The Belgravia Dispatch: More Poor Policy: Special Designation of Revolutionary Guards

August 30, 2007

More Poor Policy: Special Designation of Revolutionary Guards

Regular readers of Belgravia Dispatch likely sensed my dismay when the Administration floated that Iran's Revolutionary Guards were likely going to be declared a foreign terrorist organization. (Actually, a "specially designated global terrorist", seemingly something of a sui generis category born of breezy 'transformationalist diplomacy' that apparently allows the largest branch of a sovereign state's army to be designated a foreign terrorist group. And, yes, in case you're wondering, this doesn't really logically fit into this more established listing of foreign terrorist organizations, which I guess is "quaint" now).

Beyond the sloppiness, however, the policy itself is unlikely to have any material financial impact on the Guards, but will very likely help dash any meaningful chance of fruitful diplomatic dialogue with the Iranians on issues like the nuclear dossier. As Ray Takeyh explains in yesterday's FT:

...the US has no trade linkages to Iran that it can sever, and European companies are unlikely to adhere to yet another set of American sanctions. Moreover, given the murky and ambiguous nature of the Revolutionary Guards' business enterprises, it is difficult to suggest in a conclusive manner whether a company is really operating on their behalf. As such, the type of information and intelligence that is needed for targeted sanctionsis unlikely to be available.

While the economic ramifications of the new policy will probably be in-adequate, its political impact is likely to be considerable. Past and present Guardsmen permeate Iran's security network. The staff of Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser and chief nuclear negotiator, is composed mostly of Revolutionary Guards. Iran's policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan is also under the purview of the Guards.

Despite their attempts to arm and train Iraqi Shia militias and advance Iran's nuclear programme, the Guards have not opposed negotiations with the US. Indeed, it would be inconceivable for talks on the nuclear issue or Iraq to have proceeded without the Guards' approbation. The administration's attempt to coerce and put pressure on this organisation is likely to trigger its antagonism towards further dealings with the US.

So we merrily continue to go down a road where conflict with Iran increasingly looks to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is hugely troublesome, not least because--as Anthony Cordesman has pointed out--the repercussions of such a conflict could be disastrous. Cordesman describes potential Iranian retaliation (with some tweaks for context/language) to include:

1) Iranian retaliation against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads; 2) using proxy groups including...Sadr in Iraq to intensify the insurgency and escalate the attacks against US forces and Iraqi Security Forces; 3) turning the Shi’ite majority in Iraq against the US presence and demanding US forces leave; 4) attacking the US homeland with suicide bombs by proxy groups or delivering CBR weapons to al-Qa’ida to use against the US; 5) using its asymmetric capabilities to attacks US interests in the region including soft targets: e.g. embassies, commercial centers, and American citizens; 6) attacking US naval forces stationed in the Gulf with anti-ship missiles, asymmetric warfare, and mines; 7) attacking Israel with missile attacks possibly with CBR warheads; 8) retaliating against energy targets in the Gulf and temporarily shutting off the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz; and 9) stopping all of its oil and gas shipments to increase the price of oil, inflicting damage on the global and US economies.

And yet, as Glenn Greenwald notes well, no one really seems particularly alarmed about such a prospective debacle. What to say? I mean, whether on civil liberties issues (as Hilzoy describes to devastating effect here), or on the foreign policy side of things (we all know we're 'surging' now through March '08, don't we, whatever September festivities aside, as this report indicates strongly?), one feels compelled to ask, where is the effective opposition?

I know, I know. Larry Craig has wandering toes, and we're busily chronicling the travails of the blow-dried, bow-tied vigilante class roaming malls off "M" Street. But really, and speaking of "grit" as we've been doing here these past days, what about the abysmal meekness and unseriousness we are manifesting as a nation in refusing to attentively broach any number of issues of critical import to the future direction of this country?

Posted by Gregory at August 30, 2007 06:20 PM

Comments

The departure of Karl Rove signaled that the only important question left for the Bush Administration had been decided: What would be the most politically advantageous date to attack Iran. With that resolved, Karl's work was done.

Posted by: easterpig at August 30, 2007 07:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Isn't it also possible that Rove's departure from the WH signals that he has lost the internal struggle over what to do about Iran, and that he wants to get out of the way before the storm hits? Say what you will about Rove's ethics or politics, he certainly has an instinct for self-preservation, and I believe he's smart enough to see that a military confontation with Iran, while bringing some possible short-term political benefits (people always rally around in the flag in times of crisis), would be disastrous in the long term for the country and the Republican party in particular.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 30, 2007 07:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

How much - if at all - does Cheney feel bound by political considerations? And how much influence does Cheney have over things any more? To me, those are the key questions.

