How To Attack Iran Without Firing A Shot
The Iranian government is facing a serious crisis of their own making, and that crisis is about to get worse over the next 60 days. Most of us are aware of the international pressure the regime faces, and despite the light tone of the sanctions so far, they are having an effect in the form of serious capital flight from the country. Foreign banks are reluctant to finance any projects in the country while the threat of more sanctions looms, and even domestic investment capital is shifting to more investment-friendly places like Dubai. This is forcing the Iranian government to self-fund their own projects, and theyre getting the money by siphoning an ever-increasing slice of national oil revenues. The result is that investment in vital energy infrastructure is plummeting, and dire predictions are being made about Irans ability to continue producing oil at current levels.
It gets worse. Official inflation stands at a little over 13%, but a parliamentary study puts the numbers closer to 23% annually. Imagine going to the grocery store and the price of tomatoes jumps by 50 cents a pound every week. This is what the Iranian people are facing. Its important to remember this is a nation where school teachers make an average of $ 70 a week, which puts them below the poverty line. The people charged with educating the next generation of Iranian youth cant even afford to buy non-subsidized fruit and vegetables for their children anymore. After recent contract negotiations broke down, teachers took to the streets to protest and were met with the usual heavy-handed regime response, which saw many of them hauled off to jail and accused of collaborating with foreign powers. The regime has become so fragile, they are even leveling these charges against leaders with impeccable Revolutionary credentials like former President Khatamis brother, who will be put on trial soon for acting against the Islamic system. The images of Robespierre and the French Revolution come to mind, where suspicion and paranoia became so pervasive no one was safe from a trip to the guillotine, including Robespierre himself.
So, why are the next 60 days so important? Iranians have enjoyed some of the lowest fuel prices in the world for decades, because the government has heavily subsidized gasoline prices. It costs a little over 5 cents a gallon right now, but those prices are going to be raised to 22 cents in May. This is going to raise prices across the board for everyday items and food, in addition to the fuel Iranians must purchase to get back and forth to work. An already unbearable inflationary spiral is going to continue to spiral out of control. No one can accurately predict how this will play out.
Second, the teachers are not going away quietly, and will be staging a massive protest on April 30 and May 1. They will be joined on May 1 by over a million illegal (according to the government) union employees who plan to strike to protest a new law the government is trying to pass, which will strip them of the few workers rights they already have. Organizing labor is illegal in Iran, as well as protesting for a better life for yourself and your family. The new law is designed to allow the government to sell off their inefficient state-run companies, but they will simply be sold to members of the Revolutionary Guard, which in essence means workers lives and their jobs are still controlled by conservative hard-liners, and termination for dissent is a powerful reason to keep quiet about politics. Given these realities, one has to admire the courage of Iranians who dare to protest, putting their careers and personal freedom in jeopardy.
How the Iranian government handles this looming crisis could determine the fate of this regime. They are either going to have crack down harshly against this challenge to their authority, or they are going to have to give in to the demands of the people. There is a potential for counter-revolution in Iran right now, but the closed nature of the society makes it impossible to predict. It could happen when the overwhelming majority of poor people become so desperate, they feel they have nothing to lose by defying a government that cares nothing for their plight.
Ordinary Iranians are just like us struggling to get through life the best way they know how, and public opinion in Iran favors better relations with the international community, including the US. Its an increasingly global world, and Iranians want to be a part of it. How could we as a nation help them in the coming days and weeks?
Military intervention is out of the question, and would backfire by uniting the Iranian people against a national threat. Direct political intervention in the form of financing protest groups and NGOs is not a good strategy for Iran. A paranoid regime will simply point to this foreign financing as proof there is an enemy foreign plot and anybody accepting this money will be tainted with the label of a collaborator with Irans enemies.
