Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

The Hong Kong "Contagion:" Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Chile And Counting











The Common Element Uniting Worldwide Protests For many of the protests taking place around the world, the lack of an appointed leader is deliberate........... “A leader is best when people barely know he exists,” Lao Tzu, the ancient Chinese philosopher and founder of Taoism, is thought to have said. “When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: ‘We did it ourselves.’’’ ...... From Hong Kong and Chile to Iraq and Lebanon, people have utilized social media to whip up spontaneous, mostly nonviolent grassroots demonstrations against their respective governments—efforts they have vowed to sustain until all their demands are met. ....... Without a clear organizer at the helm, do these protests risk morphing into something even its participants can’t control? Is the lack of centralized leadership a source of weakness—or strength? ......... In Chile, the protests have focused on inequality and corruption. In Lebanon and Iraq, the protests against the countries’ political systems have transcended sectarian lines. While some demonstrations erupted over specific grievances, such as proposed legislation in Indonesia to weaken the country’s anti-corruption agency and reduce the personal freedom of citizens, protests in Haiti, Egypt, and Bolivia have expanded beyond their original aims into calls for their governments to resign. ......... In France, the similarly amorphous “yellow vest” movement has also proved its staying power. The national protests, which spiraled from grievances over rising fuel prices into a broader anti-government demonstration, celebrated its first anniversary on Sunday. Still, some things have changed. Though the spirit of revolt is still strong, the turnout has dwindled......... “These movements don’t appeal to specific categories,” he said. “They appeal to the entirety of the citizenry … who feel defrauded by the political class.” ........ Whereas some have relied on encrypted messaging services such as Telegram, others use AirDrop, Apple’s fire-sharing function that lets users easily share content between devices. ........... “Technology means you don’t need a leader to disseminate strategy. The strategy disseminates horizontally.” ...... For many, the leaderless nature is the point. After all, appointing leaders makes it easier for governments “to focus on them, to pick them off, to arrest them, kill them, denigrate them” ....... In Catalonia, where thousands of people have railed against the Spanish Supreme Court’s October decision to jail nine Catalan separatist leaders, protesters paid tribute to Hong Kong by adopting some of their tactics, including staging a blockade of Barcelona’s airport.......... In Chile, at least 20 people have been killed. In Iraq, the death toll has surpassed 300. ........ he said protest movements “are by their very nature not sustainable in the long term,” in large part due to the amount of energy and commitment it takes to maintain them. Unlike official parties and organizations, “they don’t have the bureaucratic structures that would keep them going.” ......... For many protesters, though, the mind-set is simple: Don’t stop until all their demands are met. For those in Hong Kong, it’s expressed through the popular chant “Five demands, not one less.” In Lebanon, protesters have adopted the slogan “All of them means all of them,” in reference to their rejection of the entire political class. ........ “we shouldn’t expect from social movements that which social movements cannot deliver,” noting that it’s not their job to solve the problems that spurred them. Rather, it’s “to raise questions that were not previously on the political agenda [and] to show that there is a large section of the population that doesn’t feel represented.”

The Rising Costs of Protest in Hong Kong When the protests first began, talk of dying for the movement seemed outlandish. Now it is all too real. ........ Just five years before, during the Umbrella Revolution, the use of tear gas by police had stunned Hong Kong, and this time around, the use of the noxious gas was still shocking enough to lead news reports and dominate polite conversations on the weekdays between demonstrations........... as the weeks rolled on and the authorities in Hong Kong (and, in reality, in Beijing) refused to meet most of the protesters’ demands, police were left by the government with the seemingly impossible task of solving a fundamentally political problem ......... It is almost a cliché now to note that the unofficial motto of this leaderless movement is “Be like water.” ........ The rage expressed by protesters as the day wore on was imbued with a sense of desperation stoked by the feeling that they are largely powerless within Hong Kong’s political system. ......... In the afternoon, demonstrators attempted to take control of an elevated pedestrian bridge from riot officers. Rubber bullets and sponge grenades thwacked against protesters’ umbrellas as they mounted a charge up a steep escalator. It did not take a sharp military mind to see that the odds were not in their favor. Police were better equipped and had the higher ground, yet the protesters pushed on before finally being repelled under a cloud of tear gas so thick, it was difficult to see more than a few feet ............ Above, on the mall’s pedestrian bridge, shoppers pressed their phones to the glass, hoping to capture a few moments of the mayhem.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

News: Modi, Trump, Andrew Yang, Iran, Kamala Harris

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Saudi-Iran: Imran Is The Only One Who Can

I am a fan of Imran Khan. Imran, for decades, has been the most loved Pakistani inside India. He is like Amitabh Bachchan. Amitabh has been the most loved Indian inside Pakistan for decades. Both have seen tremendous fame. More important, both have exhibited tremendous humility in the face of that tremendous fame.

I grew up in a Nepal that knew soccer, but no cricket. So when I say I am a fan of Imran Khan, I mean Imran Khan the politician. I am a very political person. I was Barack Obama's first full-time volunteer in all of New York City. How do I know? I went to the very first meeting, and I was the only full-timer. I got to know the top 30 Obama volunteers in NYC that election cycle. A few years before that I was the only Nepali in all of America to do full-time work for the Nepal democracy movement that saw spectacular success during 19 days of April in 2006.

Imran Khan was at Columbia University in New York, I believe sometime around 2009 or after. I attended that. I asked him a question. He answered it.

As I see it, the formula for peace between India and Pakistan is fairly simple and straightforward. The same applies to Afghanistan. The formula is straightforward. But the Iran and Sauri Arabia equation is more complex. It has more dimensions. It might also look that way to me because my knowledge of that part of the world might be less. I just might be less familiar with the nuances and the details. But there are broad outlines that are clear to many people.

The number one thing is, war is out of the question. Iran and Saudi Arabia can not go to war. That option simply does not exist. It is unthinkable. An all-out war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is more unthinkable than a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The global economy would have a heart attack.

