Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Kirkhill]

It strikes me that someone has already created a perfectly acceptable term to describe the arrangement I am thinking of - "CoDominium" - coined by Arthur's hero Jerry Pournelle.  It sounds suitably Canadian AND lefty - although Mr. Pournelle might not be pleased to have it co-opted that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoDominium

Now we just need to find King David's Spaceship and all our problems are solved.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Adopting the tache d’huile strategy does not require forming cantonments unless we either want to or are operating in out of the way areas like Afghanistan. Looking around Dar-al-Islam we see many areas which are relatively stable and under control of non brittle moderate governments (although not "Liberal" or "Conservative" democracies). Places like the UAE and Kuwait are in reasonable distance for the Gulf area and already take people in through a guest worker program.
...

I wonder if the (few) relatively stable regimes in the 'Islamic Crescent,' especially those near its Arab/Persian heartland can survive the chaos which has been/is being unleashed in Iraq, Palestine (if that word still makes any sense at all) and which seethes, just barely below the surface, in countries from Algeria through Pakistan's North West Frontier to Indonesia.

I am especially intrigued by the role of religion - being something of a fan of  Sam Harris and his End of Faith thesis.  Beliefs, being essentially irrational, are capable of igniting great and (consequential to their nature) mindless violence – that’s one of the reasons I persists in holding up the Thirty Years War as my model for the near future of the Middle East.  (The other is that the Thirty Years War gave Europe (and the world) an enduring model for international relations – the ideas of nationhood and sovereignty enshrined in the Peace of Westphalia (1648).) I think that Ahmadinejad’s messianic or end of days rhetoric does reflect his sincere belief – and I suspect (fear) he’s not alone.  I think folks like Muqtada al-Sadr are similarly motivated.

If I’m right I cannot see how their war might be contained – they have no rational reasons to want peace, with anyone.

(It leads to the interesting, albeit parenthetical, matter of Iran’s nukes – at what point must Israel launch pre-emptive strikes (massive? surgical?) to send the programme back towards square one?  Will that act, which I regard as being strategically inescapable for Israel, forge a de facto (albeit temporary) alliance with some of the Sunni regimes or will it provoke pan-Islamic rage?  How will Europe react?  What about Russia?  How will America react to Europe’s outrage?  China will go “tsk, tsk” but will be secretly pleased at the damage done to a Muslim theocracy; China has its own quite significant Muslim problem with the Uigar separatists whose ideas are financed by Central Asian drug money and Iranian philosophy.)

The advantage, for us – the West, is that it refocuses Muslim/Arab-Persian rage inwards, where we want it.  Containment, as it were, but bad days for King Abdullah.


   

 

[Old Sweat]

Better minds than mine, including many on this site, have wrestled with this challenge to the "West" without success. Let's look at it from a different perspective. In Burma the Japanese used to infiltrate through the 14th Army lines and suddenly start shooting up rear areas. This quite natually led to major panics and often hasty withdrawals. General Bill Slim got the thinking back on the right track when he noted that if the enemy is around behind you, that means you are around behind him.

In my opinion we have the 'enemy' surrounded, and any infiltrations that pop up in our homeland can be handled relatively easily. That is not to say that we will not suffer grevious injury, but the aim is to contain the Islamist movement in all its various forms in the crescent. To do this, perhaps it is a case of encouraging overtly or covertly various movements be they ethnic or religious, thus dividing but not conquering. Medieval kings were quite good at this sort of thing, although they also were quite ruthless, which the West is not.

The Iranian nuclear program is worrisome. Does the Israeli air force have the capability to knock out the major or vital parts of it? Informed opinion is all over the place. In any case, no one else is apt to have a go. It should/must be neutralized. Bribery will not work - as Kipling wrote word to the effect that once you begin to pay Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane - especially with fanatics. Group hugs suck for the same reason.

Where are the next Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan when we need them the most? The American presidential hopefuls are an uninspiring lot, and the British leadership is worse. The leadership in both countries over the past 15 years or so reduced their armed forces to dangerously low levels, and there are not many indications that the course will be reversed, especially in the UK.

