Peace Or No Peace?

Posted: June 25, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

In many situations, two things can be true at the same time. Looking at the events unfolding over the last two weeks in the Middle East demonstrates how this premise applies.

Last Saturday, the United States bombed three locations in Iran that were known to be associated with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The ability to strike with lethality and accuracy anywhere in the world was aptly demonstrated by the attacks on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan in Iran. 125 military aircraft were involved including refueling tankers, escort fighters and seven B-2 stealth bombers that dropped fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) or “bunker busters” on targets. At the same time, U.S. Navy submarines launched about thirty precision guided Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan. No aircraft were lost. No Americans were killed or wounded. By every standard, there is no doubt that the American military pulled off a wildly successful surprise attack on their assigned targets. We should all be proud of their skill, persistence, fortitude and valor. It was a tactical success in every way. However, was the mission accomplished? Were the Iranian nuclear facilities destroyed and their nuclear weapons program halted or at least delayed for many years?

We do not know.

The president announced within hours of the attack that the Iranian facilities were “obliterated.” There is no way he could know that. Many in his cabinet use the same or similar words to continue to describe the success of the mission. They revile anyone that questions their conclusion by calling them un-American and disrespectful to the courageous airmen and sailors that conducted the attack. As is usually the case with this administration, they are more concerned with the drama and self-congratulations than they are with the facts, with which they often only have a passing familiarity.

General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is more cautious, professional and deliberate in his descriptions. Until a complete account of the Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) can be made, we simply do not know the extent of the damage or even whether the targets of the bombing — enriched uranium and the centrifuges used to make it — were at the sites that we attacked. The attack was successful — bombs on target and everyone came home — but we do not know if the mission was successful — no more Iranian nuclear program. The only way to be absolutely sure is to inspect the sites on the ground. That is not going to happen. The bombing certainly crushed any hope of a short term resumption of discussions to allow inspectors, such as from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) into the area. U.S. inspectors will not be able to go there, either. Of course there are numerous other ways to feel fairly confident of the results. Spies on the ground (it appears that the Israelis had numerous people in key places prior to their own attacks), intercepts of Iranian military and government communications discussing the damage that was caused and assessing their own ability to respond to the attack and other elements of intelligence trade craft that can give a fairly robust picture of what happened. That can take days or weeks before the Intelligence Community (IC) can say with confidence that they have a comfortable assessment.

With that in mind, the revelation yesterday on CNN, and soon widely reported elsewhere, that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the intelligence agency for the Pentagon, assesses that the Iranian nuclear program was only set back about three to six months rather than years or being “obliterated”. That report caused quite the uproar. For those reading the fine print, the DIA assessment was a preliminary report of “low confidence.” Such reports are often issued soon after an operation to give decisionmakers an outline of what may be needed in the near term should follow up actions be necessary.

There have been rumors/reports that the Iranians moved significant quantities of enriched uranium and centrifuges before the attack. It is thought to be enough to keep their program going. Similarly, although the Israelis killed several top Iranian nuclear scientists in their sleep, they cannot kill everyone and they cannot kill the knowledge of methods and practices that they have learned with their program thus far. Do not discount the possibility that the Iranians are also getting technical assistance, and perhaps even material, from their friends in North Korea and Russia.

Stopping Iran from having a nuclear program is not as easy as launching one bombing attack, no matter how audacious or successful that one attack may be. Wishing it so, shouting it so, demanding that the “scum” in the media stop asking how does the administration know, doesn’t make it go away. Saying that “nothing” can survive fourteen 30,000 pound bombs does not mean it happened. (May I remind everyone that the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) shares a headquarters with the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) in Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs Colorado. Completed in 1967, the command and control facility can withstand a nuclear attack. Surely the technology and know-how to build such a complex could be accomplished by other nations sometime in the ensuing 58 years.)

To me, a great big “tell” happened yesterday. The House and Senate were to receive briefings on the Iranian program and Saturday’s attack. When the news broke about the DIA assessment, the briefings were cancelled. One can only surmise that the administration knew that their brief would not hold up under questioning since the audience would be aware of the CNN report.

There are numerous additional questions surrounding the entire state of affairs. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath before Congress that the Iranians did not have the capability to build a nuclear weapon (people also forget that it is not enough to have a nuclear capability — a country must be able to weaponize the material and, often forgotten in the discussions, have a means to deliver it against an adversary. Not an easy task.) Trump said she was “wrong.” Multiple times in the last few days he has made it clear that he does not believe in, or listen to, anyone that tells him something he does not want to hear, regardless of the sources or methods used. This is unbelievably dangerous. Vice President J.D. Vance on Sunday said that the president and his advisers “trust their instincts.” Holy cow. We entrust our security and safety to instincts rather than analysis and facts? I feel better already.

I also have every expectation that political appointees in the IC will start requiring intelligence reports to conform to Trump’s preconceptions or politically expedient explanations. They have already done so while rationalizing the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to round up immigrants. I am sure people will be fired at the DIA after the leak of their report yesterday.

