Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 1, 2007
The Lesson

Some weeks ago, I had the chance to listen to an interesting lecture given to some strategists. Here is my recap (I’ll leave the religious crap out of the narrative – it isn’t relevant at all).

The educated, bearded and renowed teacher started off with some recent experience:

We knew they were preparing to come after us soon. Their plans were ready but they still needed some preparations on the ground. Their troops were not in place yet and the hot phase of their public campaign had not even started.

My fellows were prepared on the military side. We had everything in place where we would need it and we even had some nasty surprises prepared. There wasn’t much more we could do.

So why wait? We didn’t. We decided to take the initiative.

We launched a small interception and snatched some of their guys. We didn’t expect that to escalate at once and were prepared to do some additional scops. But those were not needed at all. They tried to get their people back immediately and we slaughtered their rescue team when it crossed our border. That did the trick.

They got such fierce public pressure by their own hawks that they had to launch their campaign unprepared.

They dropped on us what was available to them, but we paid them back every day. Their ground component, unprepared as it was, ran into every trap we had set up. Their decision making process was in total disarray and from top to bottom they seemingly did their best to screw up wherever they could.

After a few weeks, public opinion was decisively on our side and against theirs. They had to stop the fighting. When it was over, their original attack plans were archived.

It was a great victory for us. Internally, we were credited for defeating another occupation attempt, externally we are now the heroes of the proverbial street.

So on to your situation.

Your enemy is preparing for an attack. Though some of its assets are in the area, it is not yet ready for the fight. To show off, these dumb folks are parading their floating airports in your garden pond. As long as they do so, they can not attack. There is no room for manuever and those Chinese worms you have would make big scrap heaps out of them.

So here is my advice.

Catch some as you can. Make sure it looks ambiguous. They certainly give you enough chances for that. Make a bit of media fuzz and then just let it build.

Give their hawks some time to shame the fools at the top into ordering a premature attack. Take some digs at them here and there – stoke their fire.

There are two possible outcomes I can see:

  1. They will hit you with whatever they have ready. Bad, but you will have much better chances to hit back than you will get when they are fully prepared.
  2. They will chicken out. You’ll have taken their faces and gained the cred. They may even abort their attack plans at all after such.

I can’t think of a way such action would NOT help you.

But then – it’s your decision of course – and maybe you will not even have to make a decision at all.

As often in history, things may just fall into place by themselves.

Comments

US jet fighters violate Iran’s airspace: military

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 1 2007 18:14 utc | 1

The Iranians have a missile much worse for carrier groups than the Silkworm; it’s the Russian-developed Sunburn. Since the Soviets could not afford their own carrier groups, they developed the Sunburn as a carrier group killer. Iran has them.
FYI, the Silkworm was developed by the US-trained scientist Qian Xuesen, a founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who was forced to go to China because of the Red scare in the 1950s. In China, he became the founder of the Chinese strategic missile forces.
What goes around comes around…

Posted by: Chris Marlowe | Apr 1 2007 18:24 utc | 2

Uncle $cam #1,
Seeing these events regarding Iran unfold is like watching reruns of an old horror movie or at least different Holywood takes on a “B Class” Chuckie Horror Movie. In this case the “B” stands for “Bush Class” and instead of a scary Chuckie doll we have an even dumber and more evil Bush in real flesh and blood. That alone scares the hell out of me. It is all so similar to what happened immediately before massive bombings in Lebanon and Iraq the last few years. I never liked horror movies anyhow, and this is one movie that I surely don’t want to see finished and distributed.

Posted by: Rick | Apr 1 2007 18:33 utc | 3

and of course if you act like you welcome the end of the world you take away the power someone has to scare you.
we do live in interesting times.

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 1 2007 19:33 utc | 4

and, in this Middle East scenario, there is more than one side that feels the END TIMES will be soon upon us.
During the American civil war, many felt that way here in the USA – and The Battlehymn of the Republic came from that belief.
interesting times indeed, we live in a world filled with nutcases…….

Posted by: Susan | Apr 1 2007 19:51 utc | 5

Well – maybe that was too much of an April 1st post.
Direct question: Are the Iranians copying the plot Nasrallah’s used in Lebanon?

Posted by: b | Apr 2 2007 6:10 utc | 6

I don’t know. Were the Lebanese “copying the plot Nasrallah used in Lebanon”?
Don’t confuse the after-the-fact abstraction from an event with the actual event.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 2 2007 7:17 utc | 7

Robert Fisk: The war of humiliation

There is a lot we do not know – or care to know – about all this. In the meantime, however, it will be left to Blair, Bush and the merchants of the SKY-BBC-CNN-FOX-CBS-NBC-ABC axis of shlock-and-awe to play the Iranian game. Will they put Faye on trial? Will our boys be threatened with execution? Answer: no, but be sure we’ll soon be told by the Iranians that they are all spies. A lie, needless to say. But Blair will fulminate and Bush will roar and the Iranians will sit back and enjoy every second of it.
The Iranians died in their tens of thousands to destroy Saddam’s legions. And now they watch us wringing our hands over 15 lost souls. This is a big-time movie, the cinemascope of political humiliation. And the Iranians not only know how to stage the drama. They’ve even written Blair’s script.
And he obligingly reads it to cue.

Posted by: b | Apr 2 2007 8:56 utc | 8

Having worked in the 1990s on studies of asymmetrical warfare–conflicts between superpower nation-states and non-governmental groups or weaker nation-states–I was frequently confronted by long-time Cold Warriors who could not discern that the rules of asymmetrical warfare were different from those that had guided their actions since the end of World War II.
The truth of the change in rules still seems to have eluded our national leadership. For all the Bush Administration’s efforts to impose UN sanctions on Iran, it is the seizure of 15 British sailors that has had the most noticeable economic impact. I drove by the gas stations near work this morning and noticed that regular unleaded gas is now $2.72 per gallon, up 25-30 cents from two weeks ago. Most of the additional quarters flow directly to the oil companies and then on to countries such as Iran whose crude is being extracted. And the Bush Administration is powerless to control the imposition of those additional costs.
Pretty clever, those Iranians.

Posted by: infoshaman | Apr 2 2007 13:23 utc | 9

@infoshaman – the oil-revenue issue is quite interesting. Any stoking the fire helps Iran to balance its budget – 1$/bbl is worth some $75 million per month to them. But that only works up to the point of an US attack 🙁
On the other side it costs the US quite a lot. The military alone spend 6.7 billion for fuels in 2004, 10 billion in 2006 and the March contracts this year are above 4 billion alone. Quite some change being spend there.

Posted by: b | Apr 2 2007 15:39 utc | 10

Ahhh – here is the deal on the British folks:
Iranian Diplomat Is Said to Be Released in Iraq

An Iranian diplomat detained in Iraq for the last two months has been released, returning today to Iran.
Jalal Sharafi, who was the second secretary of Iran’s Embassy in Iraq, was abducted in Baghdad on Feb. 4 by men wearing Iraqi military uniforms and with official identification. Iran immediately held the United States responsible for his safety and demanded his release, but at the time, an American military spokesman said the military had no knowledge of the event.
Mr. Sharafi arrived today at Tehran’s Mehrabad International Airport and was greeted by the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and other ministry officials, the Iranian news agency IRNA reported.

In Baghdad, a senior Iraqi foreign ministry official said the Iraqi government was “intensively” seeking the release of five other Iranians who had been detained there by the United States, according to The Associated Press.

The U.S. will of course never confirm this, but Blair shit his pants after he found out that he had totally overplayed his situation. Teheran called him bluff. He begged Bush to get him out of this.
Quite a loss of of face for Blair/Bush, but don’t worry, the U.S. media will never commit this. As it looks now, the round goes to Iran. The U.K. was not able to attack, the U.S. not ready. One thing is for sure – this wasn’t the last move on the chessboard.