It's not clear to me that GOP political considerations matter to Cheney. He's still driving towards the goal of military confrontation w/ Iran. Either he doesn't care and wants to press forward, or he does care but also concludes that those who take over in 2009 won't have the determination necessary to "get" Iran. (Or he does care but things by 2009 it will be too late to stop Iran from getting nukes.)

Cheney seems to have been marginalized to some degree since 2006. But doesn't he have a host of sympathizers spread out amongst the executive bureaucracy? If so, Cheney might still have enough foot soldiers to fight the bureaucratic battles that need to be fought to get the U.S. into a shooting war with Iran. Yet someone somewhere seems to be marginalizing him to some extent. Who that is (Bolten?) and what their agenda is (protecting the GOP? Protecting Dubya?) I couldn't say.

Posted by: Kurzleg at August 30, 2007 08:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

Maybe no one in Washington is particularly alarmed about this, but I'm scared shitless. I'm going to make sure my Congresspeople know how I feel, too.

Posted by: Gus at August 30, 2007 10:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

Or Rover told 'em to go on ahead because the GOP was already toast in 2008. This reminds me of the Schweizerhalle fire of 1986, where, once Sandoz lost containment on its toxic waste site, everyone else opened theirs up too since the the Rhine was dead already. Iraq and the scandals have already cost the GOP 2008 big-time, so Cheney gets to bomb Iran since it can't make things worse, at least election-wise. The long term disaster happens on the Dems' watch, see? Their problem and a great thing for the GOP to campaign against in 2012. Kurzleg's right about Cheney: he's dying of congestive heart failure, I think, and the GOP isn't on his mind at all.

Posted by: John Shreffler at August 30, 2007 10:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

Maybe no one in Washington is particularly alarmed about this, but I'm scared shitless. I'm going to make sure my Congresspeople know how I feel, too.

I believe our illustrious Senators already expressed how they feel, what with their 97-0 resolution that, in the hands of players like Bush and Cheney, may be all the "justification" needed to launch the planes. It is almost like a perfect jewel of irresponsible servility -- a Lieberman brainchild passed via Stalinesque unanimity. And it's almost the exact opposite of the measure that Andrew Bacevich described: A Congressional resolution that action against Iran is NOT authorized without explicit Congressional approval.

I don't believe we *have* an opposition party any more -- if we ever really did. We may now be entering the is the biggest national crisis since the Cuban missile standoff, and the entire Congress may as well not even bother to show up.

Posted by: sglover at August 31, 2007 06:31 AM | Permalink to this comment

There are no words for how insane-dispiriting-unbelieveable, etc. this emerging inevitability is.

But there's hope. You're just a lawyer working for a financial firm. You can't be right. Nick Burns says its all about diplomacy. And it's the VSP's from the FPC, like Max Boot, who really understand what's going on. Sure is nice to have Gerson to back him up. Deeply serious go-with-the-gut foreign policy expert with the direct line to God and all.... Probably looks directly into the souls of foreign leaders. Can't match that, can you?

Haven't thought about moving to Canada for years, but.... To think I actually laughed when the Republican Party nominated RR. "That airhead? You can't be serious." Not laughing now.

Nice to see you and GG on the same page, though. You make a formidable team. But, like 70% of all Americans, you're not really serious people. Can't be listened to. Reality-based. Think too much. Bad, bad, bad.

We make our own reality now. Not tied to quaint concepts like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, rule of law, Geneva Accords, or any other treaties, agreements, practices, customs, etc. Wake up. Smell the carnage.

Posted by: Adams at August 31, 2007 06:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Late to comment, but IMO nobody inside the Beltway cares because they don't think Bush will actually go ahead and bomb Iran. The Army's worn to the nubs, and there might not be much left in the pantry for the remaining armed services. We can only crank out so many smart bombs a year, after all. What's more telling is that we've been waiting for the shoe to drop for years, even through last year's election, and all we've gotten from the White House is continued saber-rattling.

It is likely that Bush and Cheney really really really want to put some JDAMs in the Ayatollah's lap. But with Gates and the Pentagon looking at their reports and war games with shock and awe of their own, the actual bombing has never gotten past Big Time's daydreams. The Administration's only recourse has been to continue the jingoism in hopes that Iran does something really stupid to rally the American people behind another war. (Not very likely.) Everyone's banking on this remaining the status quo until January 2009.

Posted by: Doug H. at September 3, 2007 03:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

The US is already busy losing two wars -- one to opium growers and Pakistani-based terrorists in Afghanistan, and one to just about everyone in Iraq. Is the US really run by people stupid enough to desire losing a third war as well, against a much more dangerous enemy?

