Analysis of Current Aggression Against UK

Two of the best analyses I've read of Iran's current aggression against the UK are both at:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/ (March 23):

1.) "Royal Navy 'incident': the larger plan of Teheran's regime" (by Walid Phares);

2.) "Iran: targeting the US - UK Alliance"
(by Aaron Manne).

Excerpted tidbits from both articles:

Royal Navy "incident": The larger plan of Teheran's regime

The capture of British Navy servicemen by Iranian forces is not simply an incident over sea sovereignty in the Persian Gulf. It is a calculated move on behalf of Teheran's Jihadi chess players to provoke a "projected" counter move by London and its American allies. It is all happening in a regional context, carefully engineered by the Mullahs strategic planners. Here is how:

The Iranian regime's master plan is to wait out the remainder of Tony Blair's mandate (few more months) and the remaining "real time" of President Bush (till about the end of 2007). For the thinking process in Tehran, based on their Western consultants, believe that Washington and London have reached the end of the rope and will only have till 2008 to do something major to destabilize Ahmedinijad regime. As explained by a notorious propagandist on al Jazeera today the move is precisely to respond to the Anglo-American attempt to "stir trouble" inside Iran.

Anis Naccash, a Lebanese intellectual supporter of the Ayatollahs regime, appearing from Tehran few hours ago on the Qatari-based satellite and "explained" that the "US and the UK must understand that Iran is as much at war with these two powers in as much as they support the rise of movements and security instability inside Iran." He added that Khamenei is clear on the regime's decision to strike: "we will be at war with you on all levels: secret, diplomatic, military and other." Pro-Iranian propagandists in the region, via media and online rushed to warn that this movement is part of Iran's counter-strike against any attempt to destabilize the regime. Two major tracks emerge from these statements, the Iranian military maneuvers and the capture of British Navy personnel.

1) Iran's domestic front is putting pressure on the Ahmedinijad regime.

From internal reporting, dissidents and anti-Ahmedinijad forces from various social sectors are practically in slow motion eruption against the authorities. Students, women, workers and political activists have been demonstrating and sometimes clashing with the regime's security apparatus. Western media didn't report proportionally on these events over the past few weeks. In addition, ethnic minority areas have been witnessing several incidents, including violence against the "Revolutionary Guards," including in the Arab and Baluch areas. And last but not least, the defection of a major intelligence-military figure early this month to the West was, according to internal sources, a "massive loss" to the regime and a possible first one in a series.

2) The regime "needs" an external clash to crush the domestic challenge.

As in many comparable cases worldwide, when an authoritarian regime is faced with severe internal opposition it attempts to deflect the crisis onto the outside world. Hence, Teheran's all out campaign against the US and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and the region is in fact a repositioning of Iran's shield against the expected rising opposition inside the country. Hence the Khomeinist Mullahs plan seem to be projected as follow:

a. Engage in the diplomatic realm, to project a realist approach worldwide, but refrain from offering real results

b. Continue, along with the Syrian regime, in supporting the "Jihadi" Terror operations (including sectarian ones) inside Iraq

c. Widen the propaganda campaign against the US and its allies via a number of PR companies within the West, to portray Iran as "a victim" of an "upcoming war provoked by the US."

d. Engage in skirmishes in the Gulf (and possibly in other spots) with US and British elements claiming these action as "defensive," while planned thoroughly ahead of time.

3) The regime plan is to drag its opponents into a trap

Teheran's master planners intend to drag the "Coalition" into steps in engagement, at the timing of and in the field of control of Iran's apparatus. Multiple options and scenarios are projected.

a. British military counter measure takes place, supported by the US. Iran's regime believe that only "limited" action by the allies is possible, according to their analysis of the domestic constraints inside the two powerful democracies.

b. Tehran moves to a second wave of activities, at its own pace, hoping to draw a higher level of classical counter strikes by US and UK forces. The dosing by Iran's leadership is expected to stretch the game in time, until the departure of Blair and of the Bush Administration by its political opponents inside the country's institutions and public debate.

In a short conclusion the "War room" in Tehran has engaged itself in an alley of tactical moves it feels it can control. But the Iranian regime, with all its "political chess" expertise, may find itself in a precarious and risky situation. For while it feel that it can control the tactical battlefield in the region and fuel the propaganda pressure inside the West with its Petro-dollars, it may not be able to contain the internal forces in Iran, because of which it has decided to go on offense.

The Ahmedinijad regime wishes to crumble the international consensus to avoid the financial sanctions: that is true. But as important, if not more, it wants to be able to crush the revolt before it pounds the doors of the Mullahs palaces.



Iran: Targeting the U.S.-U.K. Alliance

In this case, targeting British servicemen could part of a growing strategy to push the U.K. away from the U.S. The strategy parallels the al-Qaeda strategy of targeting U.S. allies in Iraq (exemplified by the 3/11 Madrid attack which effectively knocked Spain out of Iraq.) With Tony Blair almost a lame duck and the Iraq war tremendously unpopular in the U.K., the next Prime Minister will probably distance himself from the U.S. While the U.S. and U.K. are certain to maintain a close alliance on many issues, there won’t be much British enthusiasm of high-risk American endeavors. Knowing that a stern line with Iran may result in messy hostage crises may lead to shifts in British policy.

For the United States, this would be a major loss. British support has been crucial, both in providing manpower on the ground but also in maintaining at least some international legitimacy in Iraq and elsewhere. For Iran, fostering U.S.-U.K. rifts is advantageous in Iraq where the Iranians would have a completely free hand in the Shia dominated south. These rifts could also create tensions in the efforts to maintain a united diplomatic front in checking Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

During the Lebanon hostage crisis of the 1980s Britain, unlike the U.S. and France absolutely refused to negotiate with terrorists. This stiff upper lip may be a thing of the past. A few years ago, after a diplomatic spat with Iran, the British government released Hadi Soleimanpour, Iran’s Ambassador to Argentina when the AMIA bombing occurred, rather than comply with Argentina’s extradition request...