The On-Again, Never-Really-Off-Again war with Iran is most definitely on again.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces completed a new round of offensive strikes against Iran, July 7, hitting over 80 targets with precision munitions as an immediate response to Iran’s latest attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
U.S. forces struck Iranian air defense systems, command and control networks, coastal radar sites, anti-ship missile capabilities, and more than 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps small boats in and near the strait to degrade Iran’s ability to continue attacking international commerce flowing through the international trade corridor.
Iran recently attacked three commercial vessels transiting the strait including Marshall Islands-flagged M/T Al Rekayyat, Saudi Arabia-flagged M/T Wedyan, and Liberian-flagged M/T Cyprus Prosperity. The unwarranted aggression by Iranian forces is a clear and dangerous violation of the ceasefire and undermines freedom of navigation.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces completed an additional round of strikes against Iran, July 8, to further degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping and innocent civilian mariners in the Strait of Hormuz.
U.S. forces struck approximately 90 Iranian military targets including air defense systems, coastal surveillance assets, missile and drone storage sites, naval capabilities, and military logistics infrastructure along Iran’s coastline. The latest strikes follow successful execution of offensive strikes in Iran the night before.
CENTCOM forces hit approximately 80 Iranian military targets July 7, including more than 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps small boats, to impose heavy costs for Iran violating the ceasefire by attacking three commercial vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz.
So it turns out I didn’t actually need to read the complete “Memorandum of Understanding” between the U.S. and Iran after all. Sometimes sloth is a great time saver.
During the “ceasefire” that was mostly fire and very little cease, a recurring pattern emerged: Iran would launch attacks on shipping, claiming all traffic needed to offer up danegeld for safe passage, all while asserting the most ludicrous series of lies about what the United States had agreed to. The U.S. was immediately going to unfreeze all Iranian assets. Iran would be allowed to charge ships for safe passage through the straits. Hamas and Hezbollah were free from all Israeli attacks. Etc.
So President Trump finally tired of these shenanigans and hit the unpause button, and now U.S. forces are pounding the snot out of Iran (again), while Iran launches missiles and drones at U.S. bases and other gulf states (again). Sure, Iran may be suffering from hyperinflation and it now takes some 1.3 million rials to buy a single dollar, but they always manages to produce enough missiles and drones to keep up the illusion of puissance, much like they they were able to fund their nuclear program and international terrorism for decades rather than meet their citizen’s basic needs.
Trump tends to view the world through the twin lenses of persuasion and tit-for-tat strategy. Make an agreement with me and we’ll both prosper. Attack me and I’ll attack you back even harder. His methods have produced impressive results in all sorts of unexpected areas, but for them to work, his counterparts need to be rational actors capable of understanding and acting in their own self interest.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a rational actor.
From its very earliest inception, the Islamic Republic of Iran has mirrored founder Ayatollah Khomeini’s belief that the United States (“the Great Satan”) and Israel (“the Little Satan”) are affronts to Islam that must be fought and destroyed. Catspaws Hezbollah and Hamas believe that the founding of Israel (“the Zionist entity”) was a literal affront to God that must be expunged through violent jihad.
‘The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.’ (Article 15)
‘Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masse everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: ‘Hail to Jihad!’. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah’s victory comes about.’ (Article 33)…
‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)
Honestly, until late into Trump’s first term, I would have agreed with Hamas that international conferences on peace in the middle east were exercises in futility. But the unexpected success of the Abraham Accords indicate that most Sunni states have finally come to believe that peaceful co-existence with Israel is a much more profitable proposition than fighting endless losing wars against it.
But the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas were acting on the doctrine of waqf and Islam’s division of the world into Dar al-Islam (the “House of Submission to Islam” AKA “the House of Peace”) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). Under Islam, no land consecrated to Islam can ever be ruled by an unbeliever, and it is a duty of every Muslim to wage jihad against the non-Islamic rulers of such lands until they are restored to Dar al-Islam.
But not even that is enough for Hamas, who seek the extermination of all Jews everywhere.
And don’t forget that Iran’s fundamentalist Twelver Shiia regime has devout apocalyptic eschatological beliefs about the return of the occulted Mahdi, one in which the Islamic Republic will create the conditions to hasten his return and reign before the Day of Judgment. Asking them to stop supporting terrorism in the wake of bombing and hyperinflation is like asking an Evangelical to give up their belief in the Rapture and the Second Coming in order to lower their gasoline bill. By the standards of economics, traditional geopolitics and game theory, they cannot be considered “rational actors.”
