Nearly every day I encounter a serious news or opinion piece that strikes me as unintentionally funny. This morning it was this piece by Erin Banco at Politico with the caption “US intelligence officials estimate Tehran does not have full control of its proxy groups”:
Intelligence officials have calculated that Tehran does not have full control over its proxy groups in the Middle East, including those responsible for attacking and killing U.S. troops in recent weeks, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The Quds Force — an elite branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps — is responsible for sending weapons and military advisers as well as intelligence to support militias in Iraq and Syria as well as the Houthis in Yemen. The groups have varying ambitions and agendas, which sometimes overlap, but Tehran does not appear to have complete authority over their operational decision-making, the officials said.
Why funny? A number of reasons. First, you don’t need an expert to tell you that. Anyone with even a casual familiarity with the history and societies of the Middle East could tell you that. It’s one of the region’s problems. The Ottoman had central control. Arab tribes do not. That’s why the Ottoman ruled the Arabs for most of the last millennium.
And it also confirms what I’ve been saying around here. Deterrence is extremely difficult in the Middle East. When you are attacked by Group A, if you retaliate against Group A it doesn’t deter Group B. And, worse, when you are attacked by Group A, if you retaliate against Group B, it definitely doesn’t deter Group A. It may even encourage them. That these groups are composed of irregulars adds an additional layer of complexity.
My view is somewhat different from the conventional one. Irregulars are criminals and should be treated as criminals. They don’t fall under the laws of war. The people supporting such criminals aren’t protected under the laws of war.
This may be controversial but I think that when an actual country is providing support to irregulars it falls into a gray area in the laws of war. I recognize we do it, too, but I believe that’s an error on our part.
My first preference would be to avoid the fractious Middle East, leaving it to countries that are more ruthless and less scrupulous than we are but, obviously, that ship has sailed. Given that reality, I think we should notify Iran that we consider criminal acts supported by Tehran to be acts of war against the United States and that they’re forfeiting any protection under the laws of war by supporting such groups. That, undoubtedly, is too bellicose. What are the alternatives when you can’t avoid the situation, you are under attack, no counter-attack will be an effective deterrent, and an effective deterrent is too bellicose?
” First, you don’t need an expert to tell you that”
Actually, you do but it wont matter. Read your own commenters. They will still believe they are all Muslims. If you kill a bunch, doesnt matter if it’s actually the right ones, they will roll over. The belief persists in spite of history demonstrating otherwise.
Steve
Some folks believe they have such a nuanced understanding of the political minefields of Islamic sects that they can bring harmony and peace to the region with their persuasive words.
These people could reasonably be described as delusional.
But hell, they sure sound good,
Administration after administration.