Since Iran and Saudi Arabi are not directly talking, it is also obvious to me that Imran Khan is the only person who has any credibility to facilitate peace between the two powers. He should facilitate until the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia finally agree to hold summit-level talks, perhaps the first one in Islamabad. The second one in Delhi, perhaps.

I believe the key to peace is the two powers getting rid of the delusion that one might bring about regime change in the other's country.

Iran would like to export its political system to the neighboring countries. And Iran does not even have that great of a political system. It is not for Iran to decide the political system in Saudi Arabia. And it is not for Saudi Arabia to decide the political system in Iran.

Let's architect a peace that will create an atmosphere of maximum trade and tourism for both Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Iran is more or less a-okay. Saudi Arabia is more or less a-okay. But Yemen is not okay. Syria is not okay. Only meaningful peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia might bring relief to the people of Yemen and Syria.

Only a few days ago, for the first time, I learned that in the UAE there is a federal parliament. The UAE has a roadmap for universal suffrage. I refrain from commenting too much on some of these countries because I stand on a base of little knowledge.

I am going to speak my mind. Whose mind am I going to speak?

That both Iran and Saudi Arabia have accepted Imran Khan as a go-between figure is a big, positive step in the right direction. The next logical step would be for Imran to play host to the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia to hold a summit meeting in Islamabad where they can talk face to face.

After a few such summit meetings, they might agree on certain things.
  • We have no active designs on regime change in each other's countries. The politics in Iran is for the people of Iran to decide. The politics in Saudi Arabia is for the people of Saudi Arabia to decide. 
  • We will bring to an end the proxy wars in the various countries in the region. To that end we will bring all stakeholders to the negotiating table, and steer a peacful, political process so as to bring peace and stability in the region. We will specifically work together to bring peace to Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. 
  • We recognize Israel's right to exist. And we pledge to find a creative solution to the Palestine problem. 
  • We both pledge to not develop nuclear weapons. To that end we invite all interested parties, including Israel, to participate in monitoring. And we ask that Israel submit a timeline to get rid of its nuclear weapons.
  • We want to bring maximum trade and maximum tourism to each other's countries and to the region at large. 
  • We ask that all sanctions on Iran be lifted effective immediately. 




Will Imran Khan's Saudi-Iran tour ease tension in the region? Khan's visits to Riyadh, Tehran reinforce Pakistan's neutrality, analysts say, but may not be enough to solve issues......... Tehran reiterated its readiness to come to the negotiating table........ Khan met Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, late on Tuesday..... This followed a trip over the weekend to the Iranian capital Tehran to meet Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei......... At a joint press conference on Sunday, Rouhani reiterated an Iranian desire to resolve issues in the region through dialogue...... "Our two countries emphasised that regional issues could only be resolved through political means and dialogue," said Rouhani. "We openly welcome any goodwill gesture by Pakistan for providing more peace and stability for the whole region and we are ready to assist Pakistan for providing full peace and stability for the whole region."......... "Iran is our neighbour. Ties with Iran go a long way back," said the Pakistan PM.......... "Saudi Arabia has been one of our closest friends. Saudi Arabia has helped us when we have been in need. The reason for this trip is that we do not want a conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We recognise that it is a complex issue." ....... Saudi Arabia is a major Pakistani strategic ally, helping to bolster the country's foreign exchange reserves earlier this year with interest free loans, and announcing more than $20bn in new investments in the South Asian country during a high-level visit........ Pakistan is also home to a Shia Muslim minority of roughly 20 percent of its 215 million population. Shia Muslims form the vast majority of the population in Iran........

Khan offered the use of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, as a neutral venue for Saudi and Iranian leaders to meet to "iron out [their] differences".

.......... Tensions in the region have been at fever-pitch since the attacks, with the US backing Saudi Arabia's accusations of Iran being responsible, and Iran warning of "all-out war" if its territory was attacked....... Following the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month, Khan offered to help mediate between the two regional powers, who have also been battling each other through proxies in Syria, Iraq and Yemen........ Zahid Hussain, an Islamabad-based security analyst, said to expect Khan's meetings to lead to talks "is too much"........ "Khan has developed this kind of illusion about himself that he can now play a much greater role in uniting the Muslim ummah [community], but he doesn't realise that the Muslim ummah is so divided and fractured, with nothing to unite them." ......... Dorsey argued that even though Pakistan has "zilch" leverage over Iran or Saudi Arabia, it makes sense for it to pursue peace talks as a way to bolster its own position of neutrality and relations with each side individually.


Pakistan PM: Trump asked me to be a 'go-between' with Iran "What I like about him is he does not believe in wars," Khan said of the US President, speaking to CNN in Islamabad...... Khan met with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Tehran on Sunday, before traveling to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, with the aim of facilitating talks between the arch rivals....... Khan said Trump had asked him last month to "try and be a go-between with Iran and the United States." ...... The US blamed Iran for last month's attacks on Saudi oil facilities and Trump slapped Tehran with new sanctions on two pillars of the Iranian economy -- the country's central bank and its sovereign wealth fund...... Describing the attack as a "dramatic escalation of Iranian aggression," Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters at the Pentagon last month that, while the US "does not seek conflict with Iran," it had "many other military options available should they be necessary."......... He added that a priority in his discussions with the leaders of both countries was to create a ceasefire in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition has battled Iranian-backed Houthi rebels....... The abrupt US repositioning of troops from the area has left Syrian Kurdish leaders looking for support from Syria's government and from Russia ...... "I agree that there should be the best effort to leave in an orderly fashion. But will there ever be a best way to leave, end a war? That's why I don't believe in starting wars," he said........ Khan was speaking to CNN at his residence in Islamabad, shortly after hosting an official visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge during their five-day tour of the country........ He was well-known as a friend of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and said in an official statement released by his office that Pakistan still bears "love and affection" for her.



