War on Terror Part III

After reading Part I and Part II, you might conclude that I am a war-monger set on invading Iran and Syria. It might come to that, but I also have studied strategy. The great master Sun-Tzu taught that the ultimate victory is the one that comes without firing a shot. This would be my recommended goal. However, the mismanagement of our relationship with the Islamic Republic, dating back to the 1979 revolution has been so severe, that hostilities may ultimately be required.

To the current situation. If one accepts that the primary goal of the war on terror is to break the link between the terrorists and their state sponsors. Then one must step back in amazement at the grand strategic position we have gained. Regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq has at least temporarily removed those governments from the list of state sponsors of terror. Coincidentally, it has positioned U.S., Coalition, and NATO troops in positions that should be, theoretically, putting pressure on Iran. Combined with unquestioned U.S. supremacy of the high seas. Iran should be in a vise.

To some extent Iran is feeling the pressure. After witnessing the effectiveness of U.S. forces in Iraq, the Ayatollahs must have concluded that they stood no chance in direct military engagements with the West. They also seems to have concluded that 1) nuclear weapons provide a credible deterrent to invasion and 2) that due to the political situation in the US and the EU that they have a window of opportunity to accomplish the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The current political discourse in the U.S. is furthering the Iranian's apparent goals. Currently, there is a large movement to extract our troops from Iraq. Although, some of these are disingenuous schemes that contemplate restricting our troops to bases in Iraq, others call for removal to Kuwait, still others call for removal to Okinawa. But what would happen to the Iraq we leave behind? Well this gets into forecasting the future. So I need to state another principle that I accept as binding: All estimates of the future are wrong. Recognizing this the question becomes how wrong are they? In this post I cannot provide an answer.

However, it is certainly possible to suggest that Iran will be a more powerful force in the region. It is conceivable that southern Iraq would become a client state of Iran. This would provide Iran with near direct resupply routes to their terrorist group in Lebanon. It might also increase tensions between Iran and other Arab-Sunni states in the region: Saudi Arabia and Jordan to name two. To empower the leading state sponsor of terror makes little sense in the context of a global war on terror. Political candidates that offer to extract our troops from Iraq in the name of hunting bin Laden are promoting a losing strategy in the war on terror.

The only reasonable course of action is to realize that the war on terror has advanced to the point that it is no longer about Iraq. I understand that people continue to die there, that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia continues to launch attacks there, and that the Iraqi infrastructure is as of yet unable to adequately institute the rule of law there. But, the larger picture must be served if ultimate victory is to be achieved.

The following actions deserve consideration:

1) The U.S. should begin an immediate campaign to remind the U.S. electorate and our allies around the world of the brutal and unforgivable behavior of the Iranian regime. Their tactics and methods bring disgrace to one of the most civilized cultures in the Middle East.
2) The United States should publicly demand that Iran cease and desist from all activities that support terrorist groups, especially Hezbollah. These demands should be often repeated, and made at all formal international meetings and organizations.
3) Iran is listed as an observer government in the WTO and has begun the process of accession to that body. This should be canceled and Iran prohibited from WTO grounds until it fully and completely renounces terror.
4) The same should occur at the UN. Even if it never happens (which it will not) the continual pressure by the US and her allies to prohibit this outlaw regime from participating in international affairs as a member in good standing would add to the pressure on the Iranian regime.
5) The United States should undertake covert missions to undermine Hezbollah.
6) The United States should undertake to overtly interfere in Hezbollah-Iranian supply lines. Air freight and shipping traffic should be boarded and inspected at every opportunity.
7) If within a given period of time Iran has not terminated its support for Hezbollah, then a system of ever increasing pressure should be applied including but not limited to: naval blockades of all shipping lanes, destruction of Iranian Air defense systems, destruction of the Iranian Navy, establishment of no fly zones over Iranian territory, destruction of all overland transportation infrastructure, etc.

During this effort to force Iranian compliance, the United States must not forget about Syria. The termination of Syrian involvement with terror would further isolate Iran. Thus, the United States must also begin a campaign to force Syria to end its support for terror along the same game plan as that stated above.

As part of this campaign to pressure state sponsors to end their relationships with terror organizations, the US must be prepared to 1) conduct humanitarian operations on a large scale to get food and medicine to the people, 2) respond with force to any Iranian or Syrian misdeeds (that is, episodes like assassinating Lebanese politicians or kidnapping coalition forces must be punished with clear unmistakable signals of displeasure.