Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sun Tzu vs. Iran
By Charlie
Tonight, I am in the mood for Chinese food. That being said, Ill serve up some Sun-Tzu-inspired strategic commentary on the Iran crisis for the noble readership of the blog.
Says Sun on warfare:
3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
What I take from this is that if your opponent can be led to accept your position without fighting, it is the highest form of generalship. This can be done by attacking his plans, or disrupting his strategy; Clausewitz, for an opposing view, says this:
"The acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are . . --- Destruction of his army, if it is at all significant
--- Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of administration but also that of social, professional, and political activity
--- Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if that ally is more powerful than he."
Bottom line: Sun says try to attack the plans first (asymmetrical warfare in todays parlance), Carl says attack the forces and centers of gravity first (a more symmetrical or conventional way of waging war.)
Comes now Iran. The basic beef weve got with Iran is that they are supporting terrorism, rapidly developing nuclear weapons, contributing to the instability of the region through regime statements and support of insurgents in Iraq. All three of these issues are becoming more and more dangerous toward US interests in the region.
A General Clausewitz, if he could be resurrected form the grave and transported to the E-Ring of the Pentagon, would probably be looking at Irans deployment of military forces. He would consider the blue force commitment in Iraq, the enemy population centers, and devise courses of action for a military strike to solve the problem. In modern terms, Clausewitz might have looked approvingly on the initial invasion plan for Iraq, as a solution to removing Saddam from power.
A zombie General Tzu might consider the cultural, economic, and political spheres of influence in Iran and the relation these pressures have on the ruling regime. He might next consider how to exploit gaps and apply pressure in order to accomplish the mission. If the mission was to convince Iran to abandon their nukes and stop supporting terrorism, disconnecting the regime that allows these activities from a population that might have other ideas about where their country should go and replacing it with a more conciliatory one (or convincing the current one to see it our way) could be the choice he may recommend. Tzu might have nodded if he got to peruse the SOF plans for infiltrating into Afghanistan, teaming up with the Northern Alliance, and using US airpower to thwart the Taliban.
So how would America implement a Tzu-like strategy for dealing with the current Iran problem? How could we balk his plans best? Obviously, a full-on, Clausewitzian conventional, OIF-1-style attack would be a 100% solution for our three goals: terrorist support, nuke pursuit, and regime change, but it would be a HUGE drain on the nation, the military, and the economy. But we dont always need a 100% solution to our problems sometimes a 75% solution will work just fine. Using the three main problems I outlined, and this is important- assuming regime irrationality, lets take a look at how to sucker-punch the Iranian regime.
Politically, we should take the Kim Jong Il nuclear acquisition model Iran is currently pursuing and turn it on its head. Theres been lots of liberal talk about negotiating with Iran proper: Lets extend the invitation to talk to the Iranians, but tie negotiations to 3 goals. Iran must stop uranium enrichment, stop supporting Hizbollah and Hamas, and cool it on the Death to Israel speeches then we will gladly talk to them. By extending this offer (which Iran will certainly not comply with), the international diplomatic chess board will be upset Iran will be exposed by having to stand by its activities, which even by UN standards arent up to snuff.
Economically, Iran is vulnerable. It possesses little ability to refine its top export: oil. According to the World Fact Book, Irans top exports are petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, [and] carpets. Its imports are industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies and its main import providers are Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4.1% (2004). There is an ability to economically pressure Iran, its exports, its imports, and its import providers.
kurdistan.jpg
Finally, Politically ( by other means ) Irans regime is vulnerable. They sit on an ethnically diverse populace that while a majority is Shia Persian, there is a significant, and militant, minority of Kurds in the West, and Arabs in the south (who conveniently sit on a good chunk of the countrys oil fields.) In the vein of one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, perhaps we should start fomenting a Kurdish nationalist revolt across Iraqs border as Iran seems to be just as willing to foment a Shia revolt in Iraq. The Kurds would love weapons and money to fight the man, and as long as we make it clear that they cant carry out their revolution in Turkey, it would cause significant problems for the image-conscious Iranian regime. In the south, significant across-the-border Information Operation campaigns targeting the Arabs in Iran should simply say: look across the border, where the Iraqis are getting a cut of their oil wealth how much are you getting from your regime?
Fomenting domestic troubles in Iran, economically pressuring them, and giving them a way out (ala Libya) through negotiation and compromise (read: acquiescence to US demands) would be a dramatic change of course in US policy. It may be the course of action Sun Tzu would recommend, while Clausewitz may simply recommend launching the IBCMs.
May 17, 2006 04:14 PM
Hobbit said:The Sun Tzu quote that comes to line in this situation is that delaying a war only benefits our enemies. I mean, imagine how puny WWII would have been if the Allies had marched into Germany the day they first violated the Treaty of Versailles and if China had fully mobilized against Japan when Imperial troops first set foot in Manchuria. Will our children look back on us and wonder why we didn't flatten Iran the first time they threatened the flattening of Israel?
