The Blind Who Will Not See: The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Iranian Death Spiral
I sometimes wonder where some of our smartest people get their ideas. Take Defense Secretary Bob Gates, for example. Discussing the possibility of military action against Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, he said: “And if it’s a military solution, as far as I’m concerned, it will bring together a divided nation, it will make them absolutely committed to attaining nuclear weapons and they will just go deeper and more covert.”
I don’t get it. Is there some sort of evidence? What could it possibly be, aside from the sort I get from my Ouija board? So I try to imagine one of the tens of millions of Iranian opponents of the regime. Perhaps he’s got a relative in prison; he probably knows people who have lost a family member or two to the regime’s killers and torturers. He dreams of a free Iran, of an end to the humiliating circumstances in which Iranians now find themselves: widely considered to be terrorists, barbarians, and savages. And then one day somebody blows up a bunch of nuclear labs, some secret military installations, and RG headquarters in the major cities. Does that guy now rally round the supreme leader? I don’t think so.
Not that I’m trying to talk Gates into bombing Iran; quite the opposite, in fact. Our greatest weapon is political, and consists in the overwhelming majority of Iranians who hate the regime. If we supported them with vigor and a sense of humor, I think the regime would be overthrown and we wouldn’t have to worry about the “military option.” But we don’t hear any vigorous support for the democratic opposition from this administration. And more to the point, nothing concrete is done for them. (I can tell you a few stories about OFAC’s refusal to permit would-be supporters to help the Green Movement, for example).
In the old days, Gates was a great analyst, but I think he has decided to be a blind man when it comes to Iran. He said a few other astonishing things as well. “We even have some evidence,” he said, “evidence that Khamenei is beginning to wonder if Ahmedinejad is lying to him about the impact of the sanctions on the economy, and whether he’s getting the straight scoop in terms of how much trouble the economy really is in.”
I think I can help the secretary of Defense here: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doesn’t believe anything President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says about anything. He knows he is not going to get the straight scoop from the man most Iranians refer to, not with great affection, as the chimpanzee. Khamenei only listens to a handful of people, including his son and designated successor, and members of his inner circle who have names like Larijani and Jaffari.
For the record, Khamenei said today that he and the Chimp get along famously, and the sanctions aren’t affecting much of anything in the Islamic Republic.
Khamenei’s lying. He knows that the country’s going to ruin. Just read this, which tells of a secret analysis prepared for Khamenei, and which predicts the total collapse of the national economy in the near future.
- According to Les Echos, oil income, which constitutes two thirds of the country’s income, was harmed by the departure of the Western companies after they were forced by the United States Treasury to choose between their interests in the U.S. and those in Iran. The French Total, Dutch Shell, Norwegian Statoil, and Italian ENI companies suspended their investments, and the Japanese Inpex may do the same shortly. Lack of foreign maintenance and spare parts affected oil production, the rate of which decreased from 4.2 million barrels per day in the middle of 2009 to 3.5 million barrels in the summer of 2010.
- Even the Turks are failing to deliver on their promise to supply gasoline (of which the Turks normally provide half); they stopped deliveries at the end of August. The fuel now comes from Turkmenistan, China, and Venezuela, or is smuggled in from Iraq.
- At the end of September, the Korean Kia and German Thyssen followed Daimler, Toyota, Caterpillar, and Hewlett-Packard, and suspended their activities. Munich Re, Allianz, and Lloyds now refuse to insure cargos and planes that transfer supplies to Iran, while funding foreign trade is becoming more complicated, since most of the banks avoid all contact with Iran.
- The banks in the UAE, which half of the Iranian import goes through, broke off all connections with the country two weeks ago, leading to a shortage of dollars (and a sudden increase of the dollar rate to 10.900 rial). On Saturday, the regime warned that it will suppress the demonstrations and strikes by the merchants that will most likely break out after the costly subsidies on consumption of food and fuel products (10 percent of the GNP) are cancelled…
We have a self-obsessed man of the left in the White House. His pursuit is the fundamental transformation of the USA. In a way he is some kind of a mirror image of Kamenei, another leader who cares not how much collateral tragedy his crazed enterprise entails while chasing a vision of the next Islamic hegemon. Obama will not do anything daring regarding Iran unless he sees a domestic political advantage in it. Who can predict what delusional nutcases will do?
