Richard Fernandez discusses the low chance of war with Iran:
With everyone wondering if Iran and the US will go to war it’s pertinent to understand both nations are already in an undeclared conflict going back more than 40 years. “And often, it’s been a war that our political and intelligence elites have denied exists.”
It began on November 4, 1979, when “radicals” loyal to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran … On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a truck full of explosives into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon … Iran has also targeted U.S. soldiers on the battlefield, killing more than 1,000 U.S. troops with specialized improvised explosive devices in Iraq, placing a bounty on U.S. service personnel in Afghanistan, and most recently targeting U.S. forces in Syria.
The obvious question is why this conflict, which has claimed thousands of lives has remained in a state of limbo and why elites are at pains to deny it exists. One possible answer is that the combatants prefer it that way. Iran for its part is heavily engaged in proxy war with Saudi Arabia in far flung theaters including Syria, Yemen, Iraq, the Bahrain uprising, Lebanon and even Afghanistan. It can scarcely afford the additional cost of open conflict with the United States if it is to escape over-extension. It is in Iran’s interest to keep its war with America undeclared so that it can pick and choose when to engage.
For analogous but different reasons Washington preferred it secret too. Undeclared conflicts are the only way to fight “forever wars” where the object is not the destruction of the enemy but rather its management and containment in such a way that the global public and markets don’t notice.
I think that at some point, we have to come to terms with the fact that the Iranian regime has to have some external “great enemy”, or it ceases to have a justification for repressing its own people, and forcing them to endure privation in the name of fighting that enemy.
Given that that is the situation, “peace” with Iran is impossible; it’s their raison d’être at this point, and for them to give it up and make peace would mean the loss of justification for their existence. It would be too much of a leap, and now that the mullahs have so thoroughly enriched themselves at the rest of Iran’s expense, well… Yeah. They’re unable to just quit, and are going to have to be wrestled out of power.
I think that one major unforeseen consequence of the mullah-led nightmare that Iran has been undergoing is a major loss of faith in the proposition that Islam is a good thing. I have heard a lot of Iranians talking about what a bunch of crooks the Islamists are, and how they want something else. The cultural ramifications are going to be interesting–A revival of Zoroasterianism might not be entirely out of the question.
Baha’i is another religion from Iran that was expelled by the ayatollahs.
The mullahs want to make an Islamic Empire. It is what they want.
I think that at some point, we have to come to terms with the fact that the Iranian regime has to have some external “great enemy”, or it ceases to have a justification for repressing its own people
Works well for the US and its MIC too. Got to keep that spend, tax, borrow, lobby, contribute cycle going.
Boghammer War of 1988 or so. American helicopter gunships versus Iranian put-put boats. Slate of Iranian “navy” wiped clean. Strait of Hormuz secured.
Baha’i now just expelled but imprisoned and executed. First openly, then in secret.
I don’t think the chance of war with Iran is all that low. Solomeini openly threatened to kill Trump, Trump killed him, Iran’s government has an 80 million offer for his death, they have cruise missiles and drones and half the D party wanting Trump dead too.
Best case, Iraq votes us out and the Pentagon doesn’t defy Trump’s order to leave like they have in Syria.
I think you are hyperventilating, just a bit.
Iran has been notable in its caution and cowardice, always seeking the weakling’s path of indirect confrontation. Instead of invading Saudi Arabia, they foment problems in Yemen. Instead of directly attacking Israel, they pay off and build up Hezbollah.
The whole of their “grand strategy” consists of doing everything to avoid direct conflict.
Suleimani has had this coming for a long, long time–Every single EFP attack on US troops in Iraq can be traced back to the Iranians, and the feckless Bush administration never did anything about it.
The root of the problem we have in the Middle East has nothing to do with the “intractable nature of the problem”, and everything to do with our half-hard approach to things. If we’d had the balls to try every one of the illegal combatants for war crimes, namely waging war outside the constraints of the nation-state system and then executed them the way the law of land warfare allows, we’d have never had the spectacle of released Iraqi regime members going straight from custody in Camp Bucca to running ISIS.
The really major problem we have is that we’re playing softball with people who are playing hardball. Suleimani should have been killed at the earliest opportunity, along with anyone he worked with or around. The man had the blood of thousands on his hands, and God alone knows how many potential deaths can be laid at his door. His death is net gain for the human race.
