What does it mean that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is being reviled in the streets now after twenty years in which he has been viewed as the unquestioned leader of Iran whose word was never disputed? He is going to have to rely on his remaining loyal followers to enforce his rulings on the rest of Iranians.
His most loyal followers and those capable of enforcing his decisions are the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. If he depends on them to enforce his rulings his prior position in Iranian society is gone forever.
The Ayatollah has lost his legitimacy to govern irretrievably. He either has to put together a successful military dictatorship or go.
See the analysis by Hamza Hendawi from the Associated Press.
Showing posts with label Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
U.S. Navy and Iranians tiptoe carefully in Persian Gulf
The U.S and Iranian Navy operations - in addition to extensive shipping operations - in the small Persian Gulf cause real risks of accidents. It's crowded and busy. The U.S. and Iranian naval operators especially have to communicate frequently and carefully. The LA Times reports on the situation:
I'm sure Dick Cheney is very much aware of the possibilities of threatening or starting a war in the Persian Gulf. The rest of us (and especially Secretary of Defense Bob Gates) need to keep in mind how to stop him. The same risk exists on the Iranian side as current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard tend to lose support to the more liberal elements of Iranian political society.
(See prior post Internal Iranian politics from Friday, July 06, 2007.)
in the cramped sea routes of the Persian Gulf, U.S. and Iranian warship sailors and fighter pilots speak to each other daily.If either the U.S. or the Iranians want to threaten war it will be very easy to do. Worse, the risk of another accident like the U.S. Navy shoot-down of the Iranian airliner in 1988 remains very high.
They have to. They're practically jostling one another in courteous games of surveillance, counter-surveillance and geopolitical posturing.
"We are operating very close to their territorial waters in a very confined space with a tremendous amount of traffic, be it the small dhows, be it the supertankers going up to the oil platforms," said U.S. Navy Capt. Sterling Gilliam Jr., commander of air operations for this nuclear-powered supercarrier and its associated ships.
"The margin of error is smaller in that the space is more confined. That would be the case even if anyone was your ally, just because of the sheer small size of the Arabian Gulf," Gilliam said, using an alternative name for the body of water.
Even mundane changes of direction require chitchat with Iranian counterparts. When sedate gulf winds fade to a whisper, for example, this 100,000-ton carrier whips up to the 25 knots required to hurl jets into flight from the 1,092-foot flight deck.
But first the vessel alerts nearby forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the organization's navy.
"We would do the standard international maritime measures," said Capt. Bradley Johanson, commanding officer of the aircraft carrier.
"We would call them on their radio and say, 'Sir, I just wanted to let you know that we're going to be turning to port and be coming to this course so that we're into the wind in support of our flight operation."
The Iranians respond professionally and courteously, Johanson said: " 'Thank you very much for the information. We will move off to the starboard position. We very much appreciate the heads-up.' "
Nearly half of the U.S. Navy's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, alongside most of Tehran's estimated 140 naval surface ships and six submarines, according to GlobalSecurity.org. More than five dozen aircraft are aboard the Stennis, along with dozens more aboard the Nimitz, another U.S. aircraft carrier in the gulf.
I'm sure Dick Cheney is very much aware of the possibilities of threatening or starting a war in the Persian Gulf. The rest of us (and especially Secretary of Defense Bob Gates) need to keep in mind how to stop him. The same risk exists on the Iranian side as current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard tend to lose support to the more liberal elements of Iranian political society.
(See prior post Internal Iranian politics from Friday, July 06, 2007.)
Friday, July 06, 2007
Internal Iranian politics
Dick Cheney likes to think of himself as a strategic thinker in foreign affairs, one who thinks in terms of the American nation against other nations. Since Bush does not bother to thing at all on the subject, it is Cheney's view that matters. Cheney appears to think that the American nation is in an existential conflict with the Iranian nation. It isn't a question to Cheney of some leaders of one nation in conflict with some leaders of another. It is nation vs nation. This led to the invasion of Iraq, and before that, led to focus on creating the Anti-missile system in 2001 and essentially ignoring the threat of terrorist attacks on America. Cheney, and the Neocons he represents, thought that effective terrorist attacks could only happen if a nation-state initiated and paid for it. So we got the useless anti-missile system together with the very effective attacks on 9/11. [*]
Which brings us to Cheney's desire to attack Iran. Cheney fears that Iran wants the nuclear bomb in order to attack America. Give Iran the capability to attack and they will. Individuals don't mean much to Cheney.