Its important to remember that despite their internal problems, the Iranian government is very much engaged in exporting their Islamic system to the rest of the Islamic world. Ahmadenijad actually sees Iran as a model for the rest of Muslims to follow, under the leadership of Irans Supreme Leader. They may care little for the economic plight of their people, but they care a great deal about their religious authority and legitimacy. In fact, its all they really have to offer. If you take that away from them, you make them very vulnerable indeed.
This presents a unique opportunity for the US government to engage all the military, intelligence, and state department resources at our disposal to launch a massive publicity campaign against Iran, which openly calls into question their Islamic legitimacy. Satellite images, for example, which capture images of masses of Iranians protesting for a better life, being beaten and arrested by Iranian regime thugs beamed around the world would do serious damage to the image of this government and that damage could be especially acute in the Arab world.
How can an Islamic government based on Islamic principles of peace and justice treat their people in this manner? Where do they get the authority in the pages of the Koran to deny their people the most basic civil rights? Why do Iranians living in corrupt Western nations have more civil rights and civil liberties protected by the rule of law than 70 million Iranians living inside the borders of their own nation? Does the Islamic world have the right to openly question the association of their religion with a regime that behaves in this fashion? Raising these questions publicly and with a high volume would force the regime in a reactive, defensive posture, and thats where you always want your opponent.
This, in my view, is the best way to help ordinary Iranians, by giving them cover to express themselves openly. The regime would have to be very cautious in their response, if they know that uncensorable US satellites are watching their every move, and will use the footage against them. The freedom of expression this could provide to suffering Iranians would help them to demand and get the just reforms they seek.
I release these ideas to the blogosphere, but remain dubious as to whether a creatively-challenged White House and State Department would see the wisdom of opening up this new front against Iran, even though it could achieve their goals by enlisting a massive army of Iranians who have the same objective all without a shot fired.





Makes a lot of sense but I think there are two weaknesses:
1) After Abu Gharib, we are really in no way able to play the moral high ground. So long as Guantanamo bay is around, we will have lost eh ability to flaunt our morality and concern for human rights.
2) It would be nice to highlight the heavy handedness of the Iranian regime, however, just about every Arab regime is guilty of the same thing. In any way they we would be challenging the legitimacy of the Iranians, we would also be supplying fodder for those who are enemies of Mubarak, King Abdulah, or Hafas Assad.
Its an idea and it would probably be too sophisticated of an approach for anyone in the White House or the State Dept. to be down with.
Good Article.
April 29, 2007 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any real proof of that? It's very nice in a 'they're coming to get you, Barbara' sort of way. But I notice that for a society engaged in exporting their "Islamic system" to the rest of the Islamic world, they're not doing much of a job. The only war they've been in was one where they were attacked. The only civil wars that they made meaningful contributions too, Lebanon and Afghanistan, were already in progress, and they seemed more interested in protecting Shiite constituencies than transforming societies.
It's nice to imagine that Iranians will stage a counter-revolution and overthrow or subvert their government. But frankly, this doesn't happen very often.
Yes, the Nicaraguans overthrew Somoza, and the Phillipinos overthrew Marcos, and the Iranians overthrew the Shah.
On the other hand, Hussein, Assad, Sadat and Mubarak have survived numerous uprisings between them. Pakistan has changed its government several times, without changing its policies.
I'll keep watching, but I don't feel enthusiastic. And as Zoles said, there's not much moral high ground for America to claim.
April 29, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today's revolutionaries are not as radical as Khomeini who basically declared war on the whole world and threatened the Saudis constantly. He hated Islam's holiest sites were under their control. However, the prescence of the US military always kept him in check, just as it keeps Iran in check now.
Their immediate goal is to sign a defense pact with Gulf nations that would boot all foreign forces out of the region. They've been lobbying small nations like Kuwait to agree to this very hard. Once this is acheived (which is an uphill climb), it would make Iran the most powerful military force in the Gulf with the smaller nations dependent on them for security. The pressure that would put on Israel is obvious.