Friday, October 11, 2019

Middle East: Cold War, Cold Peace, Warm Peace



The formula for peace between India and Pakistan is fairly easy. That is not to say peace is easy. It is not. But the formula is straightforward. Pakistan could not militarily capture an acre of Indian land and vice versa. And so you both agree to turn the Line Of Control into the final border, and then compete with each to bring as much democracy and economic growth into the two Kashmirs as possible. There are two Punjabs. There can be two Kashmirs.

The formula for peace in Afghanistan is also fairly straightforward. Something very similar was done recently in Nepal.

The Cold War between Iran and Saudi Arabi is complex. I am not worried about Iran. And I am not worried about Saudi Arabia. But the whole world worries about Yemen and Syria. The abject human tragedy in both places plays on TV screens across the world.

The domestic politics in Saudi Arabia looks opaque to me. The domestic politics in Iran looks opaque to me. I am sure I could read up and learn a few things. But I happen to have a day job.

At some point, the Cold Warriors US and the Soviet Union just decided to face the fact that since one could completely annihilate the other, war just did not make any sense. And so we had Reagan and Gorbachev talking to each other. There were grand summits. They met face to face.

The US is in no position to invade Iran. The US is unwilling and unable. Although the military-industrial complex in the US always appreciates being able to sell a few more weapons. And the world knows Saudis have cash. Truckloads of cash. I don't even mind that trade.

But the tragedies in Yemen and Syria are too much.

At some point, the Saudis and the Iranians are simply going to have to face the fact that war is not a realistic option. Unlike the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Iran and Saudi Arabia are not in a position to wipe each other out. But if they were to go to war, the world economy will have a heart attack. The world is so dependent on oil. Oil prices will skyrocket and the global economy will see a Depression worse than that of the 1930s. Should that happen, you will see the rise of all sorts of fascists in many parts of the world. There will be chaos.

And so the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia should hold summit meetings just like Reagan and Gorbachev. They should unconditionally discuss all outstanding issues. They should bring to end all proxy wars. They should end the arms race. They should both recognize Israel's right to exist. They should both commit to finding a creative solution to Palestine. And they should both focus on mutual trade and tourism.

Iran and Saudi Arabia can not wipe each other out. They should also stop the fantasy that they can affect regime change in each other's countries. That fantasy has come with serious human costs in nearby states with weaker state presences.

The politics in no country stays at a standstill. Ultimately the people in each country decide.








The Nation State In Peril
The Middle East Cold War
The Money Primary
And Now Iraq Erupts
Hong Kong: The Mask Ban Can Not Be Implemented
Hong Kong: Downturn?
Dubai, Pakistan, Peace, Prosperity
Imran's Peace Gamble In Afghanistan
The Impeachment Drama
South Asians Working In The Gulf
Masa, MBS, And The Broader Investment Climate
The Importance Of Being Kind
MBS Is Right About The Possible War
I Am Rooting For Imran To Succeed In Pakistan
Formula For Peace: Iran-Saudi-US, Taliban-US, India-Pakistan
Imran Wants To Lift 100 Million Pakistanis Out Of Poverty
To: The Crown Prince Of Dubai
Dubai's Remarkable Economic Transformation

Saturday, October 05, 2019

The Middle East Cold War







New Middle East “Cold War” Can’t Be Explained by Sunni-Shia Divide

Sunni versus Shia’ makes for a simple headline, but does not do justice to the complexities of the new Middle East cold war”

....... a “cold war” in which Iran and Saudi Arabia are “playing a balance of power game.” ....... While “the current confrontation has an important sectarian element,” to understand it simply through this lens would “distort analytical focus, oversimplify regional dynamics, and cause Iran and Saudi Arabia’s motives to be misunderstood.” The two regional powers are certainly “using sectarianism in that game,” Gause argues, “yet their motivations are not centuries-long religious disputes but a simple contest for regional influence.” He also stresses that “the regional cold war can only be understood by appreciating the links between domestic conflicts, transnational affinities, and regional state ambitions.” .......

A key factor in this new cold war is the weakness of state governance throughout the Middle East.

The Saudi-Iranian “contest for influence plays out in the domestic political systems of the region’s weak states,” or states in which “the central government exercises little effective control over its society.” Gause emphasizes that “it is the weakening of Arab states, more than sectarianism or the rise of Islamist ideologies, that has created the battlefields of the new Middle East cold war,” by pushing regional actors to “support non-state actors effectively in their domestic political battles within the weak states of the Arab world.” ........ the U.S. should “prefer order over chaos” and support states that provide effective governance “even when that governance does not achieve preferred levels of democracy and human rights.” ...... The American invasion of 2003 took the lid off Iraqi politics, allowing Iran (most successfully), Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other regional parties to play into Iraqi politics. They did not have to force themselves onto the scene. Local Iraqi parties, fighting for dominance in the new Iraq, invited foreign support. The same is now happening in Syria. Once players in the regional game, both Iraq and Syria are now playing fields. The new Middle East cold war is being played out in the domestic politics of these newly weak Arab states.


Beyond Sectarianism: The New Middle East Cold War: Full Report



The very real human tragedies in places like Yemen and Syria are reason enough for the regional and the global powers to seek to ontrack the regional competition for power.

Friday, October 04, 2019

Dubai, Pakistan, Peace, Prosperity

I have a soft spot for Imran. And I have been reading a lot about Dubai recently.

Dubai is rich. Pakistan is poor. But both need peace. The complex political tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been costing Dubai big money.

And there is no way out for Pakistan unless there is peace on multiple fronts. Pakistan needs peace in Kashmir. Pakistan needs peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan needs peace between Iran and the Saudis. Pakistan needs peace in Yemen. In Syria. Pakistan needs peace between India and China.

India and China are like China and America. They can do war and peace at the same time. But India and China do need to settle their long border.

My knowledge of the Persian Gulf countries is much less than my knowledge of Pakistan. But I have been reading. Right now the domestic politics in many of these countries look downright opaque to me.

Saudis can't bring about regime change in Iran. Iran can't bring about regime change in Saudi Arabia. And so the formula for peace has to be co-existence. To the Americans I say, even if your goal is regime change in Iran, the formula that would work would be maximum trade and maximum tourism. The nuclear deal that Obama put in place was a floor on which more deals could have been built. For example, Yemen. The Saudis and the Iranians should meet and say, let's get out of Yemen. Let's engineer a peaceful political process instead. Israel should be part of the deal because it has the greatest interest in no nuclear spread. Also, it claims it is best at catching if Iran lies. Well then, why are you not part of the deal? To make sure Iran does not lie and cheat.

I was watching an interview of the Dubai Sheikh a few days ago. And he is pretty clear. He wants peace with Iran. Because he wants to trade with Iran. It makes sense to me.

Dubai is a beacon of hope. It needs to further prosper.




Imran's Peace Gamble In Afghanistan
The Dubai Sheikh Is A Business School Case Study
The Impeachment Drama
South Asians Working In The Gulf
Masa, MBS, And The Broader Investment Climate
The Biggest Reason For Lifting The Curfew In Kashmir
The Importance Of Being Kind
MBS Is Right About The Possible War
I Am Rooting For Imran To Succeed In Pakistan
Formula For Peace: Iran-Saudi-US, Taliban-US, India-Pakistan
Imran Wants To Lift 100 Million Pakistanis Out Of Poverty
The Blockchain Will Make A Global Wealth Tax Possible

Monday, September 30, 2019

MBS Is Right About The Possible War





Formula For Peace: Iran-Saudi-US, Taliban-US, India-Pakistan
The Blockchain Will Make A Global Wealth Tax Possible
How Will Democracy Come To The Arab Countries?
War With Iran: Super Bad Idea For All Parties Concerned

MBS is right to say there is only a political solution. And I point my finger towards Yemen. The humanitarian crisis in that country is atrocious. There is no military solution in Yemen. There is only a political solution.

There is no military solution with Iran. There is only a political solution.

Masa Son (who by all accounts is a genius) talked MBS into putting I don't know if it is 50 or 100 billion dollars into his Vision Fund. Masa put a big chunk of that into Uber and WeWork. Looks like both are bombing. Masa is not a monarch. He has a stellar record as an investor. But the thing is, if Imran Khan had started smoking at the peak of his cricket career, how long do you think he might have been a great player?

This MBS-Masa story is one to learn from.

Saudi Arabia is a wealthy country that became wealthy very rapidly when oil was discovered. And Saudi leaders have been talking about diversifying the economy for decades now. But that has not come to be. Now Saudi Arabia is under immense time pressure. Not delivering on diversification is no longer an option. It has at most a decade to do so. The rightful clean energy push in the world and the exponential progress being made by clean energy technology is good news for humanity, and it need not be bad news for Saudi Arabia.

I think if MBS were to draw a roadmap to becoming a constitutional monarch in something like five years, that would be the most powerful decision taken by any Saudi king. Become a constitutional monarch, and create a bicameral legislature.

It gets said about MBS he is a millennial who has already come to power. Pete Buttigieg in the US is older than MBS (I think) and Pete is considered almost too young.

It is not a question of individual IQ or individual ability. It is about the political structure that might best deliver. And Saudi Arabia has a 10-year window to diversify or face decline.

The best exercise of power is restraint. I am critical of some of MBS' misadventures in Yemen. He must become cognizant of the human suffering there. What Yemen needs is a political process.

Digital technology can enhance a ruler's powers. But it is not about having more power. It is about exercising power right. It is about being just and fair. I was watching a video yesterday about some elements of the Saudi regime misusing Twitter to clamp down on even basic expressions. I did not feel good about it.

Some of what MBS has said about technology and the economy does sound visionary. But unless the political process is right, you do run the danger of ending up with white elephants. When you surround yourself with yes men, you could walk naked and no one will bother to tell you because they are too afraid.

Recently I have been listening to some of what Imran Khan has been saying about the early days of Islam, the state that Prophet Muhammad created.

MBS does accept Israel's right to exist. That apparently is a major milestone. And women being able to drive in Saudi Arabia has been a long time coming. But the best political move MBS could make is choose to become a constitutional monarch. I don't see any hint of that. But that is my thought.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Formula For Peace: Iran-Saudi-US, Taliban-US, India-Pakistan



Iran-Saudi-US

Situation: War is not an option. An all-out attack by the US on Iran and an all-out counter-attack is unthinkable. For one, there would be a global Depression. It would be like the global economy had a heart attack. A seizure. Even when you are not talking, you are essentially "talking," you are signaling.

Interesting: The Saudis, the Iranians and the Americans all are on excellent terms with both Imran Khan and Narendra Modi. Both Modi and Imran should come together and help out Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US.

Solution: Go back to the Obama nuclear deal and while you are at it, negotiate on all other outstanding matters. Give full engagement to Iran as a conclusion step. Maximum trade, maximum tourism.

Rationale: If you want democracy in Iran, you want to engage to the maximum. Trade also prevents war. If the Chinese and American supply chains were not such a spaghetti, we would already have seen a US-China hot war by now.



Taliban-US

Situation: The Taliban and the Afghan government refuse to talk to each other, but both are willing to talk to Imran Khan.

Interesting: Both the Afghan government and the Taliban are eager to talk to Imran Khan. The Indian government is on good terms with the Afghan government.

Solution: Integrate the Afghan Army and the Taliban to create one unified army, like happened with the Maoists of Nepal and the Nepal Army in the mid 2000s.

Bottomline: The Taliban must agree to become a political party and contest elections in Afghanistan.



India-Pakistan

Situation: Indian Kashmir is under curfew for more than 50 days running now.

Interesting: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US are all on excellent terms with both Imran Khan and Narendra Modi.

Solution: Let Pakistan and India recognize the Line Of Control as the final border between the two countries and compete with each other to install democracy and human rights in both Kashmirs. This formula of recognizing the LOC as the final border is also the solution to the India-China border dispute. They have the longest disputed border in the world.

Bottomline: The curfew in Kashmir must be lifted immediately.



