Alan Lis: Designing each others’ military forces as terrorist organizations and growing tensions between Iran and the US

During recent months, the relations between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran have worsened severely. Washington and Teheran have entered the path of mutual threats- not that this is something new, of course, but with the nuclear deal signed between Iran and the group of world powers back in 2015 one could expect a slight of brighter future and more stability and security in the Middle East, as well as generally in world. The more recent occurrences, however, have seemed to demonstrate an utterly opposite direction that the Iranian-American relationship goes. 

The series of events that have further deteriorated relations between Iran and the US began with President Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal in May 2018. He did so despite other states- which sat at the same side of the negotiating table and signed the agreement along with the US- who publicly claimed that they had not noticed Iran violating terms of the agreement. Mr. Trump, however, was not eager to reason with such appeals-he had torpedoed the treaty and his predecessor in the White House who brokered the deal heavily in his presidential campaign in 2016 and criticized attempts to achieve long-term stability and security with Iran through such. This decision, understandably, angered Teheran and further complicated its, already difficult, relations with Washington.

Furthermore, the designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization by the US contributed largely to the significant intensification in tensions between the two countries. This constitutes the first example of this kind in history when a part of another state’s military was labelled as such. IRCG was established after the Islamic Revolution that took place in 1979 and is officially tasked with protecting the Islamic nature of the Iran’s system of government. Its members constitute the elite of the Iranian military, and the Guard Corps holds a tremendously significant position in Iran, which goes beyond the military sphere. The IRGC has for a long time enjoyed strong political and economic influences, reaching nearly all economic sectors. Amongst the numerous companies controlled by the IRGC, particularly those in construction and business sectors, as well as oil and gas industries, are worth being pointed out. 

Out of all units and divisions constituting the IRGC, the Quds Force- responsible for conducting intelligence, foreign covert and military operations and led by charismatic Qasem Soleimani- seems to have caused most troubles and influenced most the Washington’s decision to designate the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, particularly due to its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other non-state actors that the US, and the Western world in a large part, consider to be terrorist in nature. Through supporting mentioned organizations, as well as Shia militias in Iraq and Houthis in Yemen, the Quds Force serves as a tool of shaping foreign policy and allows Iran to increase its position in the region. The Quds Force is vital to Iran’s foreign policy, as well as national security.

The decision to designate the whole IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization not only angered average Iranians and further alienated them from the US (if Washington tries to ultimately win Iranians’ hearts and minds and through such weaken the theocratic regime and lead to its overthrow then it pursues the wrong path of doing so), but also met with a response from the authorities in Teheran who, in an act of revenge, designated the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) in the Middle East, as well as its allies, as terrorist organization themselves. Since these occurrences took place last month, the bilateral US-Iran relations have been a downhill to an extent not seen in a prolonged period of time.

Last Wednesday, President Trump ordered a new set of sanctions to target Iran’s iron, aluminium, steel, and copper sectors, further pressuring the state’s economy. Simultaneously, Washington deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier, which serves as ‘floating American diplomacy’, and later the Air Force bomber task force. The Americans are clearly increasing their military presence in the Middle East, but as the officials claim, this is not done for the purpose of starting a war- Iran shall rather see it, as many US officials came to explain, as a form of protection of American interests and security.

It is highly doubtful that Teheran would indeed recognize growing American military presence as such. Iran has already decided to walk away from some of the restrictions imposed by the nuclear treaty signed in 2015. While the direct military conflict between the US and Iran is somewhat unlikely, the intensification of instability in the Middle East, already deeply troubled, will certainly occur, and further downgrade in relations between the US and Russia, who stands behind the Iranian regime, is a likely outcome.

Alan Lis: U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria

The decision to withdraw the US troops fighting ISIS, known also as ISIL and IS, in Syria is one of the most controversial ones made by President Donal Trump. This announcement came as shocking news, as the ISIS fighters, have not been entirely defeated yet. Although it is true that the overwhelming majority of the IS units have been crashed by either side taking part in the military struggle in Syria-be it the Americans, Russians, Iran-backed Hezbollah, or the forces loyal to Syria’s president, Bashar al Assad- there are still some units of ISIL fighters defending what is left of their Caliphate.