I'm not saying these goals are realistc, but rational thinking is not something this government excels at.
April 29, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'll just note that in Khomeini's day, it was Iraq that invaded Iran, not the other way around.
At no point was Khomeini's Iran threatening to invade Saudi Arabia or Syria or Kuwait, etc. etc.
Khomeini may have talked tough, but so what? History is full of tough talk, ranging from Kruschev's shoe pounding "we will bury you." to Dubya's implied threats to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively and his implicit declarations of war against fifty or sixty countries (if you're not with us, you're against us).
Anyway, Khomeini's great islamic revolution was basically talk and fizzle. It's hardly a huge vote for the Iranian threat when you then concede that the current bunch isn't nearly as radical or aggressive.
So, without the US military to keep them in check, what would they be likely to do, these 'less radical' Islamists... take up knitting?
We're all trembling in our boots.
I simply don't think its more than a childish fantasy to suggest that the middle east is in danger of Persians carpeting the region.
At best, I think the argument is that the Iranians are seeking increased trade opportunities and diplomatic clout in the region. And you know what? It's going to happen. They're simply too big and populous, with a genuinely diversified economy, not to be far more influential in the region.
The American presence is fading out of the region, thanks to Bush. The vaccuum will be filled by a Saudi/Iranian alliance modeled loosely upon the Franco/German alliance.
In the scheme of these things, Israel simply isn't very important.
April 29, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
you should familiarize yourself with how pervasive Hezbollah is world-wide as a terrorist organization involved in all kinds of illegal activity, including a lot of drug trafficking. They can be "switched on" at any time to launch attacks in various regions. Iran has too much to lose by unleashing Hezbollah right now, but if the hardliners lose power -- all bets are off. A wave or terrorism will sweep the region and the West -- on direct orders from Tehran.
The Saudis are far too mistrustful of the iranians to form a close alliance. They will welcome more trade but keep them at an arm's length militarily. The Saudis have far more influence in Washington politics than they will ever have in Tehran. We are the devil they know, and they will stick with us. Ditto for Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, and Bahrain.
April 29, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, drug trafficking, it being a little known fact that Columbia and Bolivia are populated, not by latin Americans speaking spanish, but by persian and arabic middle easterners wearing sombreros. Who also happen to be the dominant ethnic constituency in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan, whence the heroin trade originates. When not pretending to be Andean pack mules, Lebanese Shiites like to spend time cooking up crystal meth in the American midwest. Gotcha.
With all due respect, Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shiite organization, not an Iranian sock puppet. It receives support from Iran and Syrian, has proven to be effective at maximizing its freedom by playing the two of them off against each other, and is principally responsive to its domestic constituency.
So, I'm not terribly animated by the wacky conspiracy theory approach. I'm sure they had a hand in the Kennedy Assassination, and they helped put John Edwards through law school. But let's live in the real world...
These were the same hardliners who weren't as radical as Khomeini?
Gotcha. So if they lose, then they'll do the big wave of terror thing? So we should make sure they win? Not lose? Call it a mulligan? Persuade them to go best four out of seven?
Just keep telling yourself that.
April 29, 2007 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Canadian news services are keeping you very poorly informed up there.
Hezbollah is nothing more than the Islamic version of the skinheads. Iran has their own branch of the organization, and they're actively building another in Iraq. Whether Lebanese Shiites support them or not, it doesn't change who and what they are. They are pervasive in the Middle East and abroad. Nasrallah recently admitted in a public speech that they get their military orders from Tehran. They are far more than a local Lebanese political party.
Why would the Saudi's who have spent decades and millions of dollars building influence in Washington ( a far more powerful nation than Iran) not to mention a huge economic partnership with US oil companies turn around and jump in bed with Iran? Granted, Bush is lousy in the sack, but a bushy-browed Ahmadenijad is better? I fail to see the logic in that, but maybe the Canadian press is reporting something i'm not aware of.
