Bloody Iranians! They Almost Tortured Us...

The irony of torture is not so much that it is reprehensible (not to mention counterproductive), but rather that it can be employed by anyone... and, unfortunately, what's good (or rather bad) for the goose is good (bad) for the gander.

Yet, the international anger at the treatment of the 15 British servicemen and woman, is understandable. So when the "officer in charge Lt Carman said they were taken to a prison in Tehran where they were stripped and dressed in pyjamas", I couldn't help but understand their outrage.

And when, "Royal Marine Joe Tindell told how they feared for their lives in prison" with what must have been a horrifying moment, I felt the same outrage. "We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'."

(Oh, sorry, wrong graphics!)

Yet, when the 15 British servicemen and woman were returned, unharmed (and untortured), in fact, after being treated "humanely" according to their own rendition of events, I find the outrage, even my own, a little bit disingenuous. (Funny how both BBC and CNN - the two website I checked - don't mention that "humanely treated" comment although I watched and heard one of the sailors say it.)

Yes, I am happy for their safe return, but let's not be too quick to throw rocks from own glass house. In fact, as far as torture goes, this can only rate as high as a slight inconvenience.

More to the point, as mortified as I am sure these 15 Brits were, and as undeserving of this treatment that they are, I can only think about all those poor souls locked up for years in Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, CIA torture sites around the world, and all those renditioned to the bowels of Middle Eastern and Asian torture dungeons. Are they all deserving of their treatment? Did any of them ever get their day in court? Is anyone ever deserving of such treatment?

Yet, when the leader of the free world, as the US is, declares that torture is at times necessary, that is when all bets are off. Game over! As far as the rest of the world is concerned, we no longer reign over the moral high ground.

(Yes, that is why international law matters and respecting our treaty obligations is in our self-interest!)

But that is not where the tragedy of all this ends. The Iranians beat us at our own game. They have the initiative. Long after anyone cares whether or not those sailors were in Iraqi or Iranian waters, what the world will remember is that the Iranians did not really harm them, returned them safely, and still the US and Britain decried their actions while never apologizing or atoning for their own far greater misdeeds.

This PR round goes to the Iranians!

It is almost as if it would have been better if the Iranians had behaved as poorly as we have... And maybe they have, but that is not what the world sees.....

Attacking Iran: Will the Generals Mutiny?

At the end of the day, I doubt it will come to that, but the fact that it is being discussed suggests that the Pentagon, at least the military side, is not happy with the heightened rhetoric concerning Iran. With a military fighting two wars and manning bases across the globe, there appears to be no stomach for another front.

According to the Sunday Times, the venerable British paper:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

The question on my mind is why? Why is the military apparently showing reticence on going to war with Iran?

1. Is it because the military has no belief in the mission?

2. Is it because the military has lost faith in the civilian leadership after Iraq?

3. Is it because the military has doubts in its ability to win?

4. Is it because the military does not believe that war is the only choice?

This third question, of course, is the sum total of the first two questions as it depends on the definition of success and the leadership to get you there. In terms of material ability, the US military is the strongest and most able force in the history of mankind. Yes, that we know. But is that all it takes to "win"? Clausewitz took pains to point out that the advantage is with the side with the greatest strength. Yet, even he agreed that the edge can go to the lesser strength if it has the advantage of national will and ingenuity.

As we see in Iraq, military boots, steel and grit is not an automatic path to success.

We also see that if the definition of success is a moving target adjusted with facts on the ground, overall perception is one of failure.

What would be the definition of success in Iran? Would it be putting the nuclear program out of commission? Would it be regime change? Probably both. How can this be attained? John Mearsheimer and others have argued that air power just won't do it on its own. What would US boots on the ground in Iran mean? The occupation of Iraq, which the US is failing at, is a cake walk compared to Iran. At least in Iraq, self-immolation between Sunni and Shia means that less combined focus is on US troop. Iran is different. Iran does not suffer from identity crises. All the rage of the Iranian people will be focused singularly on US troops. Iran is also 3 times the size of Iraq with much more challenging terrain.

Perhaps, the US military recognizes all of this.

That means that the only way to get the wholehearted support of the military is for the situation to be one of no choice. In other words, the US has to have no choice but to go to war with Iran. If the national interest is at risk, it is only then that the generals will lead the charge if asked by the President.

So how can this situation be created?

One way is for the US to continually point to Iranian interference in Iraq as jeopardizing US troop lives. Despite the fact that Iranian involvement has been going on since the US invasion, it is only now that the US is making hay of it. Skeptics can reasonably ask, why now?

However, this tactic does not appear to be garnering a critical mass of support, neither domestically nor in military ranks perhaps because there is a recognition that it is a construed argument.

Thus, the second way is for some cataclysmic event to occur. For example, a terrorist attack which can be linked to Iran may give the US what it needs to strike.

Also possible is a scenario where Israel attacks a nuclear installation in Iran, a redux of 1981 against Iraq, on the basis that Iran poses a threat. Should Iran then rise to the provocation and strike back either directly or through non-state surrogates, the US may then feel it must intervene.

In short, if the war-mongers in the Administration, such as Cheney, are bent on attacking Iran, they will find the way to get the generals behind it, as Iraq has painfully proven. To quote Cheney speaking a few days ago in Australia:

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference," Cheney said.

"But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table," he said.

"We believe it would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear power," he said.

US - Islamic Dialogue in Qatar

The 4th annual U.S-Islamic World Forum , organized by the Brookings' Saban Center and hosted by the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is being held these days in Doha, Qatar. Abu Aardvark (Marc Lynch) has been blogging on the proceedings, his encounters and thoughts. Very interesting stuff. The agenda portends and his posts indicate serious interaction.

