This is some really outstanding journalism, in terms of both information density and quality of writing. This helps to explain why Iran has involved itself so prominently in attacks on IS in Iraq; the architects of the 1979 Iranian revolution must have had a good deal of pragmatic and strategic insight in addition to their religious fervor, and were probably in a better position to assess IS than most of the surrounding countries or western observers.
Well on the pragmatic reason Iran wants a corridor to the Med, and ISIS is both a threat and an opportunity to get it.
ISIS in Syria threatens Iran's only fully sponsored stated in the region, but if they do manage to get control over Iraq trough intervention against ISIS they will have an agency to exert control over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon which gives them a very nice corridor to the med.
On the religious side Iran's supports the mirror of ISIS in the form of the Zaidi groups operating in the Arabian peninsula and Africa, most prevalent of them are the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Yemen might seem like a very uninteresting place to most however they have control over the straights of tears (Bab-el Mandeb).
If Iran manages to get sufficient control over Yemen it would put them in a position to fully blockade Saudi Arabia and very large portion of the world's oil supply with it (Persian Gulf, and Bab-el Mandeb), as well as control any ship wanting to traverse trough the Suez canal which means they can also blockade Israel, Egypt, and all traffic from Europe and North Africa towards the Indian Ocean and APAC countries.
Sadly Iran's demonetization in the west makes it very hard for many people to be able to really look at the map and just see the international game of Risk which is being played currently in the middle east.
Iran should scare you not because they are crazy religious zealots as most of them are not, they should scare you because they are extremely pragmatic and are seeking to establish themselves as a regional superpower and a world power and have both the capability and the strive to do so by any means.
Iran is exceptionally skilled in asymetric warfare, but I suspect it would be a fools errand for them to attempt a full blockade. One of the two US carrier strike groups stationed off of their coasts would be enough to obliterate any sort of a blockade they could manage. Could their be casualties, sure, but the sea is about a conventional warfighting area as they get. You simply can't play by the rules and expect to win against the US Navy. That is assuming that other "interested parties" who use those straights as economic routes wouldn't also hire competent guns.
Other than that small thing, I think the rest of your post was not only insightful, but pretty much spot on.
Well that's true to some extent, however with both straights under control Iran can attempt an asymmetric blockade.
It did try to do it in the 80's and it caused havok with oil prices. While they can't beat the US navy they can always mine the gulfs and use anti ship missiles room shore.
In any case in world politics you can always extort aslong as its cheaper to pay than it is to break you this is why north Korea gets aid from the west.
And since breaking even a flimsy Iranian blockade will cost billions if not trillions they'll be able to get away with quite a bit just on the threat alone.
And there is where you nail it. They get away with it due to the threat. It would be expensive, but they know full well they'd stand no chance should they put up a serious blockade. That is also why US Navy Carrier Strike Groups 3 and 10 are always within business distance of that area. Mutually assured threats.
You post is insightful except for the last paragraph. If Iran were not a theocracy why would we might mind if it dominated the region? Surely it's no worse than Saudi Arabia. And wouldn't Israel behave better if someone could stand up to it?
I suspect the 1979 hostage event still dominates opinion of Iran. It's a mostly unhealed wound. Even if you take 1953 into account, it stings.
Having someone stand up to Israel will more than likely galvanize the politics of Israel towards at least more militarism. The Iranian opposition to Israel looks suspiciously like Eliminationism - a catchall term designed by Daniel Goldhagen to describe a specific political technology.
The Frontline show on ISIS describes ISIS quite clearly as Sunni officers and such being cast out of Iraq as another Eliminaitonist tactic to gain political support for the al-Maliki government.
Saudi Arabia is sort of fictional; it was created out of the rubble in the region around the time of the First World War. It's an artifact of what was left when the British Empire began to decline in the region. But it is more or less an honest broker; the others in the area are less known. It really does go back to Lawrence and all that. The book "A Peace to End All Peace" describes this process in excruciating detail. Lawrence does not fare well in the book. He's practically a (military) fillibuster.
Saudi Arabia being the site of both Mecca and Medina is highly constrained in what it can appear to do. This makes it stable. But is cannot appear to keep the Haj from political "enemies" witout inspiring ... fury.
"Having someone stand up to Israel will more than likely galvanize the politics of Israel towards at least more militarism."
Well we've tried forty years of no-one standing up to Israel and that hasn't worked (and Israel has moved further and further to the right during this period).
I did not say I thought there was a solution. Israel is just too handy a target and anti-Semitism ( oh, the irony ) is too delicious a plum for "leaders" in the region.
The original Caliphate took a handful of geniuses to construct, with Suleiman, Saladin and Mehmet chief among them. Let us hope such men rise there now. Ottoman history knows that Suleiman formally denounced blood libel against the Jews and that Christians were relatively well-treated.
I found it quite fluffy and sensationalist. Basic geopolitics and the recent history of Iraq meets basic unconventional warfare. Outstanding journalism for me would be more like this:
Edit: Since I'm traveling I don't have my bookmarks available, but there are much better articles on the subject. This article takes a single event and extrapolates from it instead of, as you should, placing the event in a bigger context. It's dangerous because it makes the reader believe things that are just concluded by the reporter and not necessarily supported by facts.
