August 15, 2007

Iranian Military Terrorists: US

The Bush administration will designate the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces, the mainstay of the Iranian military, as a terrorist organization. Its involvement with American enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan and material support of other terrorists such as Hezbollah led to the decision. It's the first time a state military force has received this designation, and it will likely create a great deal of controversy:

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

What benefit does this bring? It allows the US to pursue sanctions against any company supporting the IRG. The Bush administration can close off banking links and access to American markets for the members of the IRG's financial network. The US can expose these business dealings, and plans to do so as soon as possible.

That will mean taking the economic fight to the heart of the Iranian economy. Although the US could have designated just the subsidiary Qods force as a terrorist group, the decision to name the IRG gives the US a broad front. Many of Iran's leading businessmen come from the IRG and maintain ties to it; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad served in the IRG, as did many of the political class. By naming the IRG as a terrorist group, anyone associated with it could have their assets seized from American banks. Other banks that handle their assets could face exclusion from American financial networks, which would mean most banks would close their accounts forthwith.

In that sense, it's a brilliant escalation of the economic battle that the Bush administration has waged against the Iranians. They already have staggered under the weight of international sanctions. Now their businessmen and their partners abroad will face even more pressure, and that will eventually erode the Iranian economy even further -- and the hardliner's position will become more tenuous than ever.

However, there is also a risk in broadening the terrorist label to include the IRG. Under the Geneva Convention, the IRG fits the definition of a legitimate military force. They wear uniforms, and answer to legitimate government authority. While the Quds force undeniably works outside of those boundaries to perpetuate terrorism, the IRG as a whole has more plausible deniability.

What happens when we start labeling uniformed military as terrorist organizations? Do we inadvertently create an equation between terrorists and military? Do we risk having our own military getting the same label from countries opposed to our efforts in Iraq, for instance?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/11398

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iranian Military Terrorists: US:

» Are we Inching Closer to War with Iran? (Updated) from Buck Naked Politics
Once again, the Bush Administration's creative labeling is confusing me. The Washington Post reported:The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a specially design... [Read More]

» Iran tied to terrorism? Nah… from Neocon News
You find a lot of interesting things while surfing the inter-web, and here’s one that jumped out at me. Check it out: WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in ... [Read More]

» U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard Followup. from Wake up America-Media Rats Jumping Ship
So here we have a regime that has been, and still is, providing weapons that are killing our troops and civilians in other countries such as Israel. Some how the left makes them out as victims. [Read More]

» Terrorists? Really? from Nate Nelson
For whatever ill conceived reason, the Bush administration has decided to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. This will be the first time that the United States has designated the armed forces of a sovereign state a terror... [Read More]

Comments (17)

Posted by Thomas Davie | August 15, 2007 8:23 AM

You've answered your own question; the US military has already been labeled as 'occupiers', 'infidel's, crusaders', butchers', 'baby killer' and much worse. But obviously, yes, there is a risk in labelling an entire countrie's military assets as a terrorist organisation. If US troops get captured on or near Iranian territory, expect them to get treated as terrorists.

In any event, it's called war. Maybe it's time to just scrap the Geneva convention since it only seems to help one side of the equation.

Tom

Posted by TomB | August 15, 2007 8:40 AM

To deal with Iran the equation should be:
Ten EFP = One Carefully Aimed Cruise Missile
Of course we could expand and manipulate this exchange rate later on.

Posted by NahnCee | August 15, 2007 8:44 AM

Do we risk having our own military getting the same label from countries opposed to our efforts in Iraq, for instance?

Our good friends in Europe, Italy, France and Germany, have already attempted to try in absentia both American military and figures from the Bush administration for "war crimes" and other Yurpy thought crimes. Equally, our allies in South Korea and Japan seem to like to put American military people on trial for this or that, all the while rioting and demonstrating about whatever they perceive the evil Satan to have done.

If we do or don't do things because of the anticipated perception of a bunch of monobrowed, knuckle-dragging, mouthbreathing terrorists and their enablers, then we have sunk to the status of the appeasers in France, the Netherlands, and Londonistan. Not to mention that since we're dealing with another "honor-based" society, surely some good will come of embarrassing the hell out of a whole country because they allow these sorts of things to be done in their name. That peer group pressure thing added on to starving them. Can we put an embargo on cigarettes being shipped to the Middle East?

Posted by howard lohmuller | August 15, 2007 8:51 AM

Uniforms-Shmuniforms! This was a brilliant move that critics will try to undo, saying it forces Iran more into the Russian orbit. But Iran will also find Russia has little to offer them other than tokenism and self serving deals. The Iranian military has just been dealt a devastating blow as it had been planning a war of attrition against the west. Such a war requires a steady source of funding. That funding will be severely interrupted. Iran will now have to seek whatever gains it can in the immediate future and concentrate on holding whatever gain they have achieved.

Posted by Galrahn | August 15, 2007 8:57 AM

I find it interesting how the Westphalian System is being adapted on demand to meet the challenges of the GWOT.

It isn't unique to the US though; many countries exploited this same concept within the UN itself last year when dealing with Hezbollah in Lebanon last year in order to rationalize the resolutions for peace without punishing Lebanon for harboring terrorists.

I think I'm going to have to blog this to further develop my thoughts. Good questions Capt, a lot to ponder here.

Posted by J'hn1 | August 15, 2007 9:20 AM

Well, I have yet to read of any of the Iranians caught in Iraq as wearing uniforms, so the same illegal combatant label applies.

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 15, 2007 9:36 AM

NahnCee,

In the case of South Korea and Japan, there are good reasons for their insistance that American servicemen be tried in their court systems for crimes (real crimes, not just "war crimes") committed on the sovereign soil of the host country. These are our allies, not our enemies; we are not at war with them, and when our servicepeople commit crimes against their citizens on their soil, they should have primacy of justice.

