« "I want hard bastards. I want MI-5." | Main | "Solidarity with Denmark, death to fascism." »

February 23, 2006

Has war with Iran begun already?

Back in January, I said:

Here's what I expect in the next 12 months.

-There will be airstrikes upon Iranian facilities by either the US or Israel.
-There will be catastrophic, if not cataclysmic, terror attacks in various parts of the Middle East, sponsored by Iran or its proxies; The Gulf States, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq are potential targets.

I'm not going to make any definitive statements of causality. Either of the above two events may happen before the other. What happens after those two is anyone's guess. But I think they are both coming, and coming faster than we may all expect.

Is it possible that the Iranians have begun their campaign of terror, but with as much deniability as possible? Let's discuss.

As far as terrorism and its relationship to a state, Iran presents a different set of circumstances than either Iraq or Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's raid on the eastern seaboard on 9/11 was an act of a transnational terror organization with sanctuary within a state. Afghanistan was a totally willing host to Al Qaeda's parasitic organization. Nevertheless, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were still different organizations, with different goals, intents, and motivations, complementary though they might have been.

In Iraq, terror organizations have yet a different relationship with the state. There they exist as something more akin to a cancer, feeding off the ideological and organizational remnants of the Hussein regime, and attacking the host -- the new Iraqi state, founded in the period of 2004-2005.

But what if terrorism is not just a tactic, or an organization separate from its host state? What if instead, terrorism is part and parcel of the state, and not just a tactic, but key to the national security strategy of a state? What if its institutions are not just cooperative with those of a given state, but nearly completely reliant upon it, even to the point of serving as its proxy?

Something akin to this last scenario describes the relationship of Iran to terrorist outfits, whether Hezbollah, its own internal security organizations, or its Pasdaran officers who have made mischief in all parts of the Muslim world at some point or another. Let us then posit that terrorism in some form is an integral part of Iran's foreign policy.

Allow a slilght digression on the nature of terrorism itself. As much as Al Qaeda or its brethren may wish to inflict massive casualties within the West and the US especially, terrorism is just as much about, well, terrorizing a given audience or constituency. That is to say, even though many forms of it might inflict significant casualties, the ultimate goal is influence. It is meant to change minds. When its perpetrators are known, and terror acts are overt, it might be categorized within that type of operation that the West would know as a "show of force." When its origins are not known, or if it is perhaps not even clear that a certain event has a single human agency behind it, then it seeks other forms of influence -- perhaps to change mindsets or affect policy. In some cases, it might even overlap or be confused with covert action, one of the purposes of which is to affect or change policy without any public knowledge of agency or origin.

The US response to 9/11 -- transformation of two states, and an unremitting pursuit of Al Qaeda in all its forms -- would seem to suggest that overt terrorism does not influence the US in a productive manner. Any organization or state that used terror solely for the purpose of a "show of force" would be looking down the business end of the US military's arsenal with little delay. This is not to suggest that spectacular attacks won't be pursued, just that they might now be most useful only for their destructive power.

But the second kind of terrorism -- deniable, covert, and meant to influence -- might take on a whole new importance. These kinds of attacks might be meant to embarrass the West, harrass it, sow discord among its nations, or alternately (and perhaps not simultaneously) unify the Muslim world against it. What might some of these actions look lilke? Well, perhaps "spontaneous" demonstrations in dozens of countries about something published four months previously in an obscure news organ would fit the bill. Or, perhaps a massive terror attack upon a key Shia shrine, which has thus far not been claimed by Al Qaeda in Iraq, could fit into this category as well.

When considered in the light of the long history of Iran with terror, as both its sponsor and its exporter, one wonders if Iran has begun a new campaign in its quest to achieve nuclear power status with no real objection from the rest of the world. Much of the below has been stated in other venues, but consider each of these points afresh:

-the cartoon controversy did not really begin until after the IAEA had referred Iran to the security council.

-the current chairmanship of the IAEA is held by Denmark.

-some of the worst violence was in Syria, a state where the government controls association, and which is allied with Iran.

And as far as the mosque destruction goes:

-no particular group has claimed responsibility.

-conventional wisdom, correct or not, holds that this act has created one of the highest states of tension in Iraq in some time.

-President Ahmadinejad was quick to blame the US and/or Israel, for the act.