Which is why Cheney will not believe that there is a really significant political split between internal power groups in Iran. For what may describe the facts that Cheney is overlooking, go look at the report by Steve Clemons. Consider - did Iran decide to kidnap the dozen British sailors, or was that a desperate measure by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to shore up their fading internal Iranian power position as former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjanigains power and current Iranian President Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (click on English) loses power. Go read it.
Consider first that the scenario Steve Clemons describes is indicated by Intelligence sources, but does not have sufficient confirmation at this time to be considered solid Intelligence. That will take a while to confirm or disconfirm. The key, though, is that there are political possibilities for dealing with Iran before we use military means.
Cheney and the NeoCons hate non-military solutions. They need to be restrained by wiser heads, which these days means by someone who is not a Republican.
Addendum
[*] EmptyWheel at The Next Hurrah provides a vignette that demonstrates the attitude that Cheney (and by extension, Bush) had at the beginning of the Bush administration before 9/11. Terrorism was not a problem. China and North Korea were problems, but not terrorism.
This story about Lynn Cheney's attitude confirms the story told by Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. The downgrading of Richard Clarke as the specialist on Terrorism on the National Security Council that occurred almost immediately after Bush took over is a major example of the lack of preparation for terrorism.
Which brings us to Cheney's desire to attack Iran. Cheney fears that Iran wants the nuclear bomb in order to attack America. Give Iran the capability to attack and they will. Individuals don't mean much to Cheney.
Which is why Cheney will not believe that there is a really significant political split between internal power groups in Iran. For what may describe the facts that Cheney is overlooking, go look at the report by Steve Clemons. Consider - did Iran decide to kidnap the dozen British sailors, or was that a desperate measure by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to shore up their fading internal Iranian power position as former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjanigains power and current Iranian President Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (click on English) loses power. Go read it.
Consider first that the scenario Steve Clemons describes is indicated by Intelligence sources, but does not have sufficient confirmation at this time to be considered solid Intelligence. That will take a while to confirm or disconfirm. The key, though, is that there are political possibilities for dealing with Iran before we use military means.
Cheney and the NeoCons hate non-military solutions. They need to be restrained by wiser heads, which these days means by someone who is not a Republican.
Addendum
[*] EmptyWheel at The Next Hurrah provides a vignette that demonstrates the attitude that Cheney (and by extension, Bush) had at the beginning of the Bush administration before 9/11. Terrorism was not a problem. China and North Korea were problems, but not terrorism.
This story about Lynn Cheney's attitude confirms the story told by Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. The downgrading of Richard Clarke as the specialist on Terrorism on the National Security Council that occurred almost immediately after Bush took over is a major example of the lack of preparation for terrorism.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Run! Hide! Sky is Falling! Iranians training Terrorists! Run! Run! Hide!! Kill Someone!!
Independent senator Joe Lieberman just told Bob Schieffer today on "Face the Nation" that the Iranians are training Iraqi terrorists to kill Americans at a location in Iraq. Joe made it sound like the Iranians are training al Qaeda and that we have to take out the training location as a part of the Global War on Terror. Bob responded to Joe's assertion by saying "I think you have made some news here today."
I find several things wrong with this. First, Joe Lieberman seems to be a strange person to provide this information to the public. I would have expected something like this to come from the White House, or at the lowest level, from the Pentagon. Why would the administration give this story to Joe Lieberman to put out on Sunday Morning, particularly a Sunday Morning in which Tony Snow has been on the talk show circuit? Second, I don't really trust Joe Lieberman. If he says it is raining, I'm going to walk to the window and look outside, and if it looks like rain, I'm going to double-check to see if it is really wet.