A last thought, we stand in danger of becoming fixated on the wrong enemy - climate change or whatever becomes the next fashionable threat of the month - while the real enemy plans to break out of his bridgehead. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Chris,

I want to thank you for a most interesting read... lot's of food for thought here.  I think that you have done a bang up job in open source analysis of a monsterously complex situation.

I have to agree with Ed here: at what point must Israel act against Iran's nuclear program?  How will they do it?  Will we see some interesting temporary alliances formed the day it happens (ie will the House of Saud just happens to make sure all of the Saudi Air Force is given that day off...)?  Publically, I can see the Arab league members expressing outrage, while privately breathing a huge sigh of relief.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
The Iranian nuclear program is worrisome. Does the Israeli air force have the capability to knock out the major or vital parts of it? Informed opinion is all over the place. In any case, no one else is apt to have a go. It should/must be neutralized. Bribery will not work - as Kipling wrote word to the effect that once you begin to pay Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane - especially with fanatics. Group hugs suck for the same reason.
...

I don't know ... but these fellows (Raas and Long, both MIT grad students when they worked on this analysis) think they know and they think it's doable but other analysts think its harder than it looks.

For me, the issue comes down to: can Israel avoid doing it?  If the answer is "No.  Israel cannot have any confidence in its ability to continue to exist in the face of a nuclear armed Iran," then they will have to find ways and means to strike - effectively.

 

[a_majoor]

Two points:

The CoDominium in Jerry Pournell's fiction was a monster forged out of the desire for power and stability forged by the rulers of the US and USSR in order to suppress any and all potential challengers to their hegemony on Earth (and eventually in space as well). To apply that sort of power to suppress Dar-al-Islam wold be barely possible by the West using all our resources (which leaves a free hand to the other regional powers who are disinclined to join that project). The other danger (which ended the fictional CoDominium in nuclear fire) was the CoDominium itself became a brittle and authoritarian regime, and the ultimate enemies that overthrew the rulers of the Unitred States and USSR were not the Brazilians and Chinese but rather nationalists within their home territories.

I sort of agree with Edward that the issue will probably be settled internally by force of arms in a decades long conflict; our main roles will be containment, moderation and direction.

We must contain the chaos of Dar-al-Islam inside its own heartland, and not let it spread into China, India or the Metropolitan West (particularly Europe)

We must moderate the violence, and especially try to prevent the use of WMD in these inter and intra state conflicts. Israel may or may not take action on its own, the possible downsides are very great and they may have to take the "least worst" decision. I personally don't think a crippling strike is possible unless it is in conjunction with a "head shot" aimed at decapitating the organs of power in Iran; a very tall job indeed.

By protecting cantonments (either allied nations or ones we create ourselves) and continuing to support the Purple Finger strategy as our overarching objective, we offer some hope of creating conditions acceptable to both Dar-al-Islam and the West. To allow a war to the knife without intercession will create a powerful, ruthless and dangerous Dar-al-Islam through Darwinian selection, probably requiring total war on our part to contain and defeat in the middle of this century. Once again, our rivals may be disinclined to intercede, knowing the West will be distracted at worst and fatally weakened at best.

We are facing a situation where we will be forced to make a series of "least worst" choices, Realpolitik will no longer be a reliable guide and every step will be fraught with danger. We will live in interesting times

 

[Flip]

Wow!
Here's a dense thread! A good read though!

I think Col. Balusha is right: when the West, led by Canada, cut off aid in the wake of a Hamas electoral victory we left the door open for Iranian funded Hamas to buy ‘fighters’ willing to gun down eight year old boys.  That being said it would be quite wrong for the West, especially Canada, to turn the financial taps back on so that Fatah can shoot sever year olds.

I have to disagree here. The people who cast the vote that empowered
Hamas were getting their hand slapped.  Hamas would have grown into
a larger menace - aid or no aid.  Hezbollah was in a peaceful and prosperous
environment and look at what happened last summer.

The US actions served two purposes: they were the trigger that broke the entire mess into the open, rather than seeing an ongoing series of conflicts like the Iran-Iraq war dragging out over decades, and the overarching "Purple Finger" strategy provides a purpose and direction not only for the West, but also for the people of  Dar-al-Islam itself. we know that there are many people in the region fighting against their local tyrants, and the mass turn out of voters in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon provides a glimpse of what might be, so long as we do not turn our backs on the region and offer political, economic and sometimes military help to back the democratic tide. Leaving these internal wars to fester will only create end by creatiing a powerful, embittered and determined winner who will challenge the West and the other regional powers, leading to a greater cycle of war and conflict.

I have to agree here.
US actions can be seen as lancing a boil before to much east/west polarization occurs.
Iraq was in my opinion was the perfect place in spite of the outcome so far.

Irans' hand has been forced - Al Qaeda is starting to piss everyone off and
the US is no longer the great Satan to potentialy the whole Arab world.

After a generation or two things are bound to cool off  ;D

Making Friends and influencing people the way they are, I suspect sympathy for Irans'  government going to be zero when something finally happens.

Yup, .............progress.



   

 

[Kirkhill]

Good conversation going here.

Arthur - I read Jerry's books and am a strong believer in Falkenberg's Legion (also published as The Mercenary). I wasn't suggesting creating Pournelle's CoDominium (the US and the USSR jointly running the world between them).  I was more thinking along the lines of co-opting the word alone for exactly the reason that Pournelle did.  It is a feel good, non-threatening name  redolent of the Co-Operative movement and the Dominion of Canada. 

In practice what I was thinking of was kind of joint custody arrangement, or a co-signing arrangement, where countries or parts of countries (with central government's approval) could enter into an agreement with Canada, or other OECD countries or perhaps even the whole of the OECD or NATO to work together with the developed member assisting with the 3Ds and guiding the Central Government towards western standards.  A more formalized version of what is already underway in Afghanistan. 

The benefits to the developed country are manifold:
leaching support from the hotheads
contributing to stability and consequently trade
reducing the impetus that creates refugees and drives them to unfamiliar environments where they have difficulty adjusting
and - frankly - supplying a pool of cheap labour to supply goods
that also serves the problem of declining birth rates in the north resulting in fewer workers to do the available jobs.

By creating these refuges then it creates an adaptation space (for the science-fiction buffs - an airlock) that ultimately will ease the culture shock between west and east and eventually permit an easier flow of people.  Again,  Hong Kong really is my model here.  100 years of exposure to Victorian Britain and many Chinese Hong Kongers are as British as the British while still being Chinese.

As to the Iranian Nuclear strike - more questions than answers.

How Stealthy are Stealth Bombers?
If unstealthy Israeli bombers are bombing low would stealthy bombers be seen bombing high?
If the Israelis are using American made ordinance would the After Action Report be able to determine if there had been other "truckers" out there?

On the defensive side:
The CIWS/CRAM systems seem to be gaining more credibility against Mortars, Shells and Missiles. 
Israel is a leader in this field but has not yet deployed the capability.
Some work is being done with the CIWS system being melded with a Tactical Laser.
The Israelis are also ahead of the field in this regard but have not yet announced a capability.
Would it be in Israel's interest to keep an operational capability like that quiet or would it be better to announce it?
Announcement  might disincline a rational person from attacking but also give the attacker opportunity to develop counters.
Keeping quiet might be beneficial if the potential attacker only has a few missiles and warheads.  Allow him his best shot and "defang" him.
But you would want to be fairly sure of your ground to rely on that strategy I would think.

 

[Kirkhill]

Current defence options:

Phalanx
- CIWS-CRAM - 4Search-Track Radars/4x20mm guns with 6 barrels each - 4500 rpm
>1.5 km range reported

Rheinmetall solution
- Skyshield - 1 CP/1Search-Track Radar/4x35mm guns with 1 barrel each - 1000 rpm - 152 x 3.3g tungsten sub-particles/rd = 152,000 subs/min
15-10 km ranges reported

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1547&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1548&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1549&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1550&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1533&lang=3&pdb=1

Lockheed Martin
- High Energy Laser - 1? Search-Track Radar - 1 target/second - continuous engagement
10 km range reported

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/skyguard-laser.htm
http://www.omedia.org/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=1960&MenuID=603&ThreadID=1014010

Interesting Laser/Mortar video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5T5yEMMiDs&mode=related&search

Phalanx is a point system at 15 MUSD per point
Skyshield and Skyguard are area systems
Skyshield costs 15 MUSD per area (1 CP and 1 Sensor and 4 cannons) - high hit probability - kill probability disputed
Skyguard costs 250-300 MUSD per area (3-4 systems) - high hit? - high kill? - high readiness?

 

[a_majoor]

The difficulty in creating a CoDominium arrangement in the fashion that you suggest is the host nation government might not agree with the stated goals, and either refuse, or publicly agree and spend the time milking the accord for all they can get while sabotaging actions on the ground (even if just by dragging their heels). This would be a very complex agreement and require a great deal of hands on management in order for it to work.

WRT defense, Israel has the potential to establish a layered system, since they have the Arrow tactical ABM, and have also demonstrated a laser system optimised for use against smaller targets like artillery rockets. CIWS and Skyguard/Ahead are options as well. The big problem here is time and resources; if Israel were to expend the resources to create Arrow batteries and cover sensitive installations with laser, cannon and Gatling gun batteries would she have resources to maintain the other parts of her military at the high efficiency needed to make the counterstroke? Also, how much time would be needed to buy/build and install the shield? This is not to say Israel should not do this, just like everything else, we are now making calculations for the "least worst" outcome.

On a global scale, the United States would need a decade to build a fleet of Aegis cruisers (or follow on designs) to provide the mobile shield needed to protect theater assets and shift coverage to meet the changing global situation. A fleet of airborn lasers would probably require a similar amount of time (and ideally the US should field both options), but with an Aegis costing a billion dollars a pop and a laser armed 747 probably coming in close you can see the choice between sword and shield will be important for the Americans as well.

Of course, we may end up having to try all of these options, and many others. Kinetic actions can only go so far, "Development" and "Diplomacy" presuppose a receptive audience, but the Islamic radicals are too numerous and wide spread to defeat with just kinetic effects, and we only have so much time and resources to apply to the three D's. "Cultural engineering" will also have to be an option (hinted at in other threads); right now we have a very effective if unfocused (and unintentional) program going with access to Western media and marketing. Perhaps the most cost effective means of "disaggregating" the radicals from the masses might be to simply build cellular networks and provide free cell phones to the masses with the web browsers pre programmed by "us".

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Phalanx is a point system at 15 MUSD per point
Skyshield and Skyguard are area systems
Skyshield costs 15 MUSD per area (1 CP and 1 Sensor and 4 cannons) - high hit probability - kill probability disputed
Skyguard costs 250-300 MUSD per area (3-4 systems) - high hit? - high kill? - high readiness?

Not be pedantic Chris, but Skyguard is also a point defence system (I have some experience with it). An example of an area air defence system would be Patriot or Standard.

Cheers!

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder if the Israelis are thinking of "least worst" scenarios.

A technology based defence might be seen as being problematical because it's unproven - a good, solid air attack, on the other hand, is a well understood, proven, comfortabler tactic.  One knows (I don't but I'm assuming they do) that it can work.

The Israelis still face the old dilemma: they have to win every time, time after time after time.  The Arabs need win only once.

I also don't think the measure of success is to destroy Iran's nuclear programme - setting it back by a few years might be sufficient, for now.  What I cannot see is any way in which Israel can 'live' (in the most basic sense of that word) with a nuclear capable (warheads mated to missiles) Iran.

What happens, one asks, when some 'enemy' eventually gets nukes?  Israel loses - strategically, at least, because its strategic leverage is diminished, maybe even reduced to zero.  Israel might, also, lose in every way because a nuclear armed enemy coalition must, I think, sooner rather than later, win the war and slaughter the Jews.  The question becomes: how many will the Israelis 'take down' with themselves?  Will they give the 'true believers' an Armageddon?

 

[Kirkhill]

No worries on the pedanticism SKT - (another ism to add to the list) - that's why I am here.  To be corrected by those that know better than me.

And as you remind me of that I just realized that we have a Javelin/Javelin issue here.

There are two Skyguards just like there are two Javelins.

Lockheed-Martin is calling their High Energy Laser system Skyguard - just to confuse us all with the older Oerlikon system with the GDF-005s and ADATS.  Just like they screwed up by giving their Medium Range Anti-Tank Missile the same name as the older Brit Anti-Aircraft Missile that I believe you are also familiar with.

Having said that - the Oerlikon-Rheinmetall Skyshield system, would YOU classify that as local or tactical area defence?   I am wondering if with one CP and one sensor (or maybe multiple sensors?) and 2-4 distributed launch platforms (gun or missile) per CP then is it possilble to create a large enough bubble to qualify it as an area?

Might interest in these types of systems is, pretty obviously I guess, the thought that if we can use automation to reduce the number of people necessary to maintain a secure bubble, and increase the strength of that security then we can use the saved manpower on more aggressive roles.  Perhaps put that whole defensive system, complete with "gate guards" under the command of a revitalized Garrison Artillery.   In 1914 line was held by riflemen standing shoulder to shoulder.  By 1918 the same amount of line was held by a much smaller number of men with machine guns and field guns.  Now we can hold the line with the same number of guns manned by still fewer gunners operating with remote weapons and sensors from a centralized CP

But digging too deep on the details here perhaps -  is this one worth discussing in a separate thread?  Then we can continue to try and stand back and look at the whole map on this thread.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Chris,

You are stretching me back to my IG days- 11 years ago, but I'll take a shot at it.  (BTW, I forgot about the whole Skyguard/Skyguard thing- why can't arms manufacturers copyright friggin names like everyone else...).

Point Defence vs Area Defence:  As I dimly recall, the difference is this- An Area Defence System is one that possesses sufficient kinetic energy and lethality to intercept and destroy targets that are not essentially aimed at the launcher itself out to some distance X.  Obviously, closing targets can be engaged and defeated farther out; crossing targets must be engaged closer in. Area Defence systems do not necessarily have to be located near the defended object: the defended object just has to be within the Area Defence system's template. A Point defence system is essentially stationed on the defended object: it sort of becomes part of the target.  It can only (practically speaking) defend against weapons shot directly at it.

In Canadian Service, examples of Point Systems are/have been:

Javelin (The Air Defence Missile)
CIWS
Sea Sparrow

Area Systems are/have been:

Standard SM-2

Interestingly, a bunch of netted and properly sited ADATS could do an Area Defence, even though each system alone is only really a point defence missile.

Clear as mud?

Kincanucks can now come by and correct my errors/misrememberings  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Ta Much SKT 

Edward - Perhaps the Israelis might also be considering a "belts and braces" solution.  They have a strong offense and, supposedly, a strong local MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) capability.  But, unless you are inclined toward expansionist tendencies, a strong offence is of little value unless the threat is convinced that the offence can survive the best they throw at it - otherwise it can be neutralized - and that it is effective enough that retaliation will result in them losing the secondary engagement.  This is particularly true of MAD doctrine.  But both of those pre-suppose a rational opponent.  That is ultimately why the Cold War MADD programme was successful.  While both sides feared a Stalin or a Hitler ending up with the button in their hands both sides were satisfied that the people that actually had the power were not raving loonies.

I don't think the same can necessarily be said for the current crop of wannabes.

To that end perhaps Israel is thinking that, in the event deterrence doesn't work, they need to look at adding a stronger defence to increase survivability - let alone leave enough of a retaliatory force in place (conventional or "Special").

