Taking vs. Holding

A reader responds to my piece today on Iran:

What do you make of Scott Ritter’s piece via Wanniski yesterday? Ritter claims that the CIA is behind the recent, pre-election bombings by the MEK (Mujahadeen el Khalq), and that the US military bases in Azerbaijan are a launching point against Tehran.

I’m not sure what to make of this claim. I haven’t heard of the MEK since the Iran/Iraq war, and I thought the military bases in the Caucuses were for the protection of the BP pipeline, etc. rather than having any Iranian focus.

A couple of points…I agree with Ritter that the bombings are likely the work of a US-attached group of some kind, whether it be the MEK or someone else. I haven’t heard anything about subsequent bombings in Iran, so whoever conducted the raids does not have the ability to sustain a pace of operations … right now. If the goal was to destabilize the Iranian government, they won’t have much effect. If the goal is to show that someone can eventually challenge the Iranian government, we have to wait and see.

As for using Azerbaijan as a base to invade and occupy Tehran, well, maybe, but unlikely. I don’t dismiss the possibility that the White House and Pentagon have again deluded themselves into thinking that invading and occupying Iran would be easy. But I think it is unlikely. I see no sign of it.

As William Lind would no doubt explain better than I can: taking Tehran is one thing, holding Tehran is another. Those soldiers aren’t even going to Azerbaijan to protect the pipeline, since it is impossible to adequately protect pipelines. Any exercises there would likely be a “show of force” designed to intimidate the Iranian government. “You are surrounded.”

Which, of course, they already know. And seeing two US expeditionary forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m guessing we don’t scare them so much anymore.

Share

11:47 am on June 22, 2005