Iran's dangerous gamble in Syria

Iran has recently decided to deploy 15,000 troops to help Syria’s dictator Assad. A prominent Syrian lawmaker said that the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force has already arrived in the country to help manage Assad’s regime brutal suppression of an 11-month-long popular unrest.

A number of news sources, including al Arabiya news channel and Jewish newspaper Haaretz have reported the Iranian intervention, but neither has called for involvement of Western or Arab powers to counterbalance the Iranian involvement or to entrap Iran in a civil war. On the other hand, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al-Qaida, has called on Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to join fight against 'pernicious, cancerous regime' of Assad.

The Arab requests for UN involvement in Syria have been stymied by Russia and China, which vetoed the latest resolution of the UN Security Council (UNSC) called for a transition to democracy in Syria. To Syrian people the impotence of the Western powers is indistinguishable from a fundamental lack of concern for human rights.

The side effect of the over-reliance of US to the UN has be to allow Al-Zawahiri, the leader of the Sunni fundamentalists of al-Qiada, to take advantage of the resulting silence of the UNSC and to claim the high moral ground. There's is another cost to this American lapse - Al-Zawahiri's call will further contribute to the increase of sectarian (Sunni-Shiite) tension. It is ironic, but many of the Sunni insurgents who were given free pass by the Syrian dictator Assad to enter Iraq to fight in a jihad against the Americans are now flooding back and joining the Free Syrian Army. These insurgents are turning the weapons and expertise against the Syrians and Iranian regimes, which first set them loose upon the Americans.

Another sign of sectarian conflict is that Sunni Hamas, which had its safe-haven in Damascus, has been forced to find another home for its headquarters. Hamas politburo chief Khalid Mashaal met Jordan king Abdullah II at the Raghadan Palace in Amman at the end of January 2012. King Abdullah refused to take Hamas back onto the Jordanian territory, from which Palestinians were forcibly ejected in late 1970's.

The religious fault-lines between the Sunni majority and the Alawite minority of the rulers in Syria, and its Shiite enablers (Hezbollah and Iran), has the potential to widen the civil war in Syria into a religious conflict that could engulf the Middle East.

Consider this headline from UK's Telegraph : "Assad's gunmen 'murder three entire families in Homs'". Islam is a major force behind the Arab Spring, and has long been of the major elements which define and separate people in the Middle East. When these people think about involvement of Iran in Syria they see them through the prism of religious terms, which I've added in italics into a quote from the article:

[Alawite and Shiite] Gunmen loyal to President Bashar al Assad murdered three entire families [of Sunni's] in Homs on the night of Ferbruary 7th, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

How should the U.S. and Europe act in this situation? To help the Syrian opposition openly, means to become responsible for its conduct, which entails problems such as those of newly liberated Libya. To remain on the sidelines, as the Obama administration has done in 2009 after the Green Revolution in Iran, when the youth protested a stolen election was clearly a lost opportunity, which further diminished the American standing in the region, in terms of both Realpolitik as moral authority. There is a middle ground, which Obama has (inappropriately) pursued in Egypt -- calling for the ouster of a brutal dictator.

Regardless of the eventual outcome of the civil war in Syria, the U.S. should be on the record doing everything possible politically to provide support to the people's right for self-determination. That Syria is becoming an Islamist country, unlike Egypt, would not be such a grave loss for the American interests in the region. Egypt's authoritarian rule was friendly to the U.S., while Syria is a key ally of Iran, and one of the main sources of volatility in the region.

Iran's support of the bloody repression of a civic uprising in Syria showcases the brutal nature of theocracy and its willingness since its inception to export violence outside its borders. The involvement of the Iranian proxy Hezbollah and especially of its handlers in Al Quds Force (a part of the are Republican guard) in helping Assad's forces to butcher his people, presents a unique opportunity for the West to reclaim the moral high ground, and the deliver a strong blow to the Iranian regime.

Iranian hand in suppression of a civil uprising in another country exposes it to similar dangers that entrapped the Americans in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. Conflicts against people and ideas are much more complicated to win than conflicts against armies and governments. Syrian diaspora is a reservoir of opposition and a permanent lobby for Arab and Western support at the grass-roots levels, beyond Assad's control. Such a movement is virtually impossible to stamp out. Iran needs to prop-up Syria, but bringing in its forces into the ravaged country holds great risks for the mullahs. It is an opportunity for the Saudis and Turks, among other Sunnis, to push back against the Iranian hegemony in the region.