April 30, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we got terrible media up here. We don't have Fox News. We don't have Sinclair broadcasting. Our overseas news bureaus actually go overseas to do reporting. Our media managed to distinguish Iraq from 9/11 and failed to buy wmd's in Iraq. We don't even cover missing white women, imagine that!
You've certainly defeated me by smacking down my achilles heal, the inferior quality of Canadian journalism, in comparison to the American product.
Good show. Yep. Certainly showed me.
Mmm hmm.
Don't mind me, I'm put in my place.
Yepperees. I think I'll just watch the Cartoon channel. It's the closest thing we have to Fox news.
Oh, and here's some links on Hezbollah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
http://www.gregpalast.com/party-of-god-and-reagan-a-hezbollah-history-lesson/
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hezbollah-History.htm
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501fabook86355/augustus-richard-norton/hezbollah-a-short-history.html
http://obfusc.blogspot.com/2006/08/hezbollah-history-background.html
Hmmm... I guess inferior Canadian media perspectives are pretty widespread.
April 30, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our media managed to distinguish Iraq from 9/11 and failed to buy wmd's in Iraq.
Aren't you claiming in another thread that the US doesn't have any military worries regarding Canada? Obviously, there is a terrorist group located there that has cleverly disguised its members as journalists. And, they hate the US!
Such enemies so close to US borders are worth at least another 3000 nukes and another carrier group, if you ask me.
In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
May 1, 2007 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
all of these links confirm my points -- that Hezbollah is much more than a Lebanese political party, and that they are founded on principles of bigotry and intolerance.
So, it seems like you are agreeing with me here.
May 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting, thank you. I'm having trouble picturing the U.S. role envisioned, however, so help me out. The advertising would be directed at who and to what end?
It's have to be thought through, for sure. There's value in ensuring a clear flow of information for its own sake. There's value in showing that America supports strivings within Iran rather than "hates Islam." And there's the danger of a PR campaign as appearing to be preparations for an invasion. Finally, there's the possibility that PR is just, well, PR and has no function at all. So I'd like to see the plan better.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 29, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This would not be a slick ad campaign. It's feeding images and video to the news channels and let them do the reporting. It's raising these issues in public speeches around the world. Ahmadenijad talks about his society of "peace and justice" all the time. Make him prove it.
We could enlist the aid of Canada, who doesn't have our negative baggage, but they do have very poor relations with Iran. The goal is to shine enough light on the darker side of the regime to alter their behavior just enough to give ordinary Iranians a chance to have their voices heard.
Let's remember that unlike the secular Arab regimes (except the Saudis) Iran wants clout in the Islamic world as a model for them to follow. This is one reason they are deeply involved in the Palestinian issue, because they know it wins the support of the Arab street. The nuclear issue also plays into their hands, because they can accuse the West of trying to "prevent the progress" of the Islamic world. When you hold yourself up to that standard, you have to walk the walk. Other repressive regimes like North Korea and Tajikistan aren't concerned with their image in the outside world. Iran is concerned about it, and the truth is Arabs and other Muslim nations know little about what actually goes on in that country.
The moral high ground is already a non-issue, because America is the "Great Satan". Just as they've given Canada the back of their hand at the UN, the hard-liners of Iran will never see our values as moral, but we can do great damage to the pedestal they're trying to stand on.
April 29, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, speaking as a Canadian, perhaps you could carry out your propaganda campaign through some other country, like Australia, or England or Italy.
I don't see any particular interest in Canadian government or media for this project.
We've had our own frictions and issues with Iran, but we're also committed to dealing with them in our own way, a way that is more effective for us, than the approach you suggest.
April 29, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brook, you don't city any sources, but your characterization of Hezbollah as a world-wide terrorist organization is not how I've ever heard any credible source describe it.
We've all heard the 'cost of tomatoes in Iran' story. What I don't get, is how you get from pricey tomatoes to...the Iranian government is very much engaged in exporting their Islamic system to the rest of the Islamic world.