Have these acts been effective in influencing the West? The cartoon controversy might have united the West a bit, but it might have united the Muslim world much more. The mosque destruction is a bit too recent to judge.

One wonders though: how does the US public's reaction to the UAE port deal relate to the cartoon riots? One commentator today (can't find the link) mentioned that it is the reaction of the US public to distrust this transaction when they see that their own government was not forthright enough in supporting Denmark.

One can speculate all night on whether the above two acts are related and how. There are other explanations. Coincidence is one of the easiest.

But all of this raises a larger point: when Americans envision war, we imagine large scale military assaults and operations to neutralize targets, not covert and deniable violence on behalf of influencing public attitudes. Yet this blind spot is exactly what Iran excels at performing, and exactly what vexes Secretary Rumsfeld so much as he laments today in the LA Times:

Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we -- our government, the media or our society in general -- have not.

Consider that violent extremists have established "media relations committees" and have proved to be highly successful at manipulating opinion elites. They plan and design their headline-grabbing attacks using every means of communication to break the collective will of free people.

I believe our war with Iran has begun.

Strategypage today has a list of "Ten Signs that the United States is about to Bomb Iran." These are things to look for that will indicate an imminent strike by the US, movements of units and materiel and such that intelligence analysts would examine.

Iran is playing quite a different game than us. It seeks a campaign of influence, of which terrorism and rioting might be key components. Iran's campaign needs no top ten signs to detect it. If the period before it was referred to the Security Council might have been called the "diplomatic phase," it is now in the "influence phase," which might last for a long time, and mean no further escalation is necessary. There may be no start or stop, there may be no formal military action, there may be no overt Iranian involvement, but war with Iran will likely look like a series of events, inexplicable and spontaneous, yet which frustrate our aims.

It is a well-crafted strategy really, as it seeks the seams in our defenses. It undermines our cultural assumptions (wars must be declared at a given point, ended at a given point, and fought by uniformed military forces on "battlefields") and even some of our societal organizational seams (media institutions are not part of the governments that fight wars, but are separate, and beheld to different standards).

For those who think I might be some sort of conspiracy nut, consider: a key part of influence is opportunism. I'm not implying that Iran knew the cartoons would be published, or even was behind the Danish imam who first started circulating them. But when you see an opening you seize it. Iran may have had nothing to do with the destruction of the golden mosque, but this doesn't stop Ahmadinejad from fanning the flames of popular emotion by blaming the US or Israel.

Welcome to warfare in the 21st century. What will be next?


UPDATE: Hat-tip to Instapundit for the Strategypage bit. Also, for this piece by Michael Novak:

Naturally, the West is feeling guilty about the cartoons, and chillingly intimidated by the “Muslim reaction”—more exactly, by the contrived, heavily stimulated, long-contained, and deliberately timed demonstrations of focused political outrage against them—while failing to pay serious attention to the truly huge event that started off this week with a great boom.

That event, I have a hunch, might well be followed by another shocker fairly soon.

For the stakes for Iran—its nuclear future—and for Syria—its safety from within—and for the future of Hamas in Palestine, could scarcely be higher than they are just now. The most organized radical forces are poised to act in great concert. The moment is crucial for their future prospects.

I guess I'm not the only one . . .

Posted by Chester at February 23, 2006 8:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/827

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Has war with Iran begun already?:

» Monday's Winds of War: 27 Feb 2006 from Winds of Change.NET
Welcome! Our goal at Winds of Change.NET is to give you one power-packed briefing of insights, news and trends from the global War on Terror that leaves you stimulated, informed, and occasionally amused every Monday... [Read More]

Tracked on February 26, 2006 11:44 PM

» The Bigger Picture -- Iran from The Lone Elm
Michael Novak and Chester take recent events and put them into a broader framework - a none to comfortable one at that. Novak suggests that the biggest, and largely under-reported event of the week was the bombing of the Shia [Read More]

Tracked on February 27, 2006 7:34 AM

Comments

Interesting discussion. How does this relate to Iran's pursuit of nukes? Does Iran strike first in an effort to throw the US off balance, gaining valuable time to complete their first bomb? Or are they secure in the knowledge that US options are constrained by the nuclear deterrent Iran now possesses?

