History Lesson
Hello — what to make of this?
The Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat has reported an Iranian buildup of troops on the Iraqi border. The paper claims this is part of Iranian preparations to invade Iraq after US troops leave. The ostensible justification is to prevent a security vacuum from developing.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted “reliable Iraqi sources” as saying, “Iran moved part of its regular military forces towards the Iraqi border in the southern sector at a time its military intelligence agents were operating inside Iraqi territory”.
A few thoughts.
The Iranians are not planning to invade Iraq, not even after we leave. As demonstrated last year, we know how to go back to Iraq. But even if Ralph Nader were president, an Iranian invasion still wouldn’t make any sense.
Name the most recent, successful invasion/occupation/annexation of one nation-state (or even just part of one) by another. Need a hint? It was 1975, when North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam, giving us a single Vietnam. Not quite 30 years later, the forced marriage is showing the strain. The one before that was in 1950, when China occupied and annexed Tibet.
Adding punch to my point, South Vietnam was little more than the anti-Communist (and pro-Nothing) colonial leftovers of French rule. Tibet is a largely-inhospitable plateau with hardly any people in it. Neither nation-state was really much of a nation-state.
NOTE: You could argue that Morocco’s annexation of Artist Formerly Known as Spanish Sahara should count. I disagree. Western Sahara (as it was briefly known after Spain pulled out), was even less of an organized state than Tibet. And as any POLISARIO thug will tell you, Morocco still hasn’t completed the process of absorbing the new territory. Anyway.
You have to go back to before the First World War to find just one solid example of one nation-state successfully invading, occupying, annexing, and holding on to another.
Despite the dreams of eurocrats and UNaphiles, the global political trend is towards devolution, not consolidation. The Soviet Union becomes 15 independent republics. Eritrea secedes from Ethiopia. Czechs and Slovaks go their separate ways. British India becomes India and Pakistan, becomes India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. Entire nations in Africa effectively cease to exist outside their capital cities.
Despite the worries and protestations of the usual idiots, the age of colonial empires is dead, too. British red and French blue no longer dominate our maps of the world. The Iron Curtain was torn down. Americans, even war-happy bloggers like myself, can’t wait until this war is won and we can bring our troops home, hopefully to never leave our shores again (even if we know better).
So, why would Tehran be marshalling forces on the Iraqi border? I have a few ideas.
To stir up trouble. While Iran, if the mullahs are smart, wouldn’t want to invade Iraq, they certainly don’t want us to succeed in our nation-building efforts. Having troops nearby means having lots of guns and ammo nearby, too — which they can smuggle over to their comrades-in-terror across the border.
It looks good. It’s good domestic politics to stare down the Great Satan, and moving troops around near our troops makes the mullahs look brave and menacing. Helps keep the diehards happy.
It looks bad. To potential troublemakers, that is. Many Iranians are pretty sick of their masters, but a few unannounced troop movements reminds freedom-lovers that they’re outgunned.
Panic. In recent days, Tehran has gone public with what everybody already knew — they’re building nukes, quick as they can. With that boldness must come the fear that the US might just do something about it. Massing troops near the border helps them prepare for the worst.
Oh, who the hell knows. Dictatorships do stupid things with their armies all the time. The Minister of This and That might have told his general friend to move some troops around, to scare his mortal enemy, the Minister Against This and That. If you think democracies like ours can be schizo, do a little research on how tyrannies operate — they make Sybil look like Gary Cooper.
But enough of that — what most interested me was that the Saudis are the ones ringing the alarm bell. Officially, Riyadh didn’t approve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unofficially, we did get to use some of their airspace. Now that al Qaeda is targeting Saudi Arabia, however, the government there does seem to be more serious about fighting terror.
If they are, then scaring Americans into staying in Iraq would be a smart move for them to make. I’d explain why, but this poor excuse for an essay is already too long and too dull. Hash it out it the comments section, and I’ll add my two cents throughout the day if y’all are getting it wrong.
first off, I dont fear any land army or seapower for that matter that also does not have any airpower or anti aircraft capability. Iran fought Iraq for 10 years and it was a draw, we fought Iraq for roughly 15 days. I suspect the same result if the government of Iran has suddenly decided on the “Galtieri strategy”.
Second, I always said that the number one best reason to invade Iraq was simply because it gave us wide access to the Iranian border. My guess is that the border works both ways, while we might be unhappy at iranian insurgents , the mullahs might be real unhappy at the number of agents weve sent back across their borders. Democracies, even emerging ones are much better at resisting chaos than are totalitarian regimes. They must have order to survive.
Remember one other thing here kids, the largest population of persians in the world outside of Iran lives in los angeles. We might be using that resource to our advantage here and it might be pissing off the mullahs big time.
I also think that the best way to keep your military from changing sides is to keep them busy on maneuvers. The Mullahs might be getting worried that weve begun to make inroads with the shiite military leaders in Iran, perhaps preparing the battlefield the same way we did before to ensure that we could move across the whole of Iraq, a country split by rivers, without a single bridge being blown.
oh and if everyone is not completly paying attention here, we now have friendly cooperative governments on three of Irans borders. If Iran moves east, we can go west from Afghanistan, or south from uzbek.
