Iranian Machinations: Sun Tzu Would be Pleased

In between starting up two paying projects, traveling cross-country (and back), helping my older daughter sort through college acceptances (and put into perspective the wait-lists and rejections) and running myself into a quivering, physically exhausted heap in preparation for the Boston Marathon, blogging has not been at the top of my priority list. That said, I feel compelled to blog about the Iranian 'crisis'--if such a surprised-sounding, context-negating label can be applied to something so utterly predictable.

No links here (I'm too lazy and time-pressed to go gather them up. Sorry.) Just some analysis mixed with intuition. Pardon the cryptic form.

First (fairly obvious) thought: the taking of 15 British Navy personnel was no accident. Several sources seem to indicate that this was planned by the Iranian leadership weeks in advance.

Why? No surprise there either: to call a bluff (UN 'sanctions'), to exert pressure (on UN Security Council members), to distract attention (from the fact that UN sanctions finally came about), to save face (excuse for Ahmadinejad to cancel his trip to New York), to up the ante (of the entire conflict), to test Mr. Blair (for any Carter-esque tendencies), to attempt to split the British-American alliance, to give additional fodder to short-sighted domestic (i.e., U.S. and British) opponents of the war, to deftly avoid direct confrontation with the U.S. (but at the same time test our reaction) and finally, to create nationalistic theatre for their domestic audience.

No one explanation needs to be elevated above any other. Their confluence explains why this was a no-brainer for the mullahs. What I find harder to justify (but easy to explain) is why we (i.e., the nominal 'West') seem so stupid by comparison. The way this is playing out makes it seem as if Mr. Ahmadinejad and his cohorts were forced to memorize Sun Tzu and the Art of War from earliest childhood while the rest of us were studying Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Which might not be so far from the truth.

The British warship had to phone home to ask if it could engage with the Iranian ship taking the fifteen sailors captive. Hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of sophisticated military hardware sat idle while rigid, hierarchical lines of communication, poor scenario-based thinking (just such a situation could easily have been envisioned and war-gamed well in advance) and just plain poor common sense combined to give the edge to the fast, bold, seemingly arbitrary kidnapping. Would the grandfathers of these Navy sailors pushing boats across the Channel in preparation for D-Day have demurred in the face of a Nazi boat pulling alongside and taking prisoners? I don't think so, and a lack of sophisticated radio communications was not the reason.

There are those on the left who would have us again take the Jimmy Carter softly-softly, turn-the-other-cheek approach (a gross misapplication of Christ's admonition to individuals). I've dealt with that line of thinking elsewhere. If nothing else, it has been empirically proven by past experience--and with this particular regime (if not the individuals who make it up)--to be grossly counter-productive. They understand strength and little else. My first thought on hearing about the capture was whether Blair would choose to be like Reagan or Carter--or, more aptly, like Thatcher or Chamberlain. I like Tony Blair. I really do. Unfortunately he is not the Iron Lady. Fortunately he is not Chamberlain either.

There are those on the right who would have us pre-emptively bomb Iran back into the Stone Age. I read one of those blogs yesterday and was frankly repulsed by the simplicity of the first move and a complete lack of thought to moves two through 'n' after that.

I'll admit to natural sympathy with those bellicose impulses and serious flirting with those ideas. Yet a broad-based pre-emptive attack--as I've said before--is one of the things the mullahs most wish for us to do, which automatically makes it suspect. It would give them a clear and easy cassus belli with their own people as well as on the international stage where many hunger along with them (some vocally; some secretly) for Israel's destruction.

The other thing the mullahs want though, is for us to continue to posture and preen and talk and do absolutely nothing of any consequence--which despite the UN 'sanctions' (watered down to the point of meaninglessness)--is pretty much where we are now. Rock, meet hard place. Not a lot has changed with the capture of the sailors except that Iran has a good deal more information about how our international decision-making processes work under real pressure--which may have been their aim from the beginning.

All of which leaves us with very little maneuvering room--so little that I won't even bother to expound on what I think are the best ways out of it. (I know that may surprise some of you.) There aren't any easy ones, that's for sure--not that human reason can discern. I don't say that lightly. Last year at the IIS I listened to some of the top strategists, military men, analysts and thinkers on all this and they were as tied in knots and at odds with one another as we are now.

What I can say is that a certain tiny, enslaved, half-starved tribe wandering around in the desert of the Middle East 3000-odd years ago managed to get out of many 'sticky wicket' situations much worse than this one--because God was on their side and because they (for the most part, with a whole book full of exceptions and detours) really wanted to do His will.

Which is why, at this juncture in the 28-years-and-counting standoff with the mullahs, I'm really really glad that both George Bush and Tony Blair are praying men. Not just for the cameras but (so I'm told) on their knees alone in the wee hours. I'm happy of course that in addition to that they also have cabinets of advisors and strategists and analysts and thinkers and military men and diplomats. Prayer and thinking were never meant to be thought of as opposites. God gave us brains. We are supposed to use them.

But none of that would matter near as much in a Kobayashi Maru situation like the one we face with Iran if our leaders weren't seeking guidance from above. Because one thing's for sure and that is that the enemy is seeking his own other-worldly guidance and I can't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet it's not coming from the same source.

UPDATE: What was I just saying about foolish naivete and giving aide and comfort to the enemy in the deadly serious games nations play? Who are the Dems trying to impress? No, wait, don't answer that. Sean Penn doesn't count. The other question I forgot to ask in the original post was: Why is it that the folks screaming about violations of the Geneva Convention (at Gitmo--not that it applies to anyone there) aren't now screaming about Iran's "illegal" incursion into Iraqi waters and "illegal" capture of the 15 Brits?

Philosophical bonus question: What would it mean for (say) armed robbery to be "illegal" if all the 'police' ever did was to issue stern-sounding memoranda to the crooks (months or years after the crime) while withdrawing uniformed officers from the neighborhoods in which the crimes were taking place? Just askin'...