But something else occurs to me. I'm not given to conspiracy theories either, but Israel has been saying for several months that Iran is much closer to nukes than we are led to believe. They have identified March as the point of no return. Interesting then that all these events, the cartoon riots and the mosque bombing, have taken place by FEBRUARY.

Just wondering...

Posted by: Enigma at February 23, 2006 10:25 PM

Although I agree, in principle, with the points you make, I would caution that fomenting violence between Sunnis and Shiites is a dangerous strategy, even if you're only taking advantage of an opening. Iran can hardly afford to make Sunnis too angry. They are a minority in Iraq but very much the majority across the Mideast, and Al Qaeda's supposed beliefs are much more closely aligned with theirs than with the hated Shiites. If they are perceived as encouraging the violence against Sunnis, it may redound to their detriment very quickly. And if they were thought to have a hand in the bombing of the Mosque of the Golden Dome, the worm could turn in 24 hours.

To answer your question more directly, however, I believe war with Iran began two years ago, when they began infiltraing southern Iraq with their intelligence forces and stirring up the Shiites.

Posted by: antimedia at February 23, 2006 10:33 PM

I think Iran will keep overt violence in its name to a level as low as possible for as long as possible. They don't want to risk any action that would give the US and the EU an opportunity to harden their opposition, and their publics a chance to support regime change.

I think Israel's rhetoric is meant to speed up Western decisionmaking. Speeding it up is only in their interest. Like any good drama, they are introducing a time element.

Posted by: Chester at February 23, 2006 10:35 PM

Antimedia,

Perhaps they really want to just discredit the US in Iraq and not just sow discord among the Shi'ites and Sunnis.

Posted by: Chester at February 23, 2006 10:45 PM

Chester,

My thoughts on these matters have been much the same as yours. While we don't have definitive evidence yet, both the Danish cartoon affair and the Golden Mosque affair have the smell of Reichstag fires -- with Iran behind the arson. In the case of the Mosque, several points are worth noting:

The fact that the Mosque complex in question is supposedly the site of the return of the 12th Imam is important not just because that makes it a particularly revered site, but because Ahmadinejad believes the return will happen in the next two years -- and that it will be preceded by a period of strife. If Iran's president had a hand in the bombing, he might well have seen the Golden Mosque as a good choice because its destruction would 1) be sure to cause outrage, 2) would be robustly deniable on his part and 3) would speed along the end of days.

The fact that al Sadr's excitable boys seem to be taking a leading role in the reprisal attacks is also significant, because al Sadr is Iran's man in Iraq.

According to Col. Bay's acquaintance "Sapper" it would have taken 3 to 5 hours to set the estimated 200 lbs of explosives that blew up the dome. That would suggest piror access to the Mosque and a carefully planned operation. And who better to gain access that President Ahmadinejad, who believes in the cult of the 12th Imam?

Finally, who most benefits from an Iraqi civil war and political break-up? Iran.

As for the argument that the risks and downsides of doing this sort of thing are too great, I get the impression that President Ahmadinejad is the sort of guy who doesn't pay a lot of attention to risks and downsides. That's what makes him so dangerous.

Again, none of this constitutes a smoking gun, but it is increasingly suggestive. It will be interesting to see if future data points fit the pattern.


Paul Danish

Posted by: Paul Danish at February 24, 2006 2:56 AM

Chester,

Great post.

Quick thought. I haven't seen the idea of a connection between the ports deal and an Iran attack floated as yet. Forgive me if this topic is already out in the blogosphere.

Let's connect the dots. First look at #10 on the Strategy Page's list. It seems to me that would be one of the first steps taken. After all you don't ask for use of airspace as you are moving aircraft into strike positions and the number of carriers necessary is to a certain extent dependent upon whose airspace we can use. If we can only use Iraqi airspace, we'd probably need to use more carrier-based planes than if we had use of the airbases in Saudi, UAW, Qatar, etc. Same deal with Patriot missile batteries, you have to be on someone's territory to set them up.

Next consider at Bush's seemingly inexplicable threat to veto the Dubai Ports deal. Why would he go to the veto threat almost immediately when he hasn't vetoed a sngle piece of legislation in 5 years?

And third look at UAE's location in the Persian Gulf and its proximity to the Straits of Hormuz. I would imagine use of UAE airspace and whatever naval or air facilities would be of particular use in both an air attack on Iran and any subsequent naval battle in the Gulf. This is especially true if the Saudis are not being very cooperative over the Iran issue.