Sometimes one wonders whether monkeys in high places would not be a step in the right direction.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one Michael. A regime like the Iranian one, beleagered and beset on all sides, almost inevitably manages to rally its citizenry and oppose the outside forces trying to force regime change on the locals. Famously, Nazi Germany had any number of anti-Nazi (more or less) officers in its army, some of them quite senior. Most of them continued to fight right through the end of the war, even while the few who spoke out wound up going to death camps or being killed. Those anti-Nazi officers who stayed in the army and continued to fight at the front, when confronted after the war, cited the Allied bombing of German cities, the Soviets overrunning everything in the East (and raping and pillaging their way towards Germany) and general patriotism as their motivation for fighting. They considered that they were defending their country.
Frankly, I’ll agree that there are a number of anti-mullah Iranians right now. But if the Marines land somewhere in the South, and the army crosses the border from Iraq and Afghanistan, trust me, you’ll be forcing those anti-mullah types to make a choice. You might see the choice as being between the mullahs and freedom; they’ll see it as between their country and foreigners. And most people who consider themselves patriotic don’t think that’s really a choice: they may dislike their government, but they’ll never fight against their own country and neighbors.
This means that we’ve got to change the situation so that these guys won’t side with their political enemies. It’s more complex than just dropping bombs on the country, knowing that the regimes enemies won’t support it. It’s not rational, but it’s the way it’s been since nationalism first emerged thousands of years ago.
I have to agree with DavidN here. I think M.Totten even covered this once. There is nothing better for a totalitarian government than to find an outside to rally the people behind. An attack on the country will probably be seen as an invasion and more of the West’s warmongering, evil ways. Perfect rally material. I don’t entirely agree with:
“Revolution is an act of hope undertaken by those who believe they can change the world for the better”
I find this to be a bit of cognitive egocentrism. This is how it worked in the US. I would argue this is now necessarilly how it works in the Middle East or else where. The few examples that come to mind would be Syria and Iran’s current regime. Now one might say, “these are coups.” Well, I don’t see a coup working without the consent of the people. In particular in Iran, from what I’ve been getting from, “A Time to Betray,” they did have a revolution, but the ultimate goal by those in charge was not some thing better, more democractic, or resembling freedom. They started their totalitarian regime from the get go. This is the same Iran whom is facing a similar crisis, but with the Revolutionary Guard and their sub-groups. Further more, lets look at the check list for communists and how they view revolution and the means to gaining new government. Until I see more of a cultural revolution and a non-demonizing of the West, I’m not buying into squat from over. All I see is people complaining about losing the West’s wealth and goods with out the culture or philosophies that created them in the first place.
The point being made by Mr Ledeen is that this a political action, not a military one, to get the very people opposed to the despotic regime to take action themselves knowing that they would have the support of the West at least.
That they would not be left holding the can like those Iraqis who opposed Saddam after the first Gulf War.
As we have seen with the election Obama is little moved by the plight of the Iranian citizen.
Where a political and economic strategy of support could succeed by encouraging the common man to take action it will be left till only the military option by Iran’s neighbours in their security interest is left.
DavidN,
So you don’t think several hundred well placed cruise missiles would give the opposition the opportunity so many have been waiting for? Perhaps not only take out nuclear facilities and IPG nests our intelligence experts are aware of, but also Ahmadamjihad and several of the mean faced Ayatollahs along with them. I ask you in all sincerity. If the alternative is a nuclear armed Iran, do you not think that is a risk worth taking?
Simply publicly supporting the opposition will get them killed. It’s that simple. There is nothing the US, of all countries, can do to support the nascent iranian reform movement – at least not as long as the mad mullahs control the revolutionary guard. If obama stands up and supports anything specific, those people will be rounded up and the case against them will be open and shut.
Words don’t mean jack in this situation. The best thing the US (et al) can do is apply external pressure. It is entirely up to the iranian people to get their country sorted. It’s not a military objective, we can’t just go assassinating people (unless we assassinate a HECK of a lot of people).
If you think that anyone in the whitehouse making motherhood statements will help, please explain how.
And stop underestimating the iranian people. These guys aren’t the shlubs living in the mountains of afghanistan, they’re not the uneducated creeps in gaza. They are a politically engaged population, and they’re faced with a political problem. When they ASK for help, then that’s fine – in the meantime just stay out of it.
