Subscribe to Desicritics
The Great Satan, The Wounded Snake - The U.S.-Iran Imbroglio
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
The idea for this essay was borne when several aspects came together. The first was when I heard on the Sky News channel that the Americans were complaining about the fact that several Iraqi road side bombs were either designed in or actually being constructed in Iran. The view that there is a nexus between Iran and Iraq has been endorsed by Condoleezza Rice, who said a few months ago that Iran "does need to understand that it is not going to improve its own situation by stirring instability in Iraq," and by George W. Bush, who said, in August, that "Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold" in Iraq. Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, of Abu Gharib fame, wrote recently: "More and more people see the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq." The second aspect emerged when I was trying to write about the future of Iraq and the fact that Iraq as we know it now doesn't really have any strongly unifying national ethos or ideology. The final aspect came up when I was reading Robert Fisk's magnum opus, The Great War for Civilization - the Conquest of the Middle East. My overall thoughts at the end of all this was, Lord, I hope Dubya doesn't attack Iran, because if he does, it will be yet another spectacular mistake.
I have already written about Iran and its nukes and why attacking Iran won't be such a good idea, but the more I read about the happenings in the USA, the more worried I get. I am seriously concerned about President George Bush, his cabinet, the armed forces and the GOP's ideas. Slowly and surely, as of middle of February 2007, the noises around attacking Iran are steadily becoming more and more cacophonous. Seymour Hersh further wrote recently that U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack — "much more than we know". There is not much point going on about the respective strengths of the militaries, the local geo-political situation or the possibility of non-conventional war, as they have been discussed before, but what I do want to concentrate on is what Kautilya has talked about. Kautilya defined the most important aspect of one's enemy as being the enemy's mental strength. In this particular case, I am afraid, Iran is not Iraq. While debating this, we can look at what potential angle to take if the grand panjandrums do want to do something about Iran, purely as a theoretical exercise.
To understand and appreciate the mental strength of your enemy, history is a very good starting point. That allows one to avoid getting sucked into the day to day humdrum aspects of the number of 155 mm guns or the coverage of their air defense network. Persia, the old name of Iran, has an amazing history, almost rivalling that of Egypt. But unlike Egypt, Iran kept hold of its history, its culture, language and ethos, even after the Islamic conquest (something which I find very curious and strange. I intend to explore this strange phenomena in a later essay, and look into how huge blocks of history are simply and explicitly lost. The Iranians kept their pride in their long history. The fact that despite conquering Persia - Alexander the Great ended his life as a Persian with ringlets and huge palaces says a lot.. Their culture in terms of arts is extremely strong., be that painting, famous miniatures, drama, poetry, song or music and is famous across the world. Look at their military strategy, civil administration and judicial systems down the ages. For a long period of human time, Persian / Farsi was known across the world, ranging from China to India as the only civilised language. And believe me, if you hear Farsi, it is such a mellifluous language. Now imagine that lovely language reading the poems of Rumi, Khayam, Ghalib, just to name a few of a long list of famous Persian poets. Even me, a confirmed poetry illiterate know about these great poets and their prolific, lovely and beautiful output.
But besides this, Iran is now the repository of Shia Islam. A particular sect of Islam, (we won't go into the differences and minute details here), suffices to say that it is heavily symbolic in nature and more ritualistic as compared to the more traditional Sunni Islam. Hey, don't quote me on this, I am no theologian, these are just my impressions From a long time ago. I grew up in a Shia Muslim town in India. Muharram, Ashura, the Tajiza processions, the martyrdom of Hussayn and the Ijtema all were pretty much part and parcel of my growing up. Ah! Let me not forget the food during the festivals, the biryani and sweets were heavenly and I can still taste the biryani cooked by Abdul Mian. But one of the downsides (well, when you were a kid, all you wanted was to get to the food) of all this was that you had to sit and hear the stories of Ali Ashgar Ibn Husayn, Ali Akbar Ibn Husayn, Hussayn Ibn Ali, Qasim, etc. And if I, living thousands of miles away from Iran, the homeland of Shia Islam, can get to hear and imbibe all these stirring stories of martyrdom and bravery, you can just imagine a country full of these young chaps, who are full of religiously motivated fervour.
How does this matter? It matters indeed, because of a very small equation. Other things being equal, soldiers seeking religiously mandated martyrdom will always win over soldiers motivated by patriotism or money. This is so obvious that I simply cannot see why the USA would want to make these warlike noises or even consider going to war with Iran. Given the superiority of Iran in its local neighbourhood and the power of the religious pulpit, the USA is never going to win if it goes head to head with Iran. We have already discussed two aspects of a potential Iran USA conflict and concluded that it's simply "nuts", to use a layman's term.