A more realistic view of Iran's intentions may be to look at what it actually is exporting. So far gas and oil win hands down over Islamism.
Check out (credible) articles on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), if you really want to worry about Iran. There is information here, here and even one from JINSA, here.
You might also want want to rethink your belief that the Saudis and others will stick with the devil they know. As Ken Pollack, former Iraq war supporter notes, "There are a lot of Arab states in the region who are looking to China ... as a potential political counterweight to the US". (Read the SCO links to see how Iran ties in with China.) This includes the entire Middle East as noted here. Or you could just call it the The New Axis of Oil.
Not a word about spreading the Iranian Islamic system anywhere. Just it's oil and gas.
In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
May 1, 2007 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadenijad talks about the Iranian system on a daily basis, presenting it as a counter to Western liberalism. He constantly points out that the West has failed to deliver "peace and justice" for the world. Here's a link to a recent speech:
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0705024486190357.htm
Ahmadenijad passionately believes that his country is founded on superior principles, because he's got Islam behind it. They are actively engaged in exporting the idea that the Islamic world should be unified against Western liberalism, and the unspoken word is that Iran is leading that charge.
The reality is Ahmadenijad lives in a world of pure fantasy. Nothing approaching peace and justice exists in his society, and other Muslim nations are not rallying to the Iranian standard, even though many openly support their nuclear rights. Reality doesn't get in the way of radical thinking, however, so many hardliners refuse to see the truth in front of them.
The parallels to the Soviet Union are striking, although the situation is much different. The Soviets lived in denial of their internal reality as well for a long time, while they simultaneously exported their "superior" ideology by any means necessary.
May 2, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that,
President Bush said to West Point graduates in June, 2002,
This is how presidents, both Christian and Muslim, speak to their armies, apparently.
He [Ahmadenijad] constantly points out that the West has failed to deliver "peace and justice" for the world.
Brook, are you aware that most of the world feels the same way as Ahmadenijad toward the USs positions on human rights, peace and justice? As Dr. Steven Kull (Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes at Univ. of Md) recently testified to Congress,
Ahmadenijad passionately believes that his country is founded on superior principles, because he's got Islam behind it.
How is this different from American exceptionalism, except that in our case, it's not just the President who believes in our superiority, but most of the population as well?
Nothing approaching peace and justice exists in his society...
I need some credible sources for this claim. The National Review and Weekly Standard are automatically rejected on several grounds, but mostly because they haven't been right yet.
The Soviets lived in denial of their internal reality as well for a long time, while they simultaneously exported their "superior" ideology by any means necessary.
And now the US has taken over that job. Whether you believe that or not is not as important as what the rest of the world believes. And, again, as Dr. Kull told Congress,
I'm not going to say that it is you, and not Ahmadinejad that lives in a fantasy world, but it is not a world based on reason and facts, Brook.
19 Islamists flew 3 airplanes into some buildings and caused 3000 deaths 5 years ago. Yes, it was the worst attack on US soil. But in the global scheme of things, and especially compared to the 1000 Iraqis that die every month, it was not the end of life as we know it or the beginning of a caliphate. It was a terrorist attack, period, and is not unusual in the rest of the world. Counter terrorism is more successfully served through logic and intelligent use of resources, not illogical hysteria that has been dished out for political reasons.
Mr. President, you can veto a bill. But you can't veto the truth. Americans United for Change TV ad, 1st aired 5-1-07.
May 2, 2007 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In focus groups that I have conducted throughout the world, the most common complaint I hear is not about American values but that the US is being hypocritical; that it is not living up to its values..."
The moral relativism you find, especially in Europe, is a diversion from the real questions of peace and justice in the world.
We have certain core values laid out in our Constitution (the inalienable rights of man), and we have a justice system that is designed to make everyone equal under the law. The question is does America live up to these principles? In other words are the inalienable rights of speech, assembly etc... afforded to each of our citizens according to our beliefs?