DavidN, even if it came to military action, nobody’s talking about using ground forces. And while bombing Iranian nuclear sites may anger otherwise pro-American Iranians, and while it may make it temporarily more difficult to rally the Iranian people to overthrow the regime, the point is, it would not make the anti-regime Iranians become pro-regime. The “rally around the flag” thing is overblown. Those sentiments might last for a month or so after a hypothetical military strike, but eventually the people would come to realize that theirs is a regime that invites such military attacks in the first place. The Iranian people want to be a part of the world. They do not look at the rest of the world with hostility.
Hopefully it doesn’t get to that point in the first place.
For legitimate reasons, I have to believe, Mr. Ledeen, that, for many years now, Iranians have been shucking, jiving and duping the West and laughing at the gullibility and the stupidity of wishful thinkers in the West with respect to how many Iranians are opposed to that regime and with respect to the notion that the common people in Iran have a great affinity for Americans.
It is irrational and illogical and unsubstantiated. In view of their culture, religion and indoctrination techniques, it is much, MUCH more likely that the vast majority of Iranians support their regime and dislike Americans. Therefore, I dismiss your premise as wishful thinking and as being completely out of touch with reality.
You are right and Mr. Ledeen’s mantra is tiresome.
American foreign policy and sanctions against Iran should only be concerned with protecting American interests and security. Why should America, again, support the revolution of people without knowing what “the people” really want. We only know or pretend to know what they don’t want. We do know that a successful revolution in Iran will absolutely not lead to a secularisation of government and society and Iran will remain a theocracy, governed by the absurd principles of Islam. We know that some people want a revolution, we don’t really know for certain how many and do they represent the “Iranian people” as a whole? In 1979 the ‘Persian people” wanted a revolution but did not anticipate, or care or clearly state what is supposed to come after. The outcome was the replacement of a modernising monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of Islamic Jurists- an Islamic Republic “under the guidance of an 80-year-old exiled religious scholar. America supported this revolution who’s protagonists only stated their discontent with the, then, present situation but never clearly stated its aim or a realistic alternative. The resulting betrayal of the Shah and the support for Khomeini, who’s religious fanaticism was known to the American government, made America to a high degree responsible for the establishment of today’s criminal regime. (the irony is that immediately after the revolution Iran became the most outspoken enemy of the United States in the middle-east) . One of the most embarrassing chapters in America’s foreign policy. If the “Iranian people” want, AGAIN, a revolution let them have it, but let them do it without interference and let them be entirely responsible for their choices and the outcome. The romantic appreciation for revolutionaries with an unknown agenda who claim to speak for all the people is, to say the least, naive and is evidence of total ignorance of history and learning from it.
I don’t see this regime crumbling from the actions of its opponents, who are in any case divided among themselves. The practical monopoly of weapons and ability and willingness to use force is on the side of the regime. The only really armed and dangerous opponents the regime has now are the relatively small groups of Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the south.
I do think the Mullahs are vulnerable based on the greed of their supporters, e.g., a formal IRG takeover or something along those lines. Maybe the Mullahs are also vulnerable to a sustain boycott of commerce by the bazaar merchants, maybe not. I don’t see anything in history that really resembles this situation.
Lord Garth you are the only person here who makes sense.
The rest should stop the nonsense about moral support etc. The only thing that matters is actual power and the will to use it. Actual guns, actual bullets and actually killing the enemy.
The only thing on this planet that could overturn this regime is an american marine with an M16. And you all know that. And you all know that it is not gonna happen.
And Michael Ledeen supposedly intelligent person should know that what ever Gates says publicly has nothing to do with the actual efforts being undertaken by his administration. Of cause he’s not gonna brag publicly about how they are supporting the opposition – jeez!
From your lips to God’s ears, janusleedk2
“Lebanese daily Al Diyar Online, in its Monday November 15th issue, confirmed this report and said that this could be a game-changer in the various political equations inside Lebanon.”
Oooooo, Hezbollah could be found guilty by the United Nations for killing a Lebanese politician. And, uh, what are they going to do about it? Isn’t this the same organization that adopted over 12 resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein? We all saw how effective those were. If it wasn’t for the United States, Hussein would still be in power. So even if the United States condemns Hezbollah, who cares? Not much will happen and everyone knows it.
