SURPRISE! We're at war with Iran
Michael Ledeen tips us off to a phenomenal piece by Steve Shippert at Threats Watch on the new designation of the IRG as "terrorists." I won't cite the whole piece, but the closing is just devastating to all the armchair generals whining about this new twist of fate from the president:
Either Iran is attacking us or they are replete with “rogue” elements who somehow persistently operate beyond the control of – and against the wishes of - the regime who leads Friday prayers in Tehran streets with “Death to America!” chants. The Iranian regime makes no bones about their intent. However, they quite skillfully leave their specific actions just ambiguous enough for us to reliably debate ourselves into inaction. And, as do all nations, we reserve the right to defend ourselves by any and all means against all attackers - states and terrorists alike.
These are not words seeking war. They are, however, words seeking clarity. That said, the special designation of the IRGC and Quds Force is certainly more clarity than in the past, insofar as it identifies the Administration’s position and policy. Nevertheless, labeling a sanctioned arm of a state sponsor of terrorism as a terrorist group – lumping it with al-Qaeda and other non-state actors – is perplexing in the sense that it removes clarity from an already elusive definition of what a terrorist group is (i.e. a state or non-state actor).
If we cannot affect the same pressure on such terror-training and -supplying organs of a state identified as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” then perhaps we need to revisit our self-defined and sanctioned actions against such state sponsors rather than shoe-horn their specific military branches into the definition of a terrorist group.
We cannot simply re-classify or redefine the actions of those who kill us and openly seek to destroy us. When a state’s military conducts regular attacks upon another, it is by definition an act of war. We may not like it. We may even try to redefine it. And we may ultimately decide that such provocation does not warrant an in-kind response. But it is what it is, regardless. We need not conflate the “non-state” or “sub-national” definition of a terrorist group in order to justify targeting – militarily or financially - any state or group that kills or seeks to kill our civilians or soldiers.
Iran has been a leading sponsor of terrorism int he region for thirty years. They actively recruit, train, fund, and deploy Hezbollah throughout the region to destabilize the governments of other nations, and to strike their "mortal" enemy, Israel. They have taken the fight to Lebanon, and in response, the Lebanese dilly-dallied, and called them a "political group." No political group worth its salt deploys murdering terrorists to strike fear into a populace, or wage wars against neighboring nations.
As long as Iran continues to send such forces -- be they regular military, or terrorists -- into Iraq, I see no problem with classifying them in one large group. Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of whether they wear a uniform. If they are acting on orders from the government they have sworn allegiance to, then they are terrorists regardless of the flag and leader they fight under. The move by the administration to label them "terrorists" for the sole goal of constraining their finances may not be a response in "like kind," but it's a step in the right direction. Iran doesn't seem to give a rip about the sanctions against them, so we're going to take further steps to constrain their financial gains and business deals.
Publius II
Either Iran is attacking us or they are replete with “rogue” elements who somehow persistently operate beyond the control of – and against the wishes of - the regime who leads Friday prayers in Tehran streets with “Death to America!” chants. The Iranian regime makes no bones about their intent. However, they quite skillfully leave their specific actions just ambiguous enough for us to reliably debate ourselves into inaction. And, as do all nations, we reserve the right to defend ourselves by any and all means against all attackers - states and terrorists alike.
These are not words seeking war. They are, however, words seeking clarity. That said, the special designation of the IRGC and Quds Force is certainly more clarity than in the past, insofar as it identifies the Administration’s position and policy. Nevertheless, labeling a sanctioned arm of a state sponsor of terrorism as a terrorist group – lumping it with al-Qaeda and other non-state actors – is perplexing in the sense that it removes clarity from an already elusive definition of what a terrorist group is (i.e. a state or non-state actor).
If we cannot affect the same pressure on such terror-training and -supplying organs of a state identified as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” then perhaps we need to revisit our self-defined and sanctioned actions against such state sponsors rather than shoe-horn their specific military branches into the definition of a terrorist group.
We cannot simply re-classify or redefine the actions of those who kill us and openly seek to destroy us. When a state’s military conducts regular attacks upon another, it is by definition an act of war. We may not like it. We may even try to redefine it. And we may ultimately decide that such provocation does not warrant an in-kind response. But it is what it is, regardless. We need not conflate the “non-state” or “sub-national” definition of a terrorist group in order to justify targeting – militarily or financially - any state or group that kills or seeks to kill our civilians or soldiers.
Iran has been a leading sponsor of terrorism int he region for thirty years. They actively recruit, train, fund, and deploy Hezbollah throughout the region to destabilize the governments of other nations, and to strike their "mortal" enemy, Israel. They have taken the fight to Lebanon, and in response, the Lebanese dilly-dallied, and called them a "political group." No political group worth its salt deploys murdering terrorists to strike fear into a populace, or wage wars against neighboring nations.
As long as Iran continues to send such forces -- be they regular military, or terrorists -- into Iraq, I see no problem with classifying them in one large group. Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of whether they wear a uniform. If they are acting on orders from the government they have sworn allegiance to, then they are terrorists regardless of the flag and leader they fight under. The move by the administration to label them "terrorists" for the sole goal of constraining their finances may not be a response in "like kind," but it's a step in the right direction. Iran doesn't seem to give a rip about the sanctions against them, so we're going to take further steps to constrain their financial gains and business deals.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home