You can’t deal with the Arab or the Iranian mentality with the usual namby-pamby progressive mentality. These people are straight out of the 7th Century, and any attempt to deal with them on terms other than those prevalent in that era are doomed to failure.
I think that at some point, we have to come to terms with the fact that the American regime has to have some external “great enemy”, or it ceases to have a justification for repressing its own people, and forcing them to endure surveillance and the erosion of their civil liberties in the name of fighting that enemy.
Given that that is the situation, “peace” with America is impossible; it’s their raison d’être at this point, and for them to give it up and make peace would mean the loss of justification for their existence. It would be too much of a leap, and now that the neocalvinists have so thoroughly enriched themselves at the rest of America’s expense, well… Yeah. They’re unable to just quit, and are going to have to be wrestled out of power.
I think that one major unforeseen consequence of the neocalvinist-led nightmare that America has been undergoing is a major loss of faith in the proposition that endless war in the Middle East is a good thing. I have heard a lot of Americans talking about what a bunch of crooks the neocalvinists are, and how they want something else. The cultural ramifications are going to be interesting–A revival of Christianity might not be entirely out of the question.
Kirk,
When I stop hyperventilating, I don’t see anything I posted that isn’t true. In 2016 I thought Trump had maybe a five or ten percent chance of being assassinated. Now I’d say it’s twenty or thirty- $80 million hit contract backed by a whole country, and the D party infested with fools who think political murder threats against everyone else are harmless fun.
CVLR,
When we killed bin Laden in Pakistan, all the Iraq and Afganistan vets I knew said as one: I was in the wrong country.
Bruce,
You might be right. The history shows a different precedent. Every time the Iranians have had their pee-pees slapped, they’ve backed off and waited.
The mistake we made was in not reacting to the Quds Force activities in Iraq; that built up entirely unwarranted confidence in the Iranians that we were afraid of them. Bush should have taken action against the obvious provocation and escalation, but when he did not, they took that as a sign we were going to let them get away with it. Had something like this been done back around 2004, we’d have had none of the many problems we’ve had since. Especially if we’d have simply put the detainees at Camp Bucca up on trial for Law of War violations and then summarily executed them for same.
The root of our problems in the region are that we’re unwilling to direct our wrath at the right people, like the ISI in Pakistan (which you allude to), and that we’re not operating in a manner that these people understand. 7th Century mindsets require 7th Century responses, and those are the sorts of things that get results, sadly.
What’s unfortunate is that there are some decent people over there, but the fact is that they aren’t running things. Iran’s issues begin and end with the regime, and until that’s gone…? Don’t look for any sort of solution happening.
Frankly, I think the whole thing is going to go about like East Germany or the Soviet Union did–One day, there’s going to be a preference cascade, and a bunch of people are just going to wind up dead. You can only coerce so far, and it’s fairly obvious that the Iranian people are quite polarized. What’s going to come from this? Who knows.
Personally, I think Trump is playing the “Crazy Man” card. All the bluster on Twitter isn’t dignified, but it sure as hell serves to keep the Iranians on edge, and with the way things are shaking out in Washington, who knows? I find it very interesting that none of the usual suspects in the go-along-to-get-along circus that is our State and Defense/Intelligence “establishment” knew about this strike on Suleimani beforehand. This is not surprising at all, because Trump is learning not to trust them, and it’s about damn time someone figures out that their interest isn’t in American security or the benefit of the Republic, but their own self-aggrandizement.
No idea where it ends, but since what we were doing wasn’t working, why the hell not try “Crazy”?
Weeeelll… Apparently, the Iraqis are crazier than I thought. There are reports coming out just now that Iran has launched a series of major ballistic missile attacks on US bases in Iraqi territory.
Interesting times. To say the least.
LOL… Iranians. Iranians… Force of habit.
Friggin’ idiots, the lot of them.
Well, one thing does occur to me: I think the fact that they launched missiles from within Iran speaks volumes as to the damage that the US has done to their networks inside Iraq. If they were at all intact, the attacks would have been launched from within Iraqi territory, in order to make it seem as though the Iraqis were the ones making the attack. Since they’re launching from Iran, that makes me suspect that they no longer have the ability to make grandiose attacks from within Iraqi territory.
I’m expecting to hear one of two things within hours: Either the heads of Hezbollah will come out and say that they want no part of this, or the Israelis are going to be making a pre-emptive push into South Lebanon. They may wait until the Hezbollah idiots attack, but then… Maybe not.
[sigh] Interesting times, interesting times… No real idea where this is going to end, but I think it’s going to end badly for Iran’s regime. The fact that the Israelis were able to get in and out with all that nuclear data a couple of years ago tells me that their internal security can’t be that good, and thus, they’re likely to have a few very unpleasant surprises coming their way.
Kirk, I suspect Iran’s regime would be okay with intermittent artillery duels and missile launches. If they lost real bad, they could still close the Persian Gulf to merchant shipping with one howitzer. If they win big, lots of coffins with US flags going home will prove they brought death to America. They might even just stop with one big win, just leave the hit contract on Trump and trust it to fall off D party news until success.
I agree it’s still irrational. We could have obeyed a peaceful order to leave Iraq
We’ve already obeyed such an order, and the Iraqis that matter paid attention to that. They also paid attention to how the Iranians moved in on them, and what they did during the recent protests. The contrast was sufficient that you aren’t seeing an awful lot of upset coming from the non-Iranian aligned Iraqis.
The whole thing is nuts, but it’s like with Afghanistan in the ’90s: You let these things fester, and before you know it, the problems are on your doorstep.
The US is in the same position that the Brits were during the heydey of the Raj. We have a massive target painted on our backs just because we’re the biggest kid on the block. I look back over all the false outrage and animosity that the British had to deal with in the course of keeping international order up and running, and I suddenly understand why the Empire went away as quickly as it did. They were just tired of the bullshit, and eager to give it up. Well, the ones making the decisions were, at least.
Nobody likes the guy who has to play international arbiter, who also holds the reserve currency. But, pull his ass out of the equation, and a whole lot of “bad” happens. I dare say that everyone whinging about the USA right now will be doing the same thing everyone was doing after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. “Oh, that was truly a Golden Age! Woe is we! Woe! Who will protect us and keep trade going, now?”. You only know what you had when it’s gone, and I suspect even the Chinese will be looking around and wondering why the hell they wanted the grand prize of being the top dog, given the expense and the pain of it all.
I want us out. If that screws Iraq, scroom. If Uncle Fester stays in his room, we’re cool. I’d rather have US troops at home for a while. We’ve had plenty of practice war for the last twenty years.
Milner’s Kindergarten had to really have its ducks in a row to get the Brits out of India. Running the world wasn’t all that unpopular in England.
I want out of the mess, myself. Unfortunately, we’re in the Brer Rabbit tarbaby story, with regards to the whole “Let’s take our toys, and go home…”.
Like it or not, our leadership took the Faustian bargain of “World Order Maintainer up after the Brits decided “Enough of this sh*t”, and withdrew from Empire. And, did so with subterfuge, alacrity, and a certain amount of greed for the goodies. The downside was not examined, nor discussed. So, here we are.
Smarter choice would have been to pay off the Brits to be our front men, subsidized Empire, and maintained a friendly background presence in the world. Sadly, our elites wanted to play at running the world, God-like in their wisdom, sagacity, and mien.
Frankly, from my point of view as one of poor bastards doing the scut-work of Hegemony, it was always a poor bargain, one we shouldn’t have taken up. Now that we have, the entanglements and the facts of who would succeed us prevent a clean dismount from the tiger, and I’m pretty sure you don’t want to live in that world absent the US as an international force. It’d be a huge mess, with immeasurable and unknowable blow-back effects. So, here we are, stuck in the middle of it all, until the next major turn of the wheel. About the only off-ramp I see coming is perhaps something like the Yellowstone Caldera erupting, or another Pleistocene meteor strike. Statistically, that one should hit elsewhere, like the much bigger target of Eurasia. Which means that some mouth-breathing missileer in Russia will decide that the falling rock has to be an American strike, and then launch in the aftermath…
Frankly, I think we should have paid off the Brits, and then let them take the heat for maintaining international infrastructure. They did a pretty good job of it from about 1820 on to about 1920… Too bad they dropped the ball with Hitler in the Thirties.
Oy, how dare the Germans have their own sovereign central European civilization. They might revive classical architecture, music, and sculpture, free themselves from the world trade system, elevate engineering over finance, and invent exotic flying craft.
Bad Germans! Bad! You’re no better than animals.
Maybe it’s for the best. If they ever get the upper hand* there might be bears and eagles for real this time.
*pun intended
P.S. He who has the money makes the rules and history is exactly as they tell you.