I’m more interested in what covert operations are going on inside of Iran right now and if these operations are being supported by any European nations. That will produce much better results than useless resolutions from the UN.
Libertyship46: “I’m more interested in what covert operations are going on inside of Iran right now and if these operations are being supported by any European nations. That will produce much better results than useless resolutions from the UN.”
And pray to the Almighty that the Mainstream Media doesn’t get a hold of it.
Iranians, regardless of their beliefs and politics, have absolutely no reason to believe anything the U.S. says, given our history with them. They might trust Obama far, far more than Bush, but who is to say for sure that another Republican badnik won’t become President in 2012 given how the House fell to Republicans a short time ago? That was something that outside of the U.S. looked insane (the average Iranian is probably better informed about US politics than the average American, which isn’t really saying much.)
Of course the Iranians prefer Democratic US Presidents, Mr. Brain Challenged. After all, it was Jimmah Cahtah who let the current mullahocracy seize power, and now Obama is sitting back and watching as they construct nukes.
So, it stands to reason that they’d rather have Democrats in the Oval Office, because that’s when they can make advances in their power to terrorize their citizens and their neighbors.
BC: “given how the House fell to Republicans a short time ago? That was something that outside of the U.S. looked insane ”
Utter bullshit.
I think an overt attack on Iran would cause the result that Gates predicts — Iran has a long history of blaming their woes on outside forces and closing ranks against them, and an attack would just exacerbate that. I do agree that our best weapon is political (I would term it informational). Honestly publicizing the nasty, frankly un-Islamic, actions of the regime to remain in power and its security services and proxies to gain influence around the globe, outing our “brave allies” who are winking at the sanctions while enriching themselves, showing the huge amounts spent on unneeded nuclear efforts and ineffective weapons while the country slips farther into economic, quietly enabling the opposition to organize, fundraise and communicate, all would put pressure on the regime to modify its actions. And if it results in a change in that regime brought on by the people, who are we to blame?
A Military action on our part is the last thing we should do. The Iranian people want our moral support but they want to free themselves not have us try to do it for them. Those leading this know if we bomb the nuclear sites it will be seen as an attack on their country. Many of the people are sympathetic to the freedom movement but would fall to the side of the country if attacked. Then anyone speaking out against the regime would be branded a traitor.(They are already by the regime but right now the people don’t believe it.)
Most of the points I wanted to make have been mentioned already. If we back any one person or group it would be condemning them to prison or death. The regime is already blaming us for causing all this unrest. Don’t give them “proof” by naming someone. The Islamic revolution was backed by all the people but most didn’t know what they were getting themselves into until it was too late. This time, the merchants haven’t really supported the freedom movement. There have been a few strikes but it was for their own reasons not for revolt. For this movement to succeed all the people must agree and move as one. All the different factions must come together. The students, the merchants, the farmers, the workers all together.
As for what covert activities are going on behind the scenes, if we knew that, they wouldn’t be covert now would they? Ahmadinejad is doing a great job of getting the people up against the regime but he still hasn’t made enough mistakes for Khamaimie to step in and remove him. Kahmaimie has spent too much political capitol backing him to do that now. I’m hoping that somewhere there is a little covert talking going on with the Army. I’m sure they are worried by what is happening and many of them are on the side of the people. The Army ,and the Navy of course, would have to get involved this time as they are the only force strong enough to take on the IRGC. If we backed them covertly with better weapons and equipment and maybe even with military aid (boots on the ground)after it started then this might have a chance.
Time for some memos mentioning the existence of covert C.I.A. contact with someone high in the Revolutionary Guard to show up in a Wikileaks dump, eh?
If memory serves me well (a tall order), Sec. Gates honed his analytic skills at Kissinger and Associates and the CFR. So, espousing the “party” line vis-a-vis Iran should not be a surprise. I don’t support military action against Iran, not for reasons provided by Sec. Gates, at al, but simply because the Islamic Regime is so vulnerable and fragile that a minimal political and technological help from the West will, surely, destabilize them.
On another note, I am saddened by the majority of Iranian people referring to Ahmadinejad as a chimpanzee. I am further saddened by the eminent Dr. Ledeen repeating this nonsense. Do these people, majority of the Iranian people and Dr. Ledeen, have such low regard for chimpanzees?
good one, radish. and you are right to defend the stature of chimps. as for Gates, you are confusing him with Bremmer. Gates was a career analyst at CIA, put in some years with Scowcroft at Clinton’s National Security Council, then became a university president in texas (A&M I think). Half the world belongs to CFR so that’s meaningless (it’s a place to be seen and to meet other important people), and he never worked at Kissinger Associates.