Posted by: John Rogerse at September 6, 2007 08:29 AM | Permalink to this comment

	« Bush's Apocalyptic Rhetoric \| Main \| The Problem With Fredos » August 30, 2007 More Poor Policy: Special Designation of Revolutionary Guards Regular readers of Belgravia Dispatch likely sensed my dismay when the Administration floated that Iran's Revolutionary Guards were likely going to be declared a foreign terrorist organization. (Actually, a "specially designated global terrorist", seemingly something of a sui generis category born of breezy 'transformationalist diplomacy' that apparently allows the largest branch of a sovereign state's army to be designated a foreign terrorist group. And, yes, in case you're wondering, this doesn't really logically fit into this more established listing of foreign terrorist organizations, which I guess is "quaint" now). Beyond the sloppiness, however, the policy itself is unlikely to have any material financial impact on the Guards, but will very likely help dash any meaningful chance of fruitful diplomatic dialogue with the Iranians on issues like the nuclear dossier. As Ray Takeyh explains in yesterday's FT: ...the US has no trade linkages to Iran that it can sever, and European companies are unlikely to adhere to yet another set of American sanctions. Moreover, given the murky and ambiguous nature of the Revolutionary Guards' business enterprises, it is difficult to suggest in a conclusive manner whether a company is really operating on their behalf. As such, the type of information and intelligence that is needed for targeted sanctionsis unlikely to be available. While the economic ramifications of the new policy will probably be in-adequate, its political impact is likely to be considerable. Past and present Guardsmen permeate Iran's security network. The staff of Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser and chief nuclear negotiator, is composed mostly of Revolutionary Guards. Iran's policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan is also under the purview of the Guards. Despite their attempts to arm and train Iraqi Shia militias and advance Iran's nuclear programme, the Guards have not opposed negotiations with the US. Indeed, it would be inconceivable for talks on the nuclear issue or Iraq to have proceeded without the Guards' approbation. The administration's attempt to coerce and put pressure on this organisation is likely to trigger its antagonism towards further dealings with the US. So we merrily continue to go down a road where conflict with Iran increasingly looks to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is hugely troublesome, not least because--as Anthony Cordesman has pointed out--the repercussions of such a conflict could be disastrous. Cordesman describes potential Iranian retaliation (with some tweaks for context/language) to include: 1) Iranian retaliation against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads; 2) using proxy groups including...Sadr in Iraq to intensify the insurgency and escalate the attacks against US forces and Iraqi Security Forces; 3) turning the Shi’ite majority in Iraq against the US presence and demanding US forces leave; 4) attacking the US homeland with suicide bombs by proxy groups or delivering CBR weapons to al-Qa’ida to use against the US; 5) using its asymmetric capabilities to attacks US interests in the region including soft targets: e.g. embassies, commercial centers, and American citizens; 6) attacking US naval forces stationed in the Gulf with anti-ship missiles, asymmetric warfare, and mines; 7) attacking Israel with missile attacks possibly with CBR warheads; 8) retaliating against energy targets in the Gulf and temporarily shutting off the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz; and 9) stopping all of its oil and gas shipments to increase the price of oil, inflicting damage on the global and US economies. And yet, as Glenn Greenwald notes well, no one really seems particularly alarmed about such a prospective debacle. What to say? I mean, whether on civil liberties issues (as Hilzoy describes to devastating effect here), or on the foreign policy side of things (we all know we're 'surging' now through March '08, don't we, whatever September festivities aside, as this report indicates strongly?), one feels compelled to ask, where is the effective opposition? I know, I know. Larry Craig has wandering toes, and we're busily chronicling the travails of the blow-dried, bow-tied vigilante class roaming malls off "M" Street. But really, and speaking of "grit" as we've been doing here these past days, what about the abysmal meekness and unseriousness we are manifesting as a nation in refusing to attentively broach any number of issues of critical import to the future direction of this country? Posted by Gregory at August 30, 2007 06:20 PM Comments The departure of Karl Rove signaled that the only important question left for the Bush Administration had been decided: What would be the most politically advantageous date to attack Iran. With that resolved, Karl's work was done. Posted by: easterpig at August 30, 2007 07:15 PM \| Permalink to this comment Isn't it also possible that Rove's departure from the WH signals that he has lost the internal struggle over what to do about Iran, and that he wants to get out of the way before the storm hits? Say what you will about Rove's ethics or politics, he certainly has an instinct for self-preservation, and I believe he's smart enough to see that a military confontation with Iran, while bringing some possible short-term political benefits (people always rally around in the flag in times of crisis), would be disastrous in the long term for the country and the Republican party in particular. Posted by: Anonymous at August 30, 2007 07:30 PM \| Permalink to this comment How much - if at all - does Cheney feel bound by political considerations? And how much influence