There are, of course, issues surrounding this attack and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (also called the War Powers Act). Many members of Congress are calling Trump’s decisions un-Constitutional because only Congress can declare war. The Resolution calls for the president to brief Congress within 48 hours of military action if he acts on his own. This administration is ignoring the law. (Again.) Traditionally, the administration briefs the Gang of Eight prior to undertaking operations such as the attack on Iran. They did not brief them. (The Gang of Eight are the leaders in the House and Senate of both political parties along with the Chair and Ranking Member of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees).

In reality, wars are only resolved through negotiations. We will see if the U.S., Israel and Iran can figure out a satisfactory settlement. I am skeptical. A cease-fire is a very tenuous thing. There is a long way to go before anything is settled. Israel still sees Iran as an existential threat and besides wanting to end Iran’s nuclear program they would also like to see the religious zealots ruling Iran disappear — regime change. Iran still has its government and is still determined to erase Israel from existence.

The Iranians responded to the U.S. attack by launching missiles against the U.S. air base near Doha Qatar. It was really just a sound and light show — the Qataris, U.S. and U.K. (at a minimum) were given a heads up and they shot down the incoming missiles with no deaths or injuries. Do not expect that face saving demonstration to be the end of it from the Iranian perspective. The Trump administration thinks in terms of news cycles and then it is on to the next shiny object. The Iranians (Persians) have a long and proud history and consider themselves to be the root of civilization in the region (Arabs are poor nomads with no culture, according to the Iranians). They will be taking the long view and have the patience to wait out their enemies. The only wild card is the internal politics of both Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps himself in power (and possibly out of jail) by keeping the wars going in Gaza and elsewhere. Will he honor the cease-fire once the U.S. resupplies his military? (At the expense of Ukraine. We only have so much in our stockpiles.) Will the people of Iran leave their government in place or will they rise up and try to install a new generation of leaders? It is still a very volatile situation and will be for quite awhile.

So many questions right now. So few answers.

War In Iran

Posted: June 18, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

For almost a week, Israel and Iran have exchanged bombs, missiles and drones causing damage and casualties, military and civilian, on both sides. Israel initiated the conflict when it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and took out most of the leadership in the Iranian military and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as well as many of the leading scientists working in their nuclear program. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli intelligence agencies believe that the Iranian nuclear program was on the brink of producing one to fifteen nuclear weapons. Since Iranian leaders vow to erase Israel from the face of the earth, the Prime Minister viewed these developments as an existential threat and attacked. (Some politico-military analysts are debating whether it was a “preemptive” strike — meaning an Iranian attack was imminent — or whether it was a “preventive” strike — meaning there was no immediate danger but the Israelis wanted to make sure there was no chance of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. For most of us, that matters little, but under international law, it has significance.)

There is a long history behind the current conflict. For many years, Israel, the United States, and indeed the world worried about the religious zealots in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Presidents of both parties have vowed that they would prevent it from happening. Additionally, Iran was the main supporter of terrorism in the world. (They are still a supporter of terrorism, but their proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis have been greatly diminished and Syria is no longer in Iran’s sphere of influence, limiting their reach, but not their ability to strike.) In 2015, President Obama negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran along with support from China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany (known as the P5+1). In brief, the JCPOA limited Iran’s nuclear weapon program as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew from the plan in 2018, re-imposing sanctions and Iran has been ramping up its nuclear efforts since then. Trump was negotiating a “new” agreement with Iran that looks very much like the one that he withdrew from in 2018. Prime Minister Netanyahu denounced the JCPOA from the beginning and lobbied the current administration not to strike any agreements with Iran.

Israel continues to insist that the Iranian nuclear weapon capability was imminent. U.S. and U,K. intelligence sources, according to open press reports, assess that Iran is still not able to produce a weapon. Interestingly, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabard testified before Congress in March that our intelligence agencies assessed that Iran was not capable of building a nuclear weapon. Yesterday, when asked about that assessment, Trump publicly contradicted his DNI, saying “I don’t care what she said” and avowing that he believed Mr. Netanyahu. (As a side note, if I were the DNI my resignation would be on the president’s desk about five minutes later. But we all know how this administration works. She is still in office.)

It is hard to know exactly what brought us to this point as both the Trump and Netanyahu administrations are not very forthcoming nor particularly truthful, and of course, military operations should remain classified until executed — unless you are Pete Hegseth — so it is only in retrospect that things look clearer. That said, from where I sit, it appears Prime Minister Netanyahu boxed Trump in before he could produce a “deal” with Iran. Emboldened by their successes in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, Mr. Netanyahu saw that he had an opportunity to attack, had the forces to execute it, and wanted the world to be confronted with a fait accompli. There was no turning back. To date, the Israelis have inflicted significantly more damage on the Iranians than the other way around.

As yet, the U.S. is not involved. As yet. At least publicly.

There are some hard choices ahead for a president that campaigned by saying that he would keep us out of new wars in the Middle East. “America First” is interpreted by many MAGA voters as meaning no foreign wars in support of other nation’s interests. It is doubtful that Israel can continue to pursue its objectives without U.S. support. There are several reasons for that. Israel uses primarily U.S. weapons systems, aircraft, anti-ballistic missile defense systems, ammunition and other equipment. They do not have an unlimited supply. Giving more support to their efforts could get the U.S. involved whether by design or by accident. It also further diminishes our support to Ukraine as supplies are directed away from the Ukrainians and to the Israelis. Which is something that really does not bother Vladimir Putin even though Russia supports Iran — tough choices. Sorry Ayatollah.

