Strategic Geniuses

[gribble]

Does anybody realize that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. are making things vastly easier for us for when the time comes to fight Iran and the rest of the extremist muslim world? Or even better yet are now in the position to deter that war completely?

I don't think anybody doubts that right now we are in a very dangerous time. And it has nothing to do with us invading Iraq. Anybody who is a historian of World War II, Ranger, should be able to point out the similarities between the international community of the mid to late 1930's and today.

If and when Iran achieves nuclear status they will be able to take over the entire Middle East. That is, without 150,000 American troops backed by nuclear weapons of their own and the most superior Navy and Air Force in the world, not to mention the fact that the soldiers are the best trained, best equipped military force in the world. Add that to the now infinitely more effective deterring capability to deploy a force of three to four times that amount to the area within less than six months or even faster, I don't know. Tsar?

Regardless of whether or not you think that Iraq was the right war to fight, regardless of whether or not you think it has anything to do with the war on terror, regardless of whether you think it will destabalize the region with Iraqis engaging eachother in a civil war, there was no better decision that the Bush administration could have made with world events such as they are. Whether or not this all turns into World War III is yet to be seen, but I would argue that the choice Bush and his advisors have made will go down in history as the best military decision the United States has ever made.

I just wanted to get some discussion going on about how this is viewed strategically. I especially wanted to hear Tsar's and Ranger's take on the matter. But obviously anybody is welcome to join the discussion.

EDIT:per your request

[Anti_Liberal]

all the strategy in the world makes no difference when youre fighting an irrational enemy that embraces death.

[Stang76]

[gribble]

Iran is not an irrational enemy. And I would also argue that radical militants willing to use suicide bombers are not irrational. The suicide bombers themselves may be. But that doesn't mean the overall strategy of those muslims who have their sights set higher is irrational.

[Stang76]

Hell, I'd argue even suicide bombers are perfectly rational, to the extent that their 2nd-order preferences (self-sacrificial methods, civilian targets, etc.) are most likely to realize their 1st-order preferences (victory of God's will on earth, 72 virgins, 80,000 servants, being glorified as martyrs, petrodollars for their families, etc.). Within the framework of rational choice theory the rationality of goals is irrelevant.

[gribble]

How do you even determine the rationality of goals? Can you? Isn't rationalization only used to devise ways to achieve goals?

[UMD TSAR]

If and when Iran achieves nuclear status they will be able to take over the entire Middle East. That is, without 150,000 American troops backed by nuclear weapons of their own and the most superior Navy and Air Force in the world, not to mention the fact that the soldiers are the best trained, best equipped military force in the world. Add that to the now infinitely more effective deterring capability to deploy a force of three to four times that amount to the area within less than six months or even faster, I don't know. Tsar?

Can't say I fully understand the question.

But as for your broader interpretation, it's certainly valid. There's been longstanding indications that the Wolfowitz-engineered strategy after 9/11 was to establish a US-presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the sake of exerting implicit and explicit pressure on the true threat within the region - Iran.

Particularly, Turkey and Saudi view Iran as a greater threat to their security than the US, so they have been about as accommodating to our campaign in Iraq as could be expected, given their domestic considerations.

I do think China and India are licking thier chops at the perspective of America getting suckered into a WWIII, however. It would be a low-gain, high-risk endeavor for the United States, and even victory would mark the end of the American Century - to be supplanted by an Asian Century (predominantly, China).

I foresee Russia as being a key factor in the handling of Iran. If we can play it properly, Russia will see Chechyn Islamo-militants as being funded and rallied by a strong Iran. Ideally, Russia will recognize that a nuclear Iran jeopardizes their own southern Islamic populations' tranquility. Get Russia to join the west against Iran, and it's check-mate on Ahminejad.

But at the same time, let me ask you something: For all the noise Iran and North Korea make, are they a threat that we should risk our empire over? We're the 800-pound gorilla, we shouldn't risk falling off the cliff by chasing down a couple of obnoxious chimps.

[Stang76]

I foresee Russia as being a key factor in the handling of Iran. If we can play it properly, Russia will see Chechyn Islamo-militants as being funded and rallied by a strong Iran. Ideally, Russia will recognize that a nuclear Iran jeopardizes their own southern Islamic populations' tranquility. Get Russia to join the west against Iran, and it's check-mate on Ahminejad.

