Playing the Iranian Game
March 28th, 2007 by POLIMOM
Iran’s seizure of 15 British naval personnel has analysts and pundits spinning in circles. Were they trying to influence the U.N. Security Council? Are they trying to “reassert their political and military relevance” in the Persian Gulf area?
Perhaps they’re trying to leverage public opinion — in this case, against Tony Blair — by taking hostages to underscore that those sailors wouldn’t have been at risk if they weren’t engaged in an unpopular war.
That seems to be the theory du jour in some circles. As Meir Javedanfar writes for Pajamas Media.
By capturing the servicemen, Tehran is hoping that the British people, particularly the majority who are already against the war in Iraq will openly blame Blair for the crisis, by saying that it is his fault for endangering the lives of troops by sending them into a conflict zone.
Such internal dissatisfaction, Tehran hopes, would subsequently deal a deadly blow to any plans Blair or his successor may have to support an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
What should truly worry Washington is that if this plan is successful, US soldiers are likely to be next in line for capture by Iran – and a manipulation of American public opinion just before the 2008 elections which would damage a Republican candidate supporting Bush’s stance would be perfect timing.
If Javedanfar’s theory is correct, then public opinion is pretty short-sighted (and perhaps it is).
In 1979, the American hostages weren’t in Iran (or the region) as aggressors; they were embassy staff and diplomats. Furthermore, attempting to draw a 1:1 line between Iran’s current actions and the Iraq War — tempting as it is — ignores history. Iran’s ambitions, both nuclear and regional, long predate March 2003.
Polimom thinks Iran is in a diminishing box. Via the UNSC’s sanctions, their economy is under pressure, and international sympathy is eroding. Thus, Iranian options are increasingly limited.
This particular hand is nearly played out, but the Iranians have played their game long and carefully; there’s far too much at stake for them to simply walk away leaving their chips on the table. Now — while international, Muslim, and Arab sympathies are still inclined against any western military actions — is perhaps their last chance to win the hand, and the game.
If Iran can push Britain (or the West) to (re)act militarily against them before they’ve become too marginalized or isolated, there’s still an excellent chance that the Muslim world (and sympathetic allies) will unite behind them.
If this is what they’re up to, it’s an extremely dangerous move — but it’s not insane.
The Iranians know that the West cannot sustain a ground war on yet a third front. Furthermore, public opinion simply will not tolerate attacks in any civilian areas. They may therefore be calculating that any strikes by the UK (or the U.S.) will be on military or strategic sites; devastating, but survivable — particularly when Iran will be seen as the victim in such action.
As this incident escalates (and I think it will), the best possible tool for the West will be to increase the diplomatic and economic pressure, while carefully avoiding an armed response that would play into Iranian hands. Thus far, that seems to be the tack the British are taking.
Let’s hope they can hold that line.
(Cross-posted from Polimom Says)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 28th, 2007 at 6:09 am and is filed under Iran, Middle East. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Polimom,
You could well be right about the Iranians’ motivations. They have been playing a very careful game for years, but this move has the look of desperation about it. I suspect the Iranians have experienced a few shocks that they hadn’t planned on that have upset their careful strategy.
1) The UN Security Council has voted sanctions on them (now two sets of sanctions) and they are hurting the Iranian economy, as well as withdrawing international support that is needed for their strategy to play out. They had no doubt counted on Russian or Chinese intervention to block sanctions. They did not get it.
2) The Russians (Putin himself!) pulled their support for the Bushrer reactor project. Without that support Bushrer will never come on line. Putin has apparently decided that Russia does not need a nuclear Iran only 3,000 miles south of Moscow, possibly acting as a magnet for Israeli warheads.
3) The Surge. Regardless of whether the Surge achieves all of the objectives the Bush Administration has set for it, it has clearly already upset the calculations of the various factions in Iraq, as well as in Iran. Bush has done something neither Iran nor the Iraqi Shiites expected that he would–or could do. The Surge is clearly changing the dynamics on the ground in Iraq. The Iranians have to be wondering what else they have gotten wrong in their assessment of the US.
Thing have not been going the Iranian’s way in 2007. They may be looking at the ruin of many years of planning and political-diplomatic effort. Might be they are trying their own version of “double down and win.”
As you say, a very dangerous game.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:47 am
This is a very simple game Iran is playing. First, they want to exchange the British sholdiers for the 5 Iranians captured by the Americans 2 months ago at the semi-consulate in Irbil. Next, they want to send a signal to the Americans that two can play the game of captuiring the other’s nationals. Let the negotiations on hostage exchange now begin.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:47 am
[…] (Cross-posted at The Moderate Voice) […]
March 28th, 2007 at 7:45 am
What I don’t understand about this is why Iran would want to face the possibility of a shut down of gasoline supplies. A shutdown of gasoline going to the country either as a result of tankers not wanting to enter an area of potential conflict, or as a result of a blockade, would send the Iranian economy into a tailspin. Is this a political calculation that the Iranians would rally around the Mullahs over this crisis? Does the Iranian government think that Shiites in Iraq will join them over a confrontation with the US? This seems to me to be a stretch, or perhaps a serious miscalculation. I don’t rule out that this might be an operation of some rouge elements that wanted to provoke a confrontation with the US, a situation the Iranian government now has to deal with without loosing face.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Iran is doing this desperate move primarily for internal political considerations. The five Iranian “diplomats” were spies, not soldiers. Ahmedinejad is very unpopular inside his country, a fact US media tend to overlook. Rafsanjani is likely to beat him in a presidential race next year. Pres. A is a Rev Guard vet and they were the Iranian “navy” types who took the ship.
The little madman hopes to become a martyr.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:35 am
You wrote: “In 1979, the American hostages weren’t in Iran (or the region) as aggressors; they were embassy staff and diplomats. […]”
That’s so incredibly naive, I wouldn’t know where to begin!
America & America’s puppet regime in Iran brutalized that country… All the way back to when the USA ousted the democratically-elected Mossadegh in the 1950s.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:04 am
I think the Iranians have played the wrong cards in taking 15 British soldiers captive. Its one thing for the British people to think that their troops should be pulled out of iraq, but its another when any country acts as an aggressor towards our troops.
The Iranians might be supprised that polls carried out show that 70% of the British public would support military action against Iran if diplomatic efforts fail!!
Do not forget Thatcher and the Falklands, this made her a hero and Mr Blair although he likes his nicey nicey image would love to be remembered as a hero. And although the UK military isn’t a massive force, they have a lot of friends and the US owes the UK big style. Not that the US would need much of an excuse to bomb some Iranian guard, I feel.
Lets just hope it ends peacfully, and that a more moderate government comes to iraq.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Characterizing the Mossadegh regime as democratically elected is, at best, an exaggeration.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Do you have a link for that, Dave UK?
March 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I can hear the war chant from Billy Kristol right now. Kill all those filthy Iranian Ayrabs…
March 28th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I don’t know what Bill Kristol has to do with any of this, but nonetheless, I am sure he knows the difference between Arabs and Persians.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
He was wrong on Iraq, he will be wrong on Iran. He has loved every war, even Yugoslavia when the Right attacked Clinton as CinC.It was a snark…
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:12 am
Dave Schuler,
here is the link you requested, I presume it was the Poll results you wanted. To Date (2 April 07) 31000 votes - 67% voted in favour that Britain should go in and take its sailors back, by force if necessary.
http://news.uk.msn.com/navy_sailors_seized_in_the_gulf.aspx?voteshowresults=1&pollcontent=-1140266873&jsdisabled=true