We know that the Israelis are not making friends by resorting to pre-emptive activities - and unfortunately we all need friends.

PS - just in case some are unfamiliar with "belt and braces": braces (or galluses) in my homeland are what you lot call suspenders.  A really cautious man uses both to keep his troosers up.

And PPS Arthur - granted it would be messy but what isn't?  Have you considered the constant negotiations necessary to raise a kid these days?

 

[Kirkhill]

And still on the subject of Israel and the Left Flank - it seems that some Palestinians launched a few rockets at Israel from Lebanon (causing no casualties) causing Israel to fire five rounds into an uninhabited hillside (likewise no casualties).  Hezbollah denied involvement and that seems likely given what appears to be primitive launch facilities.

What I found interesting is that THIS summer the UN observers and the Lebanese Army are quick off the mark with condemning the act against Israel and not mentioning the Israeli response beyond encouraging moderation by all parties.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/israel-fires-back-on-southern-lebanon.html

 

[a_majoor]

There are a multiplicity of divisions in Dar-al-Islam, which probably make the dream of a unified Caliphate unobtainable, but provide some areas of traction if we are smart enough to take advantage of them.

The example of the Lebanese Army moving against Hezbollah is one example; Hezbollah is a creature of Iran, and Arab people of Dar-al-Islam view Iranians as "Persians", quite separatly from any co-religious affinities. The divide between Sunni and Shiite is also there across Dar-al-Islam, but Islam has almost as many sects and subdivisions as Christianity.

We have lots of room to move, if we are careful and clever

 

[Kirkhill]

There are a multiplicity of divisions in Dar-al-Islam, which probably make the dream of a unified Caliphate unobtainable, but provide some areas of traction if we are smart enough to take advantage of them.

The example of the Lebanese Army moving against Hezbollah is one example; Hezbollah is a creature of Iran, and Arab people of Dar-al-Islam view Iranians as "Persians", quite separatly from any co-religious affinities. The divide between Sunni and Shiite is also there across Dar-al-Islam, but Islam has almost as many sects and subdivisions as Christianity.

We have lots of room to move, if we are careful and clever

Agreed on all points with the exception of the Caliphacy.  As well as many natural divisions that can be exploited there are also many cultural similarities than can likewise be exploited.

You can't impose an autocratic authoritarian solution across Dar-al-Islam any more than you can across Europe or Canada.  On the other hand treating the whole region as a series of autonomous fiefdoms leads to the Holy Roman Empire as perceived by Churchill.  Some sort of union, or confederation or association amongst the states might be both possible and advantageous.

 

[a_majoor]

The "Holy Roman Caliphate" model may be what comes into being after the Thirty years war, but right now, we do see Iran attempting to establish hegemony over Dar-al-Islam through force and the threat of force. Before them was Iraq's Ba'athist's, who were working on a secular and mostly fascist model (Syria's Ba'athists are probably still nursing dreams of absorbing Lebanon). The Wahhabi's (with backing from Saudi Arabia) also inspire armed Jihad against apostate regimes, and are doing so through a "stealth" program of establishhing Wahhabi mosques and schools wherever they can gain entry.

Many other subdivisions exist in Islam: (partial list)

      [+] Ahmadiyya

      [+] Salafi

      [+] Shi'a Islam
 
      [+] Sufism
 
      [+] Sunni Islam

      [+] Wahhabism

      [+] Zaydi

Much of Dar-al-Islam is built on tribal divisions (as Afghanistan can attest), which cut across religious boundaries as well. There are also many "stranded" groups of Christians, Jews, Zostarians and others and minority peoples like the Assyrians and Kurds, which makes the region look like a glass mossaic that someone dropped. Each micro region needs to be treated differently.

 

[Kirkhill]

How about, rather than a mosaic a kaleidoscope? 

Everytime you tap the region all the parts reset into something else. They never form longlasting patterns.  There is no final stable solution like a Rubik's Cube or a tiled floor. It is never possible to recapture a previous setting.