To make my point crystal clear, imagine a Japanese serviceman raping a woman in a car on a Los Angeles street, and then having Japan insist that its military had superior jurisdiction over the LAPD with regard to the crime, refusing to release the serviceman into the custody of the LAPD.

To the point at hand, someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. The Geneva Convention certainly addresses what a terrorist is -- in terms of nonuniformed combatants. But the GC's version of a terrorist is not what we are concerned with here -- it's the definition written into US law. If the executive can prove that the Revolutionary Guard consistantly acts under that definition, then they are, by our laws, terrorists. This is a strict constructionist position.

Posted by George | August 15, 2007 9:45 AM

Those Iranian Guards aren't in uniform when we catch them in Iraq.

Could this be considered a shot across Russia's bow? Despite Iran's part in the axis of evil, Russia continues to deal with them and even shields them from any meaningful U.N. Security Council action. With this new designation, Russia's financial ties to Iran could jeopardize their ability to work with the U.S. Russian assets in the U.S. would be at risk if they continue to deal with Iran.

Posted by CheckSum | August 15, 2007 9:51 AM

To make my point crystal clear, imagine a Japanese serviceman raping a woman in a car on a Los Angeles street, and then having Japan insist that its military had superior jurisdiction over the LAPD with regard to the crime, refusing to release the serviceman into the custody of the LAPD.

Japan could insist all it wants, but we don't have a treaty that gives them jurisdiction. On the other hand, we DO have treaties that do give us jurisdiction when the roles are reversed. They're called Status of Forces Agreements.

Posted by Sarah Banderleigh | August 15, 2007 10:08 AM

Do we risk having our own military getting the same label from countries opposed to our efforts in Iraq, for instance?

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is the Islamic version of the current Iranian military. Iran already has an Army, Navy and Air Force. The guard was created after the Islamic takeover. It's not just a military but a political machine as well.

Posted by lexhamfox | August 15, 2007 10:51 AM

I wonder if this lays the foundation for an attack. The IRG are in charge of Iran's ballistic missiles, not the air force or army. Adding the IRG to the list gives the Administration some legal cover (in the US) for an attack. One of Cheney's efforts to end round the rest of the cabinet perhaps?

I hope I am wrong.

Posted by MNC | August 15, 2007 11:40 AM

In addition to wearing uniforms and bearing arms openly,an essential qualification to be considered lawful combatants is to be subject to discipline and judicial/disciplinary sanction for breaches of the laws of war. The IRG fails to qualify on this count.

Also, the IRG is an arm of the theocratic entities controlling Iran. Unlike the Iranian Army, the IRG is not a state institution, it does not take orders from the government except insofar as its members belong to the theocratic power structure. It is absolutely equivalent to the Waffen SS, the military wing of the Nazi Party.

Neither the IRG nor the Waffen SS can reasonably be equated with the legitimate armed forces of any nation.

Posted by patrick neid | August 15, 2007 1:42 PM

sometimes stating the obvious is a good thing. it's long been necessary.

how it actually plays out i have no idea. what i am certain about will be iran's/islams entertaining response.

honey, put the popcorn on!

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 15, 2007 2:36 PM

Readers of this Washington Post story beware: a sharp reader over at Power Line noted that the two "anaylsts" the WaPo quotes in the story come from the "Center for American Progress", better known around DC as "Hillary's foreign policy team".

That's the think tank led by former Bubba right hand man John Podesta, along with people like Tom Daschle, Mort Halperin, and Larry Korb.

Of course the Post leaves that fact out of its article. Wonder why?

Posted by Eric | August 15, 2007 3:24 PM

I think that if you read between the lines a bit, this move may be aimed more towards Russia and China and Venezuela than it is Iran.

The post says:
The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

Who are these foreign businesses? Where are they? I know that Russia is preparing to sell quite a large supply of fighter jets to Iran for very little money compared to what American equipment would cost. I’m aware that many of the large Russian Companies have ties to one another. Luke Oil is the largest supplier of oil to the US, and the US is the largest trading partner to both Russia and China. Do you think that this executive order could be used to limit or ban certain types of imports from China and Russia into the US? Also, do you think that this executive order could be used to seize or freeze assets of some Russian or Chinese or Venezuela companies in the US?

If so, would this not be an extraordinary amount of pressure on those governments to back away from their support of Iran?

And furthermore, could it then be said that companies outside of the US in perhaps Germany or France, who trade with these terrorist-supporting companies (maybe in Russia or China), and who do business in the US – could they then be stopped from doing business in the US? Or could their American assets be frozen?

This is mind boggling.

Posted by Eric | August 15, 2007 7:16 PM

The immediate legal consequence of the guard’s designation as a terrorist organization would be to make it unlawful for anyone subject to United States jurisdiction to knowingly provide material support or resources to the guard, according to the State Department. Any United States financial institution that becomes aware that it possesses, or has control over, funds of a foreign terrorist organization would have to turn them over to the Treasury Department.

Because Iran has done little business with the United States in more than two decades, the larger point of the designation would be to heighten the political and psychological pressure on Iran, administration officials said, by using the designation to persuade foreign governments and financial institutions to cut ties with Iranian businesses and individuals.

I guess this answers my earlier question -- but not to my satisfaction. I like my speculation better than the reality. I think it would work better.

Posted by Jabba the Tutt | August 16, 2007 7:29 AM

Question: Would the Nazi Party's Sturmabteilung - SA qualify as a terrorist organization? They wore Brown Shirts. Mussolinin had his Black Shirts. The Romanian fascist had Blue Shirts, if I recall correctly.

Should Iran's Basiji be designated a terrorist organization?

Post a comment