does Cheney have over things any more? To me, those are the key questions. It's not clear to me that GOP political considerations matter to Cheney. He's still driving towards the goal of military confrontation w/ Iran. Either he doesn't care and wants to press forward, or he does care but also concludes that those who take over in 2009 won't have the determination necessary to "get" Iran. (Or he does care but things by 2009 it will be too late to stop Iran from getting nukes.) Cheney seems to have been marginalized to some degree since 2006. But doesn't he have a host of sympathizers spread out amongst the executive bureaucracy? If so, Cheney might still have enough foot soldiers to fight the bureaucratic battles that need to be fought to get the U.S. into a shooting war with Iran. Yet someone somewhere seems to be marginalizing him to some extent. Who that is (Bolten?) and what their agenda is (protecting the GOP? Protecting Dubya?) I couldn't say. Posted by: Kurzleg at August 30, 2007 08:17 PM \| Permalink to this comment Maybe no one in Washington is particularly alarmed about this, but I'm scared shitless. I'm going to make sure my Congresspeople know how I feel, too. Posted by: Gus at August 30, 2007 10:28 PM \| Permalink to this comment Or Rover told 'em to go on ahead because the GOP was already toast in 2008. This reminds me of the Schweizerhalle fire of 1986, where, once Sandoz lost containment on its toxic waste site, everyone else opened theirs up too since the the Rhine was dead already. Iraq and the scandals have already cost the GOP 2008 big-time, so Cheney gets to bomb Iran since it can't make things worse, at least election-wise. The long term disaster happens on the Dems' watch, see? Their problem and a great thing for the GOP to campaign against in 2012. Kurzleg's right about Cheney: he's dying of congestive heart failure, I think, and the GOP isn't on his mind at all. Posted by: John Shreffler at August 30, 2007 10:33 PM \| Permalink to this comment Maybe no one in Washington is particularly alarmed about this, but I'm scared shitless. I'm going to make sure my Congresspeople know how I feel, too. I believe our illustrious Senators already expressed how they feel, what with their 97-0 resolution that, in the hands of players like Bush and Cheney, may be all the "justification" needed to launch the planes. It is almost like a perfect jewel of irresponsible servility -- a Lieberman brainchild passed via Stalinesque unanimity. And it's almost the exact opposite of the measure that Andrew Bacevich described: A Congressional resolution that action against Iran is NOT authorized without explicit Congressional approval. I don't believe we have an opposition party any more -- if we ever really did. We may now be entering the is the biggest national crisis since the Cuban missile standoff, and the entire Congress may as well not even bother to show up. Posted by: sglover at August 31, 2007 06:31 AM \| Permalink to this comment There are no words for how insane-dispiriting-unbelieveable, etc. this emerging inevitability is. But there's hope. You're just a lawyer working for a financial firm. You can't be right. Nick Burns says its all about diplomacy. And it's the VSP's from the FPC, like Max Boot, who really understand what's going on. Sure is nice to have Gerson to back him up. Deeply serious go-with-the-gut foreign policy expert with the direct line to God and all.... Probably looks directly into the souls of foreign leaders. Can't match that, can you? Haven't thought about moving to Canada for years, but.... To think I actually laughed when the Republican Party nominated RR. "That airhead? You can't be serious." Not laughing now. Nice to see you and GG on the same page, though. You make a formidable team. But, like 70% of all Americans, you're not really serious people. Can't be listened to. Reality-based. Think too much. Bad, bad, bad. We make our own reality now. Not tied to quaint concepts like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, rule of law, Geneva Accords, or any other treaties, agreements, practices, customs, etc. Wake up. Smell the carnage. Posted by: Adams at August 31, 2007 06:19 PM \| Permalink to this comment Late to comment, but IMO nobody inside the Beltway cares because they don't think Bush will actually go ahead and bomb Iran. The Army's worn to the nubs, and there might not be much left in the pantry for the remaining armed services. We can only crank out so many smart bombs a year, after all. What's more telling is that we've been waiting for the shoe to drop for years, even through last year's election, and all we've gotten from the White House is continued saber-rattling. It is likely that Bush and Cheney really really really want to put some JDAMs in the Ayatollah's lap. But with Gates and the Pentagon looking at their reports and war games with shock and awe of their own, the actual bombing has never gotten past Big Time's daydreams. The Administration's only recourse has been to continue the jingoism in hopes that Iran does something really stupid to rally the American people behind another war. (Not very likely.) Everyone's banking on this remaining the status quo until January 2009. Posted by: Doug H. at September 3, 2007 03:03 AM \| Permalink to this comment The US is already busy losing two wars -- one to opium growers and Pakistani-based terrorists in Afghanistan, and one to just about everyone in Iraq. Is the US really run by people stupid enough to desire losing a third war as well, against a much more dangerous enemy? Posted by: John Rogerse at September 6, 2007 08:29 AM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Honorary Chair--American Appeasement Blogs" --Hugh Hewitt Recent Entries McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance? Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice Archives August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch