Iran Analysis: More War, No Facts, Blah Blah (Chapter 23)

It's one thing for pontificator Charles Krauthammer to post an "analysis", void of logic and knowledge of Iran, to cheer-lead for threats of military action --- as we have noted often, he has long pushed for war with Tehran.

It's another for "moderate" Washington insiders Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh (with whom I have worked) to turn speculation into the situation on the ground, making military action the centre of attention in their commentary in today's Washington Post: "If Iran came close to getting a nuclear weapon, would Obama use force?"

Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.

The article starts with Politics Fantasyland:

Imagine a moment when President Obama has only two alternatives: prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran or embark on the perilous path of military action to stop it.

Imagine that diplomacy has run its course, after prolonged and inconclusive negotiations; that surging international oil prices have undercut the power of economic sanctions against Tehran; and that reliable intelligence says the Islamic republic's weapons program is very close to reaching its goal.

Facing such conditions, would Obama use force against Iran?

Then, once again, we get the war-war meanderings of former Bush Administration official Michael Hayden as Very Significant --- they aren't --- before jacking up Obama's formulaic statement
in an interview with Israeli television (note the audience), "I assure you that I have not taken options off the table."

In limited mitigation, Takeyh and Simon then note the constraints on a possible US push for military action --- the United Nations, European opinion, the need for domestic consensus.

But only limited mitigation: in the end, the two authors come off as Chicken Little soothsayers: "The world imagined here may not constitute destiny --- but it will be hard to escape."

If Takeyh and Simon really wanted to make a contribution, rather than feeding water-cooler chatter (and the bias towards conflict), they might have queried their opening assumption that Iran is close to significant military nuclear capability (it isn't) or even if the regime intends to pursue that capability (unclear, though my personal reading is not at the present).

Takeyh and Simon might have even taken a moment to note the current diplomatic situation in which, far from moving towards a military showdown, both Tehran and Washington are approaching renewed talks over Iran's uranium enrichment.

But that would ruin the drama of the speculation, wouldn't it?

Apologies for appearing harsh on the two authors rather than, say, venting concern and frustration towards a Krauthammer. However, Takeyh and Simon, unless Krauthammer, have experience working inside an Administration. And I also think, unlike Krauthammer, that they are not trying to wish a war into existence.

So, please no more bombs-and-missiles fantasy. If we have to pose as a tough guy, let's try Jack Webb from TV's Dragnet: "Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."

EA on the Road: Lost in England

We'll be travelling in northwest England today, so service --- including the LiveBlog from Iran --- will be limited. As usual, many thanks to our readers for keeping us up to speed with news, ideas, and comments.

We will be to full service on Sunday afternoon.

Afghanistan Video: "The Ugly of War" (Smith/The Guardian)

Sean Smith of The Guardian of London has made a 15-minute film documenting the US military experience on the frontline of the Afghanistan War in Helmand province. Smith has also posted a diary of his time with the American troops, and The Guardian has posted the video of an interview with a US medical evacuation (Medevac) crew chief on "the most traumatic mission he has ever flown":

The Latest from Iran (31 July): Past and Present

1520 GMT: More War, No Facts, Blah. The deputy head of Iran's armed forces, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, says the US is escalating its "war of nerves" against Iran: "US Congress Bill 1553 which gives the hated Zionist regime a free hand to confront Iran is part of a psychological warfare scenario devised at the request of an American think tank to affect Iranian nuclear insiders."

Hmm...Resolution 1553, which backs Israeli miitary action against Tehran, has been sponsored by a minority of Republicans --- which is the minority party --- in the House of Representatives, the junior chamber of the US Congress. It is unlikely to be adopted by Congress, let alone be supported by the Obama Administration.

Still, I'm not sure Jayazeri needs to worry about such details....(http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136890§ionid=351020101)

NEW Iran Analysis: Looking Back on the 1980s (Verde)

Iran Music Video Special: The Award-Winning “Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone”

Iran’s Persecution of Rights: The Pursuit of Lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei (Shahryar)

The Latest from Iran (30 July): Stepping Up the Criticism

1515 GMT: All Hail Rahim-Mashai. He may be widely disliked, even amongst conservatives, but the President's chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai continues to pile up the posts.

Indeed, the latest may help Rahim-Mashai answer his critics: Fars News says he will manage the Islamic Republic News Agency. (http://is.gd/dUUoU)

1340 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. A group of families of political prisoners have reportedly gathered in front of the office of the Tehran Prosecutor General to protest the detention of their relatives. (http://fb.me/ER74sOKd)

1330 GMT: Larijani Watch. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has said that that he is ready to “confront the government through legal channels” if they refuse to send their legislation to the parliament for review: “According to the constitution, government legislation has to be relayed to the parliament to assure correspondence with the law. But it is a while now that this has not been done and this is a blatant breach of law.”

Asked if he will summon President Ahmadinejad to the Parliament, Larijani said that it is not yet time for such an action.

The President’s parliamentary deputy has denied the allegation and said the Government is delivering the new legislation to Parliament before execution. (http://bit.ly/ccwHpe)

1315 GMT: We have posted a separate analysis considering the establishment of War with Iran as part of "normal" discussion in the US media.

1300 GMT: Missing Lawyer Mostafaei Update. A follow-up to this week's story on EA by Josh Shahryar about prominent human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who went into hiding after Iranian authorities tried to detain him, arresting his wife and brother-in-law....

Mostafaei has now written to the Tehran Prosecutor General, Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi. An Iranian activist summarises the letter, "I'll give myself in if my wife and brother-in law are released, and I am guaranteed a fair trial and legal process. Otherwise, catch me if you can." (http://bit.ly/9e9TLz)

1100 GMT: Threat of the Day. The head of Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, has become the go-to guy for Iranian state media for quotes challenging sanctions, and he does not disappoint today: “The European Union will receive an appropriate response should it put into practice [new] sanctions against the Iranian nation.” (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136860§ionid=351020104)

0600 GMT: We begin this morning with a feature from Mr Verde considering how the current political crisis is bringing out new information and debate on the Iran of the 1980s and the war with Iraq.

Meanwhile....

Getting (and Understanding) the News from Iran

Azadeh Moaveni has a sharp, incisive anlaysis on Foreign Policy, "What the West Isn't Hearing About":

With reporters on the ground so compromised by self-censorship, our ability to get a decent read of public opinion in Iran, let alone any smart, rigorously reported insight into domestic politics -- the opposition's strategy, the displeasure of the ayatollahs in Qom, the establishment's discomfiture at the prospect of sanctions -- is nonexistent. Even small, telling stories have become too sensitive to report, like the post-election defection of young journalists from Press TV (the government's English-language TV network) [Editor's Note: EA knows about this from personal correspondence with sources] or the distressing rise of so-called "experimental hires" as firms exploit young people's desperation for jobs to extract months of unpaid work under the false premise of a trial period....

It is perhaps understandable that Western readers are less interested in granular details from Iran than in the broad geopolitical sweep of the last year. But the loss of these stories is still a travesty, for it obscures the extent to which the spirit of the opposition still rules Iran. Certainly, the Islamic Republic knows better than to underestimate the scale and depth of people's disillusion and the swiftness with which inchoate grievances can be transformed into running street battles. A year after events so extraordinary that staid Tehran matrons found themselves setting fire to the barracks of Iran's feared Basij paramilitary, it would be unfortunate indeed if Western journalists, with whatever good intentions, faltered in their understanding of Iran, when it is so obvious that the regime itself acknowledges the power of its foes.

The Detained Americans

President Obama has made another appeal to Tehran to free three Americans --- Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal --- detained one year ago when they allegedly crossed the Iran-Iraq border on foot.

Sarah, Shane and Josh committed absolutely no crime. Yet for a full year, they have been held in prison, causing extraordinary grief and uncertainty for them, for their families, and for their loved ones. I want to be perfectly clear: Sarah, Shane and Josh have never worked for the United States government....

I call on the Iranian government to immediately release Sarah, Shane and Josh. Their unjust detention has nothing to do with the issues that continue to divide the United States and the international community from the Iranian government.

On a related matter, Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh, sentenced last autumn to 15 years in prison (later reduced to 5 years on appeal), remains on temporary release.

Iran Analysis: Looking Back on the 1980s (Verde)

In recent weeks, one of the effects of the post-election crisis in Iran has been a look back at the early history of the Islamic Republic. In June, Mostafa Tajzadeh wrote an open letter asking for forgiveness for actions taken by reformists in the 1980s. This week, Mir Hossein Mousavi --- before his 1988 resignation letter as Prime Minister was published on the website of former President Abolhassan Bani Sadr --- issued an statement to disclose his version of events during the Iran-Iraq War.



Mr Verde explains the significance:

No one in the Iranian public knows anything about the decisions taken by politicians and military commanders during the Iran-Iraq War. There has never been any public scrutiny of the decisions taken. There is no independent information available about the actual events.

On the regime side, the narrative is this: “Backed by both the West and the East, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in order to destroy the revolution, hence the war is called 'jang-e tahmili' (imposed war). The army of Islam fought heroically, hence the war being referred to as 'defa’-e moghddass' (Holy Defence). The whole world supported Saddam and eventually we were forced to accept the ceasefire, which Ayatollah Khomeini referred to as a chalice of poison.”

I am not saying this narrative is entirely false. Of course, Saddam started the war and the Iranian forces fought heroically against the odds on many occasions. My point is that the narrative is tainted by official propaganda. That is far from unexpected, but the problem is that there is no independently verifiable information, with the excuse that this is a "holy" matter, about the official thinking and decisions beyond the propaganda. Some people may be reluctant to question issues regarding the war, because it may appear that they are disrespecting the many servicemen, volunteers, and civilians who were killed during it.

However, this crisis and infighting within the Islamic Republic is producing an unexpected result. The recent revelations were spurred by the claims of Mohsen Rafighdoost, who was Minister of the Revolutionary Guard from 1982 to 1989. He makes it sound like the war was used as a tool for internal in-fighting of the regime: “Mr Hashemi [Rafsanjani, who had been put in charge of the war by Ayatollah Khomeini] told me: go and sit in your Ministry, I want to throw the ball into the court of the Government. He then gave an order that Mr Mousavi [then Prime Minister] became the head of the war effort, Mr Behzad Nabavi became the logistical deputy, and Mr [Mohhammad] Khatami became the propaganda deputy.”

Rafighdoost's implication is that Rafsanjani, knowing that the war effort was in bad shape, wanted to put Mousavi in charge so that once Iran had to accept the United Nations ceasefire resolution --- an acceptance which soon occurred --- Mousavi would be blamed for the failures. Rafighdoost also says that the government of Mousavi was hindering the war effort.

Mousavi responds that when he was put in charge, Iran was indeed in a very bad shape. He claims that in the first War Council meeting that he chaired, the regular Army and Revolutionary Guard commanders told him that Iran would certainly lose the Khuzestan Province to an Iraqi attack. He claims that the bulk of Iranian forces were massed around an unimportant height in Kordestan Province at the time, and even there they were in danger of being outflanked by the enemy.

As for management of the war, Mousavi claims that it had been handled badly since 1982.

At this stage it is impossible to know whose account to believe (maybe a combination of the two?).

A few years ago, after a public quarrel with Mohsen Rezaei, Revolutionary Guard commander in the 1980s, Rafsanjani published a secret message from Khomeini, in which the Ayatollah detailed his reasons for accepting the ceasefire. Unexpectedly Khomeini’s main reason for accepting the ceasefire was a letter from IRGC commander Rezaei. That letter said that Iran did not have any attacking capabilities for at least another five years. Even after that, it would only be possible to win the war if Tehran had hundreds of new planes and tanks and other modern weaponry such as laser-guided missiles and atomic bombs and if foreign powers were stopped from exerting influence in the region. Ayatollah Khomeini said that the Government was unable to support the war effort to this extent and everyone else except Rezaei was of the opinion that the war should be stopped.

I cannot help getting the feeling that officials are using nationally important information for their personal or factional gain, yet one effect of these disclosures is that they will further erode the Islamic Republic's historical foundations. In this crisis, the regime’s important days being tarnished: Qods [Jerusalem] Day in became “not Gaza, Not Lebanon” day, 13 Aban [in November] was a day when the regime's commemoration was so heavily guarded that it looked as if its marchers were prisoners, 16 Azar [National Students Day in December] became an occasion on which universities across the country voiced their protests, the funeral of a Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in the holy city of Qom turned into an anti-Khamenei demonstration, the religious celebration of Ashura [27 December] became a day on which the regime murdered its own citizens on the street, 22 Bahman [11 February] saw Iranian cities turned into military camps, and 14 Khordad [4 June] saw the humiliation by regime insiders of the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini on the anniversary of his death.

Now the carefully guarded regime-backed version of the Iran-Iraq War is being disputed by regime insiders.

Next chapter to come soon?