Iran Is At War With Us
…and has been for a long time, at a relatively low level that rises and falls with a much slower OODA loop than ours. At what point is our response massvely violent? If so, what form does the response take and to what end?
(Update: It is of course possible that the ruling on Khobar Towers isn’t what really happened and that at the time the Saudis would prefer blame be affixed to a Shiite rather than Sunni-centric bin Laden. This doesn’t alter my conclusion.)
Here are a few comments from the legal types at Power Line about an American legal decision involving Iranian involvement in the Khobar Towers attack. They mention various official statements about Iranian culpability; I can add that in a U.S. Institute of Peace luncheon I attended, then-State official Richard Armitage mentioned Iranian support for Hezbollah and stated that HB had blood on their hands and would pay in good time.
I would also like to expand on that slow OODA loop thing. People talk about getting inside an opposition’s decision cycle; it seems to me that there is value in acting slowly enough that the decision cycle is either returned to original state prior to the next action, or that the counteraction is rendered useless. This is why I argue that the Americans aren’t going to get very persistently Jacksonian until two attacks close enough to affect the American OODA loop, such that we haven’t forgotten the last attack when the next one comes along. It is also one of many reasons that we sustain attacks spaced in time and target groups, perhaps…
Update: Via Michael Ledeen is an example of what I’m talking about. I have no basis to know whether Ledeen’s facts are correct or not, but it sounds uncomfortably right.
It’s quite a change, and a welcome one, although there was never any excuse for the willful and deliberate refusal to see what Iran has been up to since 2001. For it was in December of that momentous year that the American Government received detailed information about Iranian plans to kill American forces in Afghanistan. I was present at meetings in Rome at which that information was given, and I took great satisfaction when I was later informed that the information was correct, and had undoubtedly saved American lives in Afghanistan.
But immediately thereafter, Secretary of State Powell and Director of Central Intelligence Tenet threw a hissy fit, and demanded an immediate and total end to all contacts with those people. In a grotesque confirmation that no good deed goes unpunished, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld even instructed his employees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to terminate all contacts with Iranians, especially “Iranian dissidents.†His man in charge of intelligence, Stephen Cambone–now blessedly on his way out—has refused even to reply to repeated requests to discuss the matter, even though the sources were proven reliable, and the information saved the lives of our troops. On this subject, there does not seem to have been any disagreement between Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Hadley, Hayden and Negroponte. None of them wanted to know about the murderous activities of the Iranians. Just ask Imad Mughniyah, the world’s most lethal killer. Our leaders didn’t want to know about Mughniyah’s plans to fly to Damascus with Ahmadi-Nezhad some months ago, and so the operational godfather of Hizbollah was untouched during his meetings with Syrian leaders and his counterparts from other terrorist gangs.
Why the refusal to see Iran for what it is? Coughlin explains it in a purely military context. He says that NATO troops have enough to do, fighting Taliban units in southern Afghanistan, and are just not prepared to extend their field of operations to the north and west. But, as he says, that would necessarily change if, as appears to be case, our leaders can no longer ignore the evidence.
I think the self-blinding of the West took place at a higher, and more political, level. I blame the intelligence community and the diplomats. They were the ones who refused to accept information from proven sources, because that information was in total conflict with the alternate version of reality they sold to the president: that Iran had been helpful to us in Afghanistan, that there were “moderates†in Tehran with whom we could work, and that a “grand bargain†could be struck, if only we made nice to the mullahs.
Or we could have a strategic surprise. We’ve had two in the last five years already…
10 Responses to “Iran Is At War With Us”
Trackback URL for Iran Is At War With Us: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=1966
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Gotta like that: “persistently Jacksonian” in the OODA loop. Wow.
Yep. But also powerless, old and retired from service!
The loop may be closing. IF something happens God forbid, here, or in the UK:
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2438831.php
No significant insight just open sorce I&W, and history.
B2
December 25th, 2006 at 8:38 am
9-11 was the first suprise. What was the second?
The real lesson for Iran is in history. We need to divide it up with Russia. However to do that, it would be better if we were not in Iraq…………..
December 25th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Gee Skip, you go from being a ‘realist” to an imperialist to an isolationist and then back to a realist…It’s nice to be flexible but that only works for France!
On whacking Iran, which is inevitable I think, holding their miserable property and implemeting an occupation is too far a reach. Like I’ve said before- lives lived without electricity, a stable supply of running water, a destroyed conventional military, a few less bridges, no imported goods, all the while awash in their own oil, will bring about a change of government….
This we can do. Once Iranian nucs can be assembled (FACT- a measurable and finite date in the future) it’ll be even messier when the Israeli’s INEVITABLY take on the task….
Before many rush to counter with the “must hold ground” argument for it to be a valid war ala Iraq. I ask Why? How much worse can an Iranian government get? Think about that strutting Hitlerian leader they have. Even if you’re a moonbat you must see that if the hornets are already out of their nest and swarming, how much madder do they get when you smash the nest?
INEVITABLE- I’ll use that word again. Tragic but true, pending a miracle…..This has been coming since 1978.
BTW- giving Mother Russia a warm water port through imperialist corroboration wouldn’t be in our national interest long view. Iran is Persia and in Persian history it has never been sectioned for long. Why try now? Who cares that much?
b2
December 25th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
[...] On a previous post I asserted that we had suffered two strategic surprises since 9/11, the first one being the attack itself. O-Skippy asks a good question: 9-11 was the first suprise. What was the second? [...]
December 27th, 2006 at 8:06 am
B2,
There is nothing inconsistent about me. I just think the current fracas was the long coming result of the failure to support and maintain the European colonial empires of years past. Now we deal with the brave new world.
What exactly will an attack on Iran accomplish? Perhaps, it will set them back, but it will probably not prevent them from aquiring a nuclear capability. Hell in the long term; there are other powers who will probably give them one, in trade for guaranteed access to their oil. (Some of whom are US trading partners). It would seem to me that the Iranians expect to be attacked and have made some sort of preperations/ movement of some material to hiding places. I might also remind you that the government in Iran was elected by the populace-how democratic that was is open to question, but they did elect this lunatic. If 20 years of religious oppression have now freed up the country-how will giving it something to unify behind do it? ( That by the way is not just my question but that of some very literate middle east scholars…)
Sounds to me like you are advocating the same theories as Douhet. He has yet to be proven right by the way.
Now if we really want to send them back to the stone age as you suggest, do not be suprised when there is unexpected fallout-literally. Oil over 100 dollars a barrel will be one.
December 27th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Skippy,
Douhet? Never heard of him. Seriously. I ain’t an intellectual or a theorist. I’m a military man with a sense of world history who knows a threat when he smells it. Call me pro-active. Airpower kept Hussein bottled up and declawed (retrospectively) for a decade why not this nut? How much worse can things get with the Iranians? See the logic? (refer back to hornet nest theory) To do nothing is tantamount to tacit appeasement. I personally ain’t about that.
re- “it will probably not prevent them from aquiring a nuclear capability”
Maybe not. But why make it easy for ‘em?
re- “they did elect this lunatic”
Glad to see you ID him as such. Makes the “task” all the easier, eh?
re- “Oil over 100 dollars a barrel will be one. ” Hardly. Ponder this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20061225-110022-6580r.htm
Consider again that which you and others avoid:
If we don’t do it IS will. On its own timeline and without consultation. Then it will be too late. And it will really be messy.
K.I.S.S. applies to war, too.
b2
December 27th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Seems to me Stern’s article kind of proves my point………….
December 27th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
The Washington Times thing? Lots of assumptions for Stern’s assertion to be true, I think–Iran would have to be too feckless to recognize and correct their problem. That’s possible, but I’m not so sure it’s likely.
I think I’m in agreement with you that any force of arms used by us against the Iranian government that doesn’t address the nascent nuclear capability doesn’t make much sense unless by magic we get some kind of liberal democracy suddenly appearing allied with our interests in the long term. Next couple of months could get interesting.
December 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Skippy,
I didn’t reference the Times piece to prove Stern’s point, just reinforce the true value of the Iranian oil production capability.. My point-it’s not that important and is falling apart anyways.
Waiting as Stern suggests for a more conciliatory Iran was not what I had in mind.
Chap- re “doesn’t address the nascent nuclear capability”
That is the centerpiece of the type airwar I would envision taking place:
military, industrial, leadership, infrastructure…. the physical hornets nest.
re- “..unless by magic we get some kind of liberal democracy ”
That ain’t gonna happen-ever. We’ve been waiting since 1978 for something even remotely resembling that.
Conflict is inevitable. What happened in 1988 was a skirmish. We need to preposition and maintain a 600-1000 sortie/day air campaign backed up by a Naval blockade. They won’t sue for peace but they will be set back..they have oper
December 28th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Skippy,
Let me clarify: I didn’t link Stern’s oil industry predictions for his strategic insights. I linked it so you could see that Iranian oil production ain’t what’s it’s cracked up to be.
Chap,
My airpower pre-emption scheme hhas that “nascent nuclear capability” as it’s centerpiece. As you well know: military-key industrial-leadership-infrastructure…
re “unless by magic we get some kind of liberal democracy”
We’ve been waiting for that since 1978. It ain’t NEVER gonna happen. Plus as Skippy would say’ “who cares?” what form of government they have as long as they can co-exist with the west….
Iran is a clear and present danger that supports global terrorism and puts it’s money where it’s mouth is (ex-Hizbollal, IEDs in Iraq, etc. etc.). Fully living up to it’s listing as #2 on the “Axis of Evil”. Plus, they have Adolph-2 in power. What isn’t clear about this?
Why wait? It’s like waiting for Hitler to act circa 1938…
1988 was but a minor skirmish. We need to give them something to think about while they languish in the dark for several months…Everyday we put it off, the task grows larger and harder to accomplish…
I don’t see any other choice. Airwar-600-1000 sorties/day ICW Naval blockade. UN/NATO support desired but not required.
BTW. Neither of you have commented on IS inevitably carrying out this chore at a later time. Do you think ole’ B2 has bats in his belfrey? Is that what you guys prefer?
Skippy, lastly and IMHO (and non-intellectual)- as a military man you need to decouple Iran from your opinions on Iraq, Rummy, politics….whatever…. and see this threat for what it is.
B2