JOURNAL: Open loop systems and war with Iran

Here's a systems view of the escalating tensions between the US and Iran and why it will likely result in war. The current situation is open loop -- an open loop system is one where all participants are regularly adding inputs without any consideration of the output/outcome. Feedback loops, like direct diplomatic contact or the use of international bodies/mediators to adjudicate disputes, that could typically serve to mitigate further deterioration have been intentionally turned off by those that want this conflict to occur. As are result, inputs from allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia (both fearful of growing Iranian power), impetus from guerrillas/militias forcing sectarian conflict, fears over ongoing nuclear development, mutual military preparation for conflict, and a need to assign blame for escalating counter-insurgency failures continue to drive it forward. At some point in the not too distant future, unless the feedback loops are reinstated, the system will inevitably produce an outcome that will force a war.

NOTE: This mechanism puts the January 20th, 2007 attack on US forces in Karbala into perspective. During this attack, guerrillas posed as US military personnel (complete with GMC SUVs, US weapons, radios, IDs, US military camo, and a command of English) entered the provincial governor's compound. They took four US soldiers hostage and killed another through a grenade attack on the governor's offices. They then escaped the compound with Iraqi military in loose pursuit. The four US soldiers captured in the attack were later found with the abandoned SUVs dead, killed execution style. As Bill Rogio maintains, this was likely an Iranian operation (Qods) similar in form to the Hezbollah attack that set off the recent war in Lebanon. Expect more of this escalating tit for tat in the future.

Comments

[Duncan Kinder]

"Feedback loops, like direct diplomatic contact or the use of international bodies/mediators to adjudicate disputes, that could typically serve to mitigate further deterioration have been intentionally turned off by those that want this conflict to occur"

The question then becomes whether those that do NOT want this conflict to occur can - nevertheless - turn feedback loops back on.

The nation-state - or at least the Bush administration - seems unwilling and perhaps even incapable of doing so.

So can someone or something else. The pope, for example?

Could we, through some new transnational, networked feedback loop service, effect this?

We have spent a lot of time on this blog discussing how transnational, network type global guerrillas pose new, even black swan type threats of various sorts.

At issue now is whether transnational, network type organizations could pose new, even black swan type solutions of various sorts.

[french swede the rootless vegetable]

Question is, what about Iranians to negative feedback loops?

I believe that short of them folding abjectly, the Bushadmin will continue to provoke escalting diplomatic incidents like the one in Erbil with the Iranian diplomats.

I'm a bit frustrated by the one-eyed coverage of events, everybody is mesmerised by the Bushadmin and consider the Iranian government as the blackest of black boxes.

Contrast with kremlinology. Sure, they're was more at stake and Russia is culturally closer, but still...

Everyone speculate on what they can do, not what they want...

Here's my 0,002€:
"It's do or die for the Crusaders, and they got only about half a year to do it. We can beat them like Hizbollah did with the Zionists, but the costs and risks are very high, not only we could lose power, but our motherland could suffer a lot; it already suffered plenty in the war against Saddam, may his soul suffer ten thousand time more than all our martyrs in Hell.

So, the best course is to lie down, not beeing provoked, and if worst comes to worst, at least that is in a way shows as clearly as possible for the naked agression it is.
That means our allies [SCIRI, Al-Dawa and Maliki]in Iraq as well; it could be good if Sadr took on them so that it weakens both him and them, but they consider him an ally of ours["stupid infidels" eye-rolling].

Then an embargo is the worst we face, but it 'll last no longer than Bush's presidency, so in exchange for a short hard while we could gain long-term dominant status both in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world".

Someone got a fistful of cents, or at least a couple?

