NewsAndAnalysis.org

The lights are off in Washington

09 December 2006

 

[This article, which is drawn heavily from our other articles, is the next installment in our attempt to capture the geopolitical implications of the conflict in Iraq.]

 

The president, the Iraq Survey Group, and seemingly every other politician in Washington are fretting that Iraq may slide into all-out civil war, inspire al Qaeda sympathizers around the globe, and tarnish America’s international reputation.  It is unfortunate for the West that these outcomes, which are already largely realized, pale in comparison to the true dire consequences of the coming U.S. failure.  Very soon, Iran will have finalized its control of Iraq and established a territorial foothold extending from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea via Iraq and Syria.  America’s political and media establishments have almost entirely ignored this geopolitical nightmare.

 

The following text aims to shed light on several recurring questions: What are the consequences of U.S. failure in Iraq?  Is Iran developing nuclear weapons?  Who is in charge in Iran?  Does Iran oppose a civil war in Iraq?  Why is the Iraqi government ineffective?  Does Iran seek to destroy Israel?  Why does Shiite Iran back Sunni terrorist organizations?  Why do Russia and China thwart U.S. efforts to “deal with” Iran?  To find the answers, step back and think big.

 

Iran has four primary objectives that drive its foreign policy:

 

Negate Iraq as a regional power.  Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq from the Shiite and Sunni sides.  It directly funds, equips, and trains several dominant Shiite militias such as al Sadr’s Mahdi Army.  It also backs Syria, which shelters former Ba’athist insurgent leaders and al Qaeda’s foreign fighter network, both of which are crucial to the Sunni insurgency.  Iran has three objectives in Iraq aiming to prevent Iraq's resurgence as a regional power and remove - or greatly reduce - the U.S. footprint in the region.  These objectives are:

 

1. Maintain control over dominant Shiite political and military elements in Iraq.  Iran's control over majority political elements will continue to provide it notable influence in Iraq, even if Iraq establishes a functional democracy.

 

2. Maintain Shiite political dominance over Iraq or establish a separate Shiite state.  A civil war in Iraq could benefit Iran because Iraqi Shia control large portions of Iraq's territory and oil resources.  Further, splitting Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite regions will lessen the need for Shia to compromise with Sunni and Kurdish factions and prevent the formation of an Iraqi regime influenced by non-Shiites and capable of threatening Iran.  In other words, Iran's strategic interests are largely indifferent to a civil war in Iraq, as long as it does not spread to Iran.

 

3. Facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq or severely diminish their freedom of action, particularly within Shiite-controlled areas.  The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan provide the U.S. an invaluable geographical location from which it could "contain" or potentially invade Iran, or so Iran fears.  Further, U.S. forces in Iraq inhibit the Shiite militias, as U.S. forces periodically target them.  Yet, as Iraqi security forces, which are predominantly Shia, "step up," the potential exists for U.S. forces to have fewer opportunities and authority to act throughout Iraq.

 

End Israel’s existence.  Iran has been clear that it seeks the elimination of Israel.  President Ahmadinejad recently claimed that he merely seeks a political end to Israel, but Iran’s military support for Hamas and Hizballah, terrorist organizations actively engaged in attacks against Israel, suggests otherwise.  The “political wings” of Hamas and Hizballah will not negotiate a peace with Israel because they are significantly funded by Iran, which seeks Israel’s end and not a peaceful coexistence.  Any U.S. course of action that leads to either a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq or limits U.S. freedom of action in Iraq will likely trigger an increase in Iranian-sponsored attacks against Israel.  The reasons behind this judgment include: (1) Shiite territories in Iraq, which are heavily influenced by Iran, can serve as a land bridge between Iran and Syria and ease the flow of weapons from Iran to Hizballah and Hamas; (2) Since Iran plays a key role in opposing the U.S. occupation in Iraq, a perceived victory will likely embolden Iran; and (3) A victory in Iraq will lessen Iran’s need to focus its resources – particularly those of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) – on Iraq.  Therefore, Iran will be free to shift its resources to better support the “armed resistance” against Israel.  Additionally, Iran’s support for holocaust revisionists is not lunacy, but is strategically aimed to undermine Israel’s most-widely accepted basis for existence.
 

Obtain a nuclear deterrent.  Iran has consistently claimed that it has no intention of halting its Uranium enrichment efforts or other elements of its nuclear program.  Although Iran claims that its enrichment activities and nuclear program are for the creation of “peaceful” nuclear power, its behavior suggests otherwise.  Iran is following the path used by other nations that have sought or obtained nuclear weapons for strategic purposes.  It is reasonable, if not prudent, to assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, not only because of its unnecessarily suspicious behavior, but also because nuclear weapons are strategically important and will provide Iran a deterrent shield that would permit it greater freedom to maintain or escalate its proxy wars against Israel and the West.

 

Spread the Revolution.  This expression captures the lasting cause of the 1979 Iranian revolution and is a crucial driver for Iran’s foreign policy.  Revolutionary language is common among the vernacular of Iran’s ruling elite and is also used by many of Iran’s strategic allies.  The recent meeting of the Non-aligned Movement in Havana introduced the world to – what I shall call – the Coalescing Coalition of Anti-Western Revolutionaries, which is informally led by Iran.  Spreading the revolution means attacking the West at every opportunity, fostering extremist ideologies, and attaining Iranian preeminence.  Iran’s somewhat counterintuitive support for civil war in its neighbor Iraq, for Sunni terrorist groups, and for Latin American dictators demonstrates the extent to which Iran will temporarily sacrifice some of its values so that it may one day achieve its broader objectives.

 

Iraq’s Shiite political leaders will not genuinely seek a unity government until Iran is no longer pulling the strings because they know Tehran will be in charge when America grows weary and pulls its forces from Iraq.  Also, Russia and China will not support meaningful courses of action to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons plans or its support for terrorism because Russia and China – America’s chief competitors – will benefit greatly from Iran’s upcoming strategic coup in the Middle East.

 

Lastly, the problems the world faces from Iran have little to do with its president (Ahmadinejad).  Iran's government has a loose facade of democracy that permits its citizens to vote on representatives and a president.  However, these candidates must be approved by Iran's religious ruling elite, namely its Supreme Leader, and they may be dismissed at any time.  Previous Iranian presidents, including those naively labeled "reformists," had little power.  The same is true for Ahmadinejad.  He will remain in power until the Supreme Leader decides he has outlived his usefulness.  The skeptics view of his likely early departure from his post is that it will either permit the religious extremists that rule Iran to appear more moderate if they dismiss him or it will further the facade of citizen rule if he is voted from office.  Regardless, the Supreme Leader and his advisors pull all of the strings in Iran.

 

 

Related:

Iran finalizing its control of Iraq

    Judgment: Iran - not al Qaeda or the insurgency - is the primary threat to Iraq's democratic viability and is an immediate threat to U.S. influence in the Middle East. Iran's upper hand means it has no need for or interest in compromise. Options for combating Iran's influence are assessed.

Iran to host Holocaust conference; Iran's president says Holocaust now up for debate

    Judgment: Iran’s support for holocaust revisionists appears strategically aimed to undermine Israel’s most-widely accepted reason for existence.

Iran tells Talabani that US-led forces must leave Iraq

    Judgment: Iran’s Supreme Leader provides his assessment of diminishing U.S. political will in Iraq, and appeals to the Iraqi PM to help achieve Iran’s final objective in Iraq: U.S. withdrawal.

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia: Hezbollah Training Also Linked to Iraq Violence

    Judgment: The public evidence of Iran's support to militias in Iraq is mounting.  This support likely aims to (1) weaken Sunni elements to enhance Shiite control and (2) complicate U.S. efforts to establish a strong central Iraqi government.

How To Deal With Iran - recommended read

    This article explains the broader Shiite agenda in the Middle East and subtle elements of its strategy.

 

 

PS:

Our assessment of Iran's motivation for Holocaust revisionism is proving correct.  Consider this quote from opening remarks at Iran's Holocaust conference: "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. If... it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"