While I am not one to indulge in conspiracy theories, I am getting a feeling that there is something which could be happening just under the surface. You see, this has happened before. At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was on its knees. The huge waves of Iranian warriors overcoming the Iraqi army made its job very difficult. As mentioned by both Dilip Hiro in Iran Today and Robert Fisk, the western and Sunni powers got very worried about the possibility that Iran might win. Combined with very aggressive patrolling of the Persian Gulf, Straits of Hormuz, the blatant crime of shooting down the Iranian Airliner by USS Vincennes (an essay on how the US Navy has shown a rather interesting streak of creating major foreign policy problems for the USA, rather than resolving is in preparation), supply of arms and ammunition to the Iraqis, etc. all put intolerable pressure on the Iranians. And they finally buckled and signed a ceasefire with Iraq. Ayatollah Khomeini said that he has drunk from the poisoned chalice. This ceasefire, from all accounts, was one of the seminal moments of the Iranian Revolution. The Americans with their allies, managed to clip the wings of the Iranian revolution.
Is that what is happening now? Look at the evidence! The Eastern Sunni provinces have seen unexplained bombings. The southern Arab areas have seen riots, shootings, bombings and protests. The Kurds in the north east are restive and are making loud noises about their independent brethren across the border in northern Iraq. The other minorities in North Iran are restless and links between Armenia and the Iranian Armenians are suddenly improving and much better than before. The oil prices are being pushed down strongly. Financial Institutions ranging from the international houses to emerging market banks are heavily withdrawing from any form of financial links with Iran (and there have been public examples of banks being very seriously punished for links with Iran). All this has put immense pressure on Iran's friends and allies such as Japan, India and Pakistan against any form of oil relationships with Iran. International Oil companies are under severe pressure not to do any kind of work with Iran. Then there is the whole different area of pressure around the nuclear issue from IAEA and the UNSC.
Is the USA going around in an indirect way to put pressure on Iran to perhaps withdraw from supporting the Shia Iraqi insurgents as well as Hezbollah, in return for a grudging acceptance of the Iranian bomb? Who knows? Take a look at the short lived story around the claims by the US army that Iran is supplying bombs to the Shia militants. That was such a silly claim (even though it might be true), that I cannot believe that they expected Iran to grind its teeth and admit: "yes sir, yes sir, we did but we won't do it again sir". So, there is definitely something else going on but here's hoping that USA doesn't wage war on Iraq. Covert yes, quite possibly, overt, please no!
All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!
The Great Satan, The Wounded Snake - The U.S.-Iran Imbroglio
Article
- » Published on February 27, 2007
- » Type: Opinion
- » Filed under: .
- » This is part of a regular feature, With a Grain of Salt.
Author: Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » With a Grain of Salt
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Politics: US
- » Politics: War
- » Politics: Middle East
- » Desicritics.org articles by Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
bharath
URL
February 27, 2007
07:44 AM
I had written comments #6 and #7 on this possible war with Iran and why it might not happen. http://desicritics.org/2007/02/26/002600.php
The more one looks, the more it is clear U.S democracy is fragile and people though believe they have a voice are utterly marginalized. It is clear from the fact that a strong anti-war movement before the war could not get 2 minutes in the public sphere.
So, like Seymour Hersh says, perhaps there will be a war and people will be notified later of it when the govt sees fit.
Chandra
URL
February 27, 2007
08:01 AM
BD..One more good piece.......will respond in detail....
It is saddening to hear that the bombing will indeed happen....Poor ordinary Iranians will suffer a lot...and as usual the Iranians will get thrashed by the Americans like nobody's business.......of course no one knows what will happen after the bombing will end.......that is the big unknown!!!
Anamika
URL
February 27, 2007
08:16 AM
Interesting piece BD. I agree with your analysis for most part. I think going into Iran would be foolhardy for the US (but isn't going to stop them).
How will the US take on a people willing to send out 12 year old boys to be "martyrs" and who celebrate the martyrs of their last war with a fountain spouting blood red liquid!! I
I also think it is important to note that Iran fought a proxy war with Iraq and basically took on the might of the US-led Western world, and at a time it was barely functional economically or politically. And yet it fought for eight years before accepting the treaty.
Many with a longer view of history (as many Iranians hold) would tell you that Iran in the long term "won" that war with Iraq (see where Iraq stands today).
I do so hope that sense shall prevail in Washington DC and they won't go into Iran. In comparison, Iraq will seem a playground squabble.
But that hope gives way before evidence of mounting war rhetoric. Wonder if this will be the "quagmire" that brings down the American empire?
bd
February 27, 2007
11:15 AM
thanks guys
i dont think USA will go for an overt war, covert war seems to work. I hope so!
Chandra
URL
February 27, 2007
11:50 AM
There has been a buzz about covert war and the killed of 11 members of the Qod forces in eastern Iran is being bandied as an example.....My point is will the Iranians not respond by tightening the screws in Iraq itself? Too many ifs and buts....the next 6 months are going to be very interesting!!!!
bd
February 27, 2007
01:53 PM
Chandra #5, most of the IED attacks on the allied forces in Iraq were done by the Sunni forces, and if you look at what Seymour Hersh is saying, and if you believe in what he says, then if Iran does ratchet up the pressure, the americans will be out of there in a flash because their lives will be made very difficult.
Not only that, dont forget that baluchistan and western afganistan (herat and environs) are also iranian influence territory, so they can make life very difficult but I personally think the mullah's will back down.
cheers
bd
Ruvy in Jerusalem
February 28, 2007
02:31 AM
Another interesting article, bd.
I suggest that there is no nuclear threat from Iran to anybody. They do not appear to have the materials to fill missiles with either fission or fusion bombs - at least not at present.
But they do present a missile threat to the entire Middle East, and to parts of Europe, and should their ambitions take them in that direction, to the Indian sub-continent, though presently that threat would appear trumped by Indian and Pakistani nuclear capabilities...
One need not fire only nuclear weapons in missiles. One can send biological agents, nuclear waste, and poison gas. In addition, one can load the missiles with standard explosives. The Azrieli Tower in Tel Aviv is just as susceptible to destruction from a conventional missile as a nuclear one.
Finbally, with respect to Israel specifically, (remember, Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders in the past have called for the end of this country's existence), the threat also comes from HizbAllah, a Persian puppet.
For this reason, it is in Israel's interest to attempt a pre-emptive strike to at least weaken Iran. I do not see that happening. But all those American ships in the Persian Gulf are not there for a vacation...
Ruvy in Jerusalem
February 28, 2007
02:34 AM
By the way, I agree with Anamikas's assessment that America's involvement in this region, first with Iraq and prospectively with Iran, will be what brings the American empire tumbling down...
BD
URL
February 28, 2007
06:00 AM
Ruvy
Anybody who has missiles poses a threat to others. Russia has missiles, Ukraine has missiles, Iran already has missiles, Saudi Arabia has missiles, everybody has missiles.
Second, payloads. dollar for dollar, a fuel air explosive payload is cheaper and more cost effective, so you dont really need big hulking nukes. So if Iran did want to obliterate Israel, it could have already done so.
So in the greater scheme of things, threats need to be managed. War is a very stupid way of managing threats. Pre-emptive strikes are not possible by Israel and USA. So, its covert war all over the place and given the current political situation, i think that will work out.
As for Hizballah, well, what can I say, Ruvy. I am very disappointed in Israel's inability to handle those buggers. But there you go! I think the Israeli army needs couple of defeats to understand the rules of the game have changed. Lebanon gave them twice, but to what extent it has learnt, I am not sure.
Ah! well.
cheers
bd
Chandra
URL
February 28, 2007
07:41 AM
As "surrender M******" President Chirac once said, Iran would be wiped out of the map before a single missile took off from Teheran for Tel Aviv.
The first gossip I am hearing is that Pakistan and Iran are considering the option of arming the Taliban in order to bleed NATO.
The second gossip I am hearing is that the Saudis and Iranians have signed a deal that will allow the gradual weakening of the Hizbollah. Good for Israel eh!...Of course the Makkah agreement is not positive for Israel at all.......
BD,
I agree with you. as much as I can see the Americans indulging in a covert war, I can also see the possibility of NATO bleeding in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Secondly, the whole timelines for covert/ overt action are going to be under tremendous pressure should the "surge" in Iraq fail. This month has seen 80 odd casualities and no let up in bombings and civilian casualties.
Like I said, we are living in interesting time....and I hope the mullahs compromise.....It is a wise thing to fight your battles when you are the strongest, not when you are all set for a second round of sanctions.....
BD
URL
February 28, 2007
08:53 AM
chandra
also dont forget that the bazaari's are squealing very hard because the sanctions are biting very hard in turn. The mullah's oil infrastructure is crumbling, the regime has to spend its crude money on refined oil product imports.
Also, reflect on another related point. The number of airplane crashes with senior commanders (of the army and revolutionary guard) is now running at roughly 1-2 per month. Bad maintainance is one reason, but wow, I would have expected planes carrying senior chaps to be checked deeply.