Iran can be secular and pragmatic, but this dispute stems from religion. Iranians practice Shia Islam, which makes them heretics in the eyes of the (Sunni) Islamic State. The Islamic State interprets certain bits of Sura 47 to mean they should behead disbelievers and heretics. Until ISIS reads the Qu'ran less literally, the two sides simply cannot coexist in peace.
For nearly 20 years I've said that organised religion is just another way of asserting power over people. Quoting from you:
> [...] two sides simply cannot coexist in peace.
That is divide and conquer played out to near perfection. The two sides are supposedly the same, but due to their own religious dogmas, they hold an existential grudge against one another. Those who wish to maintain and exploit the situation can pick any number of small clashes and turn them into straightorward propaganda.
And while the strategy is from the Roman emperors, the tactics are (as stated in the article) definitely from Stasi: surveillance, suspicion, paranoia, disappearing people and assassinated leader candidates. Even potential ones.
I wouldn't be surprised if the IS forces allowed a small number of individuals to escape from each of their massacres. What better propaganda than the rumours spread by few lucky survivors?
As to their units' training and composure... Again: isolation and suspicion, coupled with unwavering loyalty. There's a dirty word for that, and it starts with B.
Which, incidentally, would complete the circuit and bring us back to religion.
That's the point of extremism, you do not "compromise". If one believes in the Quran,why would one take a part literally and another part figuratively ? Or is it a limitation of language ? the fact that men invented it(along with books) therefore it is impossible everybody agrees on its semantics anyway? which makes the Quran imperfect ,since it relies on devices men invented, languages and books.
Your implication that religion properly understood is separable from political concerns is a very recent -- and very Protestant -- idea. If you look to other historical epochs and other cultures, you will find this idea rarely applies. No need to single out Islam in this way.
Interesting way to build an army. I guess when you have nothing to lose and the rule of law is tenuous at best, there are opportunities to be exploited. But that has always been true.
I wonder if anyone starting a company organizes this way.
Well, I suppose one could look the fake Jihad as an application of Steve Denning's concept of storytelling as a tool for leadership. (http://www.stevedenning.com/Books/leaders-guide-to-storytell...). In this instance the story told to troops is total bogus but it gets them to implement the organizational targets in the way intended by leadership. I'm pretty sure I would not like to work in a company applying this fake-story-principle.
the two systems ultimately shared a conviction that control over the masses should lie in the hands of a small elite that should not be answerable to anyone
Interesting to see the elite thinking along same lines across the world - whether it is democratic system or something totally opposite.
Edit: the whole thing reads like a horror movie. It must've been terrifying for the ordinary people who lived/live in Raqqa.
I just assume "ISS" is the new Al Qaeda" or "terrorism", i.e. branding and refinement of propaganda programs, providing a go-to enemy to justify military operations.
If you spend a few moments on LiveLeak looking for IS videos, I suspect you'll come to agree that "IS" (or "ISIS") is a thing distinct from "terrorism". As not an apparent, imminent threat to the US, I'm not sure whether they deserve more or less attention [from our population's eyeballs and thereby our military's bombs] than does "terrorism", but it's hard to agree with the cynical interpretation that "IS" is merely a rebranding of the terrorism bogeyman.
...and I would advise you against spending those few moments on LiveLeak looking for IS videos...
The Frontline is pretty interesting. The US military left hardware including vehicles and weapons undefended which ISIS simply took. Then some time passed and ISIS decided to attack an oil town in the north that the military actually cared about. A fighter jet was deployed - the pilot hit a button that deployed smart guided missiles - and that was the end of that idea. Not a threat to the US. But some soldiers raping people and chopping peoples heads off.
Tell that to the 7000 yezidi women that got kidnapped by privileged muslims from the west who travelled for an adventure. Tell them they are just part of a propaganda.
Tell them that muslims really do not consider them heretic.
The whole 800 000 000 of muslims who justify honour killings, killing apostates and etc.
Tell it to the Kurdish Peshmerga or YPG forces who've lost thousands of their brother and sisters live defending their cities from Privileged muslims from welfare state with free education and healthcare.
Ugh, I can't stand these fucking privileged jihadi-apologists. You, Greenwald, Jones, Galloway, Augur, Werlemann and all other assholes who created this pity-fest for Jihadis.
We've ensured that the entire region is a war zone for the last 30 years. These things happen in war zones. The U.S. Military business and the Muslim extremists need each other, and owe each other much of their strength. By playing along with their game of racism and war, you strengthen them. Weakminded citizens such as yourself and your Muslim counterparts are easily manipulated by manufactured hatred to enrich the sociopaths.
Horse-shit, Kurdistan was not a war-zone. The US never engaged with Kurdistan. They were foreign invaders from welfare state. 25 000 muslims from nations that offered free healthcare and some free education.
You're just another white liberal left-wing apologist. You belong in CAGE with the rest of the Jihadi propaganda wings.
You're also ignoring the fact that the Muslims have waged Jihad against infidel BEFORE THE USA EVEN EXISTED.
The rape against minorities as Hindus, Yezidis and Christians existed even America was an idea.
You're an ignorant one, aren't you?
Ps, I am a shia muslim kurd. We're also considered "infidels" by majority of muslims, tougher with Ammadhya Muslims who Pakistan ISI slaughters on a daily basis
