Wait a minute...

I just noticed something. Take a look at Iran's Asymetric Special Force Team White:

And now take a look at this picture of Lady Gaga from her "Bad Romance" video:



I just hope these guys don't dress up in a bubble bikini, for our sake...

On Swarming

I'm just as surprised as Andrew Kravetz that Somalian pirates would once again mistakenly attack a US Navy warship--this time the frigate USS Nicholas--with predictable results. While Combined Task Force 150 is fortunate to be squaring off against an opponent which, for the time being, seems to prefer to eliminate itself from the gene pool, that's not to say that all opponents will be so foolhardy. And they might not look too different from the pirates in the Gulf of Aden...

The US Naval Institute once again tackles the threat from "swarming", essentially network-centric warfare upon the high seas (FP Online has more). The idea gained popularity in the wake of the Millennium Challenge 2002 wargames, when retired Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper "decimated" the US Navy (see Adam Elkus' Red Team Journal for much more on the subject here and here).

In 2002, Gen. Van Riper was charged with playing the "Red" force--the enemy in a training exercise--in a computer simulation. The US--the "Blue" force--would be invading a "fictional" country in the Middle East *cough*Iraq*cough*. Van Riper sought to exploit the weaknesses in the US military's doctrine and equipment. Among Van Riper's bag of tricks was an anti-shipping force comprised of small boats, civilian aircraft, and portable anti-ship missiles (such as the Chinese-made C802, which struck the Israeli warship INS Hanit). Although taking massive casualties and using suicide attacks, the "Red" Navy was able to sink a large portion of the US fleet. The US military, presumably upset with the outcome, "re-floated" the fleet and continued with the exercise.

Fast-forward to the present-day. Iran is purchasing several speedboats, and already possesses anti-ship missiles like the C802 (it was assumed that the C802 that struck the Hanit was supplied by Iran). Could a navy such as this pose a threat?

"Springbored" at the US Naval Institute seems to think not. He notes that modern-day helicopters can make quick work of a speedboat attack--witness the success of the US Army's OH-58D Kiowa Warrior during Operation Prime Chance.

Still, it's worth mentioning that the success of the Hezbollah attack against the INS Hanit was a result of gross complacency on the part of the Israeli Navy. The crew ignored warnings of Hezbollah anti-ship missiles, turned the ship's defensive systems off, and lowered their guard as they ate dinner that evening. Perhaps Iran could capitalize on complacency by hiding ships among merchant traffic, and attacking during poor weather--when helicopters would be unlikely to take off or land.

It's certainly a dangerous option, and the US Navy would do well to take measures to prevent such an attack.

Ed. Note: I deleted a portion of this blog entry where I misinterpreted Sprinbored's post. I pray he doesn't track me down with a C802 :)

Al-Qaeda Threatens US Naval Forces

Courtesy of the SWJ daily roundup, I came across an article from the Voice of America regarding a latest series of threats against US Naval forces operating in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Aden.

The U.S. Navy says it is on heightened alert after receiving what it calls "credible" al-Qaida threats against American warships and commercial vessels in the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and the Persian Gulf. The latest threat from Osama bin Laden's terror network calls on followers to gather intelligence about ships and their sailors so that they can be targeted for attacks.

The threat, made on December 31 in a message posted on an extremist Internet Web site, prompted the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to elevate the risk for all U.S. military and commercial ships sailing through an area stretching from Somalia to the Persian Gulf.

The message contained detailed instructions, particularly on what type of intelligence should be collected from each U.S. warship. The unnamed author says al-Qaida will use the information to target American vessels, including aircraft carriers, submarines, and all naval equipment deployed in the region. He urges potential informants not to underestimate the importance of any piece of information they can gather.

How might al-Qaeda threaten US Navy ships in these waters? They might take a play from Hezbollah's book, following their successful attack on the Israeli corvette INS Hanit with either an Iranian-made vehicle-mounted C-802 missile or a Kowsar missile during the Lebanon War of 2006. David Axe at War is Boring reports on the measures being taken by the Israeli Navy to guard against low-end threats from insurgent and hybrid organizations, increasingly armed with sophisticated high-tech weaponry--steps that don't seem to have been taken by the US Navy.

