Middle East - Short-Term Future

On March 15th, I wrote about the American-led execution of an "Endgame in Iraq". Further events in Iraq, and supplimenting events elsewhere in the Middle East, have demonstrated that once it was clear that democracy was actually strong enough to withstand the strongman, non-extremist Muslims would gain confidence and attempt to shake themselves free from their fundamentalist oppressors. Some, but not all, of these events listed from Iraq outward are:

• Iraqi rejection of al-Qaeda
• Iraqi insurgents (mostly ex-Saddamites) negotiating an end to their insurgency
• Highly publicized engagements of Iraqi Security forces defeating insurgents
• Angry Iraqis demonstrating against Jordan due to their refusal to reject a Jordanian newspapers positive spin on a Jordanian suicide bomber who killed 125 Iraqis
• Popular Lebanese movement gains strength in their effort to free themselves from Syrian occupation
• Pro-democracy demonstrations under the guise of a "soccer victory" against their theocratic oppressors in Iran
• Pro-democracy demonstrations in Bahrain
• Pro-democracy Yemini opposition leader freed from prison

Naturally, these events haven't gone unnoticed by pro-reform advocates. Both Anthony Perez-Miller and Marc Schulman posted analyses that prompted my thinking further about what the next stages in our battle against Islamic Fascism will look like. Anthony's post specificially dealt with the idea that, as moderate Muslims began to emerge from underneath their autocratic governments, the end of pan-Arabism, as the unifying glue holding Islamic Fascists together, will end. That is another discussion in-of-itself, and beyond the scope of this post, however the discussion around Middle Eastern geopolitics is clearly shifting towards, "What's going to happen next?"

Here is the comment that I posted to Anthony's site about the potential next phase in our fight against Islamic Fascism (I posted and abbreviated version at Marc's site as well):

...I may be taking a leap here, but my thoughts on this subject have been trying to anticipate what the next phase will look like. The scariest result of this crumbling is one where the Islamists and Fascists unite, like in Iraq, to wage a Middle East-wide, civil war against the pro-democracy, moderate Muslims. Let me just throw the following, mostly unsupported thoughts out there:

The likelihood of this scenario will mostly come down to logistics: the Islamists and Fascists will need a stronghold (ala Fallujah) from which they can supply, launch and coordinate their attacks. If this occurs on a regional scale, they will need a state, and not just a city, to do this. At this point, the [three] best candidates for a base of operations are Iran (most likely), Saudi Arabia (less likely) and Syria (even less likely). Syria is too weak at this point, and being surrounded by hostile countries, most notably one filled with some U.S.-supported, vengeful Iraqis, their regime would end rather quickly. The Saudi Arabian regime is too duplicitous—just as in Texas Hold’em, a civil war of this nature would force the supporting country to “go all in.” The Saudis don’t have that commitment even though they’ve been crapping on their front door step by supporting al-Qaeda for years.

Iran is a different story, especially if they obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, Iran can seal its borders and threaten nuclear retaliation against any invasion. This would require the United States to put non-nuclear allies under its nuclear umbrella (Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Turkey and hopefully Lebanon). Being that the pro-democracy forces will be under-prepared during this stage, the main military lifting would have to be done by the United States, supported by Australia and probably Britain.

I believe the pro-democracy, moderate Muslims, with support from the U.S. led-Coalition, would ultimately prevail, however, will a few cities in the region go up in a fireball before it’s over (most likely ones holding a large number of U.S. troops)?

Just like Michael Leeden, I am convinced that ultimate nightmare situation will come to fruition if Iran obtains nukes. Is there any scenario where the U.S. could actually pre-empt with nukes? If this happens, just imagine the screaming that would ensue from the American and Euro leftists. Do we allow millions to die to avoid a political collapse at home? (Stike in passage as I do not believe their is any scenario under which the United States would pre-empt with nukes)

Anyway, these are just some random, disjointed thoughts. I’d like to develop this further and wonder where your thinking is taking you.

My thoughts on the next stage of war is essentially broken into three subsets: (1) the possibility of Iran as an Islamic Fundamentalist stronghold, (2) future actions based on lessons learned in the Iraqi theatre, and (3) the effect of an Iranian wildcard (nuclear weapons).

The possibility of an Islamic Fascist redoubt to Iran is very much real. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran has proudly positioned itself as an enemy of the Great Satan, the United States, and has pursued political policies to protect themselves against American threats to its rule. Iran has boldly supported armed insurrections against American interests, most notably the 1983 Hezbollah attacks that killed 241 Marines in Beirut and their support for the insurgency against the Coalition's efforts in Iraq. Additionally, many al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders fled to safety in Iran as Afghanistan was overrun by the American-led Coalition. If the Islamic Fascists need to flee Iraq and/or Syria, Iran provides the best protection against American intervention, and is also incentivized to do so. I will discuss these incentives only after I provide the necessary context provided by the war in Iraq.