Some observers have argued that the U.S. has already “won” the war against Iran by shattering its nuclear program, decapitating its leadership and destroying numerous military assets while taking extremely few casualties. But the United States won just about every battle it fought in Afghanistan and Vietnam, but still lost those wars by letting its adversaries survive. If the current cycle continues, the U.S. and Israel will continue to pound the snot out of Iran only for it to proclaim that the U.S. has agreed to not only let it control the Strait, but will give it a new navy to boot.
For war to be decisive, ultimately somebody’s ass must be kicked and instruments of surrender signed. An actual treaty of surrender for Iran would specify that:
- Iran gives up all claim to controlling the Hormuz Strait and pledges to allow free, unconditional passage of vessels.
- Iran pledges to give up every single part of its nuclear program, including surrendering all enriched uranium and enrichment centrifuges, and agrees to unlimited International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of any site throughout the country.
- Iran agrees to allow the supervised destruction of its ballistic missile program.
- Iran agrees to stop all material and financial support of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, as well as any other transnational jihadist organization outside Iran.
- Iran pledges an immediate transition to a popularly-elected, secular democracy in which the existing fundamentalist Shiite theocracy has no role, with initial elections overseen by international observers appointed by the United States.
- Iran promises limited autonomy to ethnic minorities (Kurds, Lurs, etc.) and religious freedom and tolerance to persecuted religious minorities (Sufis, Baha’is, Nizari Isma’ilis, etc., not to mention Christians, Jews and Sunnis).
In short, for a real, lasting peace, the Islamic Republic of Iran must stop being the government of Iran. Because its rulers are not rational actors, there is no level of persuasion short of absolute destruction that will prevent its messianic, fundamentalist leaders from pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe the grave offense to Allah that is Israel off the face of the earth. And I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that a full-scale nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel is not in the best interests of the United States.
Removing the Islamic Republic of Iran from power will not remotely be easy, and will have to be brought about by some combination of continued assassination and destruction of Revolutionary Guard assets, the use of regional proxy armies (such as the Kurds), possibly turning of non-IRGC military leadership and units, a popular uprising by (possibly U.S. armed and trained) Iranian civilians, and yes, even the dreaded “boots on the ground” from Israeli and U.S. forces and the occupation of, at the very least, Tehran and Qom, no matter how many “austere religious scholars” need to be dirtnapped along the way.
The U.S. lost Vietnam and Afghanistan because the insurgents we were fighting had sanctuary in, and were backed by, nation states (North Vietnam and Pakistan). That will not be the case in Iran, as the Sunni-dominated governments of Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are deeply unlikely to back a Shiite insurgency in Iran.
The cost of victory in Iran will be high, but failure to finally rid the world of a radical Islamic regime irredeemably hostile to the United States of America and a backer of transnational terrorism, especially given the considerable military assets already deployed into theater, will be much higher than slightly expensive gas.
Tags: Abraham Accords, Ayatollah Khomeini, Central Command (CENTCOM), Hamas, Hezbollah, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Islam, Israel, Jihad, Middle East, Military, nuclear weapons, Operation Epic Fury, Qom, Shiites, Strait of Hormuz, Tehran, waqf
Well done.
[…] WE ALWAYS KNEW IT WOULD COME TO THIS: Iran, Persuasion, And The Limits Of Rational Actor Theory. […]
“Asking them to stop supporting terrorism in the wake of bombing and hyperinflation is like asking an Evangelical to give up their belief in the Rapture and the Second Coming in order to lower their gasoline bill. By the standards of economics, traditional geopolitics and game theory, they cannot be considered ‘rational actors.'”
No one is free from the stricture of economic law. IRGC commanders have to correctly assess the suitability of their means in pursuit of their aims. Given their comparatively slender means, they cannot realiistically expect to win on the battlefield.
In itself, this does not mean they will be driven from power. The Viet Cong lost the Tet Offensive but were rescued by other means: Walter Cronkite, et. al., convinced his American audience that Tet had produced a stalemate.
If Iran’s leadership can stall for more time, the midterm elections may bring about a Democrat majority, with a subsequent clamor for “Peace at any price.”