Monday, September 16, 2019

War With Iran: Super Bad Idea For All Parties Concerned

What a War With Iran Would Look Like Iran’s military strategy is to keep tensions at a low boil and avoid a direct confrontation with the United States. Washington struck a tough public posture with its recent troop deployment, but the move was neither consequential nor terribly unusual. ......... the logic of escalation could conspire to turn even a minor clash into a regional conflagration—with devastating effects for Iran, the United States, and the Middle East.



War With Iran Would Be Disastrous And Enormously Costly The maximum pressure campaign is bad enough – it is not likely to change Iranian behavior, and it is ratcheting up tensions that could easily get out of hand......... “The administration’s bellicose, go-for-broke tactics for dealing with Iran are fundamentally at odds with the president’s insistence on extricating the United States from costly and protracted military conflicts.”........ A better course would be to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal and seek a détente that will make further conflict in the region less, not more likely. But that course may have to await a new administration. .........

a war with Iran would “make the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts look like a walk in the park.”

...... studies of the costs of America’s post-9/11 wars have found that the funds spent or obligated on these conflicts are at $5.9 trillion and counting. Yet in advance of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush administration officials were claiming that it would cost on the order of $50 to $100 billion, not the trillions that in direct and indirect costs that it has generated to date. ......... a full-scale conflict with Iran could cost trillions, a huge commitment of public funds at a time when deficits are rising, the economy is at risk, and needed public investments in infrastructure, green jobs, health care, and education are lagging. ........ War is an uncertain undertaking, and the idea that it can be easily contained once a conflict starts is naïve at best, and ludicrous at worst.




What Happens to Israel if the US and Iran Go to War? once a shooting war were actually underway, full-scale military engagements could quickly and substantially involve Israeli armed forces (the IDF). In plainly worst case scenarios, these clashes would involve assorted unconventional weapons and directly impact Israel’s civilian populations. Looking ahead, the most fearful worst case narratives could sometime involve nuclear ordnance. ......... a “collateral war” would come to Israel as a catastrophic fait accompli, a multi-pronged belligerency wherein even the most comprehensive security preparations in Jerusalem/Tel-Aviv could suddenly prove inadequate.......... Donald Trump has favored or revealed absolutely no tangible military doctrine. ......... once confronted with a “no doctrine” war launched against Iran by this American president, whether as a defensive first-strike or a retaliation, Israel’s senior strategists would need to fashion their own corresponding doctrines......... Israel is less than half of the size of America’s Lake Michigan. ........ In an upcoming war with the United States, Tehran would likely regard certain direct attacks upon selected Israeli targets as proper “retaliations” for American strikes ......... Iranian forces could potentially gain operational access to hypersonic rockets or missiles....... Israel’s critical capacity to shoot down hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and/or hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs) might subsequently prove inadequate......... it could be to Tehran’s perceived advantage to ostentatiously drag Israel into any US or Iran-initiated war. ........ a Trump-initiated war against Iran would strengthen Saudi military power specifically and Sunni Arab military power in general. While such an expected strengthening might now seem less worrisome to Israel than further Iranian militarization, this delicate strategic calculus could change very quickly......... “Be careful what you wish for.” ......... Should the Trump-led American military find itself in a two-front or multi-front war — a complex conflict wherein American forces were battling in Asia (North Korea) and the Middle East simultaneously — Israel could unexpectedly find itself fighting on its own. ........ the “whole” of any deterioration caused by multi-front engagements could effectively exceed the sum of constituent “parts.” ......... Israeli strategists and planners will need to remain aptly and persistently sensitive to all conceivable synergies. In this connection, it goes without saying that the Trump administration is unaccustomed to such challenging intellectual calculations. ........ for these planners in Washington, complex strategic decision-making can be extrapolated from the unrelated worlds of real-estate bargaining and casino gambling. ........

the determining standard of reasonableness in any military contest must always lie in its presumed political outcomes

....... For a state to get caught up in war — any war — without any clear political expectations is a mistake, always, on its face, or prima facie. .......... For more years than we may care to recollect, futile American wars have been underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. In time, for both Iraqis and Afghans, once-hoped-for oases of regional stability will regress to what English philosopher Thomas Hobbes would have called

a “war of all against all.”

At best, what eventually unravels in these severely fractured countries will be no worse than if these wars had never even been fought............ This will not be a desired political outcome........ America’s principal doctrinal enemy has changed, dramatically, from “communism” to “Islamism” or “Jihadism.” ........

it is a formidable and finely-textured foe, one that requires serious analytic study, not ad hoc responses or seat-of-the-pants presidential eruptions.

......... The Jihadist enemy of Israel and America remains a foe that can never be fully defeated, at least not in any tangibly final sense. To wit, this determined enemy will not be immobilized on any of the more usual or traditional military battlefields........... this after the United States, not Iran, withdrew from an international legal agreement that was less than perfect, but (reasonably) better than nothing at all. ......... Plausibly, there could be only a tiny likelihood that American bombs and missiles would be adequately targeted on widely multiplied/hardened/dispersed Iranian nuclear infrastructures. .......

a US war against Iran would be contrary to Israel’s core national security interests and obligations.

........ If, at any point during crisis bargaining between Iran, Hezbollah, Israel, and the United States, one side or the other should place too great a value on achieving “escalation dominance” and too little on parallel considerations of national safety, the expanding conflict could quickly turn “out of control.” ........ Such consequential deterioration would be especially or even uniquely worrisome if Israel threatened or actually launched some of its presumptive nuclear forces. .........

For Israel and the United States, it is high time for sober humility and determined caution. Without exception, all mentioned Iran-centered quandaries represent turbulent and uncharted waters.



Israel Is Escalating Its Shadow War With Iran. Here's What to Know Israel, which traditionally maintains a policy of ambiguity over oversees military operations, has not taken responsibility for either the Iraq attack or the Beirut drone strike, although its military said it had carried out a separate airstrike on Saturday near the Syrian border in order to foil an “imminent” drone attack planned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah (Iran has denied planning the strike.) ........ Iranian responses could come in various forms: an attack from Hezbollah or other Iranian-proxies; attacks from Sunni militias with alliances of convenience to Tehran; and even attacks on Jewish or Israeli “targets” outside of Israel. A worst case scenario, the official said, might be an Iranian-backed attack on Jewish settlements in the West Bank or the Golan Heights, which could set off a war......... After the Syrian conflict broke out in 2011, Sunni rebels—many financed by Iran’s Gulf rivals, Saudi Arabia and the UAE—rose up against President Bashar Assad’s regime. In response, Iran began pouring money, resources and soldiers into the country in support of Assad’s regime, with which it had been strategically aligned since the 1980s. Concerned about the entrenchment of hostile Iranian forces near its northwest border, Israel has since launched hundreds of air strikes in Syria, including against Hezbollah positions and convoys transporting arms to the group in Lebanon. Iran and Iranian proxy militias have occasionally responded with cross border strikes, such as by launching rockets over a ski resort in the Israel-occupied Golan Heights in January.......... Israel’s success at disrupting Iran’s infrastructure build-up in Syria has led the Islamic Republic to turn its attention to Iraq, where there have been several reports in recent months that Iran is building an array of ballistic missiles aimed at Israel. Israel appears to have followed suit, with recent attacks reported—but not acknowledged—on weapons storage facilities controlled by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias......... the general pattern of Israel’s air strikes in Syria—largely tolerated by Russia, which backs the Assad regime. Israel’s attacks on convoys bound for Lebanon have typically concentrated on thwarting Hezbollah’s “accuracy project”—the group’s attempt to enhance the capacity of its rocket cache—to pinpoint targets in Israel....... “Iran has no immunity, anywhere” adding that Israel would act against Iran “wherever it is necessary.” ........ while Netanyahu may be keen to burnish his “Mr. Security” image, analysts consider him risk-averse and he has been careful to avoid entangling Israel in overseas conflicts....... The ramp up of Israel-Iran tension also coincides with discussion of a potential rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran. ..... Top Israeli officials have voiced concerns that talks could result in a relaxation of the U.S.’ “maximum pressure campaign.” ....... the group was planning a “calculated attack” on Israel that would remain “below the threshold of war.” ....... the dozens if not hundreds of unanswered attacks on Hezbollah positions and convoys in Syria, demonstrate the group’s lack of capacity to effectively retaliate, prompting further escalation ........

Israel is “simply informing everybody that a new rule of the game is being introduced,”

Khashan says. “That is what drove Hassan Nasrallah out of his mind and caused him to issue a belligerent statement that I don’t believe he’s capable of enforcing.” .........likened the situation to both sides performing “acrobatics on the edge of the abyss.”


Iran: The Case Against War To be sure, the Iranian government is guilty of genuine transgressions against American interests and values. It backs Syria’s brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad. It undermines the security of Israel by organizing and sustaining Shia militias in Syria, supporting the Palestinian extremist group Hamas, and arming the Lebanese Shia militia Hezbollah. By serving as Iran’s proxy on Israel’s border, Hezbollah exposes Lebanon—long a fragile state—to the risk of Israeli retaliation. Iran has also supported Shia militias in Iraq that in theory answer to the Iraqi prime minister through a special commission, but in practice are outside the national military command structure, which compromises the cohesion and authority of the Iraqi state......... With money and weapons, Iran backs the Houthis, an insurrectionist movement in Yemen that has ousted the elected government and attacked the territory of its Saudi patrons. It has allegedly tried to stir Shia unrest in Sunni-ruled Bahrain, where the US has an important naval base, and in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. It is developing ballistic missiles that could threaten its neighbors and—especially if they are capable of carrying nuclear warheads—could provoke an arms race in the region. Iranian authorities detain and jail foreigners, including Americans, on fabricated charges. And the Iranian government oppresses its own people by coercing them into obeying strict religious rules, limiting their political choices, and abusing and imprisoning journalists........

It wants to force Iran to curtail its ballistic missile development and its provocations in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—none of which the JCPOA addresses—as well its nuclear program.

........ It has not carried out terrorist attacks against Americans in years.1 Its reactions to Israeli strikes on the small forces it maintains in Syria have been subdued. The Shia militias it backs are ragtag, composed mainly of young Afghani, Iraqi, and Syrian fighters. Moreover, in Iraq, militias thought to be aligned with Iran—known as Popular Mobilization Forces—have not come into conflict with US troops and, in the fight against ISIS, were battling a common enemy. ......... Iran is economically beleaguered and its military is weak, plagued by outdated equipment, a defense-industrial base that cannot supply much of the hardware it needs, and a conscript army that is poorly trained. Its warplanes use 1960s technology. Its navy is essentially a coastal defense force, and its only means of harassing the US Navy are small, lightly armed boats that would use swarming tactics against 105,000-ton Nimitz-class carriers ......... It does possess a large inventory of cruise missiles, rockets, and mines, and is capable of disrupting shipping and harming US warships. ....... The idea that Iran could dominate, let alone subjugate, the states on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf is risible. ........Yet the Trump administration, with Saudi Arabia’s encouragement, insists that Iran controls four regional capitals—Damascus, Sana’a, Baghdad, and Beirut—and has designs on others, such as Manama, the capital of Bahrain. This is a variation on the “Shia Crescent” scenario, which acquired currency about fifteen years ago among wary Sunni governments in the region. ......... The government that ultimately emerged in Baghdad from national elections in 2018—led by President Barham Salih, a British-educated Kurdish leader; Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Shia economist and intellectual who lived in France for years and attended an American Jesuit school in Baghdad; and Speaker Muhammad al-Halbusi, a former governor of Anbar Province and a supporter of US troops remaining in Iraq—can scarcely be described as Iran’s dream team for Iraq. ......... It’s true that Iran has for years had a strong foothold in Lebanon and has supplied Hezbollah with a vast arsenal of increasingly sophisticated missiles and rockets, which give Tehran the capacity to attack Israel by proxy. But Hezbollah’s militarization was the product of Israel’s invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982, which was aimed at eliminating the Palestine Liberation Organization. Iran seems to regard Hezbollah’s missile inventory as part of its own strategic deterrent, not to be put at risk for anything short of preventing Iran’s annihilation by Israel. ...........