Always looming on the horizon is direct U.S. military action against Iran. While prepared, no military planner that I know about relishes that idea. The reality is that Israel cannot completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program without destroying the main Iranian nuclear facility in Fordo, a small community near Qom. The facility is built in to a mountain and is considered extremely difficult to destroy. Current Israeli Air Force and missile capabilities cannot seriously damage it, unless they use one or more of their own nuclear weapons. That is an entirely different discussion. It is conceivable that Israeli special forces could attack it on the ground, but that is highly risky and is probably not on the table right now, especially because there is another option. The U.S. Air Force could deliver a “bunker buster” bomb — properly known as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It is a 30,000 pound GPS guided bomb launched from a B-2 Stealth Bomber that is believed to be able to penetrate at least 200 feet against concrete, rock or earth before it explodes. Multiple MOPs can be used to go even deeper, if necessary. The only aircraft capable of delivering the bomb is the U.S. B-2. We cannot just supply Israel with it. There are 19 B-2s in the inventory and they are based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. They have demonstrated their world-wide ability to strike during previous conflicts having flown 34 hour combat missions from Missouri to Libya and back in 2017 using in flight refueling, for one example.

It is a cliche to say that we go to war with the president we have — good, bad or indifferent. Trump has a big decision to make, although it seems hard to believe that he totally understands what is going on. For example, his social media post yesterday directed at Iran said only “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Which raises many serious questions about his state of mind. For the record, there are extremely few historical examples of “unconditional surrender” with the last one being Japan at the end of World War II.

There is a case to be made for the U.S. to bomb Iran. From where Iran sits, they now see that they are in dire need of a credible deterrent. Without a nuclear capability they have been exposed as defenseless. Should the bombing stop short of a significant impact on their nuclear program, they have every incentive to accelerate the program and procure one as quickly as possible. One could argue that now is the time to finish the job. Kick them while they are down, so to speak, so that no one has to come back later to finish what could have been done now.

The danger inherent in such U.S. involvement is extreme. Not in the short run, the U.S. could take casualties in any operation but given the current state of Iran’s air defenses, the risk would be assessed as acceptable. The real danger is long term. How does Iran retaliate against us — for they will retaliate in some form or another. What are our strategic goals? Simply to destroy or significantly delay the nuclear program? Trump has been speculating on social media about regime change — assassinating the Ayatollah and other Iranian leaders. Iran is a country of over 90 million people, many of whom resent the regime that has been in place since 1979. However, that does not mean that they want the U.S. or Israel to eliminate their government. Who takes charge? Under President George W. Bush the U.S. thought that bringing down Saddam would be easy and result in a free and democratic Iraq. While most Iraqis were glad to see Saddam gone, they were just as unhappy to see U.S. forces do it and remain in their country. We know what happened there. What to do in Iran?

This is where it gets tricky. It is one thing to bomb Iran, it is another to deal with the aftermath. It seems that Mr. Netanyahu knows how to play to Trump’s biases and ego. He has him nearly ready to provide support to the Israeli mission to destroy Iran. But what does that really mean and what is the long term commitment? Take a look at Gaza. Mr. Netanyahu’s objective there was to eliminate Hamas. That conflict has turned into what appears to be a long term goal to destroy everything in Gaza. Apparently the only way to eliminate Hamas is to eliminate every Palestinian that lives there — either kill them or move them. That campaign has gone on much longer than what was militarily necessary. What are the plans for Iran?

Wars are easy to start but hard to end. We need look only at our own history. I do not trust our president or his senior advisers to think through the totality of their actions. Looking tough seems to be their only goal. That is not good enough. There are sound strategic, geo-political and military arguments to use our forces to decimate Iran’s nuclear program. It is the “what’s next” question that I have not seen anyone in the administration thinking about. How does this all end?

Israel – Hamas War

Posted: March 28, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The war between Israel and Hamas rages on as it passes the six month mark. Starting with the horrific and brutal attack into Israel on 7 October 2023, it has been a ferocious conflict. Now is the time to assess the policies involved and to reevaluate what Israeli war aims may be.

In so doing, two underlying assertions are necessary. First, Israel had and continues to have, every right to defend itself and to respond to the terrible attack that killed over 1200 innocent Israelis in October in order to preclude future attacks. Second, criticism of Israel’s government or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies are not in themselves anti-Semitic, just as criticizing President Biden’s policies does not make anyone anti-American.

As the war continues with much of Gaza destroyed and approximately 1.7 million Palestinians displaced, no clear war aims have been articulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu. As announced to date, their goals are the destruction of Hamas, the infrastructure supporting their rule and terrorist activities, and the release of the hostages. These are not political solutions. Killing every member of Hamas is not possible. Indeed one could argue that current Israeli actions in Gaza are only ensuring another generation of pro-Hamas fighters, or at least anti-Israeli fighters. The only way to ensure that every member of Hamas is eliminated is to kill every male over the age of twelve.

Hamas war aims are simple and are the mirror image of Israel’s. Kill every Israeli and destroy the Israeli state. They have no means to achieve their war aims. Israel does.