It is my belief that we adhere as closely as possible to these principles. Are we perfect? Hardly, but Queen Elizabeth just made a point of praising America as a nation that has made great strides in shaping a society that respects all cultures, races, and beliefs. If someone wants to say we're not a just society, I would ask -- compared to who?
To be quite frank, political opinions about America abroad don't matter that much to me. Europe, for example, was more than happy to accept American military support to get rid of their own little genocidal dictator problem (Milosevic). A nation, I might add that didn't threaten American security at all. We helped Europe, because they needed our help, and because innocent people were dying (Muslims no less). We've still got troops in Bosnia as I write this.
These same individuals now turn on us and call us warmongers and all sorts of other despicable labels. When Europe is so morally confused they allow 250,000 people to be slaughtered in their own back yard without lifting a finger, one has to ask what their values are and openly question them.
The historical examples of Germany and Japan loom large, and S. Korea to a lesser extent. Nations we have formerly occupied that are now thriving politically and economically and are hardly American puppet regimes.
How about doing some focus groups in this country about what we think of European leaders and especially Arab leaders? I think you'll find the mistrust and contempt swing both ways. You might actually be shocked by the reaction.
It's not my responsibility to educate you about oppression going on in Iran on a daily basis. IF you are going to debate these issues out here, that responsiblity lies with you. The crackdown on women there has been all over the news lately, and that doesn't begin to address the absolute oppression of Iranian workers, who are now facing the abolishment of the minimum wage in their country. I stand by my statement that Iran is a grossly unjust society, and ample proof of that is a Google search away.
May 4, 2007 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brook, Not that I want to get in the teaching business, either, but...
We helped Europe, because they needed our help, and because innocent people were dying (Muslims no less).
Does NATO mean anything to you?
If someone wants to say we're not a just society, I would ask -- compared to who?
And you were saying something about moral relativism?
The intent here was to point out that it doesn't matter what you and I think about the US or it's actions. What matters, in terms of the religious wars that you seemed so fearful of, is how the rest of the world perceives the US. If they believe that they will be attacked just because the US does not like their domestic politics, then they will take actions and precautions either in revenge or to protect themselves. Political scientists classify that as rational behavior.
Whether it is flying hijacked planes into buildings or secretly going nuclear, these reactions are usually not in the best interests of the US. Self righteousness, such as you exhibit, is neither a plan or a good defense on our part.
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living. Omar Bradley
May 5, 2007 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you call self-righteous, I call a balanced view of the world. Europeans did nothing about Bosnia for years, until we got involved -- that's a historical fact. I'm drawing assumptions about Europeans, however, based on their actions, just as they do ours.
Allow me to lay out a few facts for you briefly:
1. China is by far the most un-Islamic government on the planet, with an official policy of ethnically cleansing Muslims out and placing severe restrictions on practicing Islam.
2. We helped save the lives of tens of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.
3. Islam is one of our fastest-growing relgions in this country. How can a nation at war with Islam allow it to flourish inside it's own borders?
I guarantee you that 95% of Muslims in the world don't know one of those 3 facts. So, if their perceptions of America are based on ignorance, what can I do about that, except basically ignore it?
It seems you try to rationalize the irrational. North Korea has been predicting a US invasion of their country for 50 years now -- which they use to justify their immoral actions, and the Iranian regime uses the same ploy. Clinton tried reaching out to them for years. They are led by radicals too irrational to respond to his overtures, and we were still the Great Satan.
Call me old-fashioned, but i believe evil exists, and we've got plenty of it right here at home. I don't paint a halo over this nation, but the Kim Jong Ils of the world are as stark an example of evil as you can find, and for the most part the world doesn't care how his people have to suffer. Ditto for Iran. I won't automatically include you in that group, seashell, but I wouldn't exclude you either.
May 11, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink