SWJ Mag Vol 9 - Understanding Iran's Motivations in Iraq

[SWCAdmin]

In volume 9, SWJ Magazine:

Understanding Iran’s Motivations in Iraq
The Cost Calculus of External Support
by Ryan Carr

Open thread….

[JJackson]

This article is much in line with my thinking regarding Iran’s motives in aiding insurgents in Iraq. My question is what is the US’s problem with Iran? As an outsider I can see there is historical animosity on the Iranian part re Mossadegh & the Shah and on the US’s re. the embassy hostages, but now why is the current US position so hostile? Prima facie Iran is more democratic than other Middle Eastern states, is no more draconian than many others – Saudi Arabia being the obvious example – and seems keen to talk not fight.
This is a serious question, I do not understand why is Iran favoured with ‘axis of evil’ status?

[pcmfr]

Our main problem with Iran currently is they have killed dozens of US servicemen (and a few of yours) with the weapons and training with which they supply the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq... That and the fact that their current leadership has threatened to blow one of our long term allies off the map...

I would also invite your attention to Iran's use of proxies for terrorist acts, including Lebanese Hezbollah. Finally, they have the means to threaten the most strategic chokepoint for petroleum transport, which is not an insignificant threat to the US and global economies.

[marct]

Originally Posted by pcmfr

Finally, they have the means to threaten the most strategic chokepoint for petroleum transport, which is not an insignificant threat to the US and global economies.

I think that this is probably the most telling point in a lot of ways, at least as far as their inclusion in the Axis of Evil is concerned. BTW, given when that speech war made, Iran's current support for and involvement with killing US forces in Iraq is irrelevant to JJ's question

I do not understand why is Iran favoured with ‘axis of evil’ status?

although certainly a major point towards current tensions.

[Rex Brynen]

Originally Posted by JJackson

This is a serious question, I do not understand why is Iran favoured with ‘axis of evil’ status?

It is undoubtedly the case that the Iranians get up to a number of very unhelpful activities, some of which are in the public domain, and not all of which we can get into here. The potential for another nuclear state in the area is also hardly a warm and fuzzy thought too.

It is also true, however, that Iran has a set of understandable national security interests, that need to be addressed. They have a far more vital interset in (neighbouring) Iraq and Afghanistan than does the US, for example--especially given that the former attacked, and used WMD against them (with a degree of Western support). The impact of that war can't be overstated: Iranian casualties were, proportionate to population, greater than US casualties in WWII.

It is inevitable that Tehran will use whatever means it has available (money, weapons, diplomacy) to influence events there--much as the US would do if Iranian troops seized control of Canada and Mexico.

Support for Hizbullah is problematic in the light of its involvement in cross-border attacks and attempts to destabilize the current Siniora government. However, this isn't entirely black-and white either: Hizbullah was born in reaction to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by a US-armed and US-funded ally who had a green light from Washington. That war, everyone but the Lebanese and Palestinians tend to forget, resulted in some 15,000 or so dead and years of occupation. Hizbullah's growth also came in the context of a consociational political system that systematically disadvantages the Shi'ite plurality in the country. Finally, it is looking rather as if (much to my surprise) UN cartographers are now tending to the view that Shaba Farms is part of Lebanon after all, meaning (much to our embarrassment) Hizbullah might have been right about Lebanese territory still being under Israeli occupation.

One of the frustrating things about US-Iranian rivalry is that one can highlight a number of areas of potential common interest (AQ, stability in Iraq and Afghanistan) but complex internal political and ideological dynamics in both countries inhibit any sort of productive strategic dialogue, whether it be the US spurning Iranian overtures in 2003, the "Axis of Evil" speech (as a Canadian, btw, I apologize for David Frum), the covert activities of the IRGC and MOIS, and the anti-Semitic ramblings of Ahmadinejad. Now, sadly, I think its almost an impossible task, at least until we've had a change or two in presidential administrations.

My usual caveat applies here: I'm not suggesting any sort of moral equivalence here. I am suggesting that failure to understand Iranian national security concerns and policies results in suboptimal outcomes.

---

On a side note, I remember attending a conference where a US admiral went on at length at the Iranian threat to the US. In the discussion period, a much more junior Marine intel officer offered all the reasons why he thought Iranians might understandably regard the US as a national security threat too. The discussion grew more and more heated, especially when the latter suggested that configuring Iranian forces to try to take down a US carrier (in the event of conflict) seemed a perfectly sensible thing for them to do. Apparently, this idea does not go over well in the Navy

[JJackson]

Going back to ‘Understanding Iran’s Motivations in Iraq - The Cost Calculus of External Support’ I would argue that the rhetoric from the current US regime is backing Iran into a corner and their best defence – to prevent being the next casualty of the US military – is to bog down US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would it not then be a better option to engage them diplomatically and so cut off the insurgents support. That is certainly the message I took from the article. As to the Iranians being able to interrupt oil supplies true but also true for the US navy and others but as an oil exporter I can not see why anyone would think they would want to do such a thing – unless as a means of striking back after aggression on the part of the US. At present all the belligerent noise is from the US side, Iran has no interest in a war they are going to come out worst from.

[JJackson]

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

It is undoubtedly the case that the Iranians get up to a number of very unhelpful activities, some of which are in the public domain, and not all of which we can get into here. The potential for another nuclear state in the area is also hardly a warm and fuzzy thought too.

I do not doubt that Iran is giving support to some insurgent groups I am merely wondering why. If the primary reason is to ensure they do not end up with a hostile neighbour then stop being hostile is one solution. I am obviously not privy to intelligence data that would convince me Iran has any kind of weapons program and given the last time I was told that was the case – regarding Iraq – I made the mistake of believing my Prime Minister and the US President would not start a war without solid intelligence. This time I will trust the IAEA. If the Iranians did produce a bomb I personally believe it would be for the MAD reason and would not fear it, what I would fear was the US and Israeli reaction to it.
I am worried by your anecdote about the admiral and the marine, if a US admiral has a problem with reasoned argument about what military planners in a potential foe might do something is seriously amiss – unless he thought the marine was public airing a potential weakness.

[marden]

I believe anyone who overlooks Iran's Islamist motivation is seeing only part of the picture.

In 1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini presided over an Islamic Revolution in Iran which had a mission of first, creating an Imamate, and then assuming mastery over all mankind.

"We will export our revolution throughout the world.... Until the calls `there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world".

-- Ayatollah Khomeini

The Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988
By Efraim Karsh

And since Iran was the first nation where the "Government of God" existed it was their sacred duty to lead the Islamic World.

I believe there are people in our government who understand the nature of the Islamist threat and view it as every bit as daunting in it's own way, as the Third Reich was before Chamberlain and Daladier agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland.

Believing the Iranians' desire for greater power, resources and influence in the region without also acknowledging their religious motivation is like purchasing the seeds for the next war on the installment plan. Most of the Iranian population are Shiite Muslim. The largest denomination of the Shiite sect are called "Twelvers," whose eschatology dictates the 12th Imam will come out of hiding after more than a thousand years and will convert the world "into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus before Yaum al-Qiyamah (literally "Day of the Resurrection")". (Wikipedia - Twelvers)

But rather than waiting for this day to happen, some say the current Iranian leadership believes they can cause this messianic "Day of Resurrection" to occur.

And because of their religious beliefs, the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will not serve as a deterrent as it did with the "Godless" Soviets who did not have an ideology which promised 'borscht and vodka in the sky when they died' but I think we all know about the Islamic belief in an afterlife.

"We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah...For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

-- Ayatollah Khomeini

Because of these considerations I think the government is necessarily being as cautious as possible about dealing with Iran. Some of the world's best chess players are Persian born and the problem of removing the United States as a barrier to the creation of their Islamic Empire or else prompting the United States to strike the first blow without "provocation" (for Muslims to strike the first blow and without sufficient provocation would violate Islamic law and, presumably invalidate their eschatology, so they would need us to attack them) is a strategy they have had almost 30 years to study.