.  Likewise, the IRG has their own army, their own industrial and commercial operations and control the Republic's nuclear weapons.  After the 2005 election, many Pasadaran were appointed to beurocratic positions in the government.  Also like the SS, they are theoretically controlled by the Supreme Leader.  But, Khameni's disastrous speech on Friday, June 19 has many wondering if he controls the Pasadaran or they control him. 

Ahmadinejad is an IRGC man and it is widely thought that the Pasadaran skillfully stole a close election in 2005 to put him in power.  However, the scale and blatancy of manipulation in the recent election is something else entirely.  It violates the deal between the regime and the populace.  People can do pretty much whatever they want in private, but must observe Islamic principals in public.  The government demands a minimal level of compliance, but does not insist on belief.  One aspect of this deal is that Presidential and Parliamentary elections are supposed to be free and fair.  Neither institution has much power in the Islamic Republic, and the mullahs won't let anyone they don't like run for office.  Positions taken by the President or Parliament can be overruled by the clergy, but they can't be ignored.  This providing an outlet for the otherwise powerless population.  The arrangement was effective and durable.  But the Pasadaran just broke the deal. 

As a result, everything may be in play.  There are lots of powerful people and political blocks in Iran.  If enough of those players get scared by the Pasadaran, real change may be in the air.  However, the best case scenario may be a return to a  more liberalized version of the status quo.  The worst case scenario would be a civil war with the Pasadaran on one side and the regular military on the other.  Despite fear mongering, nuclear weapons would not be an issue.  Nobody is going to nuke anyone else.  Remember what we learned in the Cold War, you can't actually use them, you can only threaten to use them.  Also, there is no outside country with an ability to intervene in a meaningful way.  This is an Iranian problem and will be solved one way or another, by the Iranians.

Iran - Another Side

     al-Sistani - he looks a bit sinister, but he's not.

There's a very interesting side-story developing in the Iran situation.  The linked article is really good.

The position of Supreme leader, as defined by Ayatollah Khomeini, is a new idea.  Traditionally, Shia clergy have avoided politics as a matter of doctrine.  Both the most traditional and most progressive wings of the clergy regard such a position as unsupported by tradition.  Khomeini could get away with it.  He did so partly by starting small and then bit by bit expanding the power of the position.  The position was first supposed to be based on the role of the the leader in being the concionce and spiritual leader of the country.  Then it expanded to become the spiritual gurardian of the country, then the highest arbiter between civil and spiritual matters, and finally something like a king. 

Through caution and a light hand, Khamenei has managed to also get away with it.  However, his ill-advised speech on Friday has stirred up clerical opposition.  For the first time in many years, people are discussing if a Supreme Leader with defined political powers is appropriate in Shia Islam.  

This is where it gets interesting.  Some hints have emerged of discussions in Qom (the religious capital of Iran) and Najaf.  Najaf is, of course, in Iraq.  Saying it is being discussed in Najaf is a reference to the man who lives in there, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.  al-Sistani is the most senior and revered of all Shia clergy.  Although Iranian, he has lived in Karbala for decades.  Saddam Hussein didn't dare touch him. 

al-Sistani is a fascinating figure.  His word is law to Shiites, but he is very careful about what he says.  Twice since the fall of Saddam's government, al-Sistani has saved Iraq from total meltdown by acting as adult supervision for the Shiite militias and then the  Shia government in Baghdad.  This is not to say he is everybody's best friend.  He is completely opposed to the American occupation, has never met with the Americans and famously didn't open a letter sent to him by President Bush.  I think that just on the basis of stopping an all-out war between the Shiite militas and the Americans in 2004, al-Sistani should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

He functions in Iraq the way the Iranian Supreme Leader was first defined.  He is an un-elected, non-office holding supreme religious authority.  There is no role for him under the Iraqi constitution, but as long as the government is run by Shia, his advice and fatwas cannot be ignored by any politician. 