There seem to be some comments of substantial realism with respects to a possible regime change in Iran. Let’s go with them!
The people, who are bravely protesting practices of their government – from election fraud to censorship of films and music – should be supported by the US government. Otherwise, it would seem that confrontational/head-on operations would not be practical, especially given the psychological make-up of the Iranian mentality and how it plays out in the political realm.
Support for the “revolutionaries” – very obliquely – would be most effective and could help to achieve results that are necessary to preservation of Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. Nevertheless, nothing is static in the ME, and there are truly no guarantees.
Given those who have disagreed with you Michael are not the examples I would point to, when it comes to efficiently process what crosses their desks, this scenario is not that far fetched:
Reports of NATO trying out the method of destabilization first on Serbia, then on Afghanistan and Iraq, because Milosevic, like the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein were viewed as bad people – the fear in Langley, foggy bottom, various sectors of the Pentagon, the NSC, and elsewhere, was that the Kremlin would be an obstacle to what they want the future to be. When this is combined with a superficial understanding of the effect of the NATO bombing of Serbia temporarily ending the standoff between Milosevic and those who dispatched him from power – we wind up with what Defense Secretary Gates said about bombings causing Iranians to defend their country.
I am far from being the best Devil’s advocate, but this is what I
came up with when trying to look at the situation through Gates’ eyes.
They are definitely blind Michael.
Nick Guariglia:
“DavidN, even if it came to military action, nobody’s talking about using ground forces. And while bombing Iranian nuclear sites may anger otherwise pro-American Iranians, and while it may make it temporarily more difficult to rally the Iranian people to overthrow the regime, the point is, it would not make the anti-regime Iranians become pro-regime. The “rally around the flag” thing is overblown. Those sentiments might last for a month or so after a hypothetical military strike, but eventually the people would come to realize that theirs is a regime that invites such military attacks in the first place. The Iranian people want to be a part of the world. They do not look at the rest of the world with hostility.
Hopefully it doesn’t get to that point in the first place.”
First let me second your last sentiment. No one wants this to come to a shooting conclusion, if there’s a peaceful way out of this. If there isn’t, we all want it to be short and for there to be as little blood shed as possible.
That being said, above, the rest of your statement is essentially the exact reverse of my understanding of things. The *only* way we’re going to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear capability is with ground troops. The Israelis famously bombed Sadaam’s reactor at Osirak…did that stop him? No, it delayed him. U.S. ground forces crushing most of his army and forcing him to accept an armistice that included inspectors, now that stopped him.
Advocates of air power always like to talk of “precision strikes” doing “surgical damage” to “enemy infrastructure” and the like. Most of the time, even in the days of the smart bomb, you press the button and if the explosive lands within 500 feet of your target you consider it a hit. I haven’t paid really close attention to the reports of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and its progress on the internet, but even I have read of them having a thousand centrifuges and a number of facilities. The Air Force might tell someone they can take out all of that in an afternoon; the Israeli Air Force might try; but anyone who’s willing to bank on this actually working hasn’t ever read an account of bombing campaigns historically. Air Forces traditionally exaggerrate what they can accomplish, believing that other forces underestimate their capabilities.
Besides, if our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran, and we start bombing them…the chances are pretty good ground troops would get involved anyway, because of their proximity and the fact that we’re shooting at one another. *Without* the bombing there have been several incidents.
Bear in mind I’m not advocating this. I’m merely trying to outline the obstacles involved. I reiterate what I said originally: we don’t want to put Iranians with a conscience in the position of having to defend their country, and its corrupt leaders, with the alternative being for them to fight their neighbors. I’ve read a lot of history, and I can’t think of a *single instance* of air power alone convincing a country to divest itself of corrupt leadership. It just doesn’t happen.
Just only I think that the assassination of Rafik Harari in Lebanon,must be cleaned.Some have made opinions about the iranian regime hand was behind this crime.But others suspected that Hizballah,was the kill one under scene,whitout the aproval in site by the Tehran regime.