I think you overestimate the affinity Russian Sunnis, Wahhabis, and Sufis can have for distant mullahs with no sectarian, cultural, or ethnic similarities whatsoever. If anything they fear a strong Iran almost as much as Turks, Saudis, or Qataris would.

Even if that weren't the case, a few isolated skirmishes in the southern foothills of Chechnya will be the last thing on Putin's mind when considering the extremely lucrative sales of technology, infrastructure, nuclear equipment, and arms to Iran; billions in Russian investment, Iran's observer status in the SCO, and SCO partner China's own economic interests in the country (most notably preferential oil and gas contracts). It's for these reasons both Moscow and Beijing have already promised to veto any sanctions against Iran, to say nothing of threatening force.

In the end it all boils down to the almighty dollar/ruble/yuan, yet again. Since only the Yanks and j00s would ever be on the receiving end of an Iranian nuke, to gain Sino-Russian cooperation would require incentives that outweigh their economic interest in the status quo. I sure can't think of any that we can offer.

[gribble]

Can't say I fully understand the question.
...
But at the same time, let me ask you something: For all the noise Iran and North Korea make, are they a threat that we should risk our empire over? We're the 800-pound gorilla, we shouldn't risk falling off the cliff by chasing down a couple of obnoxious chimps.

I just wanted your general thoughts I guess. But the specific question was about how long it would take to amass a fighting force capable of taking on Iran if it became belligerent.

As far as Korea is concerned, I don't think it really matters.

But when you're talking about possibly the entire Middle East being under the control of a nuclear hostile regime I don't think there's any question that we have to defend against that. That region is critical to our empire. And there is really no one there who could defend it for us.

And honestly, what is our empire anyway?

[Stang76]

the entire Middle East being under the control of a nuclear hostile regime

Do you honestly believe that's even a remote possibility?

[UMD TSAR]

Even if that weren't the case, a few isolated skirmishes in the southern foothills of Chechnya will be the last thing on Putin's mind when considering the extremely lucrative sales of technology, infrastructure, nuclear equipment, and arms to Iran; billions in Russian investment, Iran's observer status in the SCO, and SCO partner China's own economic interests in the country (most notably preferential oil and gas contracts). It's for these reasons both Moscow and Beijing have already promised to veto any sanctions against Iran, to say nothing of threatening force.

You grossly misunderstand the Chechyn crisis.

This is a situation where Chechyn rebels seized a Moscow theatre and led to the death of hundreds of Russian citizens. Therefore, it is a significant domestic issue in Russian politics. This is also a situation that emboldens other provinces towards independence movements away from Moscow. Therefore, it is a significant national integrity issue in Russian politics.

Chechnya is to Russia what Taiwan is to China. Do not downplay the issue. There is a reason Putin has jeopardized lucrative relationships with Europe to remain a hardliner with Chechnya.

There is no dollar value large enough to make the succession of provinces a fair tradeoff. We would not accept it with the Confederacy, the Chinese will not accept it with Taiwan, and Russia will not accept it with Chechnya.

"A few southern skirmishes" is FAR from an accurate characterization of the dilemma, one which has the utmost focus of the Russian military.

Also, I believe you are overstating the lucrative nature of the Russian-Iranian relationship. They are both world-leading energy suppliers. This hedges the gains in a relationship, vis-a-vis relationships with energy buyers. At the end of the day, Russia makes obscenely more income from energy sales to the West than it does from infrastructure sales to Iran.

[Stang76]

You grossly misunderstand the Chechyn crisis.

This is a situation where Chechyn rebels seized a Moscow theatre and led to the death of hundreds of Russian citizens. Therefore, it is a significant domestic issue in Russian politics.

I haven't been living under a rock. I know about the 1999 apartment bombings, I know about the theatre, I know about Beslan, and I know fighting terrorism has been a key source of Putin's legitimacy. What I don't get is how these attacks carried out by Wahabbi extremists have anything to do with Iran, or how they conceivably ever could in the future.

This is also a situation that emboldens other provinces towards independence movements away from Moscow. Therefore, it is a significant national integrity issue in Russian politics.

Chechnya is to Russia what Taiwan is to China. Do not downplay the issue. There is a reason Putin has jeopardized lucrative relationships with Europe to remain a hardliner with Chechnya.

There is no dollar value large enough to make the succession of provinces a fair tradeoff. We would not accept it with the Confederacy, the Chinese will not accept it with Taiwan, and Russia will not accept it with Chechnya.

Of course. What on earth does this have to do with Iran?