So I decided to check this story out on the Internet.
First Story: From today's The Independent we get a reprint of a story written by Phil Sands in Baghdad and originally published April 15, 2007. It is entitled "Iran trains 'thousands' of Iraqi insurgents.
Besides being an old story, what is the surprise? The Mahdi Army is the major Iraqi Shia militia, is a well-known ally of the Iranian Shias, and has coordinated with the Iraqi government very little. The Mahdi Army is also a major opponent of the Sunni insurgents and can be expected to be fighting the Sunni militias as soon as the U.S. military stops fighting them. If there is any significant connection between al Qaeda, al Qaeda-in-Iraq, or any of the terrorists who have been involved in 9/11 or in the terrorist incidents in Europe it certainly has not been reported in the news. The Mahdi Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are long-time allies. This support for the Mahdi Army is no surprise, and no significant threat to America.
Second story: On April 11, 2007 FOX News published an AP story entitled "U.S. Military: Iran Training Iraqi Insurgents in Using Roadside Bombs."
Second - Iran is sitting on the extremely long border of an unstable nation that is being pressured by its occupier and most significant enemy to become a base for an attack on Iran. Any nation that wanted to survive would be arming, training and supporting its allies in Iraq. That's exactly the same as our training and arming of the military and police in Mexico, Colombia, Haiti, and dozens of other states. The purpose of that effort is to make the supported nations more stable and less of a threat to the defending nation. Iran is one of the longest existing civilizations on Earth, and is not run by fools. They will take the necessary actions to defend themselves. The same is true for Moqtada al-Sadr. al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is the necessary militia intended to defend a minority Shia sect in an unstable, probably failed, nation state. The Mahdi Army needs to take its allies where it can find them, and the U.S. need not apply for ally status. Not that the Bush administration ever would. But the thing is, the actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are defensive, as are the actions of Mogtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. They and their small arms are not threats to the American Homeland, and wouldn't bother the U.S. military if we didn't have them in Iraq for the purpose of threatening Iran.
I'm not saying that Iran could not be a real threat to the United States, though I really doubt that Iran would ever be as big a threat as North Korea (which can't currently effectively attack the U.S. due to distance) or Pakistan, or Libya, or India for that matter. I am saying that the propaganda being pushed on the American public to allow military strikes against Iran do not address that possibility of a threat in any way.
That the Revolutionary Guard might train Mahdi Army members is no surprise and no real danger to the American Homeland, and for all the scary headings, this is all the reports have to offer. Iranians providing low-level military training to their Iraqi co-religionists. The same Mahdi Militia members could get the same training (and on much the same equipment, interestingly enough) from the U.S. military if they joined the Iraqi Army or Iraqi Police Forces, and many of them do exactly that. The only likely difference is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards probably don't need to offer as much training on defusing EFPs as the Americans do. Just building them.
Other related stories: Additional similar stories can be found at Google, but they are all older than the ones from April 2007 or from the same time and repeat the same material.
My conclusion
I don't think that Joe Lieberman did make any real news today. He seems to be attempting to recycle the anti-Iranian propaganda stories that popped up in the American Press last April. So the question is why is he attempting to recycle the old stories? [Note: this may be the first of several efforts to recycle the old stories. That's how I would manage this kind of propaganda operation. Sourcing it with Sen. Lieberman makes me suspicious that there is no new Intelligence being marketed and will be none.]
My best guess is that Joe is practicing as the Independent Senator from Connecticut and from Israel. He wants the U.S. to attack Iran because Iran is the direct source of much of the Middle East threat to Israel. While I don't think Iran is a really significant threat to the U.S., it is a major source of danger to Israel. Israelis have a really good reason to fear Iran, and if they can get someone to take Iran on they at least feel safer. As a result, I suspect that someone handed Joe the previous stories from April and has been trying to get him to recycle them. Joe's motivation is very similar to that of the NeoCons in general (or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) who really believed that if America were to attack and occupy the clearly weak nation of Iraq then America could put long-term military pressure on Iran and keep Iran bottled up as a threat to its neighbors.