Posted by: b | Apr 3 2007 19:25 utc | 11

Looks like William S. Lind also did listen to The Lesson: Blinking Red Light

Could Iran have grabbed some British hostages as a way of pre-empting an American attack planned for April? This is where things get interesting.
Rumors have circulated in Washington for months naming April as the likely time for a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such rumors are common in wartime and usually prove wrong. But starting about two weeks ago, the Russians have pulled out the hundreds of people they had working on Iran’s first nuclear power plant, now nearing completion. The official Russian explanation was a “contract dispute,” but if you believe that I have a great bridge up in Brooklyn I’d love to sell you. If in fact Washington plans to hit Iran in April, it almost has to have tipped the Russians off so they could get their people out. Not doing so would have meant lots of dead Russians, killed by American bombs, with serious consequences in Europe and the U.N. as well as to American-Russian relations. The Russian pull-out, if not a direct leak from Moscow to Tehran, would have tipped off the Iranians. The question for them then would be, how to pre-empt?
Seizing just 15 British servicemen would hardly seem likely to pre-empt a major attack. But here is where the eastern way of war differs from the western. In the indirect, eastern way of war, it is often considered preferable to go after a strong enemy’s weak allies rather than his main strength. Would the Blair government collapse if, in response to an American strike on Iran, the heads of those 15 Brits ended up on pikes outside the British Embassy in Tehran? Good chance of it. That would in turn leave the U.S. totally stripped of meaningful allies, not only against Iran but also in Iraq. Could that potential give the White House pause? It could. If an action by Bush brought down his most loyal ally, Blair, who else would ever ally with Bush?
Again, this is all speculative, as it must be without better sources in Tehran than I possess. But we can look for an indicator. If Tehran refuses all efforts to resolve the matter, even with a trade of prisoners, then Iran probably has some continued use for British hostages. Holding them means paying increasing political costs, especially in Iran’s relationships with Europe, which are important to the Iranian regime. What is worth enough to pay those costs? Messing up American plans for an attack.

Posted by: b | Apr 4 2007 9:05 utc | 12

Next part of the deal to free the Brits: Report: Envoy to meet Iranians detained in Iraq

Iranian state media reported Wednesday that an Iranian envoy will be allowed to meet the five Iranians detained in January by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil.
There was no immediate confirmation of the report in Baghdad, where neither Iraqi government nor a U.S. military spokesman said they knew that permission had been granted for such a meeting.
“A representative from the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad will meet” the detained Iranians, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.

Of course this is completly unrelated …

Posted by: b | Apr 4 2007 11:22 utc | 13

Iran to free seized British sailors

TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his government would release the detained 15 British sailors and marines Wednesday as an Easter gift to the British people.
He said the sailors would be taken to Tehran airport at the end of the press conference that he was addressing.
Meantime in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office said it welcomed the news.

Posted by: b | Apr 4 2007 14:33 utc | 14

Ahmadinejad:

…criticized Britain for deploying Leading Seaman Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.
“How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don’t they respect family values in the West?” he asked of the British government.

Nice turn.

Posted by: beq | Apr 4 2007 16:39 utc | 15

Yes beq – and it will certainly have more effect in the ME than in the west …
One good from this:
Calming the Waters

Iran can notch at least one victory in the battle over the 15 seized British sailors, who now appear set to return to Britain as early as Thursday. The dispute, U.S. military and diplomatic officials say, has sparked debate over the very murky question of who rightly controls what areas of the Persian Gulf.
In Washington, the clash has prompted at least one high-level meeting of diplomats, lawyers and cartographers at the State Department this week to try to clarify the U.S. position on exactly where the international boundaries fall within the strategically vital Gulf, a major transit point for crude oil.
“The lines in many places range from ill-defined to undefined,” said one U.S. official involved in the debate, which some think could take on the dimensions of a international legal case.
U.S. military officials say that Iran scored at least a minor triumph by forcing Britain to break away from the rest of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq to hold one-on-one talks with Iran over Western naval operations in the Gulf. Britain is said to be pushing back strongly against U.S. plans to hold another round of naval maneuvers — this time involving destroyers and cruisers — in the Gulf as early as next week.

Posted by: b | Apr 4 2007 18:04 utc | 16

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran

A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.
U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or “finding” as well as congressional oversight.
Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

Posted by: b | Apr 5 2007 7:47 utc | 17

Hostage case resolved:
Ecstatic & joyful British troops meet president of Iran, experience Iranian cuisine (and smokes) in non-scheduled R&R, find their tour of duty aborted, and look forward to coming home. Sure beats dog attacks, electrodes, and sexual humiliation. I think Billmon called it “contrast gainer”.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 5 2007 8:17 utc | 18

but, but the woman had to wear a scarf AM! a scarf. what could be more humiliating than that?

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 5 2007 9:24 utc | 19