| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Are We Prematurely Designating IRGC as Criminal-Soldiers? |
| 2007-09-09 |
| The recent U.S. consideration to designate the 125,000 person strong Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a “specially designated global terrorist” (per Executive Order 13224) has quite a few international security implications. (1) On the most basic level, it highlights growing U.S. and Iranian tensions over Iran’s nuclear weapons program and Iranian involvement—via its Quds Force belonging to the Revolutionary Guard—in both fermenting and supporting terrorist and insurgent activities in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What may be far more significant, however, is the U.S. designating the military branch of a sovereign state as a terrorist organization. In the past, such designations have applied only to non-state entities. (2) While the intent of such a designation would be to target the Revolutionary Guard’s multi-billion dollar business network with ties to over 100 companies, (3) broader implications concerning state sovereignty, political legitimacy, and, ultimately, non-state-on-state conflict readily emerge. The issue with such a well-warranted designation, however, are the implications for political legitimacy it then extends to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and, ultimately, to the Islamic Republic of Iran itself. If the Revolutionary Guard is labeled a 125,000 person force of ‘criminal-soldiers’ then would it not follow that the sovereign state that fielded it would also be considered criminal? State sovereignty and legitimacy issues will thus become more and more important as time goes on because warfare is shifting from state-on-state to non-state-on-state conflict. In this new form of conflict, war is increasingly being fought over ‘humanity’s future social and political organization’ and not over more traditional notions of ‘the extension and preservation of national sovereignty’. While the Islamic Republic of Iran might appear to be a state at first blush, in actuality, it is representative of a Shia apocalyptic non-state group that has taken over the vestiges of state trappings—the Ayatollahs ruling under Mahdi mandate kept in power by their religious enforcers. The critical question stemming from this observation is should the U.S. currently designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and, as a result, give a de facto challenge to the political legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Or do we bide our time, considering the already extended nature of our resources, before preparing to engage in direct global conflict with another non-state entity and its terrorist and insurgent allies. Since the U.S. is already in a global war with radical Sunni entities (e.g. the Al Qaeda network)—do we really want to ‘go hot’ and openly enter into a new global shooting war with radical Shia entities (e.g. the Ayatollahs, Hizballah, et. al.)? Prudence would suggest otherwise. In a war over humanity’s future social and political organization, the U.S along with other Western Democracies and their allies cannot allow either an imamate or a caliphate to be established in the Islamic world. Consequently, it is recognized that the issue is not ‘if’ we should openly move against the criminal-state known as the Islamic Republic of Iran but ‘when’. Nevertheless, the importance of success in this endeavor is such that we cannot approach it without the means to fully follow through. A possible compromise at present would be to only designate the Quds Force as terrorists per Executive Order 13224 at present while continuing to covertly exert pressure on Iran and the IRG behind the scenes. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #14 I don't agree with the authors' alternative, tw (and I did pose questions at my 'usual place'). I guess I am as frustrated with the 'strive and drive' crowd as I am with the 'peace at any price' ones. Neither one is grounded in reality. We exacted unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan, but even with the fall of half of Europe and a good part of Asia, it was a long and uncertain time before the commitment to wage war was made and the slog to the war's conclusion was long and costly. We are in even more vague and uncertain circumstances now; the slog is going to be longer and costlier. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-09-09 23:46 |
| #13 There have been a great many groups/organizations who've been designated as terrorists, especially in recent years. We are not in a hot war with almost all of them, and some few others are enjoying the very close attention of units of our (and those of some of our allies, presumably) Special Forces. On the contrary, if I understand correctly, we are employing measures short of war in almost every case to affect or even cripple the designated groups short of sending armies across borders. We treat Iran as a rogue nation, not only blocking trade and financial interactions on the part of American actors, but by direct warning to anyone else who might choose to do business with Iran that they must choose either Iran or the U.S. -- they don't get to deal with both, regardless of their own government's position on the matter. Iranians cannot enter the country without getting special permission, even the head of state; I've no doubt we bug and trace and track just about every person of even relative importance to the survival of the Mullahcracy, and all of their connections. Naming the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists ups the pressure without, it seems to me, committing us to any further action. I agree, Pappy, we do not want to commit troops and materiel to something that will not be finished before January, 2009. I realize hard words have many implications -- and even requirements of action -- of which I am as unaware as you and so many others are forced to be aware. But truly, I don't see that this is one of those things. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-09 22:20 |