Maybe these discussions are under way or have been resolved and President Bush just knows that now is absolutely the wrong time to anger the leaders in UAE. He certainly wouldn't be able to say so publically and even telling Congress is dangerous given certain members' willingness to leak clasified information.

I agree that we are at war with Iran and maybe we are getting ready with certain allies to enter the next stage.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Podman at February 24, 2006 9:51 AM

In one of your more lively Iran posts, I mentioned that Iran's target (or threatened target) would be Abqaiq.

Witnesseth:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_explosion

Not claiming to be a soothsayer at all.

The world's Achilles Heel is in Saudi Arabia, and it is called Abqaiq.

Posted by: Tim at February 24, 2006 9:54 AM

Wow, what an interesting post. I have now bookmarked your blog. Keep up the good work!

On a lighter/side note Andrew of Arabia is good for a laugh every now and then.

Posted by: Chris W. at February 24, 2006 11:25 AM

I agree - Reichstag fire in all probability. In fact, my guess is that Al Sadr's people were involved in getting the demo team inside. If reaction to the event gets out of hand, this will keep the Coalition forces pinned down which benefits Iran. Al Sadr will use this as either a lever for getting more of a share in the Iraqi government, or if things go completely south, as a chance to take control of a separate Shia country. Religion is just the veneer for these people--inside its all about power.

Posted by: 74 at February 24, 2006 5:23 PM

Add another list to the attacks that show the war has started, the attempted attack on the Saudi oil refinery this morning. This would have driven oil prices sky high had they succeeded.

But I have a different take on the Iranian nukes; I think that Iran wants us to attack. They have been too provocative and are almost insisting we attack.

If the Iranians really wanted to aquire nukes, why would they be so open about their plans? They know if they get close, either the US or Israel will destroy their R & D sites. If their main goal was nukes, they would so a clandestinely as possible and stall for time as much as possible. Even allow us to inspect and destroy some sites while working at other secret sites. The Iraqis proved how easy it would be to do so in under UNSCOM's noses. It makes no sense for them to be so belicose.

No the Iranians want an attack. They know their hold on power is tenuous at best. The people of Iran hate the ruling parties and will revolt in time. The best way to head off such a revolt is to be attacked by the Great Satan, or better yet, the evil Jews. They also knwo it will be strictly an air campaign as we have little reserve for ground attacks and the American press and people will not allow it.

Additionally, if we attack, then Hezbullah will unleash all its rockets onto Israel. Israel counterattacks against Hezbullah positions in Lebanon and into Syria, igniting a much larger war. The Iranian hope is that this would be the last straw that finally riles the "Arab Street" into full mobilization against the west.

Al this points to more reasons why Iran is behind much of the recent violence. They are priming the Muslim world to join in the coming war.

Posted by: thewiz at February 24, 2006 5:42 PM

My take is that these are opening moves, the Persian practically invented chess. So will they sacrifice their queen ( nukes when they get them ) or push a pawn. One possibility - Look for Ahmadinjad ( whatever) to use the Samarra mosque distruction as pretext to send a million un-armed pilgrims across the border, to "greet " and protect the return of his 12th Madhi. Will we fire on them ?? Or let Sadr welcome them ?

How about we prime (Iranian )ayatolla Sistani to return to Qom to prevent this "heresy"?

john

Posted by: john at February 24, 2006 9:03 PM

Uh, our war with iran began with the taking of the embassy.

Posted by: pacman at February 26, 2006 7:44 AM

Dan

I must disagree. It is in the USA's over-riding best interest( and there-by , the freeworld's best interest) that the will and the way WILL be found, from the deck of the USN Reagan, or from friendly nations ,the Iranians will be struck. And struck hard. As they should.

The question is: what will you do when it is a fact ?

There will be third party co-operation, once the USA has shown resolve. Yes,they are opportunists. If you lived in that part of the world,so would you be. Let us show them at least an alternative.


As I see it,we are not yet playing for long term influence as we should , as are the Iranians, with bags of silver and medalions of gold, we need to project power, over-whelming power, in the region for the weaker Gulf states to resist Iranian enchroachment.


meleager

Posted by: john at February 28, 2006 7:09 PM