The West should not miss the opportunity provided by direct Iranian involvement in Syria. The former chief of Mossad Efraim Halevy, said two weeks ago that the Syrian unrest an "enormous opportunity", because "what happens in Damascus will impact all the Middle East." The same day, WSJ columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote about Syria: "It’s not just about freedom".

I would go further - the Syrian situation should be viewed by the West through the prism of national security - it is an opportunity to deliver a body blow to Iranian theocracy. It is important for the West to act in accordance with its belief in the right of people for self-determination; however, such altruism is not sufficient to warrant action by itself. Furthermore, West has a terrible record trying to transplant democracy in the Middle East (and is struggling even to maintain democracy in its own lands). The only thing the West can do is to provide a principled stance - to deny the murderous Assad's regime any legitimacy, and deliver a potentially fatal wound to the Iranian theocracy.

For the US to really take bring pressure on Assad would require the Obama administration to admit that it's hopes to turn Assad into a 'reformer' of Syria were completely naive, as was its cuddling of Russia and soft approach to Iran. The opinion of the top Republican on the Armed Services committee, Arizona Senator John McCain, that the U.S. should consider "all options including arming the opposition" did not sway the Obama administration, however. "We never take anything off the table. The president does (or) doesn't. However, as the president himself made absolutely clear and as the secretary has continued to say, we don't think more arms into Syria is the answer," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

This is the cheap defense of an equivocation trying to conceal a negative answer - the administration refused even to send medicine to the embattled Syrians.In a recent article in The Huffington Post, Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, wrote that there is a double standard in the United States' reaction to the unrest in Syria compared to Libya: "We're not doing enough." "It's clear that this administration is sitting back on its laurels in Libya, and as a result the Syrian people are paying the price for the administration's reluctance under the argument it doesn't want to militarize the situation any further. It really needs to get more involved".

'Stimulus', Iranian-style.

There is no shortage of naivete in the West, so its leaders may not wise up to the dual benefits of siding with the majority of the Syrian people in time. It's ironic, that almost exactly five years ago the Syrian dictator Assad repeated his lies about lack of involvement in facilitating terrorism in Iraq to ABC's Diane Sawyer. Assad said, "If you stoke [terrorism], it will burn you. So if we have this chaos in Iraq, it will spill over to Syria … So saying this [that Syria aids Iraq's insurgency], it's like saying that the Syrian government is working against the Syrian interest."

The Iranian's made a great strategic mistake by getting involved in Syria, because now the Sunni insurgents have something truly worthwhile to do - save their coreligionists from butchery by apostate Shiites and Alawites. The two dictatorships will stoke the antagonism of the Sunnis and undermine their standing in the region. Fortunately, the West cannot cut any deals with either the butchering Syrians or the intransigent Iranians to muck this up.

Ayatollah calls for genocide

Last Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Ayatolah Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” that is Israel. This statement was seen by some in the West as mere rhetoric, but today the Iranian government, through a website proxy , has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews everywhere.

The doctrine states that because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a preemptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues. The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

This announcement comes on the heel of Iran's successful launch of a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program. In addition Iran’s Defense Ministry announced this weekend that it test-fired an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile.

Hatred so intense it make an old man perspire.

Some time ago, I wrote an article making fun of Ayatollah's pathological hatred, effectively suggesting he needs to be medicated. If he was in the West, he probably would be a nasty crank, who could be managed with the right pills. But in Iran, he can lead a nation and openly call for genocide.

Unfortunately, we cannot medicate foreign leaders, no matter how much it would help them. Only one kind of cure remains - regime change. Nobody wants to do it, but the alternatives of merely taking out nuclear facilities, etc. are anti-Machiavellian. This man is an implacable enemy of US ('the great satan') and Israel, which it won't even dignify by naming, calling it a cancerous growth. Europe is also in Ayatollah's sights, after freezing the Iran's central banks assets, and beginning to institute an oil embargo.

Japan found itself in a similar economic blockade after US placed an embargo on the oil in the West Indies. It chose to strike first, hitting Peal Harbor. In its present situation, it's not inconceivable that Iran may opt for a first strike. It has recently demonstrated its willingness to take risks, by attempting to hire Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C. Iran didn't have much concern about collateral damage and the possibility of killing Americans on US soil, either.

Jerusalem Post recently published an article entitled "Israel isn't about to hit Iran: Get used to it!" by Barry Rubin. He is the director of the GLORIA institute, author of many books on the Middle East, who modestly calls himself a 30-year 'student' of the region, and is typically flawless in his analysis. Rubin laid out logical reasons against the Israeli strike: the risks are too high, the benefits are uncertain. However, Ayatollahs deranged, pathological hatred makes Israel's calculation very difficult. Could political and military leaders of a country facing an existential threat take any chances?

If Obama gave support for the 'Persian spring' in 2009, as he did for the 'Arab spring' in 2011, the regime could have been overthrown, or at least completely deligitimized Assad in Syria. Now, unless the US steps up overthrow the mullahs militarily, the only remaining questions appears to be whether Iran or Israel chooses to strike first, and when.

EU sanctions Iran: too little, too late

In response to tough sanctions by EU, Iran said they will 'definitely' be closing the straits of Hormuz, after a meeting of MPs on the 25th of January.

Today Iran announced that it may halt exports to EU next week. The best defense is a good offense - Iran's unexpected action is an attempt to preempt the embarrassing repudiation by Europe, whose sanctions don't fully kick in until July. This move would allow Iran to score politically, despite increased economic difficulties, underscored by Ahmadinejad raising interest on rates of bank deposits to 21% this week. This rate may seem like a fantastic opportunity to make money, but it is merely an attempt to stay ahead of 20% inflation, and was combined with a prohibition to exchange rials for dollars.

A member of the Majlis ("a place of sitting" in Farsi) Energy Committee, Nasser Soudani, said:

“Europe will burn in the fire of Iran’s oil wells,” and sanctions will take their toll on European countries for three reasons. “The first reason is that a number of European countries have no other option besides buying Iran’s oil since the structure of their refineries is compatible with Iran’s oil, and it is difficult for them to replace Iran’s oil. The second reason is that the embargo will cause an increase in oil prices, and the Europeans will be compelled to buy oil at higher prices. The third reason is that the Europeans, due to their need for Iran’s oil, will be compelled to buy Iran’s oil indirectly and through intermediaries, and this will inflict more expenses on them.”

Iran's logic for preemptive action is sound: by the time Europeans have come around to impose real sanctions on Iran their position has changed. The EU froze the assets of the Central Bank of Iran on Monday (January 23rd), but existing contracts will be honored until July 1, in large part because Greece has lucrative contracts with Iran an is unable to afford higher prices. This delay gave Iran a chance to find replacement for it's European contracts, however, they are willing to take an economic hit to score a political blow against EU. The language of Soudani, which is typical of Iran, clearly reveals a desire for some kind of revenge.

The threat to "definitely" close the straits of Hormuz, like Iran's earlier threat to do it, is a bluff. The last time Iran mined the straits of Hormuz, US navy fought in it's heaviest engagement since WWII in Operation Praying Mantis in April 1988, giving Iranian navy such a thrashing that it lost the will to fight, and hobbled back to port. Iran knows that if it initiates hostilities it will not only imperil its navy, but open its nuclear facilities to attack as an "integral part" of US response.

Iranian frigate IS Sahand burning from bow to stern on 18 April 1988
 after being attacked during Operation Praying Mantis.

The hostilities are likely to remain on the economic plane, and be supplemented with covert operations. Two can play this game. US has a special operations team in the area, the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council (JSOTF-GCC). Although JSOTF-GCC is primarily a training team, it represents another military option for the U.S. in the region during at a time of escalating rhetoric with Iran.

The previous time Iranians threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, and warned US warship not to return, US navy did just that sending two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups through the strait of Hormuz, accompanied by HMS Argyll and one French ship. Despite the Iran threat U.S. aircraft carrier group went through the strait of Hormuz without incident. British defense ministry spokesman, who was not named per policy, said that the "HMS Argyll and a French vessel joined a U.S. carrier group" went through the strait "to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law."

"Closing Hormuz is a myth. Iran tried to do that for eight years during the (1980s) Iran-Iraq war, and it wasn't successful even for one hour," said Mustafa Alani, head of Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center. US recognizes Iranian bluster for what it is, so the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said the U.S. could reopen the waterway by force have an elite commando team to handle the more probable attempts by Iran to fight back using asymmetric warfare.

Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, tried to renew pressure on the elites gathered at World Economic Forum at Davos: ""We are determined to prevent Iran from turning nuclear. It seems to us to be urgent, because the Iranians are deliberately drifting into what we call an immunity zone where practically no surgical operation could block them."

French oil major Total has stopped buying oil from Iran in line with new EU sanctions introduced on Monday, January 23rd. It's chief executive Christophe de Margerie has explained at World Economic Forum at Davos why he is sceptical of the political decision:

I think [Iran's] oil will go somewhere else... Iran may give a discount to make it easier and quicker but nothing will change.

So, while Iran is wisely avoiding overt conflict with US navy, it shows no signs of backing down in the face of EU sanctions. They are too little, too late.

Riding out the perfect storm of 2012

To weater the gathering perfect storm US needs to keep to minds its business, and avoid adventures into the turbulent waters abroad.

In the ocean, rogue waves form where strong ocean currents intersect, but they can travel too. In the air, collision of highly mobile weather systems over weather can produce perfect storms. These are less regular than ocean currents, but the presence of several intense systems is good indication of trouble.

Economic and political trends going into 2012, show a similar presence of multiple intense 'systems':
Europe is likely to undergo protracted political and economic slide, and will be very needy and self-centered.

Middle East has given rise to the Arab spring, with hopes are being replaced by harsh realities. In most countries where new situation is possible: Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt the democratic forces are weaker than either Islamic factions or the military. Terrible pictures from this weekend in Egypt prove, among other things, that the interests of military are not identical with those of the democratic forces, or the public at large. During Lybia's civil war there a wave of refugees set of for Europe. In fact, the whole point of US military intervention was to help Europe manage a military and immigration situation on it's periphery. Europe will be less able to provide US assistance with continuing trouble in the Middle East as their intense economic difficulties.

In Asia there are new realities that spell trouble. A newly assertive China has recently launched a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier. Even Vietnam turned to US recently asking to help safeguards it's rights in the South China Sea, which China's first step to re-establishing itself as a maritime superpower centuries after their great exploration came a sudden stop. We could expect the same from the new China, as the old:
In 1405, the emperor Zhu Di who recently usurped the dragon throne needed to legitimize his rule and sent out a great maritime expedition led by his talented slave who became a navigator: “Zheng He has been sent overseas with gifts to declare my will. It is forbidden to bully small and weak nations”.
Officially, the maritime expeditions sought peace and friendship, but in reality achieved economic and political domination wherever they passes. “The Chinese simply arranged to replace unfriendly leaders in countries where they encountered difficulties with someone willing to trade on their terms”, summarized Louise Levathes in her book 'When China ruled the seas'.

North Korea's old leader Kim Jung Il finally died today of a heart attack. He's been replaced by his unknown play-boy son. Recently, South Koreans expressed their fears that passing of the old leader could lead to instability. North Korea is one of the most repressive nations on earth, John Bolton correctly called it 'a horrible nightmare', and this is one of the few instances when some change in that horrible situation is possible. Forgive me, if I don't pine to status quo with any zeal. Of course, destruction of the nepotistic Stalinist regime could be a very, very painful process.

Russia is in revolutionary throes. The most likely outcome appears to be increasing modern, non-lethal repression and victory of Putin in March's elections. His angry and provocative disrespect of demonstrators is increasing the scepticism of the weary public beyond thresholds which even the stout Russian soul can tolerate. It likely outcome, is a restive populace fighting modern surveillance and repression through demonstrations, and civil disobedience. The opposition to Putin is committed to non-violent means, but the question remains can they make it impossible for him to govern?

Iran has delivered a public humiliation to Barack Obama and his administration by belittling his pleas to get RQ-170 spy plane back. Given the relationship between the countries, and the spying on Iran the drone was likely involved in, there was absolutely no reason for US to subject itself to this humiliation. On top of an intelligence and technology fiasco, it gave the perception of impotence which is very dangerous in the region. Besides, do we need to give mullahs any more confidence, while they defying the world to build nuclear weapons? Iranians have recently flaunted on of their cards by holding an exercise to close the straits of Hormuz, through which a thirds of the worlds oil is shipped.

Israel is surrounded by Hizbollah, Hamas and it's ally Palestian Authority, an increasingly hostile Egypt while threats Iran makes periodic threats of annihilation. If Israel is forced to acts against Iran without direct involvement by US things would be very ugly.

United States will have to deal with a lot even before elections in presidential elections on November 2012. We can expect no leadership from Obama. I foresee a sole exception: Obama may allow an Israeli strike on Iran in the late summer of 2012, not to help Israel, but to score political points. The Supreme Court is going to rule on Obamacare in the summer, in the heat of the political battles. Things are getting hot. And we need a cool-headed leader. Recently, I wrote an article explaining why think that Romney is be the best candidate in 2012 GOP field. Romney has strong credentials and interest in domestic politics. He is relatively weak and disinterested in foreign relations.

Considering the gathering perfect storm of 2012 I see Romney more favorably because of this limitation.

With the exception of Iranian crisis, the best strategy for the US is to get its own house in order and away from the world's troubles. The world will long for the good old days of 'US hegemony', when it tried too hard to solve the worlds problems. The war in Iraq is a sad example. For the cost of hundreds of billions and several thousand lives of US armed forces, what have we achieved?
We removed a major counter-weight to Iran, and replaced it with a democracy which is already under Iranian influence.

Syria. There little motivation for US to get involved with Syria. After all US got involved in Lybia's conflict to help Europe (primarily Italy) secure its borders against refugee flux, not Lybia's quest for self-determination. I am not suggesting any military involvement in Syria, but taking a clear moral stand. Even the dictator's club of Arab league has denounced Assad more strongly that US under Obama. Obama's term was very expensive for the US, and abroad; nobody can afford another.

To weather the coming perfect storm US needs to forgo invasive foreign policy and simply get its economy in order. Meanwhile, we should express outrage against violence in Egypt, and ballot stuffing in Russia, etc. but limit ourselves to the right words, even if the world burns around us.

Iran threatens closing straits of Hormuz

This is not WW3; this is only a test. Still, the closing of the straits of Hormuz, through which 1/3 or world's crude passes daily, for a 'training exercise' is serious saber rattling. Iran's energy minister told Al Jazeera last month that Tehran could use oil as a political tool in the event of any future conflict over its nuclear program.

                                                 Are these nutcases covering up their chuckles, 

                                         as they contemplate plunging millions into abyss of a war? 

Iranian leadership is a breed apart. They reinforce their rightful image of a mad dog that attacks anything in sight when the announced today: "If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure." Not only is this a psychopathic projection of aggression, it also reflects illusions of grandeur and narcissistic tendencies of the fatal kind.

Only one strategy will work in dealing with Iran: regime change.

Tell me how you really feel

Below is a fanciful account of the situation in Iran, based on a Haaretz article.

Reclining on a comfortable sofa was an elderly man dressed in strict black robes, with a flowing white beard. He rolled his eyes thoughtfully to the ceiling.

‘No, I’ve never been there’, he said scornfully, without looking up at the psychiatrist, who had the habit of doodling on his notepad, as he questioned his most tedious patients. He believed not looking at them directly reduced the pressure on patients, and made them relax.

The Supreme Leader would not relax, however. ‘Moreover, you will henceforth refer to it as the Zionist Entity, doctor’, he added sternly. ‘It’s a cancerous growth, and shall be removed’, he added vehemently, his fists clenched, his eyes bulging with emotion.

‘Isn’t the two-state solution encouraging? Wouldn’t that be nice?’

‘I hope their bid (UN state application) fails, and they see that they have no option but to fight.’ He was an angry old man. Prozac, or Lithium - thought the doctor vacantly doodling an elaborate peacock tail – or maybe both.

‘What a sham’, went on the bitter man on the couch, ‘the Palestinians should never settle for *some* of the land. Palestine spans from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Middeterannian), nothing less.’

‘If you could send Palestine a message what would be it be?’

‘Start killing the Jews, already!’

Alas, the presence of a medical specialist is entirely fictional. The physchiatrist ready to help a cantankerous old man was not there, however the patient is, and is in charge of a country one the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Noone was. The Supreme Leader, Khameni, does in fact lead a nation, as a theocracy. His word is the closest thing to the word of god. So, when Khamenei told the "5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada" in Iran’s capital Tehran that was attended by other by senior Palestinian militant leaders, that the Palestinians should not limit themselves to seeking a country based on the pre-1967 borders because "all land belongs to Palestinians”, they rested easy in the knowledge that the planned genocide was sponsored by god all along.

Nobody was surprised when Hamas leader Khaled Meshal agreed with his paymasters; in addressing the conference he said "resistance" is the only option left for the Palestinians.

Having affirmed that genocide in the holy land is still the logical solution the two leaders and their genocidal cohorts had tea with sweets.

Germans genocide of the Jews, at least, became the ‘final’ solution amidst the ruin of total war, and was largely hidden from the public. The latest breed of genocidal wannabes considers genocide the only solution and sees nothing wrong with discussing it in public. They even have adopted pseudo-democratic language - the "5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada" sounds much cleaner than “Let’s kill the Jews in the Holy Land”. The latter is a type of slogan commonly held up at the demonstrations, or written on the sides of busses that transport massed to these hate-fests. In international circles you still want a veneer of decency. Of course, it’s preposterous to this this fools anyone; however this of English language and democratic structures was learned by Tehran directly from the successful and long-lasting duplicity at UN Human Rights committee. Tehran was also successful at stymying reviews by the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) for the same period as they held international conferences to extoll the benefits of genocide.

Could this boldness also have anything to do with the permissiveness of the West, such as is repeatedly seen in London where explicit calls to violence by Islamists right in from of 10 Downing St. go unchallenged?

And so Middle East burns and sizzles, while the West fiddles.

Written on 10/01/11