"A few southern skirmishes" is FAR from an accurate characterization of the dilemma, one which has the utmost focus of the Russian military.

Sorry, but from everything I read that is exactly what is going on in Chechnya today. The area around Grozny was firmly secured in 2002, insurgents elsewhere were mostly wiped out in the next few years, and today there are indeed only a few minor firefights in the periphery every month. Mashkadov, Dudayev, and Sadulayev are all dead as Dilinger, so whatever's left of the separatists is scattered without consistent charismatic leadership.

Of course there's still a huge military presence there, but notably the conscripts have been pulled out and it is composed almost entirely of career kontraktniki. More notably their primary mission is propping up the Alkhanov regime, not combat operations.

Also, I believe you are overstating the lucrative nature of the Russian-Iranian relationship. They are both world-leading energy suppliers. This hedges the gains in a relationship, vis-a-vis relationships with energy buyers. At the end of the day, Russia makes obscenely more income from energy sales to the West than it does from infrastructure sales to Iran.

...and why can't it do both?

[gribble]

the entire Middle East being under the control of a nuclear hostile regime

Do you honestly believe that's even a remote possibility?

It happened in Europe under the same kinds of circumstances. Without US presence I think it would be an honest possibility. Not necessarily right now. But at some point 5-15 years down the road. Probably on the higher end of that. But still a possibility. But let me emphasize the part about that only being a possibility without US presence in the region.

[Stang76]

It happened in Europe under the same kinds of circumstances.

???
Since when was Iran one of the top 3 industrial powers on the globe, with mechanized forces, air power, and tactical expertise utterly dwarfing those of her enemies?

But at some point 5-15 years down the road. Probably on the higher end of that. But still a possibility.

And why would Arabs readily submit to Persian rule, or Sunnis to Shi'ite rule? We've already seen how happy Iraqi Arab Sunnis have been with their Arab Shi'ite-dominated government - wouldn't they be even more belligerent against the foreign domination of Persian Shi'ites? And think of the prospect of Iranian troops in Saudi Arabia - do you think Bin Laden's ilk would sit idly by and let a nation of man-worshiping, idolating, messianic heretics befoul their holy land? And why wouldn't the Israelis be able to halt Iranian advances with their unquestioned air superiority?

And even IF the Iranians could ever directly conquer and subsequently pacify the "entire" Middle East, what makes you so sure they would even attempt it in the first place?

Without US presence I think it would be an honest possibility. Not necessarily right now. ... But let me emphasize the part about that only being a possibility without US presence in the region.

Look, nobody said anything about having no US presence in the region; AFAICS Tsar just asked if it's worth risking our empire to actively antagonize Iran. Not doing so wouldn't preclude taking action if Iran actually invades its neighbors without provocation, or uses nuclear threats to blackmail its neighbors into vassaldom. Either move would make them such international pariahs that we'd have carte blanche to bomb them into the stone age.

[gribble]

Okay, I guess by "entire" I really meant the only parts of it that matter, i.e. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, basically, the parts with a shitton of oil.

Since when was Iran one of the top 3 industrial powers on the globe, with mechanized forces, air power, and tactical expertise utterly dwarfing those of her enemies?

Yeah, good point. But I'm pretty sure the whole Persians ruling arabs gripe doesn't hold much water. It seems to me that in the muslim world religion far out weighs any ethnic loyalties. So the Shi'ite/Sunni problem would definitely be difficult for them to control. But as far as trying to control the ME, Iran has definitely spouted out a lot of rhetoric about creating a pan-Islamic nation. With all of that talk, a nuclear weapon to wipe out anybody who didn't adhere to their religion (he who does not submit shall feel the end of the sword), and fanatics running the government. Why do you think they wouldn't try it?

[Anti_Liberal]

allow me to rephrase....all the strategy in the world doesnt do a bit of good when our own politicians and media/world opinion doesnt have the guts to fight a major war and the enemy does.

[Stang76]

Okay, I guess by "entire" I really meant the only parts of it that matter, i.e. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, basically, the parts with a shitton of oil.

So am I.

It seems to me that in the muslim world religion far out weighs any ethnic loyalties.

Sorry, I don't know what to say but that the last 1350 years of history argues against your baseless assumption. Every single attempt since the first Fitna to rebuild pan-Islamic unity has utterly failed.

That goes without mentioning the sectarian violence in Iraq right now - if you're correct, then why don't they just unite against us in the name of Islam? Because there's no such thing as "Islam": instead there's only dozens of different conceptions of what Allah meant the "true" Islam to be. Disparate groups that subscribe to these different conceptions have squabbled amongst themselves for centuries to no avail, and will continue to for the next century (nukes or no nukes).

With all of that talk, a nuclear weapon to wipe out anybody who didn't adhere to their religion (he who does not submit shall feel the end of the sword), and fanatics running the government.

...and you think there wouldn't be any sort of international response to Iran nuking its neighbors? This shit wouldn't go down in a vacuum.

[Stang76]

allow me to rephrase....all the strategy in the world doesnt do a bit of good when our own politicians and media/world opinion doesnt have the guts to fight a major war and the enemy does.

Well, nobody here would deny that. Actually doing "what it takes" would require the sort of political capital that only a catalyzing Pearl Harbor event can provide.

[UMD TSAR]

Alright, I don't have the energy right now to make a point-by-point response.

But here's the overlying concern...

1. Iran is a major supporter of Islamic militants regionally. This includes the former Taliban (though they wisely distanced themselves in 2001), and Hezbollah. I see no compelling reason they would not support natural allies for a separatist Chechyna.

2. Russia certainly can play both sides, but it pressed, they stand to lose much more in thier Western relationship than the Iranian relationship - as noted by the very nature of buyer-supplier.

3. Russia certainly takes Chechnya seriously, and the problem may be currently supressed, but it isn't going away anytime soon. The extent they see Iran as emboldening and tacitly supporting Chechyna rebels is obviously debatable. But it is a significant wedge issue that, if played properly, the United States could use to our advantage to gain Russian support against Iran.

4. Pick up "Iran's Developing Military Capabilities" by Anthony Cordesman. It's a real quick read, but shows the extent of Iran's capabilities. Essentially, they are no match for the US/Russia/China. However, they are capable of significant operations against any regional adversary, and have a significant military advantage over even an alliance of any three nations (minus Israel - which is why they're developing nukes).

[DeeMan]

i've been saying what you've just said for nearly 3 years now. every single time i would get into an arguement over why we are in that region with my lib friends i would state that what we are doing now is so we are in the best possible 10 years from then when the real battle begins. Wolfowitz is a fucking genius, i think those in charge realize a WWIII is inevitable, and everything being done now is all positioning. In regard to China and India licking their chops, i dont know if they are so welcome to the idea of a WWIII even if it's at the expense of the US. China cannot afford not to be involved just due to the resources in the Middle East, Tsar do you think China is going to take the radicals side?

http://www.geostrategy-direct.com

get on that site. great articles and it connects the dots in regard to geo-strategy.

[UMD TSAR]

China cannot afford not to be involved just due to the resources in the Middle East, Tsar do you think China is going to take the radicals side?

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to assert that "China cannot afford not to be involved".

In direct terms, China is developing pipeline deals with Russia (still the worlds largest energy supplier, and will be for some time) to get it from Siberia.

However, it is a global market. So when Arab oil is jeopardized to India and Japan (two of the largest direct Arab oil consumers), it will raise the market value of Russian energy. This is why the United States has an interest in the region, despite importing very few barrels directly from the region. If Saudi oil doesn't flow, the Japs and Europeans start competing for our primary sources in Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria.

That said, I think China's longterm geostrategic interests dictate they would be best served to take the sidelines. Let the United States fight a devastating war over a deteriorating resource. Just as colonies were a dying resource that led to the fall of the British Empire in their quest to fight for them through the early 1900s, the Chinese will be best served to let the US fight for a dying oil-age and thus accelerate the demise of the American Empire.

It is important to note China's political system - they are isolated from short-term pressures of the masses. They can afford to sustain a 10-year hike in global oil prices for the sake of a century-long reign as global leader - just as we sustained the Great Depression which, relatively, hurt the other global powers much worse. Meanwhile, the United States is increasingly subject to short-term interests, which are increasingly framed in apolitical issues of character and "partisan bickering", rather than genuine grand strategy policy debate.

China is not unlike the United States in 1900, as we were looking upon the British. Right now, we are increasingly exercising what leverage we have, meanwhile the gap between our strength and the rest of the world is rapidly narrowing. The Chinese are consolidating and growing rapidly, biding their time. Why would they challenge us or overtly oppose us when they can peacefully supplant us as the global leader simply by sitting idly and continuing to address domestic concerns?

Of course, this is only one of many very legitimate competing theories on the likely direction of Chinese geostrategic interests.