You point out two interesting alternative strategies to effect change.  The covert, longterm, directed activities of the Saudi and Yemeni Wahhabis that stayed under the radar until 9/11 and what I perceive may be a more impatient scattergun approach by Ahmadinejad.

If I assume that Ahmadinejad wants to create chaos and see the 12th Imam create the Holy Roman Caliphacy in his lifetime (should that be the Holy Tehranic Caliphacy?) then a policy of blatting across the international stage, stirring up trouble, might suit him.

However shot guns are notorious because the more you scatter the less damage you do.  Just ask Dick Cheney's hunting partners. 

The tactic is also used in marketing by some companies.  But the result is often a market that is a mile wide and an inch deep and is very difficult for the marketer to sustain.  The marketing equivalent of "he who defends everything defends nothing".  You raise expectations in the market place,  people buy once and you can't deliver the followup to sustain the loyalty.  That makes the market easy pickings for a competitor with better logistics, support and brand loyalty to take your new market, bit by bit, and mop it up.

Of course that assumes that the product you are selling isn't so vile that it turns the market off the concept entirely.  That appears to have happened in Russia with "democracy".  The concept was oversold and poorly executed now a large percentage of the market wants nothing to do with it.  The same prospect face Dar-al-Islam if people like Ahmadinejad and well meaning but unqualified people, as found in other countries, manage to co-opt the "democracy" brand name and besmirch it.

Osama and Zawahiri (Ahmadinejad's Sunni counter parts) seem to be also in the business of sowing dischord.

Can we say that these people are in "spray and pray" school of strategic thought?  Make a mess and then pray that Allah will clean it up?

What I find interesting, now that you bring it up, is why 9/11 happened at all.  The Wahhabi infiltration plan was obviously paying dividends internationally.  Look at the support base they have created.  It was working much the way the old Socialist Internationals and Comintern worked - picking up friends here and there.  But it seems to me that anybody that was spending that much time building up that type of influence intended to do more with it than just bring down a couple of office buildings. 

Likewise, for all the noise out of Iran, they have played a reasonably low key hand internationally.  They haven't picked any open fights that I can think of since the war with Iraq.

Is it likely that in the case of the Wahhabis they lost control of the brand name when Osama went off half-cocked ahead of schedule?
And the fact that Ahmadinejad had his term cut by a year does that indicate that the parents on the Guardian Council discovered too late that this guy was another loose cannon?  They can't pull him back in because he got the blessing of the Grand Ayatollah himself how is guided by the will of Allah.  To admit that they were wrong in accepting/promoting him would suggest that either Allah was wrong, an untenable position, or the Grand Ayatollah doesn't hear so well when he talks to Allah.  That not only affects the credibility of the Ayatollah but of all those divinely guided clerics in the Council of Guardians.

To me that would be in line with a continually fracturing Iran.  Originally it was the conservative clerics vs the reform clerics.  Now it seems like Ahmadinejad, the Republican Guard with their Al Quds force, the Basaji and the Pasdaran might be a third element supported by Twelvers like Ahmadinejad.  And the face of this high level dischord that is leaving room for "activists (a nice word in this situation - I don't like domestic activists for exactly the same reason I like activists in Iran)", "autonomists" and "nationalists" to kick up their heels.

This current situation is extremely messy, like a shot gun blast, but perhaps  it hasn't penetrated deeply - as the number of times that the "Arab Street" has not risen to provocations would seem to suggest.  It took months to organize the "spontaneous" demonstrations over the Danish cartoons that were deemed to be insulting to the prophet.  And even then the cartoons had to be doctored to ensure they were sufficiently offensive.  Beyond that there seems to have been very few days when people all across Dar-al-Islam took to the streets to protest anything - including Abu Ghraib and the hanging of Saddam.

I don't think most Arabs are any different to most Westerners.  They are what most radicals would define as apathetic.  They are too busy surviving to take up a life's mission of revolution. 

The mission remains what it has always been - to separate leaders from followers - to separate the radicals from the "apathetic" and protect the 'apathetic" so that they can carry on with their lives.