Israeli Defense Force (IDF) spokesmen claim that they have “dismantled” twenty of the estimated twenty four Hamas battalions in Gaza. Assuming this is true, dismantled is not the same as eliminated. The command and control function of the organization is clearly degraded, if not destroyed, but guerrilla operations can continue indefinitely with groups of four or five fighters using hit and run tactics. From a fighting perspective, as I have explained in other, earlier posts, the loser decides when the war is over. If the enemy does not stop fighting, then the war continues, even if by conventional standards one side “won.” The IDF does not give detailed information on troop movements but has said that only two divisions of the IDF remain in Gaza, down from the original five that attacked into Gaza at the war’s start. All of the reserve units are said to have stood down and gone home — partly because those forces are no longer needed and partly because the economy of Israel was suffering with so many workers away from their jobs. A casual look at the situation in Gaza today indicates that the Israelis have won, but yet the war continues.

Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu plans on expanding the war by attacking Rafah, a city in the south of Gaza that is the primary location of the displaced Gazans from the north, especially from Gaza City, which will be discussed further below.

Although IDF troops on the ground are significantly fewer, air operations continue at a heavy rate. Bombs and drone strikes are a part of life in Gaza every day. Exact numbers of casualties are difficult to confirm as the IDF does not supply certified numbers of either their own or Palestinian losses and the Gaza Health Ministry — the source providing the number of Palestinian casualties — cannot be fully relied upon. That said, the international consensus is that over 32,000 Palestinians have died so far in the war with roughly 100,000 wounded, mostly civilians. There does not seem to be much consideration for collateral damage (civilians killed or wounded) in the indiscriminate bombing of areas such as Gaza City. The IDF is a modern, well-equipped, well-trained force. In the early stages of the war perhaps it was necessary to destroy civilian infrastructure to attack the Hamas infrastructure, especially Hamas tunnels that are said by the IDF to run for 350 to 450 miles under Gaza, using schools, mosques and other civilian structures as nodes. The current situation appears to preclude the need for mass bombings as a means to their ends and more pinpoint targeting could reduce the number of civilian casualties. So far, that does not seem to be happening, raising concerns in the U.S. and elsewhere that the Israelis are not just hunting down Hamas, but that they are punishing Palestinians in Gaza for “allowing” Hamas to carry out its terrorist attacks. Such indiscriminate attacks also calls into question the status of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Mass bombing puts the hostages in danger. One stated war aim is to recover all of the remaining 134 hostages (some of whom are known to already be dead), and yet only two have been rescued by the IDF. Three hostages escaped and tried to surrender to the IDF but were shot and killed while approaching IDF positions. (An additional 105 hostages were released in a prisoner exchange last November, four were unilaterally released by Hamas.) Are the hostages also collateral damage?

Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly stated that the IDF was preparing to attack Rafah, on the Egyptian border, to eliminate remaining Hamas forces. Rafah has 1.4 million Palestinians living there, many are refugees from the north living in dire circumstances in tents. The U.S. position is that Israel cannot attack Rafah without creating an even greater humanitarian crisis and any military operations must wait until a plan is put forward as to what to do about the people living there. Recently, Mr. Netanyahu agreed to send members of his government to Washington D.C. to explain the plan to the U.S. (That trip was canceled over a disagreement about U.S. votes in the U.N. Security Council calling for a cease fire, but it was just announced that now the trip is back on.) The seeming disregard for the plight of the Palestinians is the source of a growing rift between the U.S. and Israel and the cause for the growing number of protests around the U.S. in support of the Palestinians. (Unfortunately, there are protesters that are ignorant of the situation in the Middle East, its complications, and the fact that Hamas started the war. Sadly, there are also some folks that are just plain bigots.)

Israel has every right to root out Hamas to ensure the survival of Israel and to protect its citizens from further terrorist attacks. The issue is more a question of how it should be done. As a democracy concerned with human rights and as a full citizen of the international community, Israel must also consider the plight of the innocent children, women and men that are not members or supporters of Hamas but are suffering greatly from a lack of shelter, food, potable water and medicine. That should be part of their plan as well. To date, it is not, other than to allow some (too few) aid trucks into the Gaza strip as well as some air dropped supplies, also ineffective compared to what is required.

There is a growing rift between the Israeli and U.S. governments that I do not find surprising. Israel absolutely depends on U.S. political and military support. Much of their military equipment and ammunition comes from America. U.S. policy since President Truman is to support Israel and that policy of support has only grown stronger with time. That does not mean, contrary to some opinions, that Israel is a puppet or client state of the U.S. Our leaders do try to influence Israeli leaders but in the end, Israel is going to do whatever they want to do, whether or not it coincides with U.S. policy. Some of their decisions actually run counter to U.S. desires and can in certain circumstances actually hurt U.S. interests. Period. Blaming the Biden Administration or any other entity for what Israel is doing in Gaza and calling for them to stop it is not realistic. They are going to do whatever they want. As a result, some in government believe that we support Israel to a fault — arguing that support to Israel is critical, but not when it also undermines our own national interests.