The decision of Mr. Trump met with an extraordinary astonishment of many, including some of his advisors, and criticisms of even more. James Mattis, the, now former, Secretary of Defense resigned from his post, largely motivating his resignation with this very decision of Mr.Trump, expressing his opposition towards bringing American troops back home in a letter to the president, and suggesting Mr Trump that he deserves a secretary of state whose views are to a larger extent similar with his. Clearly, losing a Secretary of Defense of such military experience- Mattis is a four-star retired general- has been a profound loss for the Trump administration. More recently, Pentagon admitted that there is a chance of ISIS resurging in the months to come. In addition to that, General Votel, who has been leading the fight against the IS officially disagreed with Mr. Trump’s decision pointing at two things: that ISIL has not yet been defeated, and that US-backed forces in Syria are not able to effectively counter its threat on their own. 

Trump’s decision of withdrawing troops from Syria strikes as similar to Obama’s military withdrawal from Iraq. There is one fact, however, that is often looked over- Mr. Obama withdrew the US troops because he did not have much choice- the Iraqi government did not agree to let them stay longer. Indeed, in 2011, the Obama administration failed to negotiate the stay of, at least some part of, the American forces in Iraq, what resulted in bringing American troops home. In effect of such, President Obama fulfilled his election-campaign promise, the US budget was relieved to an extent, and the Iraqi authorities were pleased to clear their country out of the US military- both countries, one may assume, should have been satisfied. However, in the result of American soldiers going back home, Iraqi society lost its shield protecting from Maliki and his sectarian rule. Iraqis became vulnerable to Maliki’s violent and oppressive government, which only strengthened peoples’ frustration and mobilised many young and desperate men to seek protection for them and their families in extremist jihadi groups. As one of such was ISIS, it could be argued that the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 was a factor that eventually contributed, to an extent, to the rise of this very organization. Now, one may only wonder what will happen in Syria once the US troops will leave. 

To be fair, there has already been a taster of what to expect. Almost a month after Trump announced his decision, on the 16th of January, four Americans and at least 10 other people died in the explosion, responsibility for which was claimed by ISIS. That attack suggested, as argued by General Votel, that Syria is not ready for the US forces to be withdrawn. Violence does continue and certainly will do so.

The US forces shall remain present in Syria until the military capabilities of ISIS are destroyed completely and the internal situation of Syria becomes more stable. Although it is fairly impossible to eliminate every single terrorist affiliated with ISIS, the international effort, led by the US, must be continued until virtually all networks are destroyed and every scrap of a territory is recaptured, so that ISIS does not hold any stronghold. Otherwise, there is a great risk that either the resurgence of ISIS or creation of the ISIS’s successor, would take place sooner rather than later.


Link: mil.link/en/alan-lis-u-s-troop-withdrawal-from-syria/

Short link: mil.link/i/ustroop

Artur Brzeskot: It is time to buy U.S. Patriot air defense missile system

The U.S.-Poland relation remains the cornerstone of Central Europe security. And with the new defense guidelines that Washington and Warsaw singed in 2016, the alliance has never been stronger and more capable of contributing to security around the region. The Pentagon is operationalizing the military part of the strategy on lethal weapons sales to Poland which will help our country’s armed forces get the equipment it needs.

During President Donald Turmp’s first state visit to Warsaw, the White House confirmed status quo Poland. That time the Polish Ministry Defense and the United States signed a memorandum on the delivery of U.S. Patriot missile systems. The designation does not mean a change of balance of power (as some observers see it), but only to facilitate defense trade and technology sharing with the country on a level that the United States reserves for its closest friends and allies. As a result on November 17 of last year the government of American decided to sell an advanced missile defense system Patriot to Poland – at the earliest possible date.