[Azr@el]

A military confrontation with iran can be won; the price? America's status as a superpower. We have the economic and military supremacy to drive a final victory home against the iranians, it will cost us greatly and the u.s. military will probably never fully recover from what we will ask of it, much as the english never recovered from world war I, but ultimately we can prevail on the battlefield. The iranians will most likely launch their full uncoventional might against targets of oppourtunity across the planet in an attempt to implode america's extraterritorial economy. The score? We'll win the conventional war and they'll win the unconventional war. The end result will be a forced treaty shoved down the throats of an embittered , unconquered and , most importantly, unoccupied iranian nation; after iraq and after a war with iran the u.s. simply won't be in a position to occupy new jersey, let alone iran. The treaty and the uneasy peace that it will bring will alst probably a generation, long enough for the vengeful iranians to secretly rearm for a sequel with an exhausted and crippled pax americana that may not be up for part two of this conflict. Who knows maybe the chinese will pull our bacon out of the fire when that day arises, stranger things have happened, ni hao ma :) .

[french swede the rootless vegetable]

@Azrael: The equilibriuum you describe when the feeback loops have collapsed is quite plausible.

But how far have you to go to reach it? The equivalent of the fire-bombings of Hamburg and Dresden simply will not be accepted, even Britain would leave NATO in such a case.

The plight caused by the embargo in Iraq was tolerated, but one caused by EBO's lasting months (years?) that throw Iran back to a pre-industrial existence level certainly won't (look at Lebanon), not to speak of the global economic repurcussions even less so.

It's not inconceivable that the international community would then dissolve the UN and refound it (as the "Union of Nations"?) without the US, with sanctions until war crime suspects are handed over to the ICC as a condition for readmission.

With the US a pariah, China would then become the dominant major power...

Rather speculative, I admit; but then, stranger thtings have happened in history, and we are at a juncture where the aleas are being jacted (:

[french swede the rootless vegetable]

@Duncan Kinder:

the pope? no offense, but don't make me laugh.

"The nation-state - or at least the Bush administration - seems unwilling and perhaps even incapable of doing so"

You could say the same about the international community.
As for the Bushadmin, it has retreated from empiricism: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/12/18/suskind_empiricism.html#more

"whether transnational, network type organizations could pose new, even black swan type solutions of various sorts"

That could be a negative force feedback within the realm of reality; it's hard by definition to imagine one, but maybe you have something in mind?

[Valdis]

Yes, sadly those lack of loops [connections] have things going in the wrong direction. I have been updating my Mideast Network Map based on the News. Now the network map self-organizes into what will likely be the "sides" in a greater Mideast war.
A couple of variables...
* Look at who is caught in middle...
* What will China and India do?

http://orgnet.com/mideast.html

Disconnection is dangerous. Yet, the pattern of disconnects AND connections that allow two opposing clusters to emerge is most dangerous! The tipping point to war?

[Valdis]

Continuation of my previous comment...

With two opposing clusters we have more loops WITHIN the clusters and less and less loops between the clusters --> leading the two clusters [now echo chambers] to foment themselves to greater conflict.

If you look at the Mideast Network Map the big player in the middle is Russia... they do not have a rep for mediation! Of course China has us by the economic nuts/nets and they have economic dependencies with the other side also[Syria/Iran]. So they are in the "middle" economically. Amazing how Russia and China are the most "between" in key world networks. See this web page for definition of network betweenness...

http://orgnet.com/sna.html

[pm2075]

If any war is to occur w/ Iran, Israel will be the one to get into the fray first. U.S. will be muddling through much more serious issues with Congress' current deep displeasure on the current Iraq crisis and be relegated to providing logistical and intelligence support if any. The Israelies have their jets with bombs ready on a moments notice. They're just waiting for conditions to look favorable whether risk-wise or political.

[Bob Magnant]

What does the average American really know about Iran?

Definitely not enough to be agreeable to our entering into a widened war there but probably apathetic enough to ignore those signs that are all around us. I worked within Iran for our government over 35 years ago. At that time, the US was looking for Iran to be a stabilizing force in the region and Israel was jointly developing a nuclear weapons program with them!

In the wake of September 11th, I wrote my first thoughts about Iran, drafting a memoir that I sent to a few friends to counter the growing prejudices toward all Middle East people that were beginning to surface then [pages 16-28 of my book]. It was based on my memories of working in Tehran in 1971.

