by emptywheel
Steve Soto posts an email exchange with Sam Gardiner that strongly supports a point I've been making.
A major piece of what I was being told was shocking. Iran and Syria were involved in the planning for the hostage takings. I was even told where and when their planning meeting took place. An individual with former connections to the CIA told me the current situation is all is about the Iranian nuclear program. I was skeptical of that explanation until I heard Zal Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, on CNN late in the day. He said, "It is about the Iranian nuclear program."
In other words, Iran did not wait for the US preemptive strike. It conducted its own.
To understand why I think Iran actually gains by this, I need to make clear how I suspect Iran's leaders calculated their risk and reward. Many have assumed that Iran's cost-benefit analysis weighed status quo in the Middle East and the prospect of a deal at the UN, versus implication in a regional war with Israel. If the Iranians had believed this to be the case, they would never have intervened in this confrontation (and understand, I am convinced they pre-empted an Egyptian cease fire; other claims are tough to measure because of the politics involved). I strongly suspect the Iranian cost-benefit analysis weighed certain war against the US on the US' terms versus war not on the US' terms.
Iran has every reason to believe that a US attack against it is inevitable. There is abundant evidence that our "negotiations" at the UN leading up to the Iraq War were never conducted in good faith. Instead, those negotiations had the sole purpose of winning some legitimacy for a pre-emptive war for which there was no real need indicated by available intelligence. Iran has every reason to believe negotiations at the UN, in its case, serves the sole purpose of gaining nominal support from likely allies Russia and China, and the moral endorsement of war by the Europeans. Given our recent history (and the referral to the Security Council in spite of the fact that, again, the intelligence says the threat is 5-10 years away), Iran has every reason to believe we are not negotiating in good faith at the UN.
Furthermore, Condi is bellowing in the same "stern daddy" mode that Bush did before the Iraq war. She declares that the Iranians have not made an adequate response to our demands, even though the IAEA should be judging such matters. Again, taking Iraq as a lesson, Iran would have had to conclude that war was inevitable.
Finally, there have been numerous allegations, even coming from the US side, that we've already got Special Forces in Iran. If we've already got Special Forces in Iran to soften its defenses (and Iran's leadership has said they're well aware of their presence), Iran would be insane to wait and allow itself to be attacked with weakened defenses.
We made it clear we were going to attack Iran, regardless of cause. So Iran chose to change the shape of the battlefield, dramatically.
I've said a little before about what it might gain from starting the war on its own terms. Iran's strength is in its 4G capacity, particularly its ability to strike with its surrogates Hezbollah and Hamas. If it prevents the US from neutralizing its capacity in the Straits of Hormuz--or its ability to influence Shiites in places like the Saudi oilfields, another strength is its ability to constrain the flow of oil, and with that strike our economy and our SUV-dependent support for any given Administration. An obvious strength is its influence in Iraq, where we've got over 100,000 sitting ducks. And a final strength is its centrality to Russian and Chinese plans for economic growth.
But for just about every single area of strength here, Iran stood to lose if it used the weapon in case of surgical first strike. That is, if Iran responded to missile attacks by having Hezbollah launch attacks in Israel, it might lose its moral high ground. If Iran cut off the oil and a bunch of Americans felt the real consequences of their oil addiction, it would be judged excessive. Moral high ground is a critical element in any 4G warfare, and the way the US was setting up its little adventure against Iran, Iran stood to lose it quickly.
But if--a big if--If Israel continues to act with what is judged to be excessive force, if Israel continues to strike at civilian targets, if Israel continues to disdain the consequences of its actions on innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip, then the war is no longer a fight over Iran's right to develop nuclear weapons. The war becomes a clash of civilizations, one in which the US and Israel stand to lose the moral high ground every time they exercise their military advantage. Every time Israel and the US resort to sheer military firepower in the near future, it serves Iran's purpose in the short term. Add to that, by forcing the US to fight a regional war with three or four fronts, it disperses the power of the US' already depleted strength.
Without firing a shot itself, Iran may have significantly neutralized the US primary advantage in this war. They may well lose it, if Hezbollah lacks the discipline to back off when Iran tells it to. But thus far, Hezbollah has shown more discipline than the Israelis.
Excellent analysis EW! Really good stuff.