The use of small, fast boats to evade detection and overwhelm the defenses of larger ships is not without precedent. In 2002, retired Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper inflicted massive "casualties" on the US Navy during the opening stages of a war game known as Millennium Challenge 2002 by overwhelming US Navy ships with anti-ship missiles launched from land, from fishing vessels, and from light civil aircraft. Certainly, anti-ship missiles might be found in the arsenals of state actors such as China, North Korea and Iran, but also in the hands of non-state actors such as Hezbollah, which acquired a number of anti-ship missiles from Iran prior to the Lebanon War of 2006.

Hopefully, the US Navy can learn a few lessons from the Israelis. I would hate to see a state or non-state actor--or more embarrassingly, Somalian pirates--exploit a few vulnerabilities in the Navy's surface fleet in the Gulf of Aden or the Persian Gulf.

When being a star student is not good...

The government of Iran cracks down on bright students which might present a threat to them, stealing a play from successful tyrants throughout history, including that of their former nemesis. The Wall Street Journal reports:

On Wednesday, progovernment militia attacked and beat students at a school in northeastern Iran. Since last Sunday's massive protests nationwide, dozens of university students have been arrested as part of an aggressive policy against what are known as Iran's "star students."

In most places, being a star means ranking top of the class, but in Iran it means your name appears on a list of students considered a threat by the intelligence ministry. It also means a partial or complete ban from education.

The term comes from the fact that some students have learned of their status by seeing stars printed next to their names on test results.

Mehrnoush Karimi, a 24-year-old law-school hopeful, found out in August that she was starred. She ranked 55 on this year's national entrance exam for law schools, out of more than 70,000 test-takers. That score should have guaranteed her a seat at the school of her choice. Instead, the government told her she wouldn't be attending law school due to her "star" status.

As the WSJ notes, the Iranian government's fear of student uprisings is actually quite real--academic institutions have often sown the seeds of revolt and rebellion, to include Iran's students some thirty years ago. Where's the "irony" tag?

Iranian students have a long track record of political activism. After the Islamic Revolution of 1979 toppled the then-king, Shah Mohamad Reza Pahlavi, universities underwent massive purges of students and professors considered disloyal to the Islamic regime. The process was known as the Cultural Revolution.

Students accepted to public universities (which are generally better and more competitive than private schools) were screened for moral behavior and for loyalty to Islam and the new regime. Still, the practice, known as gozinesh, didn't ban individuals. Applicants could reapply again and again.

Gozinesh ended in 1997 when new leadership came to power and rolled back some social restrictions. Today, activists blame Mr. Ahmadinejad not only for resurrecting the screening process but also for adding an element of punishment by imposing the lifetime education ban on star students.

"The government is extremely terrified of student uprisings because they are young and idealistic and have shown over and over that they are willing to stand up for injustice," says Saleh Nikbakht, a lawyer who represents several star students, reached by phone in Tehran. "Iranian universities are like a ticking bomb."

The suppression of bright performers reminds me of something I've touched upon in a previous post regarding the ancient Greek tyrant Trysabulus, and a characteristic common among many dictators. Herodotus the historian writes that, when asked how he kept order in his kingdom, Thrysabulus did not answer. Instead, he went into the garden and, with a scythe, proceeded to lop the tops off the highest of the weeds. In this way, he demonstrated that one needed to remove or intimidate those who stood above their peers, as they would be the most likely threats to him. Indeed, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

A story of two Irans

Once again, we are reminded of the deep resentment towards the ruling parties in Iran, particularly among the youth. I'd have analysis, but I have a day job to go to.