Complicating the political elements of this crisis is that Prime Minister Netanyahu heads a far right government with members of his cabinet pushing for total Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank — where even as the war in Gaza continues Israelis are settling in and pushing Palestinians out. Mr. Netanyahu will seemingly do anything to satisfy his far right coalition and thus remain in power. Prior to the outbreak of war, many Israelis were openly protesting his policies as being too extreme. His support throughout the population was rapidly eroding. Mr. Netanyahu also faces probable criminal indictments when he leaves office — an incentive to stay. Israelis will support him while the war continues, but it is widely expected that when elections are finally held, he will be voted out of office. If one were cynical, it could be that the war is good for Mr. Netanyahu’s personal fortunes.

So back to the original question. What are Israel’s war objectives? Put in other terms, what is the desired end state of the war? What does the solution look like?

The answer is nearly universal in the international community. The only way to reach a safe and secure status quo for both Palestine and Israel is a two state solution. A safe and secure Israeli state and a safe and secure Palestinian state encompassing Gaza and the West Bank. It will take years, billions of dollars and a lot of finesse to reach that point, but in the end, the U.S., Europe and much of the rest of the world see it as the only way to achieve a permanent. long term solution.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition right wing ultra-nationalist government roundly reject a two state solution.

On one level, it is understandable that Israelis would be skeptical that having a stable, sustainable, productive Palestinian neighbor would ever be achievable. Decades of experience tell them otherwise. On another level, those right wing ultra-nationalists in his government see Gaza and the West Bank as ripe for Israeli expansion and settlement. To them, the only way to secure the area is to occupy it themselves. While Mr. Netanyahu has not stated such an intent, he has indicated that Israeli forces will be in Gaza for some time to come. No other long term end state or political solution has come forward from his government. Israel may be in Gaza for years to come. The question is whether or not they put settlers there and turn it into a de facto Israeli satellite as they are doing in the West Bank. First, where do the Gazans go? Secondly, such a move would likely break U.S. and European unqualified support for Israel. Not abandonment, but it will cause a significant strain on our relationship and it will be irrevocably altered.

The Biden Administration in conjunction with our friends and allies has been working hard over these last months to resolve the long term tensions in the region. Many nations are willing to help to rebuild Gaza and to promote stability. Most importantly, there are increasing indications that Gulf Arab states along with Saudi Arabia are willing to step up to provide the money needed to rebuild and to support a new (as yet undefined) Palestinian government to replace the current Palestinian Authority that nominally holds power but has no practical way to govern. To get the Arab states actively involved in a peaceful solution will be a game changer.

Now is the time to lock it all in. A coalition of the willing can be put together to rebuild Gaza, provide security against a resurgent Hamas and provide increased security for all involved. It could be the dawn of a new age in the region. It could mean a new relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Israel could find itself allied with Saudi Arabia as a counter to block Iranian adventurism. There are lots of possibilities that would have been inconceivable in the recent past.

It will take years of patient negotiations and small, confidence building steps. It will take billions of dollars. It will not be easy as there are many bad actors that prefer the chaos and bitter conflict. None-the-less, it is in everyone’s best interest to try.

Middle East Tinderbox

Posted: January 29, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Over the weekend, an Iranian backed militia group used an explosives laden one-way drone to attack an American military outpost on the Jordanian border near Syria and Iraq known as Tower 22. Three American service members were killed and approximately 36 were injured, some seriously. The United States has a series of small bases scattered throughout parts of Syria and Iraq. Originally, these forces were there to counter the spread of the Islamic State (ISIS). They remain in order to keep ISIS from filling a vacuum and also to counter the presence of destabilizing Iranian militias. In response to this weekend’s attack, President Joe Biden declared that the United States “will hold all those responsible to account” and that “we shall respond.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that, “We will take all necessary actions to defend the United States, our troops and our interests.” In order to knowledgeably speculate as to the nature of that response, it is necessary to put the entire geo-political atmosphere into context. 

As the old ballpark selling point went, “you can’t tell the players without a score card.” So it is in the Middle East, there are a lot of different players with differing motives. Sometimes it can be hard to keep track of them all. Here are some of the key players.

On 7 October 2023 Hamas terrorists attacked Israel killing about 1200 Israelis and foreign nationals and taking roughly 240 hostages. Since then, Israel invaded Gaza to destroy Hamas and recover the hostages. To date, it is estimated that over 25,000 Gazans have died — mostly civilians. Hamas still holds about 100 Israeli hostages. The fighting continues with no clear end in sight. Indeed, the Israeli war aims are unclear beyond the mission to “destroy Hamas.” The Israeli government has yet to articulate when the war is over and what victory looks like. More specifically, what is the long term solution to reconstituting Gaza and returning its citizens to a humanitarian way of life while preserving Israel’s security? The international community, including the United States, consistently pushed for, and still persists in pushing for, a two-state solution. That is, Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. The current Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unequivocally rejects that idea. 

The United States and other nations continue to try and find a realistic path to establishing a peaceful and stable Palestinian state as it slowly brings Gulf states into the discussion and encourages Saudi Arabia to establish normalized relations with Israel. Recently, the Saudi national security adviser publicly declared Saudi Arabia’s determination to work with Israel as long as Israel commits to the establishment of a Palestinian state through practical steps, even if the actual formation of that state is in the future. 