If al-Sistani wanted to become the Supreme Leader of Iran, they'd kick Khamenei out in a minute.  But of course, al-Sistani doesn't want to run a country.  His work is more important than that.  That his attitude is gaining some traction in Iran is bad for Khamenei.  Although they love the perks and riches of power, some Iranian clergy may remember that it didn't always used to be this way.  That this is not the traditional order of things.  In al-Sistani's way of looking at things, the Iranian clergy is in dire risk of becoming just another political regime.  To the extent Khamenei publicly shows his power, he reduces the moral and spiritual authority of the clergy.  In the long-run, these are far more important than holding power in a government created by men. 

People are talking about the current unrest as a potential second revolution.  However, with his poor handling of the election and the unrest, Khamenei may be tempting an entirely different revolution from within.

Iran War: October Update

USS Teddy Roosevelt - F18 catapult launch - U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Cole
With all the extrordinary economic, political and military news in October, its easy to forget about the war that wasn't.  We are within a few days of a new moon and thus one of the last windows of opportunity for George Bush to attack Iran.  The  Roosevelt has finally appeared in the area (after months of dawdling), joining the Regan in the North Arabian Sea.  Faithful readers will recall that two carriers are necessary for an attack on Iran.  However, Somali pirates and expanded military activity in Afghanistan also justify a second carrier in the area.  There's been a quiet drum-beat of Iranian criticism from both Washington and Jerusalem, but both are pre-occupied with domestic issues.  Absent a direct Iranian attack, no political justification exists for US action.  With the economic meltdown and two unpopular wars already, a new war would not go over well with the US electorate.  I'm pegging the chance of a war this month at zero. 

Get It Right

Media talking heads and politicians, especially but not only in the US, keep referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that "Israel must be wiped from the map". If he really said this, it could be accurately characterized as a threat. But he didn't say that. He said: "Emam goft een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzegar mahv shavad."  Persian speakers are generally agreed*** on the following translation: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times." The Imam was Khomeini, who is slightly mis-quoted by Ahmadinejad. Khomeini said "stage of times", not "page of times". But both are still pretty abstract and neither could be construed to mean "map". Its an important distinction because "map" implied a literalness that "page of times" does not. The Persian word translated as "regime" does not mean state or nation, but government or ruling group. Anyone who believes peace is not possible until Israel returns to the 1967 borders is in basic agreement with his premise, even if they disagree with the sentiment. Lastly, the statement is a generality, it does not propose Iran as the sweeping agent. There has been no threat uttered.

This is important enough to make a post because there have been objections to the "wiped off the map" translation since day one. Despite being frequently debunked, the quote lives on. Sarah Palin said it last week. It has become propaganda. Policy should be based on facts. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Ahmadinejad and the Iranian theocratic regime. We don't need to make things up.
--------------------
*** I want to note that there is no controversy I'm aware of in this translation.  There are not Persian speakers who argue that he said or meant "wiped off the map".  The initial "wiped off the map" translation came from Aljazeera.  Since they are nobody's propaganda outlet, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt and call it an error.  In any case, the "wiped off the map" statement was so incendiary that it made news all over the world.

Iran War: Monthly Update

The Roosevelt - still Atlantic bound       Photo: US Navy

Long-time readers will be familiar with my claims that the US Military likes to start offensive operations in the dark, i.e. around a new moon.  As the last quarter of the current moon is waning, its time for an update on a potential attack against Iran.

The key question is: where are the carriers?  They need a minimum of two but three would be better.  Last month, it looked like there would be three in the area, at least for a while.  The tip-off was to be the Lincoln.  Would it go home after being relieved by the Reagan, or would it hang around?  It's headed for San Diego and is currently in the Pacific.  The Roosevelt was also scheduled for deployment, and still is.  But it hasn't left the Atlantic.  Those pesky Russian naval vessels visiting Venezuela may be giving the Navy second thoughts.  In any case, a second carrier in the Arabian Sea would be useful for expanded US operations in Afghanistan.  So the appearance of the Roosevelt, sudden or otherwise, is not necessarily cause for alarm.  In any case, current US Navy deployment suggests no all-out attack on Iran is planned during the approaching lunar darkness window.