Courtesy of the Washington Post (H/T SWJ morning update)

Thousands of Iranians took to the streets Wednesday to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran, but the annual state-sponsored anti-American rally turned into another sign of the deep divisions persisting in this country. As pro-government demonstrators ritually chanted "Death to America!" outside the former US Embassy, opposition protesters used the occasion to vent their anger over a disputed presidential election in June and the harsh crackdown on subsequent protests. Converging on a square about half a mile from the former embassy, the opposition marchers denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with shouts of "Death to the dictator!" The rival demonstrations - and ensuing street clashes between protesters and security forces - illustrated the split that has come to define Iran three decades after Islamic revolutionaries overthrew the US-backed shah and branded America "the Great Satan." While Iran's ruling ayatollahs and government leaders maintain their entrenched distrust of and enmity toward the United States, the young people who form the bulk of Iran's population have no memory of those revolutionary days, and many opposition supporters favor a more open society and greater international engagement. The government has struggled to quell protests for five months, deploying security forces on the streets of Tehran and officially banning opposition demonstrations. Yet, on Wednesday, anti-government demonstrators openly defied the ban, even as police fired tear gas and warning shots. In video clips captured by cellphone cameras, helmeted police officers could be seen beating protesters, including women, with batons.

More at SWJ's morning update.

Big Trouble in Little Mexico

Today's link-of-the-day post is a tag-team from Adam Elkus (writing at Red Team Journal) and Greg Milsaps regarding the security threat down south. Very little analysis will follow this because, well, I'm kind of lazy today and want to get back to reading War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age. Hey, we're about to go home--we've got that last-day-of-school mindset right now (but seriously, be safe).

First, AE notes the following regarding the encroachment of Iranian influence in Latin America (and, although he doesn't specifically say Venezuela...yeah, Venezuela)

Granted, US room for maneuver in [Latin America] is very small. Like in Mexico, residual distrust of the US impedes a more active role in combating the threat. But the threat is real and serious thought should be devoted towards managing or containing the expansion of Iranian influence. The first–and most important–step that must be taken is to ascertain the nature of proxy penetration in Latin America. At least in the open source there is little concrete information about the extent of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) in Latin America, and a great deal of rumor and conjecture about the tri-border region, Mexico, and Iran.

The next is a collection of links from Goyo (Greg in Mexico) at The Suppliants. There are a number of great articles here, so I'm just going to quote him:

"America Fiddles in Asia While Mexico Burns on Our Very Border," @ Fabius Maximus

"Mexico: Emergence of An Unexpected Threat," @ STRATFOR Global Intelligence

"A 'New' Dynamic in the Western Hemisphere Security Environment: The Mexican Zetas and Other Private Armies," @ the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute

"Desertion, Low Morale, and Readiness: Assessing the Mexican Army's Involvement in the War Against the Cartels and Its Impact on Capabilities for Traditional Responses," @RGE Monitor

Don't forget Iran...

About a month ago, Greyhawk posted the following at The Mudville Gazette:

Dear Iran
Don't be fooled - you have about 48 hours until Brittney Spears does something to make us forget you.
Sincerely,
America

Indeed, tabloid news has certainly grabbed our attention as of late with the deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcette, not to mention the usual celebrity hijinks such as pictures of bi-curious pop star Katy Perry naked in the bathtub eating pizza on Twitter. (I can only imagine who will come across this site looking for some combination of "bi-curious, Katy Perry, naked, pizza, and Twitter")

But even though the Iranian election has largely disappeared from the news, the resulting turmoil has exposed deep rifts in Iranian society, and I would suspect that we haven't seen the end of this. Robert Haddick reports at Small Wars Journal on the possibility of further political disruption:

Five weeks after Iran’s presidential elections it is now clear that Iran’s ruling elite has split into two factions. The question now is whether Iran’s security forces will split.

Former presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami have now publicly questioned the legitimacy of President Ahmadinejad’s reelection. In doing so, they have questioned the legitimacy of Supreme Ruler Khamenei’s authority (see NYT, Economist). This is a dramatic development and almost guarantees a deep political crisis inside Iran.

The timing and manner of Rafsanjani and Khatami’s falling-out is especially notable. Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had suppressed street protests, thus removing the pressure of a visible short-term crisis in the country. But in spite of that breathing space and after having several weeks to consider their options, Rafsanjani and Khatami still made the fateful decision to publicly oppose the Supreme Ruler and the power of the IRGC. Being experienced insiders, they would only opt for this course if they have high confidence in their odds. And they must also know that other dictum about palace revolts: “If you strike at the king, you must strike to kill.” A compromise political settlement with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would not likely be a stable outcome.