One of his posts today concerns the events of last night's plenary on Iraq. It makes for very interesting reading on both issues related to form and substance.

With respect to form, the panel of speakers included 3 Americans and 1 Shia Iraqi. An obvious absence, as he notes, is a lack of any Iraqi Sunni or any other Arab, for that matter. The visual speaks volumes for those looking to understand the balance of power in Iraq, i.e. the US and the Shia Iraqis backed by Iran.

On substance, (also included for the most part under his post) the reality is that life for the average Iraqi is today much worse than it was under Saddam. Whether the US Administration wants to own up to this fact, or not, is not only a(n irrelevant) matter for their conscience, more importantly, it concerns the future of American foreign policy, leadership and Middle East stability.

The dream of a democratic Iraq is no longer the measure of success there; limiting death, destruction, and regional fallout is.

So, is this merely a situation of "it needs to get worse before it can get better" or is this a situation which has spiraled down into total chaos that can either get worse if left to local actors, or perhaps get better with major external involvement (see previous post)?

Unfortunately, I believe that even these may be academic questions at this point. Political realities in the US are such that the US has no option but to claim success by redefining its parameters. The American voter has lost patience; s/he has had enough loss of blood and treasure. Despite the tin ears of the Administration, the voter has spoken and will continue to do so unless events change on the ground by either a redeployment of the troops or the identification of a new "cause" for action (think Iran).

At the present trajectory, Iraq is likely to result in a failed state of 3 regions: northern Kurdistan, southern and eastern Shia state aligned with Iran to include Baghdad, and western Iraq (Anbar). Sunni Iraqis will suffer in the mix and most will become the new Middle East Diaspora causing strain on both Jordan and Syria.

The US will redefine success as a functioning north and south/east with US forces fighting "Al Qaeda" in Anbar. Thus, the US will be able to have its cake and eat it too. A partially functioning Iraq and a continued "war on terror" in Anbar. Of course, the fact that the only real winner from the US invasion of Iraq is Iran will be ignored.

A possible useful outcome is that fracture lines between Syria and Iran may emerge as a result of the fact that Iran appears to have gained from all this while Syria will be faced with a humanitarian and political crisis.

What is interesting from a larger regional perspective, however, is does this imply that the US will have to lie in the bed of its making with the Iranians? And, if so, with all the mixed signaling coming out of DC with regards to Iran, does that mean that the debate is brewing here too, or is this a situation of deliberate disinformation to obfuscate US military designs on Iran?

Transcript of Putin's Munich Thunder

But a few thoughts first: When the cold war ended, it became conventional wisdom supported by evidence on the ground that the Soviet Union had disintegrated from within due to rampant economic failure, political malfeasance, and the new realities of the growing global village. A few argued that sustained US pressure also aided in the demise. As Eastern European and Russian people began to demand the right to forge their own destinies, the wall both physical and mental came down.

Some took this as the end of history and the ushering in of a new era of international peace and stability grounded in economic and institutional connectivity, dependence, and cooperation - a community of states. After-all the Internet meant we were all one world, right?

Yet, while this new world was being contemplated, the new reality of a unipolar world emerged - the US was now in the position to call the shots.

However, how long did we think it would take for Russia, a massive country with formidable resources and history, to reconstitute itself and reclaim its seat at the table?

With the consistent pressure of an encroaching NATO, US forces in two countries south of Russia, and the looming possibility of a third US conquest, it should come as no surprise that Russia is calling time-out.

What would indeed be interesting is to hear what a Chinese version of Putin's speech would contain.

Here are a few quotes [with some annotation] from Putin's speech delivered yesterday at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy. The speech took only a few minutes to deliver, but its echo is likely to be heard for quite a while....

[Recognizing the explosive nature of his comments....]This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference.

[Quoting a US president was a nice touch...] This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

[From Russia with love...] It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

[Ouch...] Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

[As for Iraq...] Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension.

[Stay away from Iran....] Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

[Who said international law is epiphenomenal?] We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.

In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.

[And let's not forget the UK, Italy and Denmark...] However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!

[As for nuclear weapons... ] Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.

Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.

In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.

It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.

We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.

This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Communicative Action: Ahmadinejad to Americans...

At the Arabist blog, I learned of a letter issued by Iran's Ahmadinejad, by-passing the White House this time and going straight for the American people. Here is the Washington Post take on the open letter .

Even more interesting is the Fox website inviting its viewers to send back some letters.

The BBC's article is here. And here is the International Herald Tribune's reporting on the letter:

BEIRUT, Lebanon: Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the American people on Wednesday that he was certain they detested President Bush's policies - his support for Israel, war in Iraq and curtailed civil liberties - and he offered to work with them to reverse those policies.

The call came in the form of a six-page letter in English addressed to "noble Americans" that discussed "the many wars and calamities caused by the U.S. administration." It suggested that Americans had been fooled into accepting their government's policies, especially toward Israel.

"What have the Zionists done for the American people that the U.S. administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors?" Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote. "Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?"

This was the latest public step by Iran's president to promote a dialogue with the United States. He wrote a letter to Mr. Bush in May, calling on him to shift his policies and open a discussion, but it was dismissed by the White House as irrelevant to the central issue dividing them - Iran's nuclear program. Then Mr. Ahmadinejad challenged Mr. Bush to a public debate, also dismissed by the White House.

In short, Ahmadinejad has everyone in a buzz, but is anyone analyzing the words behind the words?