Then in 2005, with the conflict widening throughout the Middle East, I decided to expand my concerns also into a novel that I called 'The Last Transition...', which was also intended to address the growing issues of globalization and Internet security as well as our common interests with Iran. At the time, I had no idea who my target audience was but I did have a few points of view and I felt that by sharing them with others, I just might help to save the world. Let's face it; I'm an optimist.

On January 2006, after I’d received my first printed copies of the original 275-page story, Iran had just jumped into the headlines with its opposition to the UN's ongoing nuclear inspection program. Then in April, Seymour Hersh’s article in 'The New Yorker' magazine warned of the ‘planned US air attacks’ on Tehran's nuclear enrichment facilities. He saw this as a replay of the war in Iraq and it made me realize that there was more story to be told. I expanded my novel with the events of the day into 470-pages that I now share with everyone over the Internet. My deadline was to finish the story before someone bombed Iran and that I did! What's next I don't know.

The book’s been thoroughly edited and is based predominantly on real events. I want more people to be involved with what is going on around us. I've already sent copies to key members of Congress and my story is currently a free PDF download from the Internet for anyone at:

http://web.mac.com/magnant/iWeb/Last_Transition/

Its main theme is positive, insisting that it only takes one person to make a difference. Since it's difficult to get smart people involved with such enormous problems, I’ve tried to use a novel to attract readers. I kept the original title, but now I address the need for a more secure Internet in this broader context of the Middle East and with the greater stakes of no war with Iran! Such an act of war would simply be criminal.

Unfortunately, the real issues of Iran, Iraq and Israel are not going to simply go away by themselves anytime soon so I feel that it's time for concerned people everywhere to get involved with these issues. A 91-year old woman wrote to me that 'of course I always wonder if there were no oil in Iran, would the involvement be nil?'

If you find the issues interesting and would like to read more on Iran, I'd recommend Persian Mirrors: the elusive face of Iran, , (2000) by Elaine Sciolino, the Paris Bureau Chief of the New York Times and The Soul of Iran: a nation’s journey to freedom (2005) by Afshin Molavi of Reuters and the Washington Post.

Enjoy... Get real. Get involved!

Bob Magnant
http://homepage.mac.com/magnant/Menu24.html

[Duncan Kinder]

""whether transnational, network type organizations could pose new, even black swan type solutions of various sorts""

"That could be a negative force feedback within the realm of reality; it's hard by definition to imagine one, but maybe you have something in mind?"

I have no concrete suggestions right now; I just think that we must seriously think along these lines.

[londamium]

I think you're over-reaching a bit here - the Iranians and the US have plenty of back-channel routes for keeping friction within tolerable levels ( Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, UAE, Qatar, Oman etc ). The US is talking tough, but there's a big gap between the rhetoric and execution ( those pesky aircraft carriers are still nowhere near the Persian Gulf, in spite of the breathless assumption that there are two on station ).

FWIW, it's always worth paying attention to Ali Larijani's movements ( he was in Saudi again last week ), as this is the guy who is in charge of Iran's national security policy. The Iranian diplomatic corps is still racking up the airmiles at a healthy clip - and all the people they talk to end up talking to the US.

At any rate, it's certainly debatable that the "open loop" is as you describe - there has been plenty of "politics" of late, in both the US and Iran, over how to dampen the situation and rein in their respective presidents.

Key date to watch out for is February 21st - don't be surprised if the Iranians "finesse" Rice's diplomatic offering by announcing a suspension and insisting that she make good on the Martini proposal and get her skanky ass to Teheran.

[Z]

I agree with lodanium that there are some back channel cotacts. Iraq's president and foriegn minister, both Kurds, have been hobnobbing in Damascus and Tehran. They would make the best sense as gobetweens since the Kurds are as close to an ally as the U.S. has in Iraq and also are on good terms with Iran.

Iran also has every reason to avoid conflict with the U.S. All they need do is bide their time and America will eventually be forced out of Iraq.

Still, it is plausable that Iran was behind the Karbala raid. If so, the foolowing points have to be considered;

1) Iran must be very confident that the U.S., despite the bluster, is only bluffing.

2) Why has the U.S., which daily accuses Iran of neferious deeds, not (yet) laid the blame on Iran for this raid?...unless they really are bluffing and Iran is calling them on it

In the end, I doubt Iran would take such a risk. There's too much chance the operation could go awry. They couldn't afford to have one of the assailants captured and sing.

[french swede the rootless vegetable]

Londamium: "those pesky aircraft carriers are still nowhere near the Persian Gulf, in spite of the breathless assumption that there are two on station"

First the USS Stennis was slated to replace the Kitty Hawk, a few days ago it was changed to be the second carrier in the Gulf instead.
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/uss-reagan-will-deploy-asia-t32123.html

But first it's sailing to San Diego, where it is to pick up 80 planes.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/21/news/story10.html

So, the Stennis & the Reagan are to sail west more or less together...

It takes about 20 days to reach East Asia. That's the end of february; by then a lot of the troops to deploy should have arrived...

It takes about a week to the Arabian from the South China Sea. If, by pure coïncidence, should a Serious Incident happen around that time, the Stennis and the Reagan can very conveniently sail there together. Three carrier groups are better than two.

They'd be there at the begining of march. What a jolly good serendipity, it's the best time for a spring offensive in the region.

[Azr@el]

I think it's a fargone conclusion that iranians were not just behind the karabala raid but actually the ones who executed it; the degree of efficiency in the operation, 5 u.s. fatalities & zero casulties for the attackers points to the high end special forces of a nation state. Plus the target was a computer loaded with u.s. intel on iraqi shia factions recieving iranian aid. I understand that it is common to discount the abilities of the iranian armed forces and intel services but that's a luxury for armchair generals , for national policy makers it's a prescription for catastrophic miscalculation.

My gut tells me bush II is seeking a war with iran to redeem his presidency after the fiasco in iraq and the stalemate in afghanistan; third times the charm. But he may be sleepwalking us into the worst military blunder since world war one. This war will make bush II essential reading in future history text books but not i fear not in the way he may hope.

[Bob Magnant]

"Those Iranians are continuing to pursue nuclear weapons, they still export terror and they continue to flaunt their hostility toward America.

The Tehran regime had agreed to international inspections and now they’ve kicked out the inspectors. I know that they’re hiding something from the civilized world and I’m absolutely convinced that they’re going to get a bomb unless somebody stops them.

I am ready to do now what no future president would have the courage to do. We’re the most powerful nation in the world and I’m going to destroy their weapons-making capability now before it ever gets the chance to bear fruit. Saving Iran is going to be my legacy!" - The Last Transition... pp 308-309

I guess that you've already read my story. Or was it Seymour Hersh's 'The Iran Plans' article of last April?

[french swede the rootless vegetable]

Azrael: "bush II [will be] essential reading in future history text books but not i fear not in the way he may hope."

Yes, Bush II will be the subject of Tuchman's "March of Folly Vol. II" all by itself.
Sequels are usually worse than their predecessors, aren't they? In French, "séquelle" means "bad aftermath, negative consequences"...

"it's a f[ore]gone conclusion that iranians were [...] the ones who executed it; the degree of efficiency in the operation [...] points to the high end special forces of a nation state"

Not so fast. Hadn't the Iraqi army such special forces? With as much combat experience as the Iranians from that little war in the 80's? Where are they now? Oh yeah, Bremer fired their asses & kicked them on the street.

[Azr@el]

ad Rootless veggie;
If bathist could execute this, excuse the pun, it would've been a blood bath. They would slaughtered as many shia iraqi soldiers as possible and claimed the attack on the jcc as great victory. Have you heard any claims of responsibilies? Was anyone except u.s. troops killed? And the information on the laptop, rumour has it that it contained a list of sources, people who were reporting on the movements of iranian backed shia militias in the south. If you were an iranian IRGC officer and the u.s. was on kill/capture missions against your pesonnel, wouldn't such a list, so critical to tying up your own force protection loose ends, be worth taking the risk of coming out from the shadows into broad daylight for a quick snatch and grab?