Iranian intransigence is not necessarily the result of religious fanaticism. It may be that they expect to prevail in the court of public opinion. Consequently, playing for time is the strategy a rational actor would employ.
Been saying this since the 1973 Yom Kippur war. I HAVE read the Quran, and more than a dozen textbooks on Muddled East History, including the history of the beliefs in the Shiite “Twelfth Imam”. Failure to achieve total victory is a loss, because nothing but total defeat and destruction will stop these madmen. As you say, they are NOT “rational”. They believe their religion justifies anything they do, just as Roman might was used to justify anything the Romans did. Look at Rome today — a lot of symbols of past glory, but no real power. The same must be done to Shia Islam.
Iran is perfectly rational. You seem to lay it out and then call it irrational because it doesn’t jibe with western values. That’s not how you measure rationality. They have a belief. We understand it. They adhere to it, relgiiously. Nothing irrational about that. It’s the globalist mindset plus an Art of the Deal ego that can’t wrap its mind around a different base point for what is rational.
The solution isn’t a treaty. It is an offer to the neighboring countries to carve up Iran. Kurds get the north… and so on. That’s all that’ll work.
The Islamo-Marxists currently ascendant in the Demonrat Party would easily and happily make peace with the IRGC. The Islamic government of Occupied Persia merely has to wait out a couple of years so that President Newsom gives them everything they want.
ANY agreement with Iran is a waste of time. The Iranian leadership considers it their religious duty to destroy the US, Israel, and the West at large. They are happy to die doing it and they consider it admirable to lie to us while they are doing it in order to gain any kind of advantage. (Interesting, because the actual Persians they claim to be thought lying to anybody for any reason was one of the worst things a person could do.) In short, they never negotiate in good faith and never intend to live up to any agreement they make.
The problem with “rational actor” theory is that nobody gets to tell another person what is rational for them. What is rational for me under my set of values will be different than what is rational for you under yours.
It is perfectly rational for the Iranians, given their values, to lie to get a ceasefire agreement. It is also rational for them to violate it.
“I HAVE read the Quran, and more than a dozen textbooks on Muddled East History, including the history of the beliefs in the Shiite ‘Twelfth Imam'”
Verily, I have read the the Odyssey, detailing the travails and triumphs of Odysseus and how he endured the disfavor of Posiedon. Many monsters he faced and overcame them all because he had Athena as his faithful guide. The Trojan Horse was a clever ploy, illustrating his keen military mind. and movies are being produced to this very day celebrating his many triumphs.
All of which is to say that Mythos can take hold of man’s mind in a powerful way but is no substitute for well-trained troops with superior armaments The Twelfth Iman will not be suiting up for this war.
GLANDOWER: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
– William Shakespeare
LOL Why is the content of any “treaty of surrender” with Iran, relevant? The Iranians Trump is dealing with will not honor any treaty, or promise, period. Islam allows – nay, encourages – them to lie and deceive in any dealings with nonbelievers, and the Iranians in charge are hardened followers of Islam and completely immune to any Western ideals of honor, fairness, or cooperation. Such concepts have no meaning to them. And assuming that “they are sorta like us and will go for a deal good for everyone” leads only to our failure and their survival and eventual success. It’s unbelievable that, apparently, Western governments and think tanks haven’t by now figured this out. All previous “agreements” with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of these terrorists, have floundered on the exact same rocks of lies and deceit.
@Malthus gives an example of how intelligent people can avoid coming to grips with the nature of the enemy, Islam. (An enemy that has declared itself to us, not we to it.)
After an incisive article that lays out Iranian rulers’ motivations, Malthus shrugs and says, “Well, maybe not” and then goes through an entirely reasonable argument
It’s true that no one is free from economic law. But so what? How does hyperinflation dislodge them? It’s also true they don’t possess the means to win on the battlefield. Again, so what?
I suppose it’s also true in a strict sense that “Iranian intransigence” (over losing the war, yes?) is not necessarily about religious fanaticism, but what facts have we that argue against that conclusion?
Finally, he conflates the IRGC’s rational *means* (that is, outlasting Trump and causing conditions that will tend to produce a weak, anxious-to-capitulate Obama-style Democrat interlocutor in the White House) with its irrational, fanatic *ends*. Moreover, fanatic leaders dissociate their interests from those of their people. Inside the fanatic’s head, he is a rational actor, but that’s because his value system is, objectively speaking, radically warped.
