I have to admit, events in the old neighborhood have lowered my morale quite a bit. It occurs to me that Iran lies right between Iraq and Afghanistan, and that just seems about right to me. All depressing places, worse these days.
Firstly, and absolutely- I have no illusion that military action was necessary. They intended to use the bomb when they had it ready and kill millions. This resulting in nuclear genocide and that further, and possibly literal- realization of the Book of Revelation.
Let us just mull a bit on those two words for a quick second. Nuclear. Genocide.
Military action at the very minimum prevented this, at least for a while. Iran could not have the bomb- and now they will not have it. Or should not have it. Or will likely not have it. Maybe……yes maybe not have it. If we roll in the direction we are going, “maybe” is about as good as we can get.
I do not wish for this to sound like a criticism of the Trump administration, and I have in the front of my mind that they know something that I do not. I keep waiting for this epiphany, this major strategic move that serves me as an Ah-ha moment, and when we go further down the rabbit hole absent either Ah or ha, I am beginning to doubt that we have this card up our sleeve.
What follows is a list of problems that I see, and bear in mind that this analysis is apolitical, and your humble correspondent cannot see what our elected leadership can. These are simply my concerns, submitted for your consumption.
- Bombing campaigns do not, or cannot, affect outcomes on the ground.
Military targets can be eliminated from 30,000 feet, but people cannot be controlled except from at ground level, by someone with a rifle. Unless we have someone with a rifle making sure that what Iran is agreeing to is the ground truth, then it is always a maybe. Possibly, that is why it is called the “ground truth?”
Commitment of a ground force means that the military operation enters a phase that no one is really looking forward to or happy about, and clearly the administration is avoiding. But it must be done, by someone. The first, neat and tidy option was the Kurds, who literally took the money and ran. Next was promoting an internal civil war, and that won’t happen either, at least until the ground offensive is about over and obviously won.
A ground campaign means deaths, and worst still the necessity for subsequent national building. We have never gotten that one right. It must be done, absolutely, but it must be done smartly and in a method that time durable. Major, heavy lift.
The best of the worst courses does involve ground invasion, and some other proxy see to the task of nation building. The fact that we cannot really be particular about the record of that proxy in terms of human rights, or be selective in how they treat people- well, this is something that we must both face and accept.
- The Blockade/ Isolation is defensive
Isolation is a great move strategically, provided it does three things. First, is that it must be sustainable. We have the military to do that, but I am unsure of the political durability, on the world stage especially. Start with a siege, or blockade, or quarantine, it must be permanent.
Next, is that it needs to deprive the enemy of something that he desperately needs, essentially something that he cannot live without. If survival is the question those blockaded will be motivated. If it is not a matter of survival, the enemy can wait. If it’s money, well, that can be lived without for much longer than food and water.
Lastly, it does not produce a victory, as it is defensive and not decisive. Defense has no initiative, and without initiative, no obtainment of objective. Things that are defensive in nature are at best transitional, and require a second step that is offensive. Think of a boxer that only blocks punches. He will do so to tire his opponent, and if he is masterful, he will succeed in tiring out his opponent, to the point of being helpless. But, if does not throw a punch, he will not win.
- The Iranian people have an extraordinarily high threshold of pain
Threshold of pain strategies only work if the people are not used to pain. Living in Iran these days, the locals are quite used to it. A matter of character, certainly, but also of religion. The Shiite Persian added a 6th pillar of faith to Islam, “self-sacrifice.”
If they are not scared of bombs, they are not scared of threats. We cannot bomb then into the stone age, if they already live there.
- The Iranian Government will lie, and lie, and lielielielie……..
The Iranian Supreme Executive promotes the Iranian version of God as his advisor. God gives the direction, the SE executes. Involving God, as they have done and continue to do places the negotiations outside of the political. They can and have said, “these things are ok with me, but God objects.” God is a useful ally, when pain is applied.
Diplomacy will never be in good faith, because God has the latitude to change his mind. Evidently, their God does this a great deal. God also forgives them if they are intentional about their lying.
If we believe we are close to a deal, and negotiations are going the way we expect, God may change his mind, and they are back to launching missiles. As such, diplomatic negotiations are next to useless. God/ Allah- will have to be beaten out of them. Again, not by bombs.
- We are looking at the issue from an American perspective
The most intelligent thing that can be done at this point, is to acknowledge that understanding of the Iranian character is a mystery to our frame of reference. We overestimate our advantages in military technology, and this is our largest fault. We underestimate the resolve of the Iranian people; a people naturally disposed to doing without.
We underestimate the durability of the Iranian authority. They know how to maintain security. They know that their main ally is time. They know how to wear us down and seek a political solution that is permissive. They know that a US ground invasion is their only threat, and afterwards in three years’ time such a war would be called off by a presumably Democratic resident of the White House. They have read Osama Bin Laden, and they know how quickly the American people tire of such things.
We underestimate their ability as rational human beings to find a diplomatic agreement. They lie for time and will do so within their interests. If we seek traditional American diplomacy, they will always disappoint.
Of course, I am of the opinion that the solution(s), while complex, are real but few.
Firstly, and this sounds counter-intuitive, is to find our ground proxy with the IRGC. The gravity of such a plan is that it does not require nation building afterwards, or repeat the mistakes made in Iraq with De-Baathification.
Essentially, let it be known to those parties that someone brave enough to take that step would be backed by the US. “Who wants to run this country?” Trading one despot for another, without question is harsh, but without nukes, we can live with such a thing.
Find another ground proxy, UAE, Saudi Arabia, whomever. Likely this is a follow-on- “phase 2” after a successful ground invasion with heavy US involvement. Several problems here, and the Emirates and the Saudi’s see it- so that may be a hard sell.
Do it all ourselves, and take the country from them. This is depressing. Truly executable militarily, but our weak underbelly is the political division, and in a few years will be all done for nothing. As time goes on, and as much as I and we do not like this, it is the only option that we can control totally, and it may be necessary. We will have to be satisfied that whatever political on the ground outcome will be nuke free, and this is as good as it gets.
Iran cannot have nukes. Nuclear genocide……is bad. Blockade is defensive and requires a follow-on mission. Air is great, ground is final, and if we cannot find someone else to do it, we’ll have to do it ourselves. Look at the issue from the Iranian perspective, and cease applying American expectations. And, anyway it goes, it is going to be a mess.