And now Iranian protests against its government

The Iranian people's level of trust for their own government is low and has been waning for a long time.

Which leads us to the blistering oddities of the current situation between the US and Iran.  And indeed, the odd ways in which that situation involves air disasters.

The relationship between the two nations went bad during the Islamic Revolution there when Iranian students, who morphed into the Revolutionary Guard, took the American Embassy in Tehran and held those there hostage.  President Carter attempted to secure the release of the hostages through diplomacy before ultimately deploying U.S. special forces in the form of the "Delta Force" in Operation Eagle Claw.

It failed.

Fuel calculations were botched and desert conditions intervened to lead to a USAF EC-130 running into a RH-53 helicopter sending both to the ground with loss of American life.  It was a complete debacle and showed the depths to which the American military had declined following the Vietnam War.  The US was shown to be impotent.

Following this, in 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing all 290 occupants on board the plane.  The Vincennes had been harried by Iranian naval forces in a prolonged engagement that day and had actually crossed into Iranian waters in pursuit of them when the Iranian Airbus A300 was mistaken for an Iranian military aircraft and shot down.  Unusual for the US, the US never acknowledged that the error was a culpable one and the crew was not disciplined in any fashion.  In the Navy's view, the incident was a regrettable but not culpable event.  

Iran has always viewed it differently and has marked the anniversary of the event repeatedly.  It's one of the unifying events the Iranian people have with their government.

And now they've shot down their own airliner.

A lot has changed since 1979, let alone 1988.  Iranians are no longer that keen on the theocracy and the majority of them would abandon it.  Anecdotal evidence holds that a lot of Iranians have abandoned Islam itself with quite a few converting to Christianity very quietly.  The well educated Iranian population chaffs at the strict tenants of Shia Islam and its well educated female population can look back to the 1970s when they weren't veiled and Iran was even unique in conscripting women, which says something about the government's view of its female population at the time.  The Iranian government is going to change.

The recent American strike on an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general should have served to really being a uniting force between the Iranian people and their theocracy, and it did briefly.  Now that seems to have already eroded.  Even before this incident occurred Iranian twitter accounts were starting to argue against their really being support for the government and some even declared the targeted general to be a terrorist.  Now the weakness of the country has really been exposed.  The American military has really moved on, the Iranian one has not, and now its culpable for killing its own citizens by accident.  And Iranians are back to protesting their government.  The government's capitol on the 1988 event may now have been spent.

Where this leads nobody knows, but nobody could have predicted this course of events in any fashion.

Causalities of Tension and Incompetence.

Iran shot down a Ukrainian airliner over Tehran this week, after its retaliatory missile strikes on US facilities in Iraq.  The plane was carrying Iranians mostly bound for Canada, which has a large Iranian immigrant population.

To make this plane, Iran's military shot down a civilian aircraft over their own capitol city.

This is because the Iranian military isn't great.

Iran has universal male conscription at 18 years of age.  Interestingly, prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, it also conscripted women, but stopped at that time.  This means it has a large conscript military.

And while it has obtained arms, as the greed and stupidity of nations exceeds their best interests all too often, their military is basically a 1970s vintage force.

We don't know what happened to lead to this tragedy, but my guess is that a tired and scared group of Iranian conscripts had been harangued by officers and seniors about expecting an American attack to the point they were worn out and scared.  So they fired on what they thought was an American military aircraft and 176 completely innocent people, most of whom were their fellow countrymen. We don't know what happened to the men who fired the missile, but we can be assured that it is or was bad.

Nothing will happen to the men ultimately responsible for the tragedy, which is the Iranian Islamist leadership that has governed the country for forty one years and kept in on a violent path of regional Shiite dominance. That government will ultimately go down in an Iranian revolution of some sort, and much of their theocratic views forever with it.

Where this leaves the Iranian American Conflict is not known, but what has turned out to be the case is that an extremely risky course of action the US embarked on due to an order of President Trump and under the apparent urging of Mike Pompeo has been surprisingly effective so far.  Nearly everyone agrees that Gen. Soleimani was a terrorist whose demise should not be lamented.  That he was a uniformed officer of the Iranian paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, and the method by which it occurred really ramped up the risks, but Iran's response was ineffective, perhaps intentionally so, or perhaps simply because it was.  And Iran managed to put the period on the entire event by following up an ineffective missile strike by shooting down a Ukrainian airliner.  The U.S., in the meantime, has essentially declared the matter over.

Either as an example of truly masterful strategy, or by accident, the U.S. has effectively moved the bar on state sponsored terrorism and, due to the past week, managed to make state employed uniformed terrorist a routine target in wars on terrorism and to have exposed Iran's conventional forces as less than impressive.  Iran may have in fact suffered a set back as a sponsor of terrorism and given its history, that's a large part of its diplomatic approach to the world. Without it, it's not much.

At least not much until it acquires a nuclear weapon, which it is now working on.  Indeed, exposed as conventionally incompetent and now with a reduced military portfolio because of the changed nature of the game, it may be stepping back because it knows this has become a must for it.

Or so it probably believes. The irony of it is that nuclear weapons for small nations are, frankly, completely worthless.

President Trump addresses the nation on Iran.

President Trump addressed the nation yesterday on the conflict with Iran.  He stated the following.

As long as I’m president of the United States Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Good morning.  

I’m pleased to inform you, the American people should be extremely grateful and happy. No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties. All of our soldiers are safe,, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.  

Our great American forces are prepared for anything. Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world. No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well. 

I salute the incredible skill and courage of America’s men and women in uniform. For far too long, all the way back to 1979 to be exact, nations have tolerated Iran’s destructive, and destabilizing behavior in the middle East and beyond. Those days are over. Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. We will never let that happen. Last week, we took decisive action to stop a ruthless terrorist from threatening American lives.  

At my direction, the United States military eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Quasem Soleimani. As the head of the Quds force, Soleimani was personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities.  He trained terrorists armies, including Hezbollah, launching terrorist strikes against civilian targets. He fueled bloody civil Wars all across the region. He viciously wounded, and murdered thousands of US troops, including the planting of roadside bombs that may him and dismember their victims. Soleimani directed the recent attacks on US personnel in Iraq, that badly wounded for service members, and killed one American, and he orchestrated the violent assault on the US Embassy in Baghdad. In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him. 

Soleimani’s hands were drenched in both American and Iranian blood. He should have been terminated long ago. By removing Soleimani, we have sent a powerful message to terrorists. If you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people. As we continue to evaluate options in response to Iranian aggression, the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes it’s behavior. In recent months alone Iran’s sea ships in international waters fired an unprovoked strike on Saudi Arabia, and shot down to US drones. Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were given $150 billion not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. Instead of saying thank you to the United States, they chanted death to America. 

In fact, they chanted death to America the day the agreement was signed. Then Iran went on a terrorist spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us, and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. The regime also greatly tightened the reins on their own country. Even recently killing 1500 people, at the many protests that are taking place all throughout Iran. The very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway, and gives a ran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout. 

Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism. The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China to recognize this reality. They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal, or JCPOA, and we must all work together toward making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer, and more peaceful place. We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential. Iran can be a great country. Peace and stability cannot prevail in the Middle East as long as the Iran continues to foment violence, unrest, hatred and war. The civilized world, must send a clear and unified message to the Iranian regime. Your campaign of terror, murder, mayhem will not be tolerated any longer. It will not be allowed to go forward. 

Today, I am going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process. Over the last three years. Under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before, and America’s achieved energy independence. These historic accomplishments shades our strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible, and options in the Middle East became available. We are now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent and we do not need Middle East oil. The American military has been completely rebuilt under my administration at a cost of two point $5 trillion. US armed forces are stronger than ever before. 

Our missiles are big, powerful, accurate, lethal, and fast. Under construction, are many hypersonic missiles. The fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean we have to use it. We do not want to use it. American strength, both military, and economic is the best deterrent. Three months ago after destroying 100% of ISIS, and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of ISIS al-Baghdadi who is responsible for so much death, including the mass beheadings of Christians, Muslims, and all who stood in his way. He was a monster. al-Baghdadi was trying again to rebuild the ISIS caliphate and failed. Tens of thousands of ISIS fighters have been killed or captured during my administration. 

ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran, and we should work together on this and other shared priorities. Finally, to the people and leaders of Iran, we want you to have a future and a great future, one that you deserve. One of prosperity at home, and harmony with the nations of the world. The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it. I want to thank you, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

This then is the stated reason for the new situation with Iran.  As we noted yesterday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems to be instrumental in this new direction.  What is clear is that the Administration targeted Solemani because he was a principal Iranian paramilitary commander involved with Iran's sponsorship of foreign, illegal, terrorist militias. 

What isn't clear is if nature of Iran's response was really contemplated.  It might have been, and should have been, but it might not have been.  Those over acclimated to terrorism may have thought that Iran would simply regard this as costs of the game and then recalculate the costs.  And indeed, we don't fully know that they won't do that.

If they don't, we also don't know if the Administration war gamed this matter to contemplate a dramatically increased conflict with Iran, which doesn't mean that I'm predicting a full scale conventional war (I'm not, and I think that extremely unlikely).  And it doesn't seem that Iraq's parliament asking us to leave was contemplated, and we don't know how that will play out.

One thing I don't think will occur, in spite of the President's reference to it, is an increased role for NATO in the Middle East.  Indeed, I can't even see where such a request would make sense.  We didn't run this strike against NATO when we did it, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, while it has been more active in global affairs since the fall of the Soviet Union, is for the defense of Europe.  A person can rationalize that taking on the problems of the Middle East fits that model, but it's really a stretch. And the NATO country that is in the Middle East, Turkey, no doubt has a different view on many things in comparison to the United States, although this Administration has been accommodating to Turkey as the recent events in Kurdish Syria have demonstrated.

According to the New York Times it was Mike Pompeo who urged the targeted strike on the Iranian general. . .

that has upended everything in the Middle East.

If that's true, it means the underlying scenario about what has occurred differs considerably from the way the story at first appeared.  Like Pompeo or not, he doesn't seem to be a gadfly.  Therefore, this is a calculated ramping up which President Trump bought into.

An interesting thing here is that this is the sort of event which people worried about in regard to Bolton when he was in the Trump Administration, given that he is a hawk in general and very hawkish in regard to Iran.

Pompeo is 56 years old, a few months younger than me, and is a West Point graduate.  Given his age and first occupation, he'd have the memory of the tail end of the Cold War as well as the first crisis with Iran, and have it from a partially institutional sense.  He entered active duty, if a person doesn't regard West Point itself as active duty, in 1986 and served until 1991, when he left the service to attend Harvard Law School.

He practiced law for only four years before entering a private venture.  He entered Congress, from Kansas, in 2010 and became head of the CIA in 2017.

What does this tell you?  Well, maybe not very much, other than that the appearance of this being a surprising unilateral decision by Donald Trump appears to be wrong.  Pompeo is from the right wing Tea Party wing of the GOP and is an evangelical protestant.  He's highly educated, and has a military background (the latter of which usually makes a person hesitant to use force).  All of which may inform us on current events not at all.

In the late 1950s. . .

Egypt and Israel engaged in an artillery war.  My recollection is that it was mostly in 1958. 

During this period the two countries shelled each other over disputed territory, with Egypt doing most of the shelling.  It came to an end when Israel chose to use air power to bring it to an end.

I note that as I suspect that's what we're entering into now in Iraq, with Iran.  And if that's the case, a person should be somewhat concerned about the probably escalating course.  I.e., if they rocket us, we'll surely sooner or later take out the rocket sites, somehow.

Assuming we aren't ejected from Iraq, which is a very serious likelihood.  Indeed, if this develops, my guess is that it would be a probability, as no host nation wants to be rocketed repeatedly.

Of course, maybe they'll stop with their recent rocket strike. And maybe we won't retaliate for it.  But that seems unlikely.

All of which brings up why taking out a uniformed officer of an opposing nation, even where he is not supposed to be, in a targeted fashion isn't wise, no matter how problematic  he may be.

An Iranian American Conflict was something. . . .

I didn't anticipate having as a category here, but I do now.

It shouldn't have come about this point.

Or at least so it seems.

Let's be clear about that, however.  Iran has been colliding violently with the entire globe since it became a Shia Islamic Republic in the 1970s.  It's a radical theocracy that's bent on spreading its branch of Islam by any means necessary.  It's subverted much of the current Iraqi government and it's sponsored anti government forces in Lebanon.  It's also propped up the government of Syria.  It maintains militias in Iraq. 

There's nothing about the current government of Iran that we can admire, and we also can't admire its lending of its guerrilla commanders, or volunteers, to forces outside of its border.  Indeed, in its behavior, we might compare to Fascist Italy in the 1930s, which propped up the fascist cause elsewhere and which lent volunteers to the civil war in Spain.

We've been contesting Iran's efforts now for forty years.

But over those forty years domestic support for the country's theocracy has waned and was disappearing.  We've managed to temporarily reverse that now almost over night.

In doing that, we've removed a single Revolutionary Guard commander, but that's not going to change the success rate of Iran's foreign adventures in any fashion.  On the weekend news shows the Administration's line was that "America's safer", but that seems rather far fetched.  Indeed, in taking out a single man we've violated, once again, the Clausewitzian maxim that if you hit a foreign power, you have to go all in.  We haven't done that, and there's no sign we will.  Indeed, at this point that would be an extraordinary action that Congress and the public would not support.

So a troubled Iranian government will see Iranians rally to it, and it will have to act in some fashion that will result in an increased loss of life.

Given this, at the present time, the Administration really should lay bare its reasons for taking this action.  If we see that Iran was planning something like 9/11 in some fashion, or something like the USS Cole, well, perhaps we can then understand why this seemed necessary.  Indeed, that would have effectively have been Iran taking the first step.  But in order to make this move wise strategically it would require something on that order.  If it isn't there, the public can judge if the use of force was wise or not.

It wouldn't be the first time that the public has made such calculations.  Indeed, far more American wars have been unpopular with the population than generally imagined, with the Mexican War perhaps being the most unpopular we've experienced to date. At any rate, it's not disloyal to want answers, and with wars they should be forthcoming.

Which is also not to say that this is going to become a full scale war.  Indeed, as noted, that's the Clausewitzian maxim we have violated.  Clausewitz warned that limited wars were wars by the weak and the risk they entail is extreme.  If we're in a war, it'll be a very low grade and long lasting one, not one that sees masses of men in the field. And its those low grade wars that we're the worst at fighting.