Look, Malthus, we all get it: it’s natural to flinch from contemplating the horrible reality that there are billions of religious fanatics in the world who want to obliterate us, our way of life, our nation, and our civilization. And that the ones in Iran are determined to acquire nuclear weapons for a variety of wholly rational reasons, even as they irrationally shrug off the destruction of their country.
I would point out that Iraq, Afghanistan, and for that matter Vietnam were failures in terms of territorial control, but successes in terms of neutralizing threats to US global interests. The window of opportunity where the notion of initiating a (non-nuclear, anyhow) terror-driven panic to topple the non-Islamic world has pretty much passed. Even the botched bug-out from Vietnam left the communists too strategically weak to export revolution. The “domino theory” fall of Thailand and the Philippines never happened.
Conversely, Russia invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine was a success in terms of capturing territory, but an utter failure in terms of neutralizing the principal threats to Putin’s regime (namely, the spread of functioning democracy and alternate routes for gas pipelines).
The rational strategy to guard US interests from Iran is a siege. Without oil money or nukes, it doesn’t matter who runs the place. The MOU/peace process/whatever is for humanitarian principles (the people of Iran shouldn’t starve if there is an alternative) and for domestic political consumption.
Prior to the war Trump stated that it was a mistake to remove all of the Baath party from Iraq and break up the military and that it led to the chaos that we saw there. I think his going in condition is that as we are fighting the war we need to look at the post war situation and how are things going to be managed.
If you are worried about how things are going to be managed post war you will not eradicate the leaders that you believe will work with you once they see the light.
In the case of a muslim death cult, no one is going to come to see the light.
I’m in the “They gotta know they were beat” camp. Germany and Japan knew they were well and truly beaten. Since then, we haven’t really done that. Probably because the rest of the world and democrats disapprove. Iran needs to be beaten, to the point of total surrender, or it will reconstitute.
Iran now has two entirely separate centers of power because Kid Khamenei cannot force unity.
President Masoud Pezeshkian leads the civil government, which is in favor of reaching an agreement with Trump.
Vahid Shahcheraghi (aka Ahmad Vahidi) leads the IRGC, which is absolutely opposed to any agreement with Trump.
Pezeshkian is a boy in short pants with no guns. Vahdi has the guns, the soldiers, and the balls.
There will be no deal without the approval of Vahdi.
10x25mm, it is worse than that. Iran initiated their Mosaic Defense months ago where 32 IRGC commanders each took control of the region he was in charge of and was told to disregard any outside forces until Iran was victorious. So there are 32 IRGC commanders, each with his own corps of Basij military police. Plus the Political leadership cadre that was in Tehran. And the only way they can communicate with each other is by written or recorded messages couriers by scooter or car.
Do not have to defeat one group, we have to defeat several groups that have land along the Persian Gulf and the commanders of Tehran and Qom, as well. We can kill several leaders and fervent 12’ers will step in to their positions. We have to beat Iran like a rented mule and really force them to their knees, begging for peace. I am not sure we have the balls to do it. I hope we do, but…
The copium is strong here.
Short of sending 500,000 American troops to fight a ten year war, this ain’t happening. Iran is a huge, populous country, with very clever and fanatical leadership. The terrain is harsh and unforgiving. They’ve been preparing to fight a guerilla war against a US invasion for decades. The Iranians are tough. Their military record over the last 2,500 years is *very* impressive.
Delusional fantasies about assassination won’t bring them down (in a religious culture that worships assassinated martyrs? Are you serious?). An invasion is far too costly. Only internal collapse will bring them down. That takes a careful thought, persistence, and patience.
Guess what DJT doesn’t do? Careful thought, persistence, and patience. He’s all about gut instincts and easy wins to sell to the rubes.
Everyone around the president was against this war, with the exception of Grima Wormtongue (a.k.a. Pete Hegseth). The CIA chief called it “farcical”. The JCS leaked their concerns to the WSJ and WaPo before the attack. Vance spoke forcefully against it. The other, spineless cabinet members suggested that it wasn’t a great idea. He’s response? “I’ve got a good feeling about this.” That, from a man completely ignorant of history and military affairs.
We’re screwed. The best that we can do is seize Kharg, but that will mean YouTube videos of Iranian FPV drones killing Americans. We need to put this tragi-comedy behind us and get serious about triggering an internal collapse. But, that will take hard work and a long time. Meanwhile, Beijing is laughing their asses off while cutting deals with the GCC states.
“Look, Malthus, we all get it: it’s natural to flinch from contemplating the horrible reality that there are billions of religious fanatics in the world who want to obliterate us, our way of life, our nation, and our civilization.”
I have no illusions concerning the IRGC. They would willingly sacrifice any number of their followers to gain a small advantage against the US/Israeli forces arrayed against them.
The point I’m pressing is this: not all that shrieks is shockproof. You may be rational or irrational. You may believe in Muslim myths or you may trust to science. But at day’s end, when you are on the receiving end of a blistering attack, your mental state is not determinative. If enough of your Jihadi comrades are killed, you will surrender.
Motives matter less than capability and the IRGC is less capable now than when the war started. Press the advantage and watch them fold.
Iran took a million casualties in their war with Iraq. As ZivBnd points out, they’re gone to a mosaic defense pattern, and as 10x25mm points out, their political leadership can’t negotiate any real deals. Sanctions? We’ve had those for how many decades now?
Defeat whom here? With what?
The problem isn’t balls. It’s means. The USA has no way to win this war involving any rational allocation of means to ends. Probably not even an irrational allocation, once you look at the terrain, requirements, etc. And our industrial production can’t cash the cheques the current limited war is writing, never mind something bigger.
The US government conformed itself as a non-rational actor the day they started this Charlie Foxtrot. The only question left is the terms of its defeat. The longer this goes, the higher the price will be.
This piece is thorough, comprehensive and completely correct. Bravo!!!
However, considering the gnat like attention span of the people of America, the complete dishonesty of the Dems and the media (sorry for repeating myself), and the simply reality of politics and elections, I am not optimistic at our chances of success.
Hopefully, we can somehow empower/support Israel’s efforts and they can git’er done!
“Iran took a million casualties in their war with Iraq.”
The IRGC can boast perhaps 210,000 troops. They are being paid with rapidly depreciating rials. They operate in an environment where the enemy has total air superiority. No one is able to resupply them once their stock of rockets and drones is exhausted.
They are not fighting Iraq. They are opposed by the world’s two most formidable air powers. Iran has earned the Gulf states’ lasting enmity. They have slaughtered 40,000 of their own countrymen in recent days, whose families will not soon forgive this outrage. . The Kurds would willingly eliminate every last IRGC member.
The fragmented “mosaic defense” of which you boast makes defeat in detail much easier to achieve.
As Mike commented, the Iaranians are rational within their belief system. The American failure to recognize that is both a failure of dispassionate strategic thinking and emotional, i,e., irrational. And Sun Tzu tells us that this American failure that causes incapacity to understand its enemy inevitably dooms American efforts to defeat Iran to failure. The conviction that the Iranian leaders are irrational is itself an emotional, irrational conviction.
And Joe notes Iranian casualties in the Iran-Iraq War. The Iran-Iraq War provides an instructive example of how patriotism overcomes politics in the face of foreign aggression: The Iranian Air Force officer corps was a bastion of loyalty to the Shah. When Iraq invaded, many of its officers had already been executed, most of the rest including its pilots were in prison. These pilots went directly from prison to their aircraft and fought to defend their country. Another person who thought his enemy was a house of cards ready to collapse with a hard push was Hitler. That didn’t work out so good for him.
And:
“Twelver Shiia regime has devout apocalyptic eschatological beliefs about the return of the occulted Mahdi,”
Yup. And this is perfectly mirrored in the US by the so-caled Christian-Zionists with their (heretical) eschatological beliefs about Israel and the Second Coming and their large influence in Washington.
So long as the US fails to try to understand its enemy, continues to project it own distorted and erroneous conceptions of its enemy’s irrationality on its enemy, it is doomed to fail in its endeavor.
How many new oil pipelines are under construction to deliver crude via routes other than the Hormuz Strait? Once the bulk of GCC oil production can bypass the strait, all we have to do is blockade Iran, easy peasy I would think.
If Iran wants to fight, take out their power plants. It takes salt plus power to make ammonium perchlorate. No power, no rocket fuel. Once their inventory is gone, they will be shooting blanks. Naturally, the usual caveats apply.