Chandra
URL
February 28, 2007
10:38 AM
Did you know that they bought a lot of refined petroleum from india?
The bazaar is indeed a barometer of how things would proceed. I have not heard about the plane crashes ...But i did hear about a top nuclear scientist getting killed.
A summary of overt/ covert actions so far
Jan 9th 2006: The commanders who died in the crash included Brigadier General Ahmad Kazemi, commander of the IRGC Ground Forces and a rising star in Iran's radical Islamist military, Brigadier General Saeed Mohtadi, commander of the IRGC's 27 Mohammad Division, Brigadier General Hanif, Director of Intelligence of the IRGC Ground Forces, Brigadier General Soleimani, Director of Operations of the IRGC Ground Forces, and Brigadier General Yazdani, Commander of the IRGC Artillery (What kind of idiots travel in a single plane?????)
06 May 2006: A group opposed to the government of Iran announced on Saturday that its members had executed a local commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in the south-eastern province of Sistan-va-Baluchistan.
September 4, 2006. Iran Plane Crash Kills Dozens
An Iranian passenger plane skidded off the runway while landing and raked its wing along the ground, sparking a fire that killed 29 of the 148 people on board in the latest deadly crash of a Russian-made aircraft. (Civilians only)
September 9 2006: The U.S. government imposed sanctions on an Iranian bank on Friday,
The move against Bank Saderat was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for alleged terrorist groups, including Hezbollah.
October 18th: Head of top Iran bank fired after U.S. sanctions imposed
Wed. 18 Oct 2006
Iran Focus
Tehran, Iran, Oct. 18 -Hamid Borhani, who headed Bank Saderat Iran, was fired for failing to cooperate with the government on credit provisions that have been pledged by hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as part of his populist platform. (wonder why)
Nov 27, 2006: Iran military plane crash kills 38 . A Iranian military plane belonging to the Revolutionary Guards crashed on Monday, killing 38 people, state television reported.
It identified the dead as 35 Guards and three crew. An official at Tehran's Mehrabad airport told state radio all those on board had been killed but did not give a figure
Jan 9: 2007, Designation of Bank Sepah for
Facilitating Iran's Weapons Program
Feb 05, 2007: Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran, reported that nuclear physicist Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, had died in mysterious circumstances.
Feb 14, 2007: A car bomb attack killed at least 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard in southeastern Iran this morning, according to state media. The Fars news agency said a dissident Sunni group had claimed responsibility for the blast.
FEBRUARY 21: India today imposed a ban on export of any material and technology to Iran that could be used in development of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The decision is in compliance with last year's UN Security Council resolution
feb 21: The Russian nuclear equipment and services monopoly said Wednesday it has sent its Iranian partners a timeframe for settling an outstanding debt on construction of a nuclear power plant in southern Iran. Pavlov said the construction of the Bushehr NPP could take more time than expected. But Mohammad Saidi, the deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, said Monday there had been no delays in payments to Russia for the construction of a nuclear plant in Iran.
Feb 26, 2007: TEHRAN: At least 13 soldiers, including two Revolutionary Guards commanders, were killed when an Iranian military helicopter crashed near the border with Turkey on Saturday, Iran's student news agency ISNA reported on Monday
Feb 26: Media reports in the Arab world suggested, however, that President General Pervez Musharraf aims to establish a Sunni alliance to confront rising influence of Iran in the region."This is not designed to isolate any country," Mr Erdogan told the Qatari-based Al Jazeera television network. "It should not be taken from this (point of view)," he said in the interview recorded in Istanbul. The foreign ministers belonging to Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia laid the groundwork for a summit of Muslim leaders at an unspecified date in Makkah.
BD
URL
February 28, 2007
10:59 AM
no, i didnt know about where they bought the refined POL stuff from but the fact that they are purchasing from India does come as a surprise to me. Quite interesting!
speaks volumes about our internal transport infrastructure that we are able to export but not circulate internally!
but there you go with the plane crashes! :)
ok, now I have to go off and listen to the head of the Iraqi counter insurgency forces who is going tell us all about what a wonderful job he is doing :)
cheers
bd
Anamika
URL
February 28, 2007
01:33 PM
BD - mostly agree with your analysis. However, I think there is a major player that is being left out of the US in Iran analysis (not just here but in the US): Russia - which has huge petroleum, but also other interests.
I wouldn't discount the bear in geostrategy - which is the way most West is going.
Interestingly enough Khaled Meshal (Hamas) - post Mecca agreement and just this past week - was in Moscow and the boycott pact seems to have been broken by Russia.
As Chandra says - we do live in interesting times!
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/4589)