On this,my question is:
Can Hizballah and the iranian regime are in confrontation by the Hariri assassination.
I believe stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon takes precedence over a change in regime. This same discussion about whether diplomacy or the bomb is the best solution is best to happen now – before they do get a bomb and have more aces up their sleeves than a united Iran under attack.
The repercussions later have the potential to cause much greater suffering and deaths, especially if they are only a finger away from annihilating Israel or some other enemy.
Is it better to go to war with Iran and chance uniting Iranians in defence of their country, or to have a divided political Iran next month or in the next few years and Ahmadinejad and his fanatical Mullahs admiring the big green button.
Waiting for the crippling or Iran through sanctions, and diplomacy that is getting nowhere, has far worse consequences as the clock ticks down to a nuclear Iran. This is a scary thought considering the moral vacuums that inhabit their minds. They are more than likely going to celebrate the firing of their first – and last nuclear missile, knowing full well they could be annihilated too.
Well, duh, the Obama Administration doesn’t support for the democratic opposition protesting its administration.
Damnable shame this Country of ours is doing nothing. Imagine our esteem and self-respect for helping these people. The great beacon on the hill. “Where were you”?, they’ll ask. Rightly so.
So much to be said for a general public who is without the tools and experience to understand how a military and intelligence machine functions.
It is a complete misconception to strategize that internal opposition is the centric tool of overthrowing and in-place government. Internal opposition rarely if ever can gain control over the prevailing military and other government milita forces. Internal opposition is best used and cultivated in conjunction with intelligence modeling for an assisted military overthrow.
Re: SOD’s Gates, Rumsfeld, Cohen, Brown, Clifford and McNamara. All of these political heads have failed the U.S. Military in its primary “strategic” mission. That is to say, none of these men while serving stood up the their congress’ and Presidents to preserve the military’s consititutional utilization. All of them, some twice over, have contributed to the failures and misuse (political abuse) of Americas military.
Ironically, it was President Ford who first began the [idea] of reformulating America’s military. Again ironically, it was another Republican (Cohen) serving as Presidents Clintons SOD, who began the implementation of reformulating the military followed by President G.W Bush’s Rumsfeld and now Gates who has completely bastardized the military and its constitutional and strategic mission. Today we have reminents of a military that is labeled a “Striker Force” involved in policing nation building around the world.
As to Iran! American presidents have been meddling (nation building) into the governance of Iran (much the same as Vietnam) since the late 40′s and more specifically the early 50′s and 70′s. The U.S. primarily with others, created the environment surounding the overthrow of the 70′s leading to the current government(s). Now, were still dealing with those decades of failed political policies, with more failed policy.
Given the decades of systemic increas of global activity and threat by Iran the only ULTIMATE solution will come down to one of military action when we (the U.S.) are least able to effort such military action. Should such military action be effected there is no doubt (in my mind) that we would again utilize a decades old political based failed military use and strategy.
Our miltary boys and girls and our nation do not deserve such consequences, short of a strike on our homeland by Iran. They should have been dealt with effectively and militarily during the 90′s!
That said, if the military and all the intelligence apparatus were politically unshackled, taking care of Iran would not be a lengthy war with extremely high casualties….period! Especially, with the help of the internal opposition.
Struggling to find searching for a little bit for just a quality content articles on the subject of this one field . Checking in Search engines I lastly picked up this blog. Reading these details I’m just lucky to enunciate that I get a great feeling I discovered whatever I was ready for. I will ensure to don’t forget this web site and go here on a constant basis.
welcome, hope you continue to derive pleasure from it
For knowledgeable info on Iran (and Middle East in general, try juancole.com. Mr. Cole speaks/reads both Farsi and Arabic, and keeps up to date on the reality on the ground there.
(Which is why he is really unpopular among those who sneer at the “reality based community” so famously derided by the Bush White House.)
It’s America’s interest to stop Iran’s spreading jihadist influence. Ledeen proposes supporting the opposition (any support, even verbal is more than they’re getting now). That seems the right thing to do morally AND it’s in American interests. The responses here against it I don’t really get, and I son’t see them offering an alternative.
The first and most critical element to supporting any internal opposition operation is to NOT declassify, disseminate or publicize a [shred] of information. The entire success or failure of opposition relies on secretcy…something Americans seemingly no longer can do or appreciate. On this subject, there has been a very meaningful degredation of intelligence trust among most all of American allies since the 90′s and continues today in most all political and allied strategic commands around the world.