Enter Iran. Iran is interested in a de-stabilized region in order to pursue its own interests. In the Iranian leadership, there is a yearning to reestablish the Persian Empire — or in current parlance, the Shia crescent that stretches from Yemen to Lebanon and includes Bahrain, Iran, western Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Azerbaijan. (As you recall, there are two main Muslim sects — the Sunnis and the Shia. The Shia are the minority in the larger Muslim world. Most Iranians are Shia and most Saudis are Sunni.) Not coincidentally, the main Iranian backed militias include Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Other smaller groups exist in Iraq and Syria. 

The most important players in the region are Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are competing not only for regional dominance in a diplomatic sense, but also on religious, economic and military grounds. Add to the mix that Iran is a major ally of Russia and is supplying them with drones and missiles to use in their fight against Ukraine. Russia would encourage Iranian adventurism in order to distract the U.S. from its commitments in Eastern Europe to aid Ukraine. Additionally, Iran views Israel as an existential threat. The Hamas-Israel war creates the conditions for Iran to further inflame regional passions and to make its presence felt on the world stage by creating chaos throughout the region. While Iran claims that it does not control the militia groups surrounding Israel or creating havoc on shipping lanes around the Arabian peninsula, all evidence clearly shows that they do. Intelligence, military equipment and training all come from Iran. It may be true that Iran does not control them on a tactical or operational level (when or where to attack), but there is no doubt that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or any of the other groups would not be conducting attacks without the overall green light from Iran.

The United States and our allies know that Iran is the main threat to peace in the region. That said, international efforts are focused on keeping the war in Gaza contained. There is no desire on anyone’s part, and I would include Iran in that calculation, to see a wide-spread full scale war in the region. But, it is getting close. Iran and its proxies are trying to push as hard as they can to disrupt the region, the world’s supply chains and thus world economies in order to serve their own interests and to distract their citizens from the fact that their own economy is in dire circumstances. Internal issues may drive Iranian decisions as a way to also distract the many people in Iran, primarily under the leadership of women and girls, that are pushing back against the theocracy and its oppressive measures. 

Since 7 October 2023, the numbers of attacks on U.S. military forces in Iraq and Syria have steadily increased. The attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea are also steadily increasing. The president ordered significant U.S. naval and air forces into the region to keep the Gaza war contained. It is not in the international community’s interest to see a major war in the Middle East. Those forward deployed forces have been responding to attacks on the American bases and international shipping at sea with proportional responses. Missiles and manned aircraft have attacked militia weapons production facilities, radars, launch sites and the like — both in response to attacks and, in Yemen, preemptively to prevent attacks. They are meant to deter future attacks and to warn Iran that the U.S. will respond militarily to their mischief. It is not working.

The U.S., alone or in concert with our allies that have also deployed forces to the region, must now respond directly against Iran for the attack on Tower 22. Iran must pay a price for their unchecked attacks. The thorny question becomes what is the right level of response and does it include a direct attack on targets in Iran? The planners in the Pentagon have been working overtime to supply the president a range of options. It is probable that economic sanctions and diplomatic measures are under consideration to warn the Iranians from further attacks. It is also highly likely that covert operations inside Iran, probably combined with cyber operations, will create some level of pain for the Iranian leadership. We can also expect some, as they say in the Pentagon, “kinetic responses”. In other words, ordnance on targets. At this point, it would be surprising to see a military attack on Iranian territory. It is conceivable, as we have done in the past, that Iranian forces at sea will be targeted. Depending on the scale, such an attack would make it clear to the Iranian leadership that there is a price to be paid for attacking Americans and it will degrade their ability to collect intelligence and/or carry out their own military actions. The hard part is to decide on a course of action that is unmistakable as to the source and that it causes real pain to the Iranians, without crossing the line into open warfare. No easy task.

There are hotheads on both sides of the equation that argue for going for the jugular. Given the circumstances in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Western Pacific, it is dangerous to play with fire while sitting in the middle of a tinderbox that could go up in flames at any moment. A measured response is needed. It may take more than one go around. What we do know is that it will take a clear head and a steady hand on the helm to navigate these tricky waters. 

Iran

Posted: January 6, 2020 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

While you were enjoying the holidays with friends and family, you may have missed that the United States conducted a drone strike killing five people including Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.  The strike took place at the Baghdad Airport as the general was reportedly on his way to a meeting with Iraqi officials.  It was done without the knowledge of the Iraqis.

Killing General Soleimani, and the U.S. and world reaction in the aftermath, shows a real Policy-Strategy mismatch in the stated goals of the Trump Administration.

Mr. Donald J. Trump campaigned on a policy, and continues to reiterate it on the 2020 campaign trail, of pulling our troops out of the Middle East and to not pursue what he calls “endless wars.” His administration’s stated policy for the future is to focus on realigning our military forces and deployments to get away from the War on Terror and to instead focus on near competitors such as China and Russia. This action in Iraq furthers none of these goals.