The Iraqi theatre has provided a long, hard lesson into the nature of the relationship between operational warfare and the political mechanisms needed for success against Islamic Fascism. The American-led Coalition through, in my opinion, a brilliantly devised and executed invasion plan, stormed into Iraq and were tactically in control of Iraq within three weeks. In what the Belmont Club titled, War Plan Orange, the remaining Baathist holdouts (tens of thousands of them) retreated, regrouped and, using their cached resources, began their insurrection with the hopes of politically defeating the occupying forces in their home country. The Baathists allied themselves with foreign Islamic Fascists, using them to do the dirty work of suicide bombing, engaging Coalition troops and terrorizing Iraqis sympathetic to building democratic government. This was a natural alliance as the Baathists, out of self-survival, wanted control of Iraq back, while the foreign jihadis got the opportunity to battle the infidels of Fundamentalist Islam.

Looking back since the beginning of the occupation, the insurgency never deeply threatened the the Coalition's hold on Iraq. Coalition forces did pay a price with over 1,500 soldiers losing their lives, however from a tactical standpoint, the insurgency never gained any ground. Once the most tenuous issue was settled, the re-election of George W. Bush, the Coalition resumed offensive operations by routing the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah. Each strategic time table that was set in Iraq was acheived--the initial handover to the Iraqi Interim Government and the Iraqi elections. The strategic plan of empowering Iraqis to take control of their country through taking control of their security by rebuilding and creating an American trained Iraqi security force, and by taking political control through a democratically elected government, has gained momentum that the insurgents have not been able to reverse. Although many difficulties can emerge, the insurgents are extremely limited in their ability to seize the initiative back from the United States. They cannot do this, because they would first have to seize the initiative back from the Iraqi people. They have tried this by bombing and killing these Iraqis, but instead of seizing the initiative, it has further insensed Iraqis and made them more determined to see democracy succeed.

In the links listed above, the insurgency is showing signs of a strategic defeat. Insurgent groups recognized their defeat with the Iraqi election and are negotiating a settlement that would allow them to disarm and enter the political process. However, in same situation where the Islamic Fascists went underground as the Coalition took control in Iraq, the large number of very powerful, bloodthirsty terrorist leaders will again need to find a way to escape and fight for their survival. Just like cockroaches scurrying for cover when the light is turned on, these murderous thugs are going to look for a place that will shelter them from extinction. Who would allow these cockroaches to seek refuge?

Iran could be the place to provide the shadows. Regional hatreds of Persian versus Arab do not exactly mend themselves overnight, however, the Iranian mullahs have been hiring Arabs as thugs to suppress their opposition's demonstrations for years. Back in the early-to-mid 90's, there were a number of Iranian professors that tried to argue that Islam and democracy could be a perfect complement. Schrewdly, instead of an all out suppression by the police, the mullahs hired a contigency of largely Arab Hezbollah to sit in on the lectures and cause disturbances. Usually these lectures would end in violence.

Iran's population is growing hostile to the government. Over 65% of their population is under the age of 25; too young to have experience the Islamic revolution in 1979. For years, the younger populace has thristed for an end to theocratic rule in Iran. In 1997, Iran held their most open and free elections since 1979, and the world caught wind of their desire for change as a reformist-minded cleric, Mohammed Khatami, was elected president in a landslide. His rule has been quite dissappointing for reformers, due partly to the fact that the president really has no power over the ruling mullahs, however, it gave the first widespread indication that the majority of Iranians long for a moderate, more secular government.

In seeking to avoid the embarrassment they experience in 1997, the mullahs ordered crackdowns on demonstrations against the government. A great deal of the secret police orchestrating the crackdown were Arabs hired by the government. The mullah's desire to supress reform culminated last year when Iran banned over 1000 reformist candidates from election ballots. A large part of the electorate protested this decision by boycotting the elections. Even though Iran has been very successful in suppressing demonstrations or resistance movements, their government isn't exactly standing on firm ground.

Iran needs to find a way to control its restless population. Will the Iranians make the same mistake the Baathists in Iraq made? Will they call on the Islamofascists to terrorize and kill their opposition? Will they engage in a Saddam-style rule by terror to keep its population in check?

Well, it may happen if they can successfully build a fully functioning nuclear bomb. In Iraq, the Iraqi people were protected by predominantly American forces who repeatedly fought back, and won, against these terrorist. America was willing to put the full weight of their military behind the electoral process, thus allowing the elections to succeed. I'm not advocating the invasion of Iran, but that option becomes very limited if they obtain nuclear weapons. Not only are nuclear weapons a nightmare scenario for our allies in the region, not to mention our 150,000 troops in theatre, but it is also an umbrella that can shield any outsiders from interfering with the suppression of their people.

There is good news in this. If Iran was to gain nukes, they would, for the most part, be diplomatically isolated. The only countries that Iran could count on in this situation would be Syria, Russia and China. Syria is neutralized in dealing with their own survival, so Russia and China are their only real options.

In short, it seems as if the entire region's hopes may rest squarely on the shoulders of the resistance movement. So far they have been very passionate and ideologically driven, but they have been far from organized and beaten into submission rather easily.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at March 28, 2005 08:28 AM | TrackBack