As alert readers may have already noted, US policymakers have their hands full with other business.  Similarly, Israeli leaders are pre-occupied with political matters.  The temperature of anti-Iran rhetoric has thus cooled considerably in both Washington and Jerusalem.  In addition, the strategic situation has shifted noticeably with Afghanistan and Pakistan taking center stage.  Nobody in their right mind would attribute problems there to the Iranians.  Lastly, an IAEA investigation into a Syrian "reactor" bombed by Israel last year has turned up no evidence of any nuclear activity.  Russia, China and Germany all publicly noted this development.  One can be sure others noted it too, but were too polite to say anything.  This is a major hit to US credibility.  Coming after the Georgian fiasco and war that isn't with Pakistan, enthusiasm among US allies for more adventures is likely thin.  Even if they were enthusiastic, friendly capitals are busy with keeping the US debt contagion out of their banking systems.

So, no war this month.  Unless something really bad happens in the US next month, it looks like the whole operation is off, at least until after Israeli elections.  After a certain point, it no longer makes sense.

A Nastygram From Uncle Sam?

      US Navy Tomahawk cruise missile
Is the US about to attack Iran with an armada of unmanned aircraft as widely reported over the weekend?  Probably not, unless by unmanned aircraft you mean cruise missiles.

Apparently, if reports are to be believed, the Dutch of all people had a mole deep in Iran's missile program.  A respected Dutch journalist reported that the mole had been sabotaging the Iranian program, but had fled the country in advance of a US strike by said unmanned aircraft.  This kind of thing gives me a headache.  How to tease apart the web of deceit layered with truths in such a tale?  For truth there surely is, to make the whole thing plausible.  But can it be discerned?

The Iranian "agent" part is probably true to the extent that somebody in their missile program could have defected for money or favour or fear.  The Iranians know if they are missing someone or not.  But if anyone would have been able to place an agent it would have been the Israelis, not the Dutch.  Also, the notion of a highly placed saboteur is Hollywood, not real life.  I'm just not buying it.

As for the imminent attack by an armada of US unmanned aerial vehicles, I'm not buying that one either unless the vehicles are cruise missiles.  Cruise missiles are the perfect superpower intimidation tool you see.  Unmanned, reliable, precise, very long range.  Unless nuclear tipped, they can't do much damage, but there's no PR hit if one gets shot down.  Bill Clinton loved them. 

George Bush was famously contemptuous of Clinton's remote controlled, symbolic approach to "sending signals".  But Clinton avoided exactly the kind of trouble that Bush would invite with a normal set of airstrikes against Iranian targets.  Planes shot down, aircrews paraded on TV, show trials.  So a remote controlled symbolic strike may be Bush's only option.

Cruise missiles would be the remote-control method because currently deployed US drones have neither the speed nor the lifting power necessary for long-range strikes of this kind.  Here's a photo of the current state of the art MQ-9 Predator.  It can only carry 1,500 lbs of munitions and would be a sitting duck for Iranian SAMs and aircraft.

Its possible that the Air Force has a secret program similar to the Boeing X-45 pictured below.  The F-114 Stealth fighter was operational for years before it was declassified.  But given the very public squabbling over the direction of US Fighter programs in the last year, and the non-secret X-45 and its competitors, there is little possibility of a major secret delivery platform.

Even so, I'm not betting on a strike with cruise missiles or anything else.  Iran has passed the point of no return on its nuclear program.  At the end of the day, and that end is drawing close for George Bush, there isn't much the US can do about it.  Besides, if the world can live with a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear Iran is tolerable.  The Israelis may not like it, but like the US, there's nothing practical they can do about it short of attacking Iran with their own nuclear weapons.  Its just not worth it.