( Prediction – Iran will fall over a weekend and it will fall from the inside. It will start with defections from the Iranian military)
Frank,
Have I told you lately that you really ought to start your own blog?
Good stuff, thanks.
What? and give up show business?
Ill leave the blogging to professionals for now, I’m just working out how to be a good and interesting guest here at the internet version of “playboy after dark”.
What if the Iranian military units wanted the invasion as well? Some would stand and fight, but most would welcome the US, surrender to us, and help remove the mullahs and liberate the Iranian people. All such a unit would have to do is arrange some kind of border clash with US or Iraqi troops, and foment an invasion.
I have heard from some Iranians that they were hoping the US would invade Iran, help them remove their mullahs. And that there is a large population of the military that is sympathetic to our cause and against the mullahs, (which is why the mullahs have been forced to inport Arab speaking troops to offset problems with their local Farsi speaking soldiers. If push comes to shove, the military is just as likely to turn on the mullahs as attack the population. Probably more likely to attack the mullahs.)
So what to do? Putting them on the border puts them further from the capital. But it also sets up the above scenario. The mullahs know they do not have support of the people, and probably do not have the military’s support either. This is really a stupid gamble for them.
But enough of that — what most interested me was that the Saudis are the ones ringing the alarm bell.
Of course the Saudis are ringing the alarm- the reason Saddam was considered tolerable in the first place was because we (US and SA) wanted something in between an Iran that liked to chant ‘Death to America’ and the Saudi oilfields, and if the something was a bloodthirsty, brutal, sonofabitch, so much the better.
As far as the Saudis are concerned, Iran was the real threat, not Iraq. Their strategic situation hasn’t changed much.
Trying to figure the dynamics and possible outcomes of (various factions of) the House of Saud vesus (elements of) al Qaeda (and other Islamists) is enough to give anyone a headache.
But if comes to a showdown, US forces in Iraq provide them with two, maybe three useful options (they appear contradictory? this is the Middle East we’re talking about):
1) Saying to radical Islamists “Look, infidels and apostates next door! Go fight them! (and hopefully die doing so).”
2) If things really go bad for the el Saud, possibility that the US will intervene and restore their rule.
I suspect the Saudis may be disappointed about the latter.
3) Calculating that if the US is heavily invested in Iraq and close to confrontation with Tehran, it might be less likely to reasses the value of the Saudis, especially if Riyadh can quietly offer Washington use of airfields/airspace.
Also, al Qaeda angle aside, the Saudis have no desire to see a nuked up Iran dominating the region.
You’re forgetting something, Steve.
Think back to 1990-91. Imagine what the US deployment and invasion of Kuwait/Iraq would have looked like if Iraq had had nukes. There very well might not have been any such deployment.
Kuwait might have looked an awful lot more like when the Sovs rolled into Afghanistan in 1980, wouldn’t it?
The Iranians certainly wouldn’t try to take on US forces head to head–but if there were a US pull-out, the temptation would be there to roll in behind us, a la Vietnam, declare a nuclear-armed Greater Islamic Republic, and dare us to do anything about it.
I suppose the intent would depend on how the mullahs are playing it at home. If the buildup has been quiet, it’s probably due to panic. They can see that Iraq is more or less subdued and they’re next on the Axis of Evil World Tour. It’s probably a near certainty that we have intel or SpecOps operating across the border already.
If the buildup has been accompanied by chest-thumping and rhetoric, it’s more likely an attempt to focus attention on an outside enemy and take some of the domestic heat off the faltering mullahocracy.
Moving troops now to prepare for a post-US-withdrawl invasion doesn’t make a lot of sense though. Why telegraph your intentions and deploy troops when the US isn’t scheduled to leave for at least a year? And if they’re in bad enough shape to launch a desperate offensive war before they collapse…well, that’s neither much of a threat nor unwelcome news.
The Saudis? Expect the finger pointing to continue as long as we keep playing along. Do they really think they’ve done us some kind of favor by reporting something we already knew?
Will:
I suspect that a lot of folks believe that, just as Saddam didn’t use CW on us in ’91 or this time around, he wouldn’t have used nukes, either.
The Mullahs Begin to Lose It
They're kidding right? Do they honestly think that we're pulling out? And even if we were, what makes them think we'd allow them to move into Iraq?
Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia.
The Mad Mullahs are sure making the tactical …
4 battalions. They have “massed” 4 batttalions on the Iraqi border. I am more afraid of stepping on a rusty nail.
It’s one thing for Iran to be pretty goddamned obvious about trying to develop a nuclear option or saber to rattle, but it’s only a real threat and real leverage (alas, of the very short term variety) when they can test one for all the world to see. And no, they can’t test it in an act of terrorism because then they would have to deny it and thus lose the benefits of everyone knowing they have it. If they do confess it’s theirs, then they face immediate and unequivalent inclusion in the US highway budget for the largest paved public parking facility.
The mullahs may be hedging their bets that the Sunnis and Shiites are going to rock and roll in advance of June 30 and for the rest of the summer. We see some of that with the murder of six shiite in Falujah at the hands of Sunni clerics. That has been Iran’s strategy since day one, despite Sadr’s alleged decision to pursue a political path to matrydom instead of assisted suicide a the hands of Marines. So, what happens when Iraqi Shiites make a plaintive call to their Iranian brethren to come and save them from the Sunnis? What would the US actually do if four Iranian battalions pushed 50 miles across the border over night and into Kut? It’s not clear that Iraqi shiites have foresworn Iran in favor of the US. Engaging Iranian battalions sounds like quick fun, but it’s a whole different ball of wax for our covert war with Iran to go very hot very quickly. The mullahs may have accepted that Bush will win in November, unless he can be made to retreat in a humiliating fashion or be forced to confront Iran directly. The mullahs may believe Bush has neither the stomach nor the electorate for a direct confrontation right now with Iran. I think he does. it’s going to be an interesting summer.
But maybe I’m drunk.
Iran
I was going to post about this yesterday but then Opera crashed and I lost everything I had written and it was time to go home and I just didn’t feel like putting forth the effort.Anyway, news reports are saying…
battalions???
jebus… well, it’ll help our larger formations work on their targeting skills, and give the flyboys some more air to mud practice…
one good thing about invading forces: they have to mass and offer battle! generally not good ideas against US forces, but then again, I’m not a suicidal islamic fundamentalist!
Iran is sending troops to the border within days of being told by the UN that they aren’t complying with inspection protocol? Well if you can’t fool the UN you’re really doing a piss poor job. I suspect that they’re afraid the reports of the weapons program may prompt us to invade and are hoping (futilly if this is the case) that troops at the border will head off an invasion.
Fixing Iran would be even easier than Iraq, because the tedious job fo building the government we’re doing in Iraq wouldnt be necessary in Iran. They’ve already elected a representative government, they just don’t get to do anything because the Mullah’s won’t let ‘em.
The buffer idea is interesting too. I thought the reason Bush waited to take on the Sauds before Iraq was on was just that he didn’t want to take out everyone at once, it now occurs to me that the House of Saud is more likely to take our suggestions regarding Islamofascists seriously if the buffer between them and Iran is Us rather than Saddam.
One more conspiracy speculation: could the UN’s sudden willingness to call out Iran on its weapons be payback to the Bush Admin. for their silence about Oil-for-food? if Bush invaded Iran with the UN’s blessing there wouldn’t be thing one Kerry could say about it.
I doubt that the Iranians could move fifty miles overnight even without opposition. much less in the face of our Apaches and TacAir. Once we got as much as one Armored Battalion in contact that would be it for them.
More likely it’s a combination of chest thumping, moving politically unreliable units away from the major cities and a forlorn hope that four battallians would be a speed bump if we decide to take out those nuke facilities.
If we took out the nuke facilities, it’d be done via B-2, probably followed up with tomahawks. Four batallions on the ground wouldn’t do anything to stop that.
I see two reasons for Iran to move four battalions, and neither of them has anything to do with the U.S.
Reason one: the Iran-Iraq rivalry/hatred is actually an Iran-Iraqi Sunni rivalry/hatred. The Shiites in Iraq are very much aligned with the Iranian mullahcracy, and are expecting to gain control — how much is still up for grabs — of Iraq in the relatively near future. Iran sees this, naturally, as being very much in Iran’s interest. The extension of the Shiite area of influence is good both from a traditional power politics perspective and from a domestic politics perspective because it would show the Iranian people that the current regime is capable of extending Persian power and influence. This apparent export of Iranian (Shiite) values will buy goodwill via nationalism. On the defensive side, showing a couple of sabers may be designed not for U.S. consumption but for Sunni consumption. The ex-Baathists might think they can take the Mehdi Armi in Najaf, but knowing the Ayatollah was there and ready to respond to a request for help would change their force equation somewhat.
The second reason I suspect is that the battalions in question might not be the ones the mullahs want in populated areas of Iran right now. I think we have little awareness of the tension in Iran right now and the potential for the whole country to boil over; the battalions being sent out on “ready duty” at the border may be troops whose loyalty the political leaders doubt.
Lots of speculation, not many facts. Ain’t blogging fun?
“Oh, who the hell knows.”
This is the sort of direction I wish Sovietology had gone. Great post, Stephen
Reason one: the Iran-Iraq rivalry/hatred is actually an Iran-Iraqi Sunni rivalry/hatred.
This is the middle east, it’s not nearly that simple. Besides the Sunni/Shia thing, there’s also the Persian/Arab thing- a remarkable number of people don’t know that most Iranians aren’t arabs.
4 battalions would be about 4000 men depending upon what kind of battalions they were (presumably infantry).
That would be enough to slow us down maybe 15 min if we ran over them or a few hours if they all gave up after the first 10 minutes.
I vote on just trying to bluster and wave some strength in the dissidents faces.