Widespread public fear tends to bring right-wing militarists to the surface in politics. Those same right-wing militarists do not want interference from others who would sacrifice some of the ability to conduct military activities in order to reduce tensions between opposing nations. Iran has been supporting Hamas and increasing the fear in Israel, and the Israeli militarists have found allies in the American militarists who were surfaced by the attack on 9/11.
Joe Lieberman has found a home in the right-wing militarist elements of both America and Israel, (as have the American NeoCons) and I doubt that he sees much Joe sees much distinction between the two nations.
That's why Joe dropped his (dated) so-called Intelligence on "Face the Nation" today. That's also why we can safely ignore it.
Addendum June 11, 2007 8:13 AM CDT
Here is a report from "The Newshoggers" about The Sen. from Israel's ridiculous statement on "Face the Nation" yesterday. In it Cernig points to the new article at NRO by the well-known NeoCon, Michael Ledeen, advocating an American attack on Iran in support of Israel. [Note: this is the same NeoCon "Michael Ledeen" who has long-term close connections with Italian Intelligence services as well as with Dick Cheney and is suspected of connection with the forged "Niger Letters" used by the Bush administration as justification for the peremptory invasion of Iraq.]
The speed with which Ledeen got his article out in support of Joe Lieberman demonstrates the fact that Lieberman's statement on FtN yesterday really was the opening salvo of a propaganda effort to get America to attack Israel's enemy, Iran.
Glenn Greenwald also identified the sources of Lieberman's propaganda effort. What I found particularly interesting was these quotations:
I find several things wrong with this. First, Joe Lieberman seems to be a strange person to provide this information to the public. I would have expected something like this to come from the White House, or at the lowest level, from the Pentagon. Why would the administration give this story to Joe Lieberman to put out on Sunday Morning, particularly a Sunday Morning in which Tony Snow has been on the talk show circuit? Second, I don't really trust Joe Lieberman. If he says it is raining, I'm going to walk to the window and look outside, and if it looks like rain, I'm going to double-check to see if it is really wet.
So I decided to check this story out on the Internet.
First Story: From today's The Independent we get a reprint of a story written by Phil Sands in Baghdad and originally published April 15, 2007. It is entitled "Iran trains 'thousands' of Iraqi insurgents.
Thousands of Iraqi Shias are being trained in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics at a secret camp near the Iranian capital, according to militants who say they have spent time there.So it is an old story, and it involves an assertion that the Iranian Shia Revolutionary Guard is training members of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia in terrorist methods of fighting.
Through an Iraqi intermediary who also went to Iran, The Independent on Sunday spoke to two seasoned guerrilla fighters. They said large numbers of Mahdi Army volunteers loyal to the maverick Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr had gone to the base in Jalil Azad, near Tehran, for instruction.
Abu Amer, a 39-year-old Mahdi Army fighter who asked that his full name not be used, said he had been trained by instructors he believed were from Iran's Revolutionary Guard. "Shia fighters are being trained in modern fighting methods, such as use of powerful explosives and bringing down helicopters," he told the IoS. [Note: IoS is "Independent on Sunday."]
Besides being an old story, what is the surprise? The Mahdi Army is the major Iraqi Shia militia, is a well-known ally of the Iranian Shias, and has coordinated with the Iraqi government very little. The Mahdi Army is also a major opponent of the Sunni insurgents and can be expected to be fighting the Sunni militias as soon as the U.S. military stops fighting them. If there is any significant connection between al Qaeda, al Qaeda-in-Iraq, or any of the terrorists who have been involved in 9/11 or in the terrorist incidents in Europe it certainly has not been reported in the news. The Mahdi Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are long-time allies. This support for the Mahdi Army is no surprise, and no significant threat to America.
Second story: On April 11, 2007 FOX News published an AP story entitled "U.S. Military: Iran Training Iraqi Insurgents in Using Roadside Bombs."
BAGHDAD — Iran has been training Iraqi fighters in Iran on the assembly of deadly roadside bombs known as EFPs, the U.S. military spokesman said on Wednesday.OK. EFPs. There has been a consistent stream of misinformation in the American Press (and especially pushed by FOX) that has tried to claim that Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP's) are so sophisticated that they can only come from Iran. I have previously debunked this at:
"We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees debriefs," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the U.S. military spokesman, said at a weekly briefing.
EFP stands for explosively formed penetrator, deadly roadside bombs that hurl a fist-size lump of molten copper capable of piercing armor.
In January, U.S. officials said at least 170 U.S. soldiers had been killed by EFPs.
Caldwell also said on Wednesday that the U.S. military had evidence that Iranian intelligence agents were active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters.
- How close are we now to war with Iran now?,
- Remember those EFPs that could only come from Iran?,
- Anyone can make an EFP and
- Are the EFP's actually from Iran? Or is it another Bush effort to start a new war?.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi insurgents are being trained in Iran to assemble weapons and Iranian-made weapons are still turning up in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.What can I say? This is more of the same effort to whip up war hysteria in the U.S. against Iran. First - rockets and grenade launchers are ubiquitous around the world. Like EFPs, any partially industrialized nation can make them. It is rarely necessary because the two largest arms suppliers in the world (the U.S. and Russia) are always ready to supply one side or the other of every conflict. When one of those two aren't ready to send out new weapons, the supply of used small arms that hangs over the market is tremendous. Every temporary peace treaty or armistice adds to it.
The statement comes two months after the United States said it had asked Tehran to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq.
Coalition forces found a cache of Iranian rockets and grenade launchers in Baghdad on Tuesday, spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Wednesday.
Second - Iran is sitting on the extremely long border of an unstable nation that is being pressured by its occupier and most significant enemy to become a base for an attack on Iran. Any nation that wanted to survive would be arming, training and supporting its allies in Iraq. That's exactly the same as our training and arming of the military and police in Mexico, Colombia, Haiti, and dozens of other states. The purpose of that effort is to make the supported nations more stable and less of a threat to the defending nation. Iran is one of the longest existing civilizations on Earth, and is not run by fools. They will take the necessary actions to defend themselves. The same is true for Moqtada al-Sadr. al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is the necessary militia intended to defend a minority Shia sect in an unstable, probably failed, nation state. The Mahdi Army needs to take its allies where it can find them, and the U.S. need not apply for ally status. Not that the Bush administration ever would. But the thing is, the actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are defensive, as are the actions of Mogtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. They and their small arms are not threats to the American Homeland, and wouldn't bother the U.S. military if we didn't have them in Iraq for the purpose of threatening Iran.
I'm not saying that Iran could not be a real threat to the United States, though I really doubt that Iran would ever be as big a threat as North Korea (which can't currently effectively attack the U.S. due to distance) or Pakistan, or Libya, or India for that matter. I am saying that the propaganda being pushed on the American public to allow military strikes against Iran do not address that possibility of a threat in any way.
That the Revolutionary Guard might train Mahdi Army members is no surprise and no real danger to the American Homeland, and for all the scary headings, this is all the reports have to offer. Iranians providing low-level military training to their Iraqi co-religionists. The same Mahdi Militia members could get the same training (and on much the same equipment, interestingly enough) from the U.S. military if they joined the Iraqi Army or Iraqi Police Forces, and many of them do exactly that. The only likely difference is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards probably don't need to offer as much training on defusing EFPs as the Americans do. Just building them.
Other related stories: Additional similar stories can be found at Google, but they are all older than the ones from April 2007 or from the same time and repeat the same material.
My conclusion
I don't think that Joe Lieberman did make any real news today. He seems to be attempting to recycle the anti-Iranian propaganda stories that popped up in the American Press last April. So the question is why is he attempting to recycle the old stories? [Note: this may be the first of several efforts to recycle the old stories. That's how I would manage this kind of propaganda operation. Sourcing it with Sen. Lieberman makes me suspicious that there is no new Intelligence being marketed and will be none.]