On that occasion we found out the price $ 10,5 billion. Although the first phase of negotiation has not yet ended it is difficult to hide Polish confusion. Some experts say the price is unacceptable. Actual value is much more than financial means at the Polish Ministry Defense’s budget plans in 2018. May be it is more than Polish state’s capabilities. In my opinion Poland’s ambitious aims are in a simply imitation of Great Britain and France’s strategies during the 1950s and 60s. It is very important that we are discerning this need, however, this question is open: will we be able to conform our actions to the patterns?

We have known for ages that research-intensive and modern weaponry have raised the barriers that states must jump over if they are to become members of the great powers club. For this reason unable to spend on anywhere near American, Russian or Chinese level for research, development, or production, small and middle powers who try to compete find themselves constantly falling behind. They are usually in the second ranking powers’ position of imitating the more advanced weaponry of their wealthier allies as well rivals. In sum this problem will not be resolved even If we abandon short of the extreme electronic, the cost and compilation of conventional warfare exclude middle states from developing the full range of weapons for land, air, and sea warfare.

Great Britain wished to bypass this problem by building a nuclear force, but Britain became more dependent on the United States. France did not want to lose independence so it decided to go ahead with its own nuclear program. France may have done so believing that missile-firing submarines were the world’s first permanently invulnerable force, that for them military obsolescence had ended. For the sake of argument that the French had the right given the small numbers of submarines France has planned, however, only one or two will be at sea at any given time. In the face of technological advance it makes their detection and destruction increasingly easy.

What am I getting? There are here two aspects. First, we have to agree that by the purchase of U.S. Patriot missile system Poland constrains its own independent. By virtue of it that the American are likely to refuse us an access to the top-secret technology so we will find in this situation just as the British during the Cold War – without strategic independence. Second, I think about the scale of the technological employment. Eight batteries of U.S. Patriot missile system will certain not sufficient for the complete defense. In a case of limited or unlimited aims war those systems will play a supporting role. In the same way like French submarines and missiles would not play much more the meaning in the face of war between NATO and Warsaw Pact. It is very important to note that both the British and the French despite unbearable difficulties they have taken some efforts in order to imitate the best military system in the world – the United States. Poland is in the same conditions nowadays.

Our country has no a principal influence on the objective facts of structural causes and military effects in Europe, such as Great Britain and France have not had since 1945. No third great power could lie between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia (e.g. European Community, European Union, Germany, Three Seas Initiative … etc.). So, by these external conditions is only one of possible choices it is ever closer relation with the United States, alternatives are a buffer state or Russia’s domination. For this reason Poland should not drag out the purchase of U.S. Patriot missile system. Furthermore, international politics is not only a realm of socialization, but also as a competitive realm. The latter domain depends on construction solid deterrence and defense by copying of the best players. Otherwise, Poland will be doomed to strategic autarky and as a last resort to military deviancy.

We may look at the map of Europe our country is not outside the immediate arena of competition like America and Great Britain in XIX century – reversely Poland is in the middle of the area. Thus, it means simply that we have to conform to accepted and successful practices to rise to the top and to increase our chances for survival. The purchase of U.S. Patriot missile system does not give us guarantee to achieve this destination, but it gives us only warrant to the best pattern –  organization, procedures, technologies and arms.

In sum, these behaviors are returned by all history. Bismarck’s victories over Austria in 1866 and over France in 1870 have considerably exposed it and quickly led the major continental powers and some Asian states (e.g. Japan) to imitate the Prussian military staff system. Adolph Hitler’s victories in the early years World War II with blitzkrieg strategy were pattern for Israel in wars in the Middle East. After all America’s doctrine RMA Revolution Military Affairs (dance like butterfly sting like a bee) has taken much from German strategists.

We should remember about it, that is nothing new that contending states imitate the military innovations contrived by the country of greatest capability and ingenuity. Poland should go the same road, because it may give an opportunity to achieve the most important aim – national security. The purchase of U.S. Patriot missile system is a next step in order to copy the greatest military pattern in the world.

Photo: Raytheon


Link: mil.link/en/artur-brzeskot-it-is-time-to-buy-u-s-patriot-air-defense-missile-system/

Short link: mil.link/i/patriot


Polish version: Czas kupić amerykański system obrony powietrznej Patriot