Furthermore, given the [open] operations of the CIA to the press and the general public around the world in conjunction with constitutional and criminal threats of law levied against them, America’s most important international and special op’s apparatus is totally non functional since the 90′s.
Public “verbal” support is the last thing needed by any internal opposition! The President and his NSA team in conjuntion with classified congressional committee’s should have an approved long term segmented plan formulated and shared with allied partners, and inpart with leaders of the opposition, to be executed by America and its allied international intelligence and special op’s apparatus. Thats ALL anybody in the general public should have some general knowledge of!
I was captured and imprisoned during the post election riots. I and hundreds of others were blindfolded, beaten and abused for 5 days – On the fifth day we were taken to Evin prison where the blind folds were removed and we could now communicate with each other – So 7 of us cramped into a solitary prison cell got to talking – One of the conversations was about what happens when and if we are attacked by foreign powers – The response by a few was that they would join the army – they were willing to join the same army that had just violated their rights as citizens! – I believe peaceful and forceful measure like the sanctions are much more effective – The was the west can help is to empower and finance Iranian professionals to devise a transition plan – What is missing now is a clear vision of how the transition will happen. There are no institutions of any competence in Iran, so what happens when these guys are removed from power – This will help above all.
Iran is a cypher. With respect, Dr Ledeen, some questions: If the sanctions are biting, why aren’t the Iranians accusing us of killing Iranian babies with our boycott the way Sadaam did when we were choking Iraq? Why aren’t they squealing? Just a different propaganda tack?
And why all the sabre rattling–demonstrations of anti aircraft missiles on FOX News and the like? Are they baiting us or trying to keep us at bay or both?
And why is it so peaceful in Iran? Does anyone at the CIA have skills beyond flying drones? No Farsi-fluent political provocateurs on the payroll? The Ayatollah undermined the Shah with audiotapes. Technology has come a long way since then. Can’t CIA figure out a way to undermine the Mullahs? No compelling Farsi-speaking firebrands in the opposition?
The Prophet Isaiah called Cyrus “Messiah.” The deliberate eclipse of Cyrus and Persia at the height of civilization is a crime and a tragedy. How low Persia and its people have fallen. Lickspittle to desert scavengers.
Metaphorically the West, specifically the US and Israel, are in a position exactly like Great Britain when facing the Nazis and needing to destroy the Nazi heavy water plant in Norway before the Nazis got a chain reaction going. There is NO EXCUSE for US or for Israel to delay because once Iran gets the bomb they have no reason not to use it. They and their co-conspirators at the UN, mainly Turkey, but also various Arab countries, and countries such as Venezuela, will not support any military action against Iran ever, no matter what the provocation. And if a smuggled nuclear weapon in a container, or truck, or suitcase, should detonate in Tel Aviv or New York City, there will be a “non-affilliated” Islamic terror group that will immediately take credit for the action, absolving state sponsors of any involvement. And Dear Leader Obama and the UN will immediately buy this schlock and appoint a commission to find out what happened, while the Iranian mullahs have a good laugh at how they pulled the wool over the West’s eyes. The same team that gave us revolutionary Iran, Mssrs.
Brezinski and Carter, and two of the principal foreign policy advisers to President Obama. And no one should ignore the fact, the disaster, that Pakistan went nuclear on President Carter’s watch and Zbgniew Brezinski, the national security adviser at the time, did nothing, and may have encouraged the Pakistani nuclear program. The fact that Pakistan is nuclear has provided a safe haven for Al Queda and the Pakistanis have cooperated 100 per cent in the manufacture of Iranian nuclear weapons, so much for there being a Shia-Sunni divide. Its a pan-Islamic thing.
Todays Iran is a hodgpodge of disaffected nationalities like to old Austro-Hungarian empire. Iran has practiced proxy warfare for a long time. It is time to Iran to be on the receiving end of proxy warfare. We need to support the national ambitions of Irans suppressed nationalities, namely Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Ahwaz, Azerbaijan, etc. A few Stingers could be highly effective
Prof. Ledeen,
you made a small type error you may wish to correct. you wrote “2008 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri”. of course, it happened in 2005.
it didn’t throw me off, but it may do so for someone who just started paying attention
thanks Spyridon.