War against America

Jerusalem Pot ^ | 8-31-04 | BARRY RUBIN

[SJackson]

Imagine a revelation 10 years ago that Iran was paying thousands of people to kill Americans daily.

Something remarkable has happened, even by the Middle East's usual standards. For the first time in history states in the region are conducting a systematic, covert war against the United States.

The question is, what can America do about it? Not much.

The war is being conducted in Iraq, mainly by Iran, but also by Syria. In both cases, evidence indicates that: Groups are being encouraged to attack and kill Americans in Iraq.

Recruitment of terrorists is being freely allowed, as is their training, financing, arming, and transport to the Iraqi border, where they are permitted to cross over to wage war on the US.

In Iran, citizens are being used in a war against the US in order to destabilize and try to take over Iraq.

To some extent, Teheran exercises influence over the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr, who has repeatedly set off fighting with the coalition forces. While the exact extent of Iranian involvement can be debated, the fact that it exists on a large scale is clear.

Let there be no mistake: This is a major development and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

While there have been many reports about Syrian and Iranian involvement in the Iraq fighting, virtually no one has noted the implications. If Damascus and Teheran can get away with waging a direct war against America – not just a sporadic sponsorship of isolated terrorist attacks, as has happened in the past – how much credibility and deterrence will the US have against radical regimes?

Moreover, this is taking place at a time when US power and regional presence is at a peak.

Would there be violence in Iraq without this subversive intervention? Certainly. But it would be at a much lower level, meaning fewer American soldiers and civilians would be dying in Iraq, there would be more domestic support for continuing the commitment there, and the new Iraqi government would have a much better chance of reestablishing stability.

A variety of other charges can be brought against the two radical regimes.

Syria is suspected of hiding high-ranking Saddamist officials and weapons and of concealing mass-destruction materiel.

Iran had suspicious ties with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida after it was driven out of Afghanistan. At a minimum, it gave safe passage to anti-American terrorists and is probably allowing them to operate from its soil. In addition, it is busily developing nuclear weapons and will soon have them, as well as the missiles to deliver them to distant targets.

Why, then, can the US do so little about the problem?

First, it is overextended in Iraq, spending vast amounts of money and using pretty much all the available military forces.

Second, support for its presence in Iraq is already falling rapidly. There would be no domestic backing or international support for engaging in a wider war.

Third, after having been so criticized for going into Iraq in the first place, the administration would not have much credibility in charging that Iran and Syria are engaged in aggressive activities.

Finally, both Syria and Iran would be tougher adversaries than Iraq; the result would be horrendous, bloody, inconclusive, and endless wars if the US decided to fight them.

The US Congress recently passed a law to penalize Syria for its behavior, and there have long been sanctions against Iran. The former, however, is fairly meaningless, while the latter have inflicted costs on Teheran, but nowhere near enough to make it change policy.

In both cases, too, Europe is ready, even eager, to violate the US sanctions and tighten relations with these terrorist-sponsoring states.

Given US inability to do much about the problem, even President George W. Bush – who coined the phrase "axis of evil" and calls for subverting dictators by supporting democracy – has been careful not to play up the issue.

Imagine if it had been revealed five or 10 years ago that Iran was urging, ordering, organizing, and paying hundreds or even thousands of people to kill Americans on a daily basis. Now this situation is being taken for granted.

It is thus unlikely that the US, regardless of who is elected president in November, would take strong and direct action if Iran announced it possessed nuclear weapons. These are uncomfortable realities, and they must be faced.

No matter what anyone argues, this passivity is not going to change. Having gone into Iraq and found that step so controversial and relatively unsuccessful, the US is not going to undertake other offensive actions, whether or not they seem justifiable to some observers.

Arguably, any gain in the "fear factor" brought about by the US overthrow of Saddam is being eroded. Those who argue, in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini two decades ago, that the US cannot do a "damn thing" are having that feeling reinforced today.

The Iraq war's outcome has undermined the credibility of US power no matter how long American forces remain in Iraq. Indeed, one could argue that the longer they remain, the worse the problem will become.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and editor of Turkish Studies.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Ciexyz]

Most interesting read.

[sionnsar]

"Long since time to oust the mullahs" ping

[tet68]

Those who argue, in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini two decades ago, that the US cannot do a "damn thing" are having that feeling reinforced today.

We'll see how that plays after we destroy their nuclear
facilities.
Let's not leave Syria out either.

[LiberalBassTurds]

By the time George Bush ends his second term both of the regimes mentioned will have been dealt with.

LBT

-=-=-

[sionnsar]

Finally, both Syria and Iran would be tougher adversaries than Iraq; the result would be horrendous, bloody, inconclusive, and endless wars if the US decided to fight them.

Invading Iran would, IMHO, count as one of the worst options that could be undertaken. The government of Iran has plenty of power but very little popular support. There have to be ways to undercut its power, and let the people (largely pro-American as has been noted many times on FR and other places) take control, through other means.

[DB]

No chance.

[nuconvert]

"Why, then, can the US do so little about the problem?" Maybe the U.S. CHOOSES to do little at the moment.