My best guess is that Joe is practicing as the Independent Senator from Connecticut and from Israel. He wants the U.S. to attack Iran because Iran is the direct source of much of the Middle East threat to Israel. While I don't think Iran is a really significant threat to the U.S., it is a major source of danger to Israel. Israelis have a really good reason to fear Iran, and if they can get someone to take Iran on they at least feel safer. As a result, I suspect that someone handed Joe the previous stories from April and has been trying to get him to recycle them. Joe's motivation is very similar to that of the NeoCons in general (or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) who really believed that if America were to attack and occupy the clearly weak nation of Iraq then America could put long-term military pressure on Iran and keep Iran bottled up as a threat to its neighbors.
Widespread public fear tends to bring right-wing militarists to the surface in politics. Those same right-wing militarists do not want interference from others who would sacrifice some of the ability to conduct military activities in order to reduce tensions between opposing nations. Iran has been supporting Hamas and increasing the fear in Israel, and the Israeli militarists have found allies in the American militarists who were surfaced by the attack on 9/11.
Joe Lieberman has found a home in the right-wing militarist elements of both America and Israel, (as have the American NeoCons) and I doubt that he sees much Joe sees much distinction between the two nations.
That's why Joe dropped his (dated) so-called Intelligence on "Face the Nation" today. That's also why we can safely ignore it.
Addendum June 11, 2007 8:13 AM CDT
Here is a report from "The Newshoggers" about The Sen. from Israel's ridiculous statement on "Face the Nation" yesterday. In it Cernig points to the new article at NRO by the well-known NeoCon, Michael Ledeen, advocating an American attack on Iran in support of Israel. [Note: this is the same NeoCon "Michael Ledeen" who has long-term close connections with Italian Intelligence services as well as with Dick Cheney and is suspected of connection with the forged "Niger Letters" used by the Bush administration as justification for the peremptory invasion of Iraq.]
The speed with which Ledeen got his article out in support of Joe Lieberman demonstrates the fact that Lieberman's statement on FtN yesterday really was the opening salvo of a propaganda effort to get America to attack Israel's enemy, Iran.
Glenn Greenwald also identified the sources of Lieberman's propaganda effort. What I found particularly interesting was these quotations:
"Israeli Minister Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) visited the U.S. earlier this year, and gave an interview to The New York Times in which he said this:It should be clear that the panicky propaganda of the Israeli right-wing militarists do not really create a problem that the U.S. needs to go to war with Iran to solve. In fact, the opposite is much more likely to be the case. The militaristic panic out of the Israeli right-wing extremists and their American fellow-travelers is very likely the source of many of the problems America is facing, and much of the solution will involve getting those right-wingers out of American decision-making and expose their propaganda every time they surface."Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War.” [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."The same month, the current Israeli Prime Minister echoed those sentiments:Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president. . . .
Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.
Friday, April 06, 2007
What was Iran doing kidnapping the 15 British military people?
I couldn't see any reasonable international goal for Iran that could have been achieved by kidnapping the 15 British military people, and the sudden return of them for no apparent gain strengthened my feeling. But I know very little about Iran, so it was just a feeling that something was being played out that I couldn't see.
Fortunately, Steve Clemons has provided an explanation that makes sense to me. Here is the core part of what he wrote:
This makes a lot more sense to me than does looking at the kidnapping as a message to America or other powers outside Iran. It looks like it was a power move between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG)and the Mullahs who run the country. If the Mullahs were getting ready to negotiate the nuclear development with the UN, this was a statement by the IRG that they will severely damage Iran internationally before giving up their efforts to develop nukes. If this is the case, then the sudden reversal and return of the 15 British was an additional statement (by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who came out of the IRG) that he could be dealt with by the Mullahs, but they were not going to run roughshod over the IRG. So what we watched was internal Iranian politics being played out in the Persian Gulf.
The real problem I see now is that Dick Cheney and the NeoCons will not accept that explanation. It won't suit them, because it means that they and America generally were totally irrelevant to the whole drama except as spectators. Cheney and the NeoCons are going to believe that it was all played out to send THEM a message, because no one and nothing else besides the big, bad Americans led by Cheney and the NeoCons could possibly be of any importance to the Iranians. Besides, Cheney and the NeoCons take a very simplified view of nations. When a nation takes international actions, those actions must have been approved by the government. There are no sub-governmental units which can act unilaterally without the blessing of the governmental leaders. [That is their complaint with Nancy Pelosi talking to the Syrians, for example.)
So if Cheney and the NeoCons don't believe in an Iranian internal politics explanation for the kidnapping of the 15 British military people, the question is going to be what the Americans can do to Iran because of the kidnapping. Iran will have to be punished for what they did. Since it will be based on assumptions having little or no connection to reality, once again we will see Cheney and the NeoCons prove their utter incompetence at running government.
Let's hope Cheney and the NeoCons aren't allowed to do anything as stupid as they usually do. We really won't like the results if they slip the leash.
Fortunately, Steve Clemons has provided an explanation that makes sense to me. Here is the core part of what he wrote:
I'm of the school -- though only speculating -- that the Supreme Leader did not authorize the capture of the British military unit. But there are others who tell me that there is no way that such an action would take place without the Supreme Leader's full support and approval. At this point, many tell me we will never know whether there was a gap or not between Iran's chief Ayatollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that took this action.This is just to core of what he wrote. I suggest reading the rest of Steve's article for the context.
If a gap were acknowledged, such information could destabilize Iran on many levels. I think that there was a gap. The more I learn about Iran's power structures and political contours, the more I believe that the arrest of the British soldiers was designed to warn the Supreme Leader Khamenei and other political nodes in Iran that the Revolutionary Guard cannot be pushed, constrained, mismanaged, embarrassed, or forced to accept an acquiescent position on its own nuclear pretensions.I think that the Revolutionary Guard took action first to warn other parts of Iran's political order that it could provoke war whenever it wanted. I think too that the Revolutionary Guard was probably not instructed by Khamenei to conduct the arrest of these soldiers -- though I respect those who see this differently. It's simply too irrational a move for the Supreme Leader to have taken.
This makes a lot more sense to me than does looking at the kidnapping as a message to America or other powers outside Iran. It looks like it was a power move between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG)and the Mullahs who run the country. If the Mullahs were getting ready to negotiate the nuclear development with the UN, this was a statement by the IRG that they will severely damage Iran internationally before giving up their efforts to develop nukes. If this is the case, then the sudden reversal and return of the 15 British was an additional statement (by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who came out of the IRG) that he could be dealt with by the Mullahs, but they were not going to run roughshod over the IRG. So what we watched was internal Iranian politics being played out in the Persian Gulf.
The real problem I see now is that Dick Cheney and the NeoCons will not accept that explanation. It won't suit them, because it means that they and America generally were totally irrelevant to the whole drama except as spectators. Cheney and the NeoCons are going to believe that it was all played out to send THEM a message, because no one and nothing else besides the big, bad Americans led by Cheney and the NeoCons could possibly be of any importance to the Iranians. Besides, Cheney and the NeoCons take a very simplified view of nations. When a nation takes international actions, those actions must have been approved by the government. There are no sub-governmental units which can act unilaterally without the blessing of the governmental leaders. [That is their complaint with Nancy Pelosi talking to the Syrians, for example.)
So if Cheney and the NeoCons don't believe in an Iranian internal politics explanation for the kidnapping of the 15 British military people, the question is going to be what the Americans can do to Iran because of the kidnapping. Iran will have to be punished for what they did. Since it will be based on assumptions having little or no connection to reality, once again we will see Cheney and the NeoCons prove their utter incompetence at running government.
Let's hope Cheney and the NeoCons aren't allowed to do anything as stupid as they usually do. We really won't like the results if they slip the leash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)