Iran is attempting to attack American allies in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. Very troubling.
Iran is attempting to attack American allies in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. Very troubling.
But not especially surprising. After all, they got to watch the US and the USSR go at it in a similar way for 40+ years. We need to consider what the rest of the world might have learned from watching the Cold War and war by proxy for all that time.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
The only reason why we needed to fight terrible proxy wars during the Cold War was that the threat of global armageddon was hanging over us. do we really want to consider Iran as "untouchable" as the USSR during the Cold War? What benefit do we get from allowing such a safe haven and supply lines for insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention its dark hand in Lebanon and Gaza?
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Do not put words in my mouth. If you look at my original post, I'm saying that we shouldn't be surprised that others would learn some techniques from the Cold War. Nowhere do I say that Iran is "untouchable." I'd suggest toning down on the rhetoric and looking at what's actually being said.
The Cold War (ideology and other matters aside) provided many second-tier powers with a good look at ways to wage conflict against a major power. They had ample opportunity to see what worked, and what didn't. That these powers (state and otherwise) had so much time to study these methods unhindered makes our task much more difficult.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Not trying to put words in your mouth -- just trying to question the metaphor of our situation with Iran with our situation with USSR
It's not a metaphor. It's an observation that many other countries and non-state actors could and obviously did learn some techniques from the Cold War and its associated proxy wars.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Iran May Know of Weapons for Taliban, Gates Contends
14 June NY Times - Iran May Know of Weapons for Taliban, Gates Contends by Thom Shanker.
The flow of illicit weapons from Iran to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan has reached such large quantities that it suggests that the shipments are taking place with the knowledge of the government in Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday.
Mr. Gates said he had seen new intelligence analysis over the past couple of weeks “that makes it pretty clear there’s a fairly substantial flow of weapons” from Iran across its border to assist insurgents in Afghanistan.
Commenting on potential Iranian government involvement in the arms flow, Mr. Gates said, “I haven’t seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say, given the quantities that we’re seeing, it is difficult to believe that it’s associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it’s taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.”...
A well-known Cold War episode that directly involved Iran is something that I'm sure still has some influence.
I'm speaking of the 70's, when the Agency funneled millions of dollars of weapons and other supplies through Iran to support a Kurdish uprising against Saddam. The intent was never to enable the Kurds to win, but simply to put enough pressure on the Iraqi regime to force them to make territorial concessions regarding the Shatt al-Arab. Once Iraq and Iran signed, then ratified, the Algiers accord delineating the border in Iran's favor, the Kurds were completely cut-off by the US and Iran.
It was in response to criticism of first encouraging to revolt, then abandoning the Iraqi Kurds to slaughter that created tens of thousands of refugees, that Kissinger made the famous statement, "covert action should not be confused with missionary work".
In many ways, this episode is a close analogy to today. The Iranians find the situation upon their borders threatening, but they are not capable of directly intervening to restructure the situation to their liking. However, in their use of proxies, they do not care about the true success or failure of the groups they are supporting: the intent is to mold the political situations in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can be exploited to their benefit.
To effectively counter this, we need to clearly understand their both their perception of the threat they face and what is their desired end state (to be accomplished through their covert activities). Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that we cater to their perceptions or desires - they are bad guys, after all. But to efficiently mitigate this threat we need to leverage it from their side - not our image of what's going on.
Last edited by Jedburgh; 06-14-2007 at 03:50 PM.
I'm with Steve Blair on this. The United States has a tendency to assume that when we arm insurgents and build nuclear weapons it's legitimate, but it's not when other nations do it. After all, we have a stated policy of supporting groups which want to overthrow the Iranian regime. I'm not opposing this policy--that regime is evil and dangerous. But we need to stop whining when Tehran arms our enemies and just get down to making them pay a strategic price for it.
Agreed. I would also say that the use of proxies in warfare is not limited to the Cold War. We--the US--were French proxies when it was convenient for France and so it has gone throughout history. Proxy war is really an off shoot or 1st cousin of coalition warfare in that you are fighting together, you are letting someone else take on your enemies.
Best
Tom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks