While commentators have charged that Britain capitulated to Iran and handed them a humiliating victory in obtaining the release of the 15 British marines and sailors last week, it would appear that something more like the opposite is actually the case. But to understand why this is so, we have to look at the larger picture of internal Iranian politics against which the crisis played out.
Our Iranian problem is actually a problem with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, or in Persian, "Pasdaran") and allied institutions like the Basij militia. These are the "power" agencies that serve as the political base for the conservatives inside Iran.
In return for its support, political leaders like ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have allowed the IRGC to grow into a semi-autonomous state-within-a-state. Today it is a large and sprawling enterprise, that controls its own intelligence agency, manufacturing base and import-export companies, much like the Russian FSB or the Chinese military. Since coming to power, the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime has awarded IRGC-affiliated companies billions in no-bid contracts, increasing the already great perception among the Iranian public of its corruption.
It is widely believed that Supreme Leader Khamenei put President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into office as a means of counterbalancing Rafsanjani, and has been regretting this decision ever since as Ahmadinejad spouted off about the Holocaust and pushed Iran deeper and deeper into isolation. The president comes out of the IRGC (specifically, the Ramazan Unit of the Quds Force), and has used that organization and the Basij to help consolidate his power by moving against more liberal political opponents.
No one knows exactly why the naval wing of the IRGC took the 15 Britons captive at the end of last month. Some have speculated that it was a matter of freelancing by the IRGC's command, or the navy, reacting to a local target of opportunity.
The IRGC may have wanted some bargaining chips to help spring of its members captured in Iraq. It does not seem to be an accident, though, that the capture came quickly after the UN Security Council passed a very specific set of sanctions against Iran that targeted not just IRGC-affiliated companies and financial institutions like the Ammunition and Metallurgy Industries Group and the Bank Sepah -- organizations suspected of dealing with nuclear or ballistic missile activities -- but also a series of senior IRGC commanders, including Morteza Rezaei, the Guards' deputy commander, Vice Admiral Ali Ahmadian, chief of the Joint Staff and Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi, commander of the Basij. By freezing Iranian assets, the UN was hitting the IRGC where it hurt -- in its pocketbook.
Clearly, whoever was responsible for the decision to take the Britons prisoner was hoping to rekindle some of the fervor of the 1979 revolution and use that to force the rest of the leadership into a confrontation with Britain and the US. Hence the televised "confessions" that hearkened back to the taking of hostages in the US embassy (the "nest of spies") and rallies against foreign embassies.
But the gambit didn't work and there was clearly a behind-the-scenes power struggle between different parts of the regime. Ahmadinejad was supposed to give a major speech to a huge rally in Tehran, which he canceled at the last moment, and when he did speak, it was to announce that the captives would soon be released. The IRGC prisoners in Iraq were released, but Britain did not apologize or admit wrongdoing in return. So it would appear that it was the Iranians who blinked first, before the incident could spiral into a genuine 1979-style hostage crisis.
All of this does not mean that there are necessarily "radicals" and "moderates" within the clerical regime in Tehran. Those pulling the IRGC's chain are themselves committed to a revolutionary agenda and doubtless want a nuclear weapon as badly as the Pasdaran commanders.
One of the alleged reasons Khamenei didn't want Rafsanjani as president was because he was not keen enough on the nuclear program. The Iranian regime is not, however, a totalitarian juggernaut; there are important splits within the leadership and there is an important faction that does not want Iran to be isolated. The IRGC has evolved into something like a mafia organization, with extensive economic interests that lead both to corruption and potential vulnerability to sanctions imposed by the international community.
It is important to remember that those who were responsible for taking the British forces captive wanted an escalation of the confrontation, both to improve their domestic standing and to punch back for sanctions that were beginning to bite. This suggests that what the Bush administration has been doing -- slowly ratcheting up the pressure through the use of diplomacy to create an international coalition that now includes the Russians -- is the proper course to be on.
Francis Fukuyama is dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and chairman of the American Interest.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/The American Interest
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS