Article

2020-01-03 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

[Asia Times] - US President Donald Trump’s decision to humiliate Iran with the assassination of a national hero on Jan. 2 is a calculated gamble and probably represents the best of a set of bad alternatives.

Trump inherited a weak hand after the George W. Bush Administration destroyed the century-old balance of power between Sunni and Shia in Western Asia, by replacing Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority regime with a sectarian Shia government allied to Iran. Bush’s belief in majority rule and nation-building, lauded by his neoconservative advisers, handed Iran an opportunity to dominate the region. Trump pushed back with economic sanctions, which have not dissuaded Iran from extending its reach.

Iran provoked the United States by attacking its embassy in Baghdad after the US launched airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. Iran’s attack on the embassy sought to humble the United States. Trump decided to escalate rather than matching Iran tit-for-tat. Both actions involved high-risk gambles, and require an explanation. Iran crossed a red line by backing a militia attack on the US embassy and Trump crossed a red line by killing General Qasem Soleimani. Nations don’t take actions of this sort capriciously.

...Persia as such is a declining power. Its strategic position, as I have argued in the past, resembles France on the eve of the First World War. Today Iran has five workers of prime-age (25-64 years) for every citizen over 65. By 2050 the ratio will crash to just 1.8 working-age Iranians per retiree, assuming constant fertility. Iran’s economy will crash. Its pension systems already are bankrupt. Iran’s only hope of maintaining regional hegemony is to expand the Shia presence in Mesopotamia and the Levant, through militias like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the 80,000-strong mercenary militias it supports in Syria, staffed mainly by Afghan and Pakistani Shia.

...Without attempting to read the minds of Iran’s leaders, one may conjecture that Iran badly needed a moral victory to show that it was not cowed by massive Israeli airstrikes in Syria, nor, indeed, by a deteriorating economy at home. In November, the Iranian regime ruthlessly suppressed anti-regime protests, killing up to 1,000 demonstrators. After the US struck five bases of Iran-backed militias in Iraq on Dec. 30, Iran decided that its credibility required a demonstration of power, and ordered the attack on the US embassy.

...That left Trump with few good choices. After 5,000 dead, 50,000 wounded and trillions of dollars in expenditures in Iraq, the US had succeeded in turning a former counterweight to Iranian ambitions into an Iranian satrapy. The embassy attack was intended by Iran as a public act of ritual humiliation, and the United States had no choice but to respond. Trump chose to respond by subjecting Iran to an even more poignant form of humiliation, by assassinating a national hero, Gen. Qassam Sulemaini. It is easy to criticize the US president, but harder to recommend an alternative course of action. US airpower has limited effectiveness in constraining the diffuse Iranian-backed militias.

...Neither Iran nor the US has good choices here. Iran must respond or its credibility will collapse. The question is how. An Iranian attack on an American ally like Israel or Saudi Arabia would not suffice, now that Washington has acted in its own name against a key Iranian leader. The indicated course of action is to attack an American asset. In the extreme case, Iran could use a combination of intermediate-range missiles, cruise missiles and drones to attack the Doha base.

...If Iran were to attack Doha, America’s response likely would be devastating. Two dozen missiles or bombing sorties could wipe out Iran’s economy in a matter of hours. Fewer than a dozen power plants generate 60% of Iran’s electricity, and eight refineries produce 80% of its distillates. A single missile strike could disable each of these facilities, and bunker-buster bombs of the kind that Israel used last month in Lebanon would entirely destroy them. Without much effort, the US could destroy the Port of Kharg from which Iran exports 90% of its hydrocarbons.

...It seems clear that Iran was taken aback by the ferocity of America’s response to the embassy attack. If it anticipated this sort of attack, Gen. Sulemaini never would have appeared in person at the Baghdad Airport. Iran now has to devise a response whose outcome is extremely difficult to calculate. There is a significant probability of a major escalation.

Iran well may decide on a limited, symbolic action that fails to restore its credibility after the Sulemaini assassination. If it chooses restraint, its power in the region will diminish, and Trump’s gamble will pay off.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-01-03 13:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#1 So Trump had to unravel the Boosh x Soetoro mistakes or take the blame for letting the situation fester. He chose to take the blame for what he did rather than for what he didn't do. I like that.

Posted by M. Murcek 2020-01-03 13:23|| 2020-01-03 13:23|| Front Page Top

#2 ...It seems clear that Iran was taken aback by the ferocity of America’s response to the embassy attack.

As P2K commented in another thread, this is a very Jacksonian response. This is the second time Iran has attacked a US embassy.

I have not read Trump's The Art of the Deal yet, but I'm told there is a section were Trump says that if someone *bleep*s you in a deal, you need to *bleep* them back. I wonder if the book is published in Persian.

Posted by SteveS 2020-01-03 13:34|| 2020-01-03 13:34|| Front Page Top

#3 So far nobody is talking about the Iranians attacking one of the many warshipsin the gulf. I would think that is a pretty high probabilty in the Iranians' thought processes. Of course after that the entire country (returns) to dust and sand.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2020-01-03 14:14|| 2020-01-03 14:14|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm pretty sure every US agent/serviceman/operation is on high alert for some time in the future

Posted by Frank G 2020-01-03 14:33|| 2020-01-03 14:33|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm sure they have a plan or two for a Beruit Marine Barracks attack, and with all their proxies, they may opt for a number of simultaneous attacks to stretch our ability to respond.

Posted by Mercutio 2020-01-03 14:52|| 2020-01-03 14:52|| Front Page Top

#6 They are still trying to figure out whether our Intel was that good or someone inside dropped a dime.

Posted by M. Murcek 2020-01-03 15:30|| 2020-01-03 15:30|| Front Page Top

#7 #2 Steve S - the DJT quote I'm familiar with (from the 1989s) was, I play fair. But screw me, and I screw back - in spades.

Posted by Lex 2020-01-03 15:57|| 2020-01-03 15:57|| Front Page Top

#8 *1980s

Posted by Lex 2020-01-03 15:58|| 2020-01-03 15:58|| Front Page Top

#9 Escalations as they may be, there haven't been any civilian casualties yet so if Iran's next move is to kill innocent victims It's a whole new ball game.

Posted by Bob Glomock4627 2020-01-03 15:59|| 2020-01-03 15:59|| Front Page Top

#10 The guy is not a hero to the common Iranian.

Posted by gorb 2020-01-03 18:49|| 2020-01-03 18:49|| Front Page Top

#11 to stretch our ability to respond.
Unless all paths lead to the same overwhelming response.

Posted by Glenmore 2020-01-03 19:00|| 2020-01-03 19:00|| Front Page Top

12:22 Abu Uluque
12:19 Abu Uluque
12:17 Abu Uluque
12:17 Skidmark
12:15 Abu Uluque
12:11 Skidmark
12:01 Crusader
11:55 Grom the Affective
11:52 Crusader
11:50 Crusader
11:40 swksvolFF
11:11 HeavyG
11:10 Angstrom
11:07 HeavyG
11:07 Angstrom
11:06 DarthVader
11:05 HeavyG
10:58 alanc
09:43 Mullah Richard
09:27 Warthog
09:11 Mercutio
09:07 AlmostAnonymous5839
08:52 Matt
08:24 Matt