| #12 If we are at war with Islamic terror does it not make sense that we fight on every possible level and with as much fierocity and ruthlessness as possible? Ferocity and ruthlessness are fine. How long can ferocity and ruthlessness be sustained? With what does one wage war with, in addition to all that ferocity and ruthlessness? Is there agreement that there is a war with Islamic terror? Here at Rantburg, there's no doubt. But it isn't Rantburgers making the sole decision. 'Every possible level'? No doubt. What levels are available? Which levels would be more effective? All? Some? Can we sustain some levels more than others? What is the ultimate objective? Is there an agreement by all that there is one, and a willingness to sacrifice everything and all things to achieve it? Will we have to deal with other groups who might take advantage during that? Will we have the assets, will, and energy to deal with them simultaneously or sequentially? Please, let's not forget how practical useful appropriate important it was to ensure Japan's Unconditional Surrender in exactly the way that we did. Many—if not all—parallels apply in the war on Islam. To be blunt, Islam shall—not "will" or "should"—again, SHALL consider itself fortunate if only two nuclear bombs are required for its pacification. I'm sure Joe would also remember the costs leading up to the launch of the Fat Man and Little Boy and Japan's Unconditional Surrender (and I'm not talking R&D). So why not jump to just launching nukes, as you advocate? No fuss, no muss. Lots of them around. Well, there is Hesb'allah and Hamas, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, and Malaysia and Indonesia, and the Saudis. Nuking out the first two or four leaves a little problem of not turning Israel into collateral damage, and if there's Singapore to worry about if Malayasia gets it. Meaning conventional methods would have to be used to prevent 'sympathetic' attacks on the U.S., Israel, and Europe. I suppose mass-killing is the way to go, but I wonder how long before the bullets run out and the gag-factor kicks in. But hey- leave those messy details to those of us who have to carry it out, right? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-09-09 22:04 |
| #11 Gotta go all Joe on ya. [Please understand all the font changes in my next post. They represent one of the only ways available of expressing the full philosophical context of what I wish to convey. These ideas merit increasing scrutiny, for good or bad, with each passing season.] Offer only unconditional surrender. These are the only valid terms of war Anything less than Unconditional Surrender means nothing in the face of taqiyya and kitman. This is no joke. Taqiyya and kitman represent some of the deepest moral and ethical crimes an individual or group can commit against society. When performed in the name of violence, they are such deep offenses as to represent automatic: Crimes Against Humanity. Please, let's not forget how It is not coincidental that both of us have everything to lose. Only one of us demands such terms and by the Greatest Good Fortune imaginable we have the ability to reply with equal and greater force. Finally: This isn't a clash of civilizations. It's civilization clashing against babarism.™ |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-09 19:06 |
| #10 Syria and Iran are not going away, so lets prepare to attack them. Fire for effect, gentlemen. Offer only unconditional surrender. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-09-09 18:00 |
| #9 We must make it clear at every opportunity that we are ultimately targeting the IRGC and the Iranian leadership because this affects the calculations of their allies such as Syria and adversaries such as Saudi Arabia. This will also enable us to more easily direct political and economic resources (soft power) against the Iranian regime and may even affect their deteriorating domestic political/economic situation. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-09-09 17:36 |
| #8 War is hell, as Sherman said. Let us make it so hellish upon our enemy that he will think not twice, but many, many times before attacking us again. Muslims around the world must learn to tremble in panicky fear whenever they hear of another terrorist attack. Our retaliations must be so brutal that Muslims finally hunt down and kill their jihadis for bringing so much destruction down upon them. If Muslims are given such "encouragement" and still refuse to clean house, then Islam must be burnt to the ground. There is absolutely nothing about Islam that can be tolerated by free people. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-09 16:08 |
| #7 "Are We Prematurely Designating IRGC as Criminal-Soldiers?" No. 30 years too late is NOT "premature." |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-09-09 15:24 |
| #6 Pappy, Either we're at war with Islamic terror or we aren't. If we are at war with Islamic terror does it not make sense that we fight on every possible level and with as much fierocity and ruthlessness as possible? Pussy-footing around and trying to fight a clean and noble war in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't seem to have won us the hearts & minds we were looking for. War is hell, as Sherman said. Let us make it so hellish upon our enemy that he will think not twice, but many, many times before attacking us again. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-09-09 15:07 |
| #5 Prematurely? Decades late, if anything. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-09 14:49 |
| #4 No more criminal than the SS. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-09 14:25 |
| #3 Prudence would suggest we pull our hands away from our eyes and our thumbs out of our rears (to suggest a biologically problematical metaphor). That no conflict going on, or that there is no threat of a Caliphate, isn't what's argued in this article. I would suggest you read it. The authors are neither idiots or metaphysically blind or rectal-impaired. The 'prudence' is whether at this point the U.S. has the assets, support base and stamina to engage Iran in a hot war. I have issues with their alternative proposal. But it is interesting that the topic and how to deal with it are being debated by the knowledgable and those concerned with fighting the Long War (meaning the usual suspects are either still in the parking lot trying to figure out how to spell 'Bush Sucks' on their cardboard signs, or how to gain political advantage/market share/funding from it all). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-09-09 14:03 |
| #2 Has our casus belli with Iran ever lapsed? |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2007-09-09 13:05 |
| #1 Since the U.S. is already in a global war with radical Sunni entities (e.g. the Al Qaeda network)—do we really want to ‘go hot’ and openly enter into a new global shooting war with radical Shia entities (e.g. the Ayatollahs, Hizballah, et. al.)? Prudence would suggest otherwise. Prudence would suggest we pull our hands away from our eyes and our thumbs out of our rears (to suggest a biologically problematical metaphor). They are at war with us; whether we choose to defend ourselves is an open question. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-09-09 12:59 |