Killing General Soleimani was in itself not a bad thing.  On one important level, the world is much better off without him.  He was, in the vernacular, a “bad guy.”  No tears are shed in  this space for his demise.  The question is whether it was wise or not.  The problem is that I suspect the Trump Administration had no long-term plan.  No next steps.  No branches and sequels that anticipated the understanding of, or planning for, probable Iranian retaliation.  When taking such an action, proper planning requires thinking through the consequences and preparing for the inevitable reaction.  I don’t see that that was done.  An old military saying is that no plan survives contact with the enemy.  They get a vote on what happens next.  It is imperative that before taking such a drastic action that planners think through the probable consequences and prepare for them.

They should know that the Iranians will retaliate.  Period.  They must in order to keep their position as a power broker in the region.  Most likely they will do so in an asymmetrical way.  Cyber attacks.  Terrorist attacks. Surrogates attacking US interests in third countries. Interfering with shipping in the Persian Gulf through rocket or mine attacks.  Probably in a way that allows for plausible deniability that makes it more difficult for the U.S. to respond.  The Iranians know that they cannot go toe to toe with the US military, but they also know that they can do a lot of damage — especially psychologically and economically.  And Americans are likely to die.

There is a reason that over the last thirty years we attacked Iraq rather than Iran.  Iran has always been a bad actor — by far much worse than Iraq under Saddam Hussein.  Iran is the main source of terrorism in the Middle East and has been since their revolution in the late 1970’s as they try to export that revolution.  Not unlike the Soviet Union in their heyday.  We attacked Iraq twice because they were bad actors, but more importantly, it was doable.  Iran is a completely different ball game.  Despite stereotypes, Iran is a modern, technologically savvy nation with a large and capable military.  Not in the US league, but good, and probably the best of those in the region.

When analyzing the attack, the evidence given by the Administration for carrying out the killing does not make sense.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argues that it was in response to intelligence that indicated an “imminent threat” to U.S. forces.  This is important if one is considering the legal reasons for the killing.  The President continually states that it is retribution for past actions by Iran, directed by General Soleimani.  Not a legal reason for the undertaking under either U.S. or international law.

I don’t want to get hung up on the legality of the attack as in some ways, it is a distraction.  It is important in another way if we want international support for our actions.  The attack could be easily considered an assassination.  Killing him was roughly equivalent to taking out our Director of the CIA or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Soleimani was an official of the sovereign nation of Iran.  Additionally, the killing took place on the sovereign territory of Iraq, without their knowledge.  In international law, and in practical support, this has consequences.  It is definitely not the same as taking out Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist leader.  He was an official with diplomatic standing in a sovereign government conducting official business in another sovereign nation.  More importantly to the follow-on actions by Iran, the general was in all practicality the number two official in Iran and a national and regional hero.

Despite Mr. Trump’s pronouncements, we are considerably less safe in the Middle East now than before his death.  Thousands of U.S. forces are being deployed to protect US bases, embassies, and civilians throughout the region.  The forces already deployed to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria have ceased all operations against the terrorists in order to focus on self-protection, known in military parlance as force protection.  NATO forces in the region stopped training Iraqi forces and have departed or hunkered down.  The State Department warned all US citizens to depart Iraq.  The Iraqi parliament voted to demand the departure of all US military personnel.  The US military in Iraq informed their counterparts that they are “re-positioning troops” in Iraq In preparation for withdrawing all or part of the force.

Today, the Iranians officially declared they will no longer adhere to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which eliminated the near-term pursuit of their nuclear weapons program.  Expect them to start building nuclear weapons.

The list goes on.  We are definitely not safer.  It doesn’t help when the world knows and documents that Trump has told over 15,000 lies since taking office.  The support for this action from allies and friends is either non-existent or extremely muted.  His reasons for attacking now lack credibility on the world stage.  There have been imminent threats in that region for decades. It is a dangerous place.  To date, the administration offers no evidence of any new or significant change to the situation.

Additionally, while General Soleimani was charismatic, there are other qualified generals to take his place.  He personally did not carry out attacks.  The troops and covert assets under Iranian control do.  They still exist and are in place.  Killing him will not tactically or operationally stop any attacks.

To me, concerns of an all out war are premature.  But Trump’s decision was immature.  It was a feel good, “aren’t I tough” move rather than a thought out strategic decision.  Although I do not think that all out war is imminent, there is clearly a great opportunity for a miscalculation on each side which could lead to a larger conflict.  There will be a series of tit-for-tat measures taken by both sides.  If the military responses are not proportional and relevant, then the chance for escalation is high. Unfortunately, since Mr. Trump has tripled down on threats to purposefully and deliberately destroy Iranian cultural sites (a war crime under the Geneva Convention) the indications are not ones of restraint by the president.  As Mr. Trump threatens to destroy 52 targets (one for each American hostage in 1979) the Iranians have indicated that they could hit 290 targets (one for each passenger and crew killed by the 1988 shootdown of an Iranian civilian Airbus by the USS Vincennes).

There is another scenario, however.  The Iranians under General Soleimani, with the concurrence of the Ayatollah, was conducting an escalating campaign against American interests to test the limits of what they could get away with.  Since there was no US response, to numerous provocations (shooting down a U.S. drone, mine attacks on tankers, a missile attack on Saudi oil fields, etc.) they were slowly ratcheting up their activities.  They thought that Mr. Trump was afraid of conflict in the Gulf region. They were trying to get the president to accelerate his promise to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq by making it painful to stay.  They were trying to do so without crossing the line into provoking an all out American response. Since their economy is in dire straits, they desperately want to have sanctions lifted.  This attack on the second most important man in Iran may cause them to recalibrate their thinking, even to the point of starting back channel negotiations with the U.S.  The danger is, that even if such negotiations come to pass, it will literally go up in smoke if the US or Iran miscalculates on its military response.

It is well known in international relations that one cannot deter an opponent if they don’t know what it is they are supposed to be deterred from doing.  With the, at best, uneven, at worst, ignorant, Trump foreign policy, it is difficult for friends, enemies and allies to know what is expected of them.  Surprises and unpredictability are assets in actual combat.  They are a detriment in trying to implement a strategy to fulfill any policy, especially in the Middle East.

We are in dangerous times.  All out war is not inevitable.  However, current events are disconcerting given the context that there seems to be no clear strategy to implement our policy, should it be a possible to discern a clear U.S, policy in the region in the first place.

Careening from tweet to tweet does not help us with our allies, our friends or deter our enemies.  Mr. Trump and his advisers need to step back, but not step down, and think through exactly what they are trying to achieve.  They need to think five or six steps ahead and not just react to day to day developments.

I know that there are still conscientious and professional people in the intelligence community, the State Department and the Department of Defense.  The question is whether decision makers will understand what they are being told and will they listen?

Getting This Right

Posted: September 11, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

The twelfth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11 is a strong reminder that national security is a serious business.  As we pause to remember those we lost that day, we should also try to re-focus our efforts toward the Middle East and specifically in Syria.  We need to get this right.

In essence, yesterday our national leadership called a time-out to re-group and to re-assess our policy and our ability to move forward in enforcing international law by holding Bashar al-Asad accountable for his use of sarin gas.

I do not think the president made as compelling of a case in his speech on Tuesday night as I had hoped that he would do.  The speech probably just reinforced the opinions of those that support action and those that oppose it.  No minds were changed.  It did, however, provide an opportunity for a face-saving decision to let Congress postpone a vote on whether to support the president’s request for a military response to the Syrians.  Whatever the outcome, and events are outpacing my ability to keep up with them, our actions (or lack of action) cannot lead to a decision to just let things slide under the guise of supporting international diplomatic efforts in the hope that the problem will go away.

As the experts have quickly pointed out elsewhere, the practical problems in implementing the Russian proposal to turn the Syrian chemical weapons over to international inspectors are enormous, if not nearly impossible.  It would be difficult to do a credible job in a timely manner in a perfect world, and Syria is certainly not a perfect world.  I agree that the United States and other nations, through the United Nations Security Council, should pursue the proposal, but I doubt that it will succeed.  Already the Russians have threatened to veto a British and French resolution that would implement the turnover, but with the proviso that it has to be on a specific timeline and if that timeline were not met, military force would remain an option.

The United States can only accept a resolution that is specific, time sensitive, and that retains the option of military force in the future.  Both the carrot and the stick need to be present to get the Syrians moving forward.  Indeed, the carrot will probably be viewed as weakness and only the stick will get their attention.

Beyond what should be a natural American moral stance that it is actually our job to enforce crimes against humanity when no other nation is capable or willing, there is a bigger picture.  This developing story has significant ramifications for future United States policy.

With Russian involvement, and given the mentality of some non-western cultures, this is also a test as to which nation has the influence and wherewithal to accomplish its goals in the region.  Despite their public pronouncements, the Russians did not come forward with their proposal in an altruistic effort to curb Syrian chemical weapons.  Russia stepped in to stop the United States in an effort to show to our friends and enemies alike that we no longer have the will to get involved in the Middle East (or elsewhere) if it involves the use of military force.  The message will be that a “redline” means nothing.  The Russians are trying to convey that post-Iraq, the United States is no longer willing to go the extra mile.

If the diplomatic efforts drag out for weeks or months, the game is over.  The United States and its allies need to craft a resolution that tests Russian and Syrian willingness to do what they say and then press them if (when?) they back away or dissemble or otherwise try to change the playing field.  The Syrian regime must suffer real consequences or the United States will be viewed as unable to influence world events or to back up its threats.

War is a serious business and should never be undertaken lightly.  I was a critic of American involvement in Iraq in 2002 before the decision to go the following year.  It hurt our operations in Afghanistan and we invaded for the wrong reasons.  Syria is not Iraq.   However, I think that the Obama administration has thus far been a bit flat-footed in its efforts.  With this Russian proposal the scenario is reset and there is a chance to get back on our toes and to get ahead of events in order to shape what happens rather than just to react.

The end of America as we know it will not occur if we do not act in Syria.  Serious questions remain as to what military action is appropriate or wise.  But it is also clear that as events have thus far unfolded, American credibility as a world player is on the line and that if we are unsuccessful in this endeavor, we will bear the repercussions down the line.  If in the end there is no real accountability for Bashar, and the world perceives that the Syrians stood up to us and the Russians forced us to back down, then within a year we will see further tests of our resolve in other parts of the world.

Let this sad anniversary be a reminder that there are nasty people in the world who wish to do us harm.  We cannot look away.