War and Conflict Journal

The world is slowly creeping toward the long-awaited and long-feared Iran War.  What is this ‘Iran War?”  At some point, Iran will be attacked, most likely by Israel, perhaps less likely by the United States or some coalition of Western powers.  But the ongoing concerns regarding Iran’s continued nuclear weapons development and the collapse of any reasonable diplomatic scenarios will lead Israel’s leadership with the belief that they have no choice but to strike the Islamic Republic of Iran before they can attack Israel with the nuclear weapons Iran is developing.

Two recent developments in particular shows that Israel is growing increasingly concerned.  First, the Israeli cabinet decided to fund a program to provide gas masks to all Israelis.  This is an obvious preparation for the possibility of missile attacks on Israel from Iran and/or Iranian allies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria.

Second, on January 12, 2010, a leading Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated by a remote-controlled bomb in Tehran.  It is widely assumed that Israel is behind this killing in an apparent attempt to delay the Iranian nuclear program. 

See also: http://www.historyguy.com/iranwar.htm

Iran is far from a homogenous nation. The Islamic Republic has many ethnic and religious minority groups, and many of them chafe under Tehran’s rule. The Baluchis of southeastern Iran (like their ethnic kin across the border in Pakistani Baluchistan), want freedom from the central government, and are conducting a guerrilla/terrorist war to achieve their goals.

Iran’s ethnic and political unrest escalated on October 17, 2009, with a suicide bombing that killed at least five commanders of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. The bombings also killed and wounded dozens of others left dead and injured in two the restive Baluchi region of near Iran’s southeastern frontier with Pakistan.

 The coordinated suicide bomb attacks mark an escalation in hostilities between Iran’s leadership and one of the nation’s many restive ethnic and religious minorities, in this case the Baluchis. Many terrorist attacks, mostly directed at the Iranian military and at the Revolutionary Guard have plagued Iran’s southeastern region, Sistan-Baluchistan, and in April the government put the elite but brutal Revolutionary Guards Corps in control of security in the Baluchi region in an effort to stop the escalating violence.

Iran, predictably, has accused its foreign enemies of supporting the insurgents in the past, and repeated that charge the day after the latest attack. By midday, news reports from Iran said that 31 people were killed and at least 28 injured.

See also:

http://www.historyguy.com/iran_baluchistan_rebellion_war.htm

http://www.historyguy.com/iranwar.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html

The news out of the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit about the hitherto secret Iranian nuclear facility, coupled with Iranian missile tests near the Yom Kippur Jewish holiday raise the fears of a Western Powers/Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran.

See http://www.historyguy.com/iranwar.htm for more information and links.

http://www.historyguy.com/iranwarsbookstore.htm

The Iran War Scenarios and Analysis page is now up and running.  This page will track current news, rumors, and analysis related to possible attacks on Iran by the United States and/or Israel.

http://www.historyguy.com/iranwar.htm

The Threat to Yemen: al-Qaida and the Perils of More War in Yemen

Yemen, that oddly-shaped nation on the southwestern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, is one of the world’s poorest nations with a very uneducated, illiterate population.  It is also a hotbed of violence, tribalism, insurgencies and protests against the weak central government, along with a history of civil war and conflicts among Yemen’s very different regions.  Most men in the rural mountains and deserts own guns, know how to use them, consider kidnapping foreigners a fun and profitable way to pass the time, and they don’t like their alleged central government telling them what to do.

Oh, and to top off the list of unfortunate things about Yemen, it is the traditional homeland of the bin Laden family, (yes, THAT bin Laden family!), and, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources, it is turning into a possible new safe haven for al-Qaida fighters and leaders as they look for a more out-fo-the-way place to lead their Jihad from.  Yemen gained notice in the U.S. in 2000 with the al-Qaida attack on the American warship, the USS Cole. The U.S. did not publicly respond to that attack, but after the al-Qaida attacks of September 11, 2001, Yemen sided with the United States, and began dealing with its own militant problem with American aid.  The U.S. also conducted Predator drone strikes against Jihadist/al-Qaida targets in Yemen, most likely with the knowledge of the Yemeni government.

In 2004, the Sa’dah Insurgency began in the northwestern tip of Yemen, with the Islamic cleric Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, the leader of the Shiite  Zaidiyyah sect, launched an uprising against the Yemeni government. The Yemeni government also has problems in the south of the country, (which used to be the independent and avowedly Marxist/Socialist People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen).  Southern Yemen is making noises about seceding from the northern-dominated government, and some analysts and commentators (http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35108&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=cf625c5341) claim that al-Qaida is getting involved in the southern protests and violence against the government.

So, why should the U.S. or any other Western nation care?  Look at the map of where Yemen lies.

Map of Yemen and Surrounding Region

Yemen is next to Saudi Arabia, and across the Bab al Mandeb (narrow straits separating Arabia from Africa) lies Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Somalia.  Most of the Somali pirate action is in the Gulf of Aden, which lies between southern Yemen and Somalia. A LOT of the world’s oil supply travels through those waters, and a seriously unstable Yemen on the scale of pre-2001 Afghanistan or the present-day Somalia is bad news for Saudi Arabia and Western interests.

The potential for a new Yemeni North/South War (past North/South conflicts erupted in 1972, 1979, and 1994) is serious and could spell trouble for the whole region.  This bears watching…

 Some websites and blogs of interest regarding Yemen:

Waq al-Waq

Jane Novak’s Yemen Articles

Wars of Yemen (1914-Present)

On May 28, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army declared that the U.S. has the ability to successfully fight a new war in Korea, despite fighting counter-insurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  See the full article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pentagon_nkorea

Also, Chinese fishing boats fled the waters off of Korea in response to the ongoing crisis between North Korea and the U.S., and South Korea.

See the full article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

North Korea continues to make threatening announcements and conduct threatening actions since the detonation a nuclear device on May 23.  Since conducting that nuclear test, the Communist dictatorship has launched at least six short-range missiles into the sea, and made very belligerent, (even for North Korea!) threats and comments.  On May 27, 2009, North Korea threatened to attack South Korea if ships from the North are searched as part a U.S.-led effort to stop vessels suspected of carrying missiles or weapons of mass destruction (WOMDs). North Korea also declared the truce that ended the Korean War in 1953 as invalid.  South Korea decided to join the international effort to search North Korean vessels suspected of carrying missiles or WOMDs.  South Korea had refrained from doing so in the past, but with the Northern nuclear test on May 23, the situation changed and the South decided to send a message to the North.

Also unusual in the world reaction to this North Korean nuclear test, is the public condemnation of the North by the closest things it has to friends; China and Russia.

Many analysts are saying that this is mere saber-rattling by Kim Jong-Il, just as in the past, and that things will quiet down, especially if the world tries to pay the North off to keep quiet for a while.  While that is the most likely scenario, given past history, it should also be noted that absolute dictatorships often make very bad decisions in the case of war and peace.  Hitler made several very unwise decisions that led to the destruction of Germany.  Saddam Hussein thought Iran would be a soft target in the throes of its violent revolution, only to end up with an eight-year war and hundreds of thousands of dead.  And Saddam also thought he could gobble up Kuwait without any fuss.  Oh, and he really did not expect George W. Bush to invade in 2003.  And those Generals in Argentina who believed the British would never fight for a few cold, remote islands in the South Atlantic.  In each case, the dictators in question ended up out of power, and, in the cases of Hitler and Saddam, ended up dead because they miscalculated the results of starting wars.

The point here is, that while the world thinks that the North Korean leaders will not start a fight they cannot win; they may actually think they CAN win.  Remember, Obama is a new president, untested in the eyes of much of the world, and the U.S. IS in the middle of two major wars.  When the North Koreans attacked and seized the American ship, the USS Pueblo in the late 1960s, the U.S. was in the middle of the Vietnam War.  North Korea gambled correctly, and no American military action against North Korea took place as a result.  If Kim Jong-Il is looking at history as a guide, he may be looking at how his father embarrassed the Americans, not how Hitler, Saddam, and the Argentine Junta ended up!

For more information on this topic, go to:

http://www.historyguy.com/korean_nuclear_crisis.htm

and

http://www.historyguy.com/korean_border_conflicts.htm

On April 22, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to the military advance of the Pakistani Taliban out of the Swat Valley that has been ceded to them by the weak Pakistani government by stating that this situation in Pakistan formed an “existential threat” to Pakistan and a “mortal threat” to the world, and by extension, to the United States.  She also called on Pakistanis to resist their government’s policy of surrendering national territory to the Islamic extremists.

Tough words, but it remains to be seen if Clinton and the Obama Administration of which she is a part, really have the gumption to truly address this issue.  The Pakistani civilian government seems incapable or unwilling to confront the Taliban in the border areas.  The Taliban (and their al-Qaida allies), rightly see this as weakness on Islamabad’s part, and are pressing their advantage.  It is well known that the Pakistani military and secret services still aid the Taliban in its fight against Allied forces in Afghanistan (see http://warandconflictjournal.com/2008/06/pakistan-aids-taliban-still/).  The military is known to still consider India as its number one foe, and it is reported that important leaders of the military and intelligence services sympathize to some point with the Islamicists in the border regions.   

Clinton is right that the Taliban advances pose a grave threat to Pakistan.  If, by some means, the Taliban or some other radical Islamic group seizes control, or at least weakens the central government enough that the nation falls into true chaos or collapse, then the U.S., Britain, the other NATO allies, and, of course, India, all have to make an important decision.  Pakistan is too large to be allowed to fall into “Failed State” status.  Its nuclear arsenal is far too deadly to fall to ilk like the Taliban or al-Qaida.  It is hard to imagine India standing by as its old, but dangerous enemy becomes perhaps more dangerous through the unpredictability of chaos. 

So, the civilized world must decide what is to be done.  Stop the Taliban now, or wait and deal with the detritus of failed policies after it is far too late.  Pakistan is the “Sick Man of South Asia,” and like the old Ottoman Empire, it is far too large and dangerous to let it fall apart without major consequences for the entire region and the world.

The Israeli military launched an airstrike on Hamas-ruled Gaza early Wednesday, Nov. 5 after Israeli troops battled Hamas militants after Hamas fired mortars rounds into Israel. Six Palestinians were killed in the renewed fighting. This was the first battle since a June truce between Israel and Hamas brought relative peace to the region.

The Israeli army said the battles broke out late Tuesday, Nov. 4, after Israeli forces found a tunnel in central Gaza built by Hamas in order to abduct Israeli soldiers. A Israeli special army unit destroyed the tunnel. One Palestinian was killed in the gunbattles at the tunnel.

The timing may be coincidental, but it is interesting that this clash took place on the same night that the American Presidential campaign concluded with a victory by Democrat Barack Obama.  Many people worry about a possible Israeli-American strike at the Hamas/Hezbollah/Syria/Iran alliance in the waning days of Republican control of the White House.  Might this small battle lead to more clashes on other borders, with a possible Iranian and/or Syrian response?

This situation bears watching…

The American helicopter raid into Syria this week which targeted an al-Qaida leader based there, may presage a similar attack into Iran in the near future. Just as missile strikes and a very similar commando raid into Pakistan's border region in September may have foreshadowed this raid into Syria's border area, the next logical target in the ongoing attempt to curtail cross-border aid and supply to al-Qaida and other insurgents into Iraq may be Iran.

Many analysts and pundits have mulled over the possibility of an "October Surprise" in the middle east which could affect the American Presidential race.  The theory being that an international crisis or event could highlight the foreign policy experience of John McCain over his opponent, Barack Obama.  Also, if a major military event took place, the American public may automatically back the party in power (the Republican), and this close to Election Day, that may translate into more votes for McCain.

This theory is faulty on several fronts.  First, the economy will continue to be Issue #1, and little short of a major terror attack on the U.S. homeland will change that.  Second, at this point in the war and in the election campaign, the American public would likely turn on the Bush Administration and, by extension, John McCain if it perceived an attempt to manipulate the election with the lives of American service members.

And then there is the real danger.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been clear that they view the development of Iranian nuclear weapons to be a grave and mortal danger the the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.  Rather than start something with Iran before the election, in what the history books and public opinion would surely condemn as a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to influence the election, it is far more likely that the long-feared "Iran War" will begin after Barack Obama wins the election, which, as of this writing, seems very likely to occur.

Were McCain to take office, Bush and Cheney would likely feel assured that their policies on Iran and the nuclear issue would be carried on by McCain.  The same is not true of a likely Obama Administration.  Thus, in order to save America, Israel, and much of Europe from a nuclear-armed Iran, it is highly likely that at some point in the 77 day transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, an incident will occur, or a commando raid similar to those carried out on Pakistan and Syria will take place on Iranian soil.  Or, Israel may elect to attack Iran itself, with the full assurance of American support and involvement.

If Obama wins, watch for signs of military buildup and preparation.  This Iran War scenario is all the more likely after the raids on Pakistan and Syria.  After all, what do President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have to worry about if the American public disapproves of such a war?  Elect them out of office?  President Obama may be faced with a much more dangerous, chaotic, and violent world than now exists.