Iran’s long-standing influence in Lebanon melds self-protection with strategic expansion.

........ Critics often point to Iranian assistance to Hamas, but it has been relatively modest, mainly financial and political, and essentially symbolic. Iran’s support for Palestinian militants and its other marginal challenges to regional stability are manageable and do not strategically threaten Israel, the United States, or its Gulf Arab partners. ........

the overall thrust of Iranian security policy is to thwart Sunni jihadism wherever it appears, especially in Syria and Iraq.

......... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo harbors a profound conviction that in opposing Iran and embracing Israel he is an instrument of God’s will, having pledged to continue such efforts until “the rapture.” .......

The Trump administration’s stated reason for “maximum pressure” on Iran through sanctions is to force Tehran back into negotiations to limit its ballistic missile program and destabilizing regional activities. But given the high degree of mistrust that the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA has generated in Tehran, that rationale can only be read as disingenuous.

......... In effect, Bolton and Pompeo have repurposed sanctions—normally conceived as an alternative to armed conflict—as the means to provoke a war. ......... Bolton, Pompeo, and CIA Director Gina Haspel apparently favored retaliation, while the Pentagon counseled restraint. ........ It is conceivable that Trump could try to rebrand the JCPOA with marginal changes as his own improved deal—much as he did with NAFTA .........

It remains impossible to tell whether the administration actually intends to go to war, is merely engaging in coercive diplomacy, or is adrift in a sea of miscues. It may not matter. In a maelstrom of probes and provocations, strategic intention may give way to heedless reaction.

.......... The White House has reinforced this possibility by doing away with the systematic interagency process conducted by the National Security Council that has traditionally built consensus on foreign policy and, even given the constraint of secrecy, allowed reasonable transparency about how that policy is formulated.

George W. Bush was the last president to jettison the policy coordination process, and it resulted in the long and bloody occupation of Iraq.

............. Trump is even more ignorant about world affairs and scornful of protocol, process, and custom than his advisers. ........ To the extent he needs a war to mobilize his base, he has one on the southern border, to which he has deployed military units, and where the enemy cannot shoot back. ........ The Pentagon is considering dispatching more warships and combat aircraft and an additional six thousand troops to the Middle East, the first group of which has been authorized. Both the 1991 and 2003 interventions in Iraq demonstrated that as operational momentum toward war builds, it becomes politically more difficult to resist..........

At this stage, Tehran’s national security decision-making appears more orderly and transparent than Washington’s.

........ The Obama administration’s accomplishment in negotiating the JCPOA was to sidestep Khamenei’s deep-seated hostility toward the US and Israel, which had until then proven an implacable obstacle to US diplomacy. The Trump administration has managed to weaken the pragmatic restraint of the hard-line leadership while turning Iranian moderates into hard-liners. .......... The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)—the elite, secretive, and proactive element of the Iranian military that the State Department designated a foreign terrorist organization in April despite objections from the Pentagon—looks to be regaining the upper hand. .......... The IRGC has also reissued its customary threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes. Such a move would be a last resort; it would send oil prices through the roof and almost certainly prompt retaliatory US action. .......... Iran is predisposed to respond defiantly to concerted American attempts to cripple it. ........ Neither government might, on balance, really want war. But concerns about reputation and credibility, the risk of spontaneous clashes between US and Iranian forces, the provocations of proxies, or poorly calculated brinkmanship might cause one. These prospects are doubly worrying because the degree of mutual antipathy and distrust between the two adversaries and the absence of lines of diplomatic communication would make it exceedingly difficult for them to reverse course. ....... It is probably lost on Bolton and Pompeo—and certainly on Trump—that the US intervention in Iraq ended up increasing Iranian influence there and elsewhere in the region. It may also be lost on them that a war with Iran could be even more disastrous than the war in Iraq. ........... 1984–1988 tanker war ...... The most strategically significant aspect of this confrontation, however, was Reagan’s self-control. Even when a US warship was attacked, resulting in US casualties, he refrained from striking Iranian territory and even forced out a high-ranking US commander for planning to do so. Restraint is the real lesson of the tanker war, but Republican hawks are unlikely to heed it. .......... If the administration were to take a harder look at the tanker war, it might observe that Iran, while still vastly weaker than the United States, is in a better position to resist now than it was thirty years ago, when it had been drained by the long war of attrition with Iraq. .......... possesses old-style asymmetric means of response, such as terrorism, and new ones, including cyber capabilities and missiles ........ In the worst case, the United States would launch something along the lines of Operation Iranian Freedom, invading and occupying the country. ......... US forces would initially suppress Iran’s air defenses, target its shore batteries and missile launchers, damage communication networks, strike the headquarters of security services that keep the population under control, and cripple if not destroy hardened nuclear-related facilities with deep-penetrating “bunker-busting” bombs. If occupying Tehran became the American objective, US ground forces would overwhelm the Iranian army and oust the regime by forcing it to flee or killing its top officials with a lucky missile strike. ...........

Iran is appreciably larger than Iraq in both territory and population, so gaining control of the country and winning popular support would be all the more difficult.

While Iraq’s military was handily defeated, Sunni groups reinforced by volunteers from elsewhere in the Arab world and Shia militias indirectly supported by Iran bled US forces for nearly a decade. US forces within Iran would presumably be exposed to such guerrilla tactics, which while not decisive, drive up the cost of intervention and weaken public support for the war at home. ........... internecine warfare among its ethnic minorities—Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, Zoroastrians, and Arabs—portending the fragmentation that worried US intelligence during the Iran–Iraq War ............. Displaced persons within Iran or crossing into neighboring countries as refugees would present a humanitarian challenge comparable to Syria’s. .......

long wars begin with the conviction that they will be short.

