The Shotgun Blog
« Political Animals | Main | New Hampshire predictions (for what their worth) »
Monday, January 07, 2008
Experts got it wrong, again!
We already know about the so-called Iran experts who appear on the mainstream media on a daily basis and talk about the Iranian regime as if they invented it or lived under it.
Today when the news broke that the Iranian boats threatened US navy ships in the Persian Gulf, I saw some of these clueless "Iran Experts" again on CNN, CBC, BBC & MSNBC talk about how the incident was just a mistake or that the higher-ups in the Mullahocracy have nothing to do with it or this confrontation was performed by a rogue unit of the Revolutionary Guards. Apparently, these so-called experts don't know that in any dictatorship where one man rules there are no rogue elements. And the dictator in Iran is the supreme leader Khamenei who is also the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces. I've served in the Iranian military and am coming from a military family and witnessed how some orders had to be issued or confirmed by a mid-ranking cleric from the "Ideological & Political Office" of the armed forces. This office is directly linked to the office of the supreme leader and gets its mandate not from the military branch of the chain of command but right from Khamenei's office. This ideological unit exists within every battalion sized unit in all branches of the Iranian military, be it the regular army, baseej militias or the Rev. Guards. The offices are headed by an Islamic cleric and has so much influence on military commanders that no body could challenge them or disobey them. To cut the story short, it is the equivalent of the Soviet Union Political Commissar, so this might give you the idea of how things work in the Iranian armed services. Or as we used to say back home: No one can drink a glass of water without "Aghidati siyasi's" permission. ((Aghidati means Ideological and Siyasi means Political).
I've explained more about this conflict of authority within the Iranian military before. This makes me believe that the order to threaten the US navy vessels came directly from some body high up in the chain of command and was also confirmed or re-enforced by these clerics acting along side the military units.
In a country like Iran no body dares to do something like that and challenge or threaten the most powerful navy of the world. So for these experts calling the incident a mistake is too naive and silly. But the average Joe in the west could simply believe these clueless expert and this is not good at a time when the United States is heading for a major presidential election. It's up to the American people to put a strong man in the white house who could stand against regimes such as Iran. The misinformation campaign by the MSM can have a big negative impact. I've personally lost hope in the MSM a long time ago. I don't care what the liberal experts say on Iranian issues because I know more than they do but for the average Joe in the streets of Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles, this sort of misinformation made by these dumb men could very well make them believe that the Iranian regime doesn't pose a serious threat to the safety and security of the United States and at a time when the US presidential elections are in full gear, these experts who have not spent a minute of their lives in Iran and know nothing about the country make the voters misunderstand the real situation.
The purpose behind the existence of blogs like that of mine is to set the records straight and provide the average Joes with more information that could be helpful at this crucial time.
This is definitely cross-posted & this post is now feautred on Reuters
Posted by Winston on January 7, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fc49ee18833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Experts got it wrong, again!:
Comments
The Americans should simply have blown them out of the water. The Cole attack proved what Islamofascists are capable of - and this could have been a repeat of that incident.
And if Iran didn't like it, the next step should have been sinking EVERY ship in Iran's navy. That shouldn't take more than a couple of hours.
Of course, once Iran gets the bomb, such reactions will handcuff their opponents. Better do it now while we can.
Like my bumper sticker says:
NUKE IRAN BEFORE IRAN NUKES US!
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-07 9:00:00 PM
My dad once told me "don't tease that dog or he'll bite you". I didn't listen, and got bit. The Iranians have been barked at, growled at, and they still don't catch on. Well, this is definately a dog I wouldn't be teasing.
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-07 9:46:51 PM
Thank you for your pertinent and detailed Post Winston -Friends in Israel would confirm everything you say. The citizens of Israel Know who the enemy
at the gates is,I agree with abc,but I think the US Navy is geared and ready to shoot.The Mullahs would
quickly understand the significance of a sinking Iranian Navy. MacLeod -not surprised this am.
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-08 4:38:42 AM
Iran is acting up just because they can, the time is right,as the US is concentrating on all the election propaganda coming from all the different players.
Of course Iran has been cruising for attention for some time, it may be closer than the Mullahs think as they're tucked in their sanctuaries pulling strings.
The American people had better be looking and listening carefully at all the candidates and go for substance over charisma, color or gender at this very dangerous, volatile time in the ME.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-08 6:46:46 AM
So Winston, as an expert on Iran, could the US, with limited land forces (rather occupied at present), rely on the two carrier groups in the gulf which are capable of surgically taking out all significant military infrastructure, command and control, and visible military assets, leave Iran in such a condition that, without the need to put US troops on the ground and attempt another multi-decadal nation-building occupation, free-up factions within Iran capable of seizing power leaving a non-power vacuum, safer and functioning region? Please expand on a yes or no answer.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-08 11:36:45 AM
As a non-expert on Iran I believe the steps mentioned by JC could work, with only a small contingent of special forces on the ground and let the Iranians inside do the business of transforming the gov't., when a clear opposition presents itself then the west could assist with tactical strikes as needed to reinforce the opposition to the mullahs.
A civil war would be needed anyway, so let the Iranians do the work after the main military targets are dismantled by air power. No rush though...
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-08 12:09:21 PM
JC:
Should the US continue to be the world's policeman?
This provocation happened in international waters and it clearly demonstrated the US reacted with patience and dignity. That should come as no surprise.
Firing at the Iranian boats would have been the desired outcome from Iran's viewpoint.
Then, they could get on their high horse of victimization and use it to justify even more military action and get UN support behind them.
All that happened in this instance is now the world can see the Iranian regime will try anything to poke a stick in the eye of the US. That's all the mad mullahs are capable of.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-08 12:36:25 PM
SYF
A good question, and one that, as a father of a US serviceman, continually haunts me. Unfortunately, I doubt that an instant unilateral US isolationist state a la Ron Paul / Rothbard / Jeffersonian / libertarian persuasion could spur in kind behavior from the large chunk of the former and continuing axis of evil. I might be wrong but states are evil whereas individuals, less so. I think that would create a huge power vacuum which would quickly fill by Russian, Chinese and Iranian power and their proxies including the UN. Remember where the world was going prior to the awakening of the sleeping (near-isolationist) Giant in 1941. Having said that, I don't see the harm in pulling out US troops from ancient war zones, encouraging fully capable friendly powers to look after their own regional security.
In the case of Iran, I think almost any measured preemptive action is preferable to an ultimate nuclear exchange with Israel. And the US is the only real cop in Dodge.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-08 1:28:48 PM
John, Your answer can't be a definite Yes or a definite No at this moment. However, if the US military can sustain the logistical nightmare of conquering Iran, it is doable. The closest port where US Military can sustain itself is Bandar Abbas that is around 1000 miles away from capital Tehran and this would expose the US forces to insurgent like attacks by elements of islamic militias... But the regular Iranian military won't put up a fight against the US liberators. And had the US naval vessels shot and sank those IRGC boats and personnel, the regime wouldn't have done any thing except filling some rough worded complaints against the Americans at the UNSC. And I hope the US military would do this next time and kill the IRGC personnel. It has a major affect within the Iranian society: The people of Iran see that their hostage takers are being killed and the bullet-proof image of the regime can be shattered in the minds of the Iranian people that are held hostage by the regime for far too long.
Our very first option is: Regime change in Iran through the same way west did it in Soviet Union back in 1980s. Let's try this option first, if possible!
Posted by: winston | 2008-01-08 1:43:56 PM
John C. ~
Jefferson sent ships to battle the Barbary pirates along the Mediterranean coastline when they attacked American ships. He was not a total isolationist.
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 2:29:20 PM
obc
Jefferson would probably have rationalized that action as responding to aggression of "privateers" rather than a "foreign entanglement".
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-08 2:50:35 PM
Winston
Thanks for your assessment. If I understand your comments then, the "regular military" could not be counted on to fight the Islamic militias and only pounding them from above would do no good in helping to overthrow the Iranian Theocracy.
The soviet collapse came largely from internal exhaustion of socialist failure, more liberal leaders, satellite states breaking-off, and logistical inability to keep up with the US in the arms race. I don't however see that the leadership of the former USSR has changed that much as far as Russia is concerned.
What would it take specifically in terms of these factors, if accurate, for regime change in Iran?
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-08 3:43:53 PM
The Iranian society is now where the Soviet Union's was in mid 1980s. Western powers could do a lot and help change the regime by supporting the people of Iran. Because what the Iranians want is to have a complete change of regime and establishment. As to what we can do there are many options: Funding the dissidents, funding the labor movements and supporting the students with hardware and software stuff. I think Dr. Michael Ledeen of AEI has more on this issue if you'd like to read stuff written by a more credible authority. I suggest his recent book: The Iranian Time Bomb.
Posted by: winston | 2008-01-08 3:51:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.