[Nick Danger]

Why, then, can the US do so little about the problem?

Because we are stupid. We are so dumb that we built actual bases thousands of miles from New York and Washington. We have stocked these bases with ammunition and supplies, and we have established a logistics infrastructure to keep them so supplied.

Then we filled them up with trained soldiers who are armed to the teeth.

So now we have a problem. Instead of sneaking into the United States with some nefarious plan to kill innocent civilians, all a would-be terrorist has to do to find some Americans to kill is cross the border into Iraq.

Best of all, these aren't just ordinary Americans the terrorists can cross the border to kill. They are Marines, and Airborne, and whole armored divisions. Which makes it really convenient for the terrorists.

And us.

[TalBlack]

"Third, after having been so criticized for going into Iraq in the first place, the administration would not have much credibility in charging that Iran and Syria are engaged in aggressive activities."

The article is shot full of the tired, cowardly, self justifying failure that got us the problem we're having with radical Islam in the first place but the line quoted above ALSO has the distinction of not making any sense.

If we kill our enemies our problem will go away. No one who happens to be in power in any country in the world wants to be dead--no matter HOW ideological they happen to be. Nature of the beast. These people provide the actual infrastructure of the terror war. Kill them.

[JasonC]

Nope, not remotely correct. Kerry is the terrorist's only shot. When he goes down, they are naked.

Iraq has not been a failure. The left has screamed hysterically about a success. It is all pure wind. If and when the American people reject it, they will have nothing left.

What are they going to do to Bush if he presses on after re-election? Call him names? That they haven't already called him? Cite an old election that was close, instead of a recent one that won't be?

Iraq is not using most available US forces. Ask the air force, or the navy. Moreover, they are deliberately holding back at the behest of the Iraqi government. They could slaughter all the militias in a month if they wanted to. There isn't any point before the election, though. As long as the terrorists think Kerry will win it for them, they will keep trying. Pushing for a decision on the ground now is therefore not sensible.

But once they see no deliverance from US politics, they are going to be naked, and without hope. Perhaps the Iraqi government will prefer a political solution at that point - it is their call. But if Bush wins, any time after the election US forces can clobber the militias if they think they need to.

Bush will try pressure and support for a revolution in Iran first, to be sure. But he will not let Iran get nukes. He will destroy them from the air if necessary. He doesn't stop for mere blather from the media left, as should be tolerably obvious by now.

In short, the jihadi fellow traveler is dreaming. Only Kerry can save them. And the American people don't want them saved. Ergo...

[Leisler]

Solution?

Glass. Nice, shiny glass. Miles and miles of glass. Hour after hour on a highway of glass with glass mountains way way across the glasslands.

[JasonC]

The history of unarmed rebellions against ruthless men with tanks and machineguns is not exactly promising. Sure, it is worth trying. But US airpower supporting insurgents are a much more credible formula than a pure civilian revolt succeeding in today's Iran. I wish they could, but wishing does not make it so.

[sionnsar]

The history of unarmed rebellions against ruthless men with tanks and machineguns is not exactly promising.

Granted. But may I offer a counter argument? CCCP

Iran (and its people) before the revolution, was(/were) friendly to Jews, Israel and America(ns). The people still are -- but we need to be to them what the French were to us in our Revolutionary War: supporters, but not drivers.

(Have I committed an FR gaffe here?)

[i_dont_chat]

I think this writer should talk to someone who was in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

The United States of America DOES know how to end a conflict. We are not weak; we are simply trying all of our options.

If these don’t work, there's always that final solution!

[Brian Allen]

<< Why, then, can the US do so little about the problem?
Because we are stupid. We are so dumb that we built actual bases thousands of miles from New York and Washington. We have stocked these bases with ammunition and supplies, and we have established a logistics infrastructure to keep them so supplied.

Then we filled them up with trained soldiers who are armed to the teeth.

So now we have a problem. Instead of sneaking into the United States with some nefarious plan to kill innocent civilians, all a would-be terrorist has to do to find some Americans to kill is cross the border into Iraq.

Best of all, these aren't just ordinary Americans the terrorists can cross the border to kill. They are Marines, and Airborne, and whole armored divisions. Which makes it really convenient for the terrorists.

And us. >>

Thank you!

Blessings -- Brian

[Jumper]

France was responsible for Komani's return to Iran in 1979.... Afarat's wife resides in the surburbs of Paris.... Syria is a major major trade ally of France as is Iran who together account for about 14% of French international trade. Iraq was about 9-14% of the French international economic activity before the invasion....

Everywhere Arabs are actively involved against America, one can clearly see the coexistance of French policy and stweardship. Bankrupt France and watch the economic support, and political support disappear overnight.

[JasonC]

The people aren't in power. As for Russia, Gorby wasn't ruthless. (A commie yes, ruthless no). The coup guys were, and it took Yeltsin appealing directly to the soldiers to stop them. In Iran, they wouldn't have to use regular soldiers. They have republican guards, recruited exclusively from islamicists - and Shia ones who regard obediance to their ayatollahs as the sum of all virtue. I don't doubt the sentiments of the people of Iran, but they are not a power at the moment.