........ Washington would find it hard to cobble together a coalition of the willing worthy of the name. ........ prospects for successfully forging a stable, US-friendly government in Iran would be less than dim. And the conflict wouldn’t wind down until long after it had caused chaos in the region and strategically isolated the United States. ......... The Israelis have no doubt started to consider the long-term regional impact of a war between the US and Iran. Their change of heart should be a warning that US policy is spinning out of control.


$100 a barrel oil: Trump’s war talk with Iran risks ‘worst-case scenario’ that slams U.S. economy
What war with Iran could look like Iranian coastal defenses would likely render the entire Persian Gulf off limits to U.S. Navy warships. Iran’s advanced surface-to-air missile defenses would be a significant threat to U.S. pilots. And Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles put U.S military installations across the U.S. Central Command region at risk. The cost in U.S. casualties could be high.............. All the while the network of proxy Iranian jihadi cells, from the Middle East to Central America find novel and makeshift ways to poke, prod and provoke the United States by hitting soft targets whenever and wherever possible. ....... What followed also included leaders of both Iran and the United States claiming they didn’t want war, yet each preparing in many ways for exactly that outcome. ........ the head of the Iranian proxy groups have been ordered to prepare for a range of strikes against U.S. and allied targets across the Middle East. ........ one threat to U.S. forces in the region is the Fateh, an Iranian semi-heavy submarine armed with subsurface-to-surface missiles with a range of about 2,000 kilometers. ....... The Fateh has subsurface-to-surface missiles with a range of about 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles), capable of reaching Israel and U.S. military bases in the region. ........ Unlike with the Iraq War, you can conduct strikes from the Arabian Sea rather than from the Persian Gulf ........... those proxy groups can hit U.S. units and allies across the region. There’s a host of groups that must be considered far from Iran’s borders in Syria, Yemen and Iraq among others. ........ “There may be buried facilities or tunnels somewhere that we don’t know about, but I do think we have a significant amount of good intelligence on where their assets are” ........

Any air campaign against Iran would be vastly different from past U.S. Air Force operations, mostly because Iran’s air defenses are more modern than past foes.

........ Strategic surprise is difficult to achieve these days, Deptula said, meaning the movement of necessary aircraft into theater would be well-known. But operational and tactical surprise remain.......... The U.S. Air Force would likely be launching a strike campaign more similar to Desert Storm, than its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria........... “During Desert Storm, we averaged over 1,200 strike sorties a day,” Deptula said. Even the Iraq War in 2003 involved about 800 strike sorties per day. That’s compared to between 10 and 50 strike sorties per day during the anti-ISIS campaign, depending on the battles being looked at. .........

Iran has the region’s largest and most diverse arsenal of ballistic missiles

.......... The country also possesses increasingly sophisticated cruise missiles, an array of shorter-ranged anti-ship missiles and challenging air defense systems........ Those missile have ranges that run from 300 kilometers up to 2,500 kilometers, giving them the ability to reach targets as far away as Italy ........ Iran’s creativity in operational concepts. ........ “They reportedly tested a Soumar cruise missile with a reported range of 2,000 kilometers,” Karako said. “If you have a cruise missile, you can go around ballistic missile defenses and attack them from behind.” ......

That would allow Iran to potentially strike Israel, anywhere in the Gulf, any base in Afghanistan and parts of Egypt.

....... While not as sophisticated as Russia or China, they may achieve their localized aim of making adversaries think twice about any kind of action against the Iranian homeland ....... Though the current administration has recently backed off from openly supporting regime change in Iran, it’s not clear that military action could even accomplish such a goal. ....... “Under that scenario, Iranians of most political persuasions would likely rally around the flag and support the regime against ‘the aggressor’ as they would term it”


If the U.S. strikes Iran, what might happen next? After a strike like the one Trump says he canceled, officials and experts warn Iran might hit back via proxy forces far from the Middle East. .......... A limited U.S. strike on Iran of the sort President Donald Trump says he canceled Thursday night could prompt a potent Iranian reaction that in turn might spark a much larger military conflict ....... Iran could do enormous damage to the global economy by mining the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway off its coast through which flows 40 percent of the crude oil traded internationally. That action, even if quickly countered by the U.S. Navy, would cause oil prices to spike. But that may not be Iran's first move in response to a limited American bomb and missile attack .........

Shiite militias could overrun the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and seize hostages.

Hezbollah, which, before 9/11, had killed more Americans than any other terror group, could strike in places as far flung as Latin America, where the group has a strong presence. ...... "Traditionally, when faced with this sort of American action, Iran doesn't tend to respond directly and immediately, but they do so asymmetrically and over a period of time" ........ The U.S. and Iran have been attacking one another covertly for decades. President Barack Obama is believed to have ordered a cyberattack that employed malware known as Stuxnet to set back Iran's nuclear program by causing centrifuges to malfunction, for example. Iran built powerful bombs that killed American troops in Iraq........ After a U.S. guided missile cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger airliner in July 1988, killing 290 civilians, Iran capitulated, believing the shootdown was not an accident. ....... analysts say Iran's capacity to inflict pain on the U.S. and its allies is much greater than in the 1980s ...... In addition to its extensive proxy forces, Iran has a potent cyber capability that could, in theory, take down networks and harm the American economy. Iran is believed to be responsible for a cyberattack that wiped out 35,000 computers at the Saudi oil company Aramco in 2012. ......... American forces could obliterate Iran's entire navy in two days, ......... Iran's clerical regime, which cares most about its survival, may respond to that in unpredictable ways. ....... "Very quickly we could end with miscalculation as both sides fear offensive action by the other or tit for tat that escalates into a much more significant conflict" ........

The U.S. might believe it was sending Iran a message of deterrence by punishing it with limited air strikes. But Iran could interpret those strikes as a precursor to an invasion, and act accordingly. The result could be full-scale war.

........ An all-out effort by the U.S. to depose the Iranian regime could cost trillions of dollars and untold American lives .........any war with Iran would tie down the United States in yet another Middle Eastern conflict for years to come. ....... Such a commitment would mean the end of the United States' purported shift to great-power competition with Russia and China"