Interesting developments, particularly as Iran has fallen off of the radar as far as legitimate news is concerned.

Great article, except for one point

Adam Elkus, who writes for a number of prominent defense and foreign policy blogs (e.g., Red Team Journal), just wrote an article for the Huffington Post in which he examines many misconceptions regarding the latest round of protests in Iran.

One misconception that Elkus tackles is the belief that social networking sites (i.e., Twitter and Facebook) were responsible for organizing the protests. In fact, as Elkus points out, their role may not have been as great as we might have initially thought. Elkus does not go so far as to say that these sites were entirely inconsequential, however. Personally, I think that the effects of social networking sites on the Iranian election certainly merit further study, and I'm inclined to belive that they might have at least had some effect on organizing.

However, I do have a slight disagreement with Elkus' conclusion to his article. Take a look:

The narcissistic way that the pundit class thinks about Iran is eerily similar to the delusions fostered by reading an exclusive diet of celebrity gossip magazines and TMZ.com. Many people form a false intimacy with the celebrities whom they read about and make "Angelina" and "Megan" central characters in their own lives. The media's fixation on placing America at the center of Iran's domestic drama is the political equivalent of convincing yourself that you're on a first-name basis with Megan Fox just because you follow her Twitter feed.

But while trying to talk to Ms. Fox in person may result in you getting roughed up by a steroid-abusing Sunset Strip bouncer, acting on the belief that America can and should influence events on the ground in Iran will get a lot of people killed and gravely harm our regional interests.

Actually, Megan Fox admitted in an interview that she doesn't Twitter. All the Megan Foxes (thus far) on Twitter are fake Megan Foxes.

And with that, I just validated the other 90% of Adam Elkus' conclusion...

Ever Time You Facebook, You Defeat Ahmadinejad

(Continued from a post made about three weeks ago) In late 2006 or 2007, I was sitting in one of those mandatory annual classes on operational security. The instructor, your stereotypical grumpy old man, decried Soldiers’ use of social networking sites, citing security concerns. He was furious at the fact that the US, as a democracy, lays itself open to the entire world. (He must have been a paleoconservative if there ever was one, as this issue was tackled nearly 2500 years ago by Pericles in the city of Athens)

The instructor even went on to mention that Soldiers—gasp—posted information about what they were doing in Iraq on “The Myspace”, and claimed that “The Myspace” would be responsible for losing the Iraq War. Yes, apparently in 2007 or so, the best explanation we had for the deteriorating security situation in Iraq wasn’t a lack of a comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy, ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, sectarian civil war, or al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, but rather, those crazy kids and “The Myspace”. I never could tell if the instructor actually was serious or if he was a carefully constructed parody of right-leaning pundits, particularly with his use of the term, “The Myspace”.

Joke’s on him, however. While Myspace is, well, Myspace, other social networking sites have, in a strange way, been able to at deal some damage to a number of organizations and individuals on the US’ naughty list.

Take the FARC (Revolutionary Army of Colombia), for example. Last year, a Facebook group entitled “One Million Strong Against the FARC” helped organize massive anti-FARC protests, held in cities throughout the world. These demonstrations resulted in alleged large-scale desertions from the FARC. Indeed, it might seem that these Facebook-organized demonstrations might have actually dealt a greater blow to the FARC than decades of narcotic eradication programs, and significantly less expensive, as well.

Although at least one technology expert doubts the extent to which Twitter and Facebook have affected community organizing in Tehran—after all, Iran isn’t quite as wired as the US—few can doubt that the New Media is becoming the number one source for news coming out of Iran, with ubiquitous cell phone cameras and mobile Internet connections operating almost as guerillas in the streets of Tehran. Small, dispersed, and easily concealed within the Iranian population, the New Media is everywhere in Tehran, and operating far more effectively than the larger, more conventional news organizations (I'll leave you to draw the 4GW analogy with this one).