I have read Billmon's cogent posts over the last couple days and Steve Soto's post calling for sanctions on Iran like it would matter. But I think your analysis is straightforward and makes the most common sense.
Iran knew that Russia and China were wavering on the UN sanctions fig leaf which would have provided legitimacy to an attack on them. The Europeans were more united with the US on the sanctions issue than any other recent issue. They also realized that Bush-Cheney need something spectacular to distract the American public and enable Karl Rove to rescue this November's congressional election. So an attack by the US with possibly a larger coalition relatively soon was becoming a high probability situation.
"Shaping the battlefield" was important. As you point out its all about shaping perceptions. They have achieved a few things already. Hezbollah has demonstrated an ability to attack and capture Israeli patrols demonstrating good planning and execution. Second, they have demonstrated some of their missile arsenal by attacking an Israeli naval warship and the city of Haifa. Third, they are creating a political environment in the Arab street by showing the appeasement of the "moderate" Arabs (Egypt, Jordan) and the disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks by the Israelis in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Fourth, Sadr has come out in support of Iraqis resisting the "zionist aggression".
But at the same time today we saw the simplistic, black & white mind of Bush with his exchange with Blair. No wonder Cheney runs circles. So the neocons both in the US and Israel may believe that a wider conflagration is in their interests. They may also believe that their overwhelming conventional military superiority can destroy their adversaries and enable favorable regime change. They may also believe that they'll handle it differently than the fiasco of the 18 year occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel and the occupation of Iraq by the US.
Will we now see a decade long contest between 4G and conventional military power?
Posted by: ab initio | July 17, 2006 at 17:19
It won't last a decade. Big wars take oil to run. If this goes regional, particularly if the Iranians can get the Shiites in the Saudi fields to join the fun, this may bring about an giant oil depression in much nearer terms.
One thing I haven't seen yet--but intend to go hunt up some Spanish language reporting on--is how Chavez has reacted. Venezuela and Iran have a history of cooperating to maximize their petroleum leverage. And while Chavez is nowhere near as shrewd as the Mullahs, he is opportunistic. And well aware that the US has him in its sites, as well.
In the past, the US has been able to find alternative sources of oil to outlast a Middle Eastern embargo. But the most logical alternative is Venezuela. And it might take military conflict there to get him to give it to us. And if things get that bad, what do you think China, with its imperative to maintain 8% growth, will do?
Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2006 at 17:32
Curious what the Russians interest in all this is? They benefit tremendously with high oil and natural gas prices. Their economy has really stabilized and improved substantially with improving commodities pricing.
Will they make the play for the alternative to the US superpower in conjunction with China?
Posted by: ab initio | July 17, 2006 at 17:53
No idea, ab initio.
Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2006 at 18:02
Interesting analysis. I agree that Iran has every reason to find a way out from the US or Israel making a preemptive first strike against it. I really cannot believe they have strategized it to the point of directing Hamas to seize Israeli captives, but maybe they have. I think Iran should make suspension of US military aid to Israel a pre-condition for engaging in negotiations about its uranium enrichment program.
Posted by: Powerpuff | July 17, 2006 at 18:28
I think Iran should make suspension of US military aid to Israel a pre-condition for engaging in negotiations about its uranium enrichment program.
Excellent suggestion, Powerpuff.
As I said, the one thing I believe is that Iran intervened to forestall an Israeli-Hamas settlement. The rest, there's no way of wading through the propaganda.
Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2006 at 18:44
I don't follow you here. What are the conditions that Iran is expecting to develop whereupon it would call on Hezbollah "to back off?"
Posted by: CMike | July 17, 2006 at 18:49
everyone wants to make it more than it is, as it is right now, in this moment.
Israel was attacked by hizbollah, which is run by Syria and Iran. I grant that
but Israel's response is to fight their war of independence. It just happens that today (again) is that day. Until the ones attacking them are reduced, there will be this war of independence. Israel is the most restrained nation on this planet. It does become obvious who cares about a real democracy and who cares about oil. France cares about oil and not democracy. the US cares about oil and not democracy. Israel is just a tool for the "cons"
people care about independence. Governments, no matter what kind, hate it. it breaks up the status quo
Posted by: oldtree | July 17, 2006 at 19:05
Israel is the most restrained nation on this planet
And I am a gentoo penguin.
You know, I couldn't even reand this wise reflection upon Israei moderation in Gaza, considering someone took out my electrical plant.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | July 17, 2006 at 19:10
CMike
Well, I suspect Iran has told Hezbollah NOT to do what most people would do with a juicy target of a cruise ship just off shore, loading up Americans like cows heading for the slaughter.
I suspect the goal is to keep Israel aware than Hezbollah COULD respond (in that Israel has alrady discovered this isn't their Arab opponent from the 1960s). But to make sure that the civilian attacks appear, mostly, to be Israeli. Of course it'd be hard for us to gauge that, since in America the civilian attacks are portrayed as primarily Hezbollah, in spite of the 200 dead Lebanese civilians.
Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2006 at 19:15
Sorry, I believe you have it exactly backwards. I don't think Iran provoked this -- it has Cheney's fingerprints all over it. He made a deal with Israel to use the next "incident," whatever it was (and it turned out to be the real or faked kidnapping of Israeli soldiers) to launch an attack to clean out Hezbullah. It provided an opportunity to display (supposed) Israeli military superiority and cable news pictures of missiles falling on Israel. When Cheney decides to bomb Teheran back to the Stone Age, his excuse will be that since Iran now has missiles (or proxies with missiles) capable of targeting Israel's largest cities, we absolutely cannot allow them to develop nuclear warheads. That's why the U.S. is discouraging even the discussion of cease-fire: this mini-war is providing them with valuable pictures!
Posted by: dalloway | July 17, 2006 at 19:23
Thanks for the clarification. I misread what you were saying. When you wrote about a call "to back off" it was in the context of Iran's preferred terms of (ongoing) engagement not any foreseeable denouement. Guess I should be taking your post title quite literally.
Posted by: CMike | July 17, 2006 at 19:39
Hard currency rules. High(er) oil prices are in Iran and Russia's best interest.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA18Ak02.html
Posted by: vachon | July 17, 2006 at 19:43
It's funny you should put it this way. Yesterday, I was thinking that Israel v Hizbollah in southern Lebanon looks suspiciously like the last conventional ground war before the The Way Wars are Fought™ changes again and the blitzkrieg approach goes the way of trench warfare.
Israel seems to be using just about the most 20th-century tactics imaginable -- soften up the infrastructure with air strikes, cut off supply routes, disrupt your enemy's command structure and pivot points until you can punch through with tanks and troops and capture a strategic objective. The fact that the strategic objective in question is a couple of kidnapped soldiers is weird, granted, but the tactics are like something out of a newsreel. Israel is signaling in no uncertain terms that it is willing to decimate the civilian population of southern Lebanon if that's what it takes to disarm Hizbollah, and to hell with the diplomatic consequences (which would be grave indeed).
By the same token, as quite a lot of people have now pointed out, Hizbollah just keeps firing those damn rockets. They're pretty much guaranteed to get their asses handed to them eventually if the tactical scenario plays out the way it traditionally has, but their leadership don't seem very concerned about that. Why the hell not? They're basically taunting The IDF. "You're bluffing big guy! Come and get me." Do they know something Israel doesn't, or are they just crazy fierce?
The thing that's really scary is that the boy prince doesn't even seem to have embraced a strategy. Cheney et al are trying to climb onto the tiger and ride it through town by catapulting the propaganda; Condi and everybody else (Poodle, Pooty-poot, Who's on First et al) are trying to get the fucking tiger back in the fucking cage goddamit by jaw-jaw-jawing... But the boy prince just isn't engaged enough to actually pursue either approach once its proponents have left the room.
God help us all...
Posted by: radish | July 17, 2006 at 19:44
I'm not sure which of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's mushrooms you are discussing, or whether the sovietologist is a match for the now twenty years of Lebanon's power vacuum; even, whether the British or French care or have the polity to address regional tensions, though the EU and Nato might. One part of the Straussian fiction is that seriousness equates to dignity. Arab religion is fused to civil theory, very much like your feudalist 'new paradigm' essay a while back probing the nexus which is the corporate governance style of Bush-2, term 2. I see a lot of the puzzlement in US foreign relations now a contrast of experience in Condi's leadership, juxtaposed with the very stonewalling resistance by Bolton, predicted by some senators when warning Bush to resist putting Bolton in the UN. We have another six months of that recess appointment to endure. The US spent decades funnelling billions in arms into several Arab countries to placate them for their legitimate concern over Israel's diplomatic situation and its own arms pipeline from the US. Call me an optimist. I think if we understand who has the greatest interests in the region, we relax a little more. Lebanon once was the banking hub and would like that economic infusion to return.
Posted by: JohnLopresti | July 17, 2006 at 20:13
hey're basically taunting The IDF. "You're bluffing big guy! Come and get me." Do they know something Israel doesn't, or are they just crazy fierce?
The thing that's really scary is that the boy prince doesn't even seem to have embraced a strategy. Cheney et al are trying to climb onto the tiger and ride it through town by catapulting the propaganda; Condi and everybody else (Poodle, Pooty-poot, Who's on First et al) are trying to get the fucking tiger back in the fucking cage goddamit by jaw-jaw-jawing... But the boy prince just isn't engaged enough to actually pursue either approach once its proponents have left the room.
Several rich images there, radish.
Posted by: emptywheel | July 17, 2006 at 20:41
Part of what we are seeing is the disintegration of our relations with countries in the ME--Tenet had personal relationships he could call on when something was needed, but that's all gone now, and many peope with expertise have left the gov't because they realized they weren't needed. And I don't think Bush is on very firm ground when he is away from home with only Condi with him. He is so woefully ignorant.
On the one hand it makes sense that the Iranians are trying to demonstrate that there are going to be much greater consequences from an attack on their country and, as EW has said, are keeping us and Israel off the moral high ground (not pushing, since neither was there to begin with). At the same time Israel is itching to use its weapons and wants to get Hizbullah out of So Lebanon, although what has changed so drastically in the last month, considering this has gone on for years and years, is beyond me. Maybe as Steve Clemons said, it makes it hard for the US to pull out of Iraq or cut a deal. The stock market seemed to think that peace is at hand, and oil went down. Go figure.
I suppose as long as the Sunnis and the Shi'a are only fighting each other in Iraq there is some hope.
Posted by: Mimikatz | July 17, 2006 at 20:44
What's odd in all this is that Iran was already sitting in the catbird seat. We knocked off their chief regional enemy, then got bogged down there, having to deal with the Iraqi Shia, who are heavily influenced by Iran. We could launch airstrikes, but with our army tied down and the inherent limits of our military power starkly revealed, the prospect of imposing "regime change" in Iran is nil.
It isn't even likely we could do much to their nuclear program, because from all indications it is not to the stage of mass industrial facilities (a la Oak Ridge) that make good targets. What they have is likely to be highly dispersed, in ways we can't readily detect from satellite imagery. In those circumstances, all we'd do with airstrikes is kill a bunch of Iranians and push the rest closer to the regime. (It hardly gets mentioned, but is it any real surprise that the Iranian liberals have gone into steep decline since the Iraq war started?)
So, while the Iranians may have nothing to lose in this, I don't see where they have anything to gain either. It doesn't quite hold together that their leadership would take risks by knocking over the apple cart when things were already so rosy for them.
Perhaps, then, Hesbollah acted on their own. Or, if there's someone behind them it might more likely be Syria. Syria was badly embarrassed just last year by having to pull out of Lebanon. (Remember the "purple revolution," or whatever it was called? Seems so long ago now.)
Now Hesbollah and the Israelis between them are showing how totally helpless the Lebanese government is to do anything, either protect itself from Israel or lock down Hesbollah. Which leaves Syria as the only player who could rein in Hesbollah and restore some kind of truce without ruining its street cred in the Arab world.
Posted by: al-Fubar | July 17, 2006 at 21:10
Several rich images there, radish.
Just trying to distract from the fact that I don't actually know what I'm talking about :D
I don't see where they have anything to gain either. It doesn't quite hold together that their leadership would take risks by knocking over the apple cart when things were already so rosy for them.
Maybe, but it might already seem a lot riskier from their POV than it looks from the outside. If they have reason to think that the special forces guys have finished mapping the artillery outposts on the Iran side of the strait (or something like that) then they might well feel that they'd be better off creating a distraction sooner rather than later.
Posted by: radish | July 17, 2006 at 22:27
I think your analysis is right on the money, unfortunately. 4G warfare involves initiative, daring, and strategy as well as a realistic evaluation of the battlefield. In this, the neo's and Bush have consistently lost their standing in the world, with the exception of the response in Indonesia after the tsunami. The Pentagon has defiled the military and its planning capability. The Neo's have toasted foggy bottom. There is no, I repeat, NO clear thinking about our current situation or future actions going on within the halls of our government.
When I saw the Time cover about the end of the cowboy presidency, I laughed out loud. No matter how deep we as a society bury our head in the sand and let criminals rape our democarcy, the truth will out. We have seen the enemy and he is us (god bless Pogo!).
The World is withdrawing from the the USA both as a political idea and as an economy. WE have strewn our ignorance and arrogance about with boisterous abandon. THEY are having a field day with realigning their interests away from ours, and I contend with prejudice.
Posted by: oofer | July 18, 2006 at 02:45
If Iran cut off the oil and a bunch of Americans felt the real consequences of their oil addiction, it would be judged excessive.
That's inevitable in the U.S. with our media, but they're going to do it anyway. Mostly because if they survive three months they win. World oil production has been around 85mbpd for the last year. There is no spare capacity. And if the U.S. tries to outbid someone for oil, they'll most likely be bidding against China.
Posted by: Tim | July 18, 2006 at 10:23
Tim
True, it'll be judged as excessive in the US one way or another. But Israel the US are likely to take the blame if it comes as a result of excessive retaliation.
Posted by: emptywheel | July 18, 2006 at 11:57
But for just about every single area of strength here, Iran stood to lose if it used the weapon in case of surgical first strike.
But, of course, the strike would not be ``surgical''. It never is. It's an interesting question who would lose the initiative with the EU, China, etc, if Iran then proceeded to cut off the flow of oil thru' the straits of Hormuz. (Which they could do by sinking a tanker or two pour encourager les autres
``And while Chavez is nowhere near as shrewd as the Mullahs, he is opportunistic. And well aware that the US has him in its sites, as well.''
I presume you mean ``in its sights'': you've been blogging too long EW :-)
Also in what way is Chavez not as shrewd as the mullahs? Seems to me he has played his cards pretty well so far. He has wrested the oil revenues away from the previous oligarchy and put them to use both in carrying out his domestic program: improving the lives and life chances of the poor majority of Venezuela, and in putting together a coalition in South America counter to the ``Washington Consensus'', and Washington's dominance of South America.
Posted by: Paul Lyon | July 18, 2006 at 20:50
Indulge yourself and find partners for hot Sexual Encounters and Adult Dating at Adult friend finder free dating site!
If you are looking for a one night stand or a casual encounter, then the Adult Swingers Club is where the game is played.
If you practice a different range of sexual and sensual activities then adult personals has the Club for you.
Download over 2000 adult dvd movies, available formats: windows, mpeg, psp and ipod!
Shop for Adult Toys, DVDs and Lingerie and other Erotic Adult Products at adult sex toys shop.
Posted by: Roman | June 29, 2007 at 14:53
Foreign pharmacy is the perfect resource for people to get their drugs without any hassles or awkwardness. We work hard to make sure you save money every time you shop with us. At our online store, you pay less and get more.
Alergies drugs online:
Anti Depressants drugs online:
Anti-convulsants drugs online:
Order Tamiflu foreign pharmacy
Order Arava foreign pharmacy
Order Singulair foreign pharmacy
Asthma drugs online
Cancer drugs online
Order Nolvadex foreign pharmacy
Order Imitrex foreign pharmacy
Order Lasix foreign pharmacy
Order Synthroid foreign pharmacy
Antibiotics drugs online
Blood pressure drugs online
Cholesterol drugs online
Diabetes drugs online:
Gastrointernal drugs online:
Heartburn drugs online:
Order Aciphex foreign pharmacy
Order Nexium foreign pharmacy
Order Prevacid foreign pharmacy
Order Prilosec foreign pharmacy
Hypertension drugs online:
Muscle relaxant drugs online:
Pain relief drugs online:
Skin Care drugs online:
Stop Smoking drugs online:
Weight loss drugs online:
Womens health drugs online:
Mens health drugs online:
Herbal natural drugs online:
Buying prescription and natural drugs online has never been easier!
Posted by: Foreign pharmacy | September 13, 2007 at 07:45