Let's examine the opeartion, the attackers have detailed intel on their target, sweep in speaking english, wearing u.s. uniforms and posing as americans(the iranians are a multiethnic people with a wide genotype, they could probably easily find blond haired, green eyed operatives from their northern provinces, black skinned iranians from their gulf provinces and asiatics from their eastern provinces to flesh out a psudeo-american squad ), they grab the laptop and it's owners, then they blow a few humvees in the compound. This does two things; a) it gives them a distraction, everyone thinks they're under mortar bombardment b) it makes it hard for the base commander to discern if any people are missing, afterall the natural assumption is that they're dead in the humvees. This gives the commandos plenty of time to do a quick and dirty interrogation of the captured g.i.s to pull the passwords for the laptop.

Then the vehicles and the bodies are dumped on the outskirts of a sunni neighborhood to give the impression that sunni insurgents pulled off the raid. This gives the commandos plenty of time to drift away and get the data safely to analysts back in iran. Anticipate a whole lot of dead collaborators in the next few weeks as the iranians and their allies clean house in the south.

Again if the iraqi insurgents could pull off something like this they would've slaughtered every shia government soldier in sight and just as equally they would've never killed the u.s. soldiers, they were too valuable as stars of the famous iraqi reality tv show: "queer eye for the decapitator". Plus there would be boasting and a videotape of this all over al jezera, the secretive black ops feel of this raid points to someone that wants to stay in the shadows. I think the iranians have made their bones with this one and are probably now slugging like major leaguers as far as commando raids go. This is definately a top notch operation. I tried to point this out before with the lebanon summer war of last year, the iranians are not living in the 1980's anymore, they've been evolving as a military force largely in secret; they have a very good idea of how we fight, but that's not a two way street, we are almost completely in the dark about their capabilites, force structure, tactics and current equipment.

[londamium]

French Swede:

The USS Reagan is being deployed to replace the Kittyhawk whilst it's in dry dock - so it will likely take up position in the Sea of Japan.

John

The dangerous cycle is the self-reinforcing closed loop - aka the Bush administration "decision-making"/"policy" process which has shown a remarkable talent for rejecting accurate analysis/information in favor of deranged "intelligence". For some reason, even after nigh on 4 years and ample evidence that the insurgency in Iraq is "local" and a product of the occupation, Centcom is still describing armed opposition as "anti-Iraqi forces", as if they're something alien and extraneous. Back in 2004 Rumsfeld was droning endlessly on about the perfidious Syrians and warning of a muscular US response if the Syrians didn't do the right thing; AFAICT nothing changed in Iraq, and yet nothing happened.

One of the drivers of US-Iran confrontation is the propensity of the Bush administration to believe its own propaganda and its steadfast refusal to step outside the narrow frame it's constructed for itself. Couple this with the US's inability to configure the Iraqi government into, to use Bush's locution, an "ally in the war on terror"( ie an entity that reproduces its hostility to Iran, rather than the perplexing reality of a post-Saddam polity that is developing an entente cordiale with Teheran) and a dawning realisation that the Iranians are winning the political battle in Iraq, and temper tantrums coupled with harsh words are what you get. Frustration and, to some degree, a lot of dick-swinging to prove that you're not impotent.

What is notable, however, is that the administration is going to have great difficulty in expanding its closed-loop to forces on the ground that execute policy. It's all very well talking about "hot pursuit", but as the Iranians aren't actually running cross-border hit and run ops, or, as far as anyone can tell, actively engaged in attacking US forces in Iraq, the "target" is far too elusive and chimerical for the already-stretched and fully-tasked US forces on the ground to confront; it's a shadow exercise.

[tim302]

Duncan,

MMORPG's? Blogging is great for people to communicate and learn to trust their own ideas, but at some level, it doesn't give people the same kind of agency that comes from collectively solving a problem.

I don't think the right MMORPG platform is out there right now to facilitate the kind of political engagement you're looking for, but I think it's the logical next step.

[Vigilante]

We are afflicted with misleaders. Bush, Cheney, Blair, and Olmert: Axis of evil. Impeach, impeach, impeach and impeach.