The Iran War: No News Is Good News?

As I've noted before in several posts, I do not believe the US will make a substantial attack against Iran during the remainder of the Bush Presidency.  I've also noted that if I'm wrong, now would be the best time to stage such an attack.  Tonight is a new moon and the US prefers to kick things off in the dark, in order to maximize their technological superiority.  However, a near total silence has descended upon the issue.  Usual sources are not providing updates on the location of US carriers.  Cheerleaders like Debka News are all focused on Georgia.  Apparently, the Middle-East "realists" see Georgia as the opening battle of WW3.  With Saakashvili playing Prince Ferdinand, The South Ossetians playing Serbia, and Russia playing, well Russia.  I'm not buying this one either.  There's no reason the Georgian situation shouldn't settle down to the back-burner issue it deserves to be. 

Back in the Gulf, last month's WW3 incubator, the silence is a bit unnerving, at least to me.  Under normal conditions, an all-out attack by the US against Iran would require some causus belli, like the Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident I predicted for a few days ago.  A complete absence of political/propaganda buildup is untypical of US practice.  Unless its somehow linked to the Really Bad Thing, I'd have to say that notwithstanding the force build-up, no news is good news.  Meaning if they were going to attack, Bush and his associates would be cackling like flock chickens on amyls (to quote Hunter S. Thompson out of context).  They are going wonky alright, but over Georgia, not Iran.

The Iran War: Where's The Carriers?

Oh look. Its the USS Harry Truman at Newport on Google Earth. Kind of hard to hide an aircraft carrier.
The US Navy has gone all quiet and vague about where their carriers are. It pisses me off. You can't hide an aircraft carrier from satellites . The Iranians have satellites . Even if they didn't, the Russians would tell them where the carriers are. So the only people who don't know are, well me. And I have a pretty good idea. So why go to the trouble?

Remember about 2 years ago the Iranian spy satellites was one of the red lines for Israel. They were really going to do something before the Iranians had their satellite. But they didn't. There was another red line over advanced Russian SAM systems that may or may not have been on their way to Iran. The Russians seem to have misplaced the SAMs and just never got around to delivering them. But that was then. After all the White House pouting and spitting over Georgia, the Russians can now do as they please in the Middle East. I think Putin's boys may have just found those SAMs in a warehouse somewhere, and will now ship them to Tehran. So the price for an attack on Iran just went up a few notches. If the on-again, off-again war was on, it's probably now off. So why bother being coy about the carriers?

Anyway, I said in the last post that if the US were of a mind to proceed, we would have a Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident around the 25th. That would coincide nicely with a new moon at the end of the month. After all the blustering and bullshit they'll either do it by the end of August, or we can all stop pretending its "on the table" as they like to say over and over.

By the end of October, adult supervision will be at hand and there won't be any more silly war talk from people in Washington who should know better.

The Iran War: Closer

Last week when I posted about the Iran war, it was on again. By Friday, it was off again. Now its said to be back on again. At least Debka is reporting Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait believe its on. Debka is semi-reliable. Its very much in tune with Israeli Military Intelligence. Frequently, things are presented as fact that are opinion, guesses or spin. But they do have information nobody else does, so you have to put up with the editorial line.

As I noted last week, the end of August will be critical. There will be three US carrier task groups, two US Marine expeditionary forces in the area and a new moon. If they did plan to attack, that's what they would need. Look for a Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident around the 25th.

Nevertheless, I still think there will be no war. The Pentagon and its constituent groups have been not only opposed, but unusually publicly opposed. Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary has himself spoken against an attack. Gates is a very experienced Washington operator. Since taking office he has taken numerous actions to gain stronger bureaucratic control over the military. This control has been at the expense of the White House, and Dick Cheney in particular. If the White House wants to engage in a new war over the public opposition of a cohesive Pentagon, they will need huge political leverage. George Bush's performance over the last two weeks suggest he is not a man with much in the way of leverage. Specifically, I'm talking about his apparent public drunkenness at the Olympics and the impotent threats directed at Russia. He has lame duck written all over him.

Apart from the institutional and political problems Bush would need to overcome, there are a lot of facts on the ground that recommend against attack. First and most importantly, there is no possibility of deposing the Iranian Islamic government or ending their nuclear development via air strikes. So what would be the point? As I detailed last week, the only logical attack plan entails a huge operation. This would deplete America's strategic reserve, cause political and diplomatic problems worldwide, and probably cause a domestic political crisis just before a hugely important election. And that's without any Iranian response.

Last week I promised an examination of possible Iranian responses. But spinning scenarios for a series of events I'm arguing will never happen seems wrong somehow. Let's just say that the Iranians have three possible avenues for counter-attack. Direct and proxy military action against the Strait of Hormuz and US forces in Iraq, proxy action via Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria aimed at Israel, and unconventional action (i.e. car bombing US Embassys in 3rd countries and the like). The Iranians could cause significant disruption of traffic in the Strait, but would soon be blown to smithereens by the US Navy. Their ability to harass Israel via proxies is doubtful in my mind. None of the named organizations are Iranian puppets. All have limited will or capacity to do much damage. Attacks against US targets in 3rd countries that kills locals is simply stupid, and the Iranians aren't stupid. The only area where the US is vulnerable is Iraq. The Army and Air Force depend on a long and difficult to defend road that runs through Shia country from Basra to Baghdad. The Iraqi Shiite groups are most emphatically not the errand boys of Tehran, but conditions inside Iraq could make it desirable for one of the Shiite players to get involved.

There is little Tehran can do to materially blunt the US attack. They could get some traction from closing the Strait, if only briefly. They might also get a lucky shot from a land-based missile against a US carrier. In addition, a coordinated and sustained attack against US supply lines in Iraq could cause significant problems. Any direct or proxy attacks against Israel are likely to yield little of value. The IAF would love an excuse to hammer the Syrians, but the Army can't be very enthusiastic about another invasion of South Lebanon. They suffered a humiliating defeat there two years ago. In the complex world of Arab politics, an attack on Iran would be cautiously welcomed, an Israeli attack on Syria undesirable, but tolerable. Further de-stabilization of Iraq would be a serious problem. They don't want a stronger Iran, but they also don't want a bruised Iran making trouble for them as payback for supporting the Americans.

The Europeans would have mixed reactions. Brown is weak and the support of the UK is critical. US strategic bombing would be seriously degraded if they were unable to use bases in the UK and at Diego Garcia. The French seem keen to kick someone's ass in the Middle-East, so they might be a surprise. The Germans, Italians, Spanish, Dutch and Belgians will be against the war and unlikely to allow their bases to be used. The Eastern European EU members will be conflicted. Russia will be 100% in the Iran camp. That's significant because the Russians can supply lots of intelligence, including real-time satellite and signals intelligence. China will be very unhappy, but will probably stay out. That guarantees the UN will be no help to the US.

To summarize, the US has the means on hand to attack, and the timing is right. All they need is an excuse. However, the chance of removing the Islamic government or ending the nuclear program are nil. There is significant opposition to the operation within the US Military. Regular US allies will not provide substantial material or political support. Israel is not in a position to provide material assistance, or capitalize on the crisis to re-order their immediate neighborhood. The Arab countries are scared that any outcome will be bad for them. A big US attack would extend their weakness in strategic reserve, creating vulnerabilities elsewhere. An attack, no matter how it turned out, would strengthen Russian influence in the Middle-East, and could draw China into the region. All of this would have to be dealt with by a lame duck president unable to bring political leverage to the problems being created. It would also be done immediately in advance of a key US election. The outcome of that election could have an impact on the personal fortunes of those making the attack decision.

Put that all together and the whole thing looks crazy, as indeed, it is. I don't be a war. The USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Pieliu will go home at the end of the month, and the USS Ronald Regan soon after. Everything will settle down until Obama is inaugurated. That's what I think will happen.

The Iran War (of Words)

How GWB sees the Iraq War

There has been an unprecedented war of words between Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran over the last few months. I can't remember such an undignified and childish exchange even back in the Cold War. These people are talking about war, with potentially millions of casualties. But it sounds like trash talking 16 year olds on Call of Duty.

[USA]GWB: U N00b

AhmadineJIHAD: Ura fukn N00b

[USA]GWB: fuk u up

AhmadineJIHAD: try it lusr

someambitiousisraelipolitician: fuk u up rl bad

someambitiousisraelipolitican: fukin nook u

0lm3rt: stfu about nookz
[USA]GWB: lol

[USA]Condi: put a lid on it boyz r we'll get kicked

AhmadineJIHAD: u fag

someambitiousisraelipolitician: ura fag

ADMIN: User AhmadineJIHAD kicked 24hrs for abuse: "fag"
AhmadineJIHAD disconnected

ADMIN: User someambitiousisraelipolitican kicked 24hrs for abuse: "fag"
someambitiousisraelipolitician disconnected

[USA]GWB: lolz buh bye sandnigger!

ADMIN: User [USA]GWB banned permanently for abuse: racial term "nigger"

[USA]GWB disconnected
[USA]Condi: Admin you can't ban GWB he's president of the USA

ShootinPutin: lol Condi u N00b the admin is a bot

ShootinPutin: yr talkin to a bot

[USA]Condi: stfu

[EastIsRed]Blu-Hu: lol

In reality, I think the war of words signals intense struggles among pro and anti war factions in both Washington and Jerusalem. We can't see the infighting, but occasionally we hear a boom. The Iranians are happy to lob unrealistic threats everywhere as it helps to shore up Ahmadinejad's unpopular government.

My best guess at this point, based on nothing more than speculation and rumors, is that the White House, the VP's office, the Air Force and some factions in the Defense Department are for an attack. There is also support among the GOP on the Hill. On the other side, I believe the Army is unenthusiastic, the CIA opposed, the Navy negative and the State Department hostile.

As far as the struggle in Jerusalem, I can't read Israeli politics well enough to analyze the factions. However, I get the impression that the split between pro and anti is more factional and less along institutional lines. Also, the anti-war people in Israel are keeping very quiet. That doesn't mean there aren't any.

In any case, the best strategy for all the anti-war factions is to run out the clock. Olmert is too shaky politically to push through an attack against significant internal opposition. Assuming there is significant internal opposition. Likewise, every day that passes weakens Bush's mandate for a unilateral attack. There are only so many operational windows. Something like the minor fire on the carrier George Washington can put key assets out of commission during several of those windows. And then the windows will be gone.

Israel could still make a conventional strike against Iran, drawing the US into the conflict. However, Israel does not have sufficient assets to complete the job. From a PR point of view, the US having to finish the job would be a disaster. All the Arab governments that would publicly condemn and privately applaud a US attack against Iran would go apeshit if it was the Israelis. The Arab reaction could be more of a set-back than any response the asset challenged Iranian military could come up with.

Its also important to keep in mind that there are furious back-channel talks going on all over the place. There are separate and uncoordinated discussions involving the Iranians, Russians, UN, US, Israelis, British, EU, French, Syrians, Quataris and probably others. Just about the only people not talking directly are apparently the Israelis and Iranians. That we know about.

So keep talking, boys. There will be no action as long as they are yapping. Its when things go quiet that I worry.

More Iranian Missiles

picture from Cowicide via Flikr

See, you don't actualy need any missiles at all.  Just get a picture off the Internet, photoshop the hell out it, and voila, media firestorm.