Private Mars Rocket II

Over at The Usual Suspects, Day Whatever of The Clash of Civilizations is continuing. When asked why, out of a nation of 5 million Muslims, only 3 were immediately available for the latest battle, the answer was "well, there were these other handfuls" and that old chestnut "European cities have no-go zones." (No, they don't. They have rough neighborhoods, just like wherever you live.)

Here back in the land of reality, I got to thinking why it seems like the last spate of attacks were launched by yahoos with lengthy arrest records. Then I was pointed at What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat by Louise Richardson. Her history is that she was born in the part of rural Ireland favored as the home ground of the IRA.

She notes (or so I'm told) that individual terrorists are usually disaffected people who go looking for an ideology to explain their problems and justify violence. From the article: "Their motivations can be summed up in a three-word phrase, according to Richardson: "Revenge, Renown, Reaction." One characteristic that terrorists seem to share with The Usual Suspects is a tendency to see the world as black and white.

In any event, guess what got added to my to-be-read list?

The first thing one needs to understand about Iran is that the official religion is Shi’ite Shi'a Islam. This means that Al Queda, in particular, and the majority Sunni Arabs in general consider Iran a heretic state. Understanding this fact explains why Iran did not oppose our operations in Afghanistan and is not a base for the Taliban.

Second, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad, the president of Iran, may in fact be able to call his underwear his own*, but he is NOT the commander-in-chief of the Iranian military. Constitutionally, he’s more like a chief of staff for the Supreme Leader, a cleric, then a head of government. The real power resides with the Mullahs in Qum. I’ve heard some commentators call them the “mad Mullahs” but personally I think they’re more like “crazy as a fox.”

Let’s consider one act of the mullahs – developing nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles. Now, their president (seen on state TV holding presumably enriched uranium) says he will “destroy Israel.” He’s got a funny way of doing it.

If he was really serious about nuking Israel, he wouldn’t need missiles. It’s much easier and less traceable to smuggle bombs in then to fly them in via rockets. Also, why publicly develop a weapon? Do it quietly, and if you do it right, the first warning your adversary gets is when his cities evaporate.

Ballistic missiles only make sense if you’re looking for deterrence or blackmail. (Nice country you have there. Shame if something happens to it.) The missiles are a credible, visible and controllable threat. A suitcase bomb is none of the above.

Iran, via Syria, funds Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a genuine pain in the ass to Israel, but not a credible threat to their existence. Hezbollah and the bomb are ways to extort power and influence. Similarly, a few months back Iran kidnapped some British Royal Navy sailors, who were quickly released. Why – to make a point that Iran was not to be trifled with.



It appears that Iran’s leaders want greater influence, not suicide. They’re quite willing to overthrow a government, and the long-term religious goal is to rule the world. It strikes me that we just got done playing a similar game with a group of folks who had a quasi-religious ideal of “uniting the workers of the world.”

Much like that previous round, Western liberal democracy holds the better long-term hand. The Iranian economy is not that robust, nor are the current leaders terribly popular in their own country. We should bear in mind, of course, that the quickest way to get the Iranian people to rally ‘round the flag is to attack their homeland. In short, welcome to the new Cold War.


* with apologies to Issac Asimov. I've wanted to use that line for years. 

Every once in a while, I find it helpful to think back to the root of an issue. The current War on Terror strikes me as an issue worth applying this treatment to. So, what I’d like to think about is the question “how wars are won?” Part One, presented here today, is "Going back to basics." Consider how we defeated Japan in WWII or the Plains Indians in the 1800s.

( going back to basics )

I think both these examples are relevant to the current war. We are facing several enemies, both a nation-state (Iran) and at least two insurgencies (Iraq and Afghanistan). We may yet have other enemies. Figuring out how to win against these enemies is important.