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.
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.Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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.
Iran's war against the US
Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Her proxies have caused the death of more Americans than anyone besides al Qaeda, since that time. It is something the regimes admits in private and occasionally in public. While it has been clandestine, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons could make that war even more deadly.
Iran's current activity appears to be that of helping our enemies with logistical support. Attacking that logistical support has resulted in the capture of some Iranians in Iraq and may do so in Afghanistan. Iran has responded to that capture with a bogus hostage try against the Brits and the current arrest of Americans visiting Iran.
The only reason Iran has not used more effective means in its war with the US is it fears a US response. I'm not sure why they fear such a response since we seem to be going out of our way to even acknowledge Iranian responsibility for the logistical assistance to our enemies. I guess both sides fear the consequences that might flow from that acknowledgment. We have come along way from the original announcement of the Bush doctrine on states that support terrorism.
Up The Ante
Iran's nervousness can only increase as they strive to obtain nuclear weapons, because if upon obtaining that capability they are ever militarily punished for their proxy actions, they run a risk of total obliteration should they use a nuke(s) in retaliation. Should they ever respond in a non-nuke way to any punitive attacks for their proxy actions, they know they will lose their nuke facilities as a precautionary measure in the second round of retaliation. The only logical thing to do is slip a few billion under the table to Israel and have them take out Iran's nuclear capability now. After all, Israel is already the villain over there and that is exactly what villains do.
That's if we're making the assumption that Israel CAN take out Iran's nuclear capability now.
Just to add a bit of colour on the debate, here's an blogging heads video with Jeremy Shapiro of the Brookings Institute on the situation in Afghanistan. About 3/4ths of the way through he starts discussing Iran's influence after traveling to Herat. He suggest that some in NATO believe it more to be more akin to large scale smuggling, than a direct attempt by the Iranian government to destabilize the situation.
Normally I'd be a bit suspicious about this single argument, but there has been a bit of evidence lately that Tehran is in the grips of a minipower struggle, with different elements pushing different policies. Steve Clemons of the Washington Note had this interesting article about what happened behind the scenes with the 15 British Sailors. Given the convoluted power structure that currently exists, it might be possible that some elements of the Iranian government might be turning a blind eye to shipments.
Moreover its somewhat difficult to believe that on one hand Iran is embracing the Taliban, while making very disquieting noises about the Baluch issue in Pakistan.
Last edited by Mooks; 07-05-2007 at 06:55 PM. Reason: Apparently I can't spell.
I wonder if the political will exists to take on the Iranians. I can see it now the media will be asking if the proof of Iranian involvement is similar to the Iraqi WMD proof and the public will lap it up, followed by the inevitable "I told you it's all about oil" from the left. It doesn't help when Hamid Karzai says Iran is Afghanistans good friend and wouldn't do such a thing. The consequences militarily suck pretty badly as well. I'm sure we have enough bombs to make life miserable in Iran, but can we handle another war at this point? Seems we're stretched pretty thin already and the Iranians know it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks