Since its creation in the 1920s, Iran’s modern army has been nicknamed “The Silent Beauty.” This means the military is barred from intervening in politics and taking part in public debate.
In contrast, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, created by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, was designed as a political militia. In last month’s presidential election, all but one of the six candidates, including winner Hassan Rouhani, were members of the Guard.
The views of Guard factions are known, but thinking within the army remains a mystery. So analysts pay attention on the rare occasions when the army makes its voice heard — as with an interview published in Tehran last week with Brig.-Gen. Muhammad Hussein Dadras, who heads the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Reading between the lines, it is a gentle but firm warning by the army that major political and diplomatic changes are needed.
Although outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is never mentioned, Dadras’ tone shows that the army was unhappy with him. He implicitly accuses Ahmadinejad of “failure to understand strategic issues.”
“Whoever seeks a position of responsibility ought to understand security,” Dadras insists. “Just as every [government] project must have a cultural dimension, the national-security dimension, too, must be taken into account.”
He adds that “provocative talk,” an Ahmadinejad specialty, harmed national interests.
Dadras also hints at differences with the Revolutionary Guard — which, as made clear by its commander, Gen. Ali-Muhammad Aziz-Jaafari, believes that national security is ensured through a mixture of low-intensity operations against real or imagined enemies (notably the United States) and readiness for a long land war for which America lacks the political will.
Dadras rejects that view. “The claim that land war is the determining factor was developed by military theoretician Mackinder 120 years ago,” he asserts. “But to understand correctly, we need a more encompassing view of military theories and broader realities of war.”
Jaafari claims that the US intervention in Iraq was “a total failure”; Dadras believes it succeeded. “By invading Iraq, America achieved its objective,” he says.
In a speech last year, Jaafari revealed that the Guard prepared for a US invasion south of the Zagross mountain range. Dadras doubts America would opt for that but wonders what would happen if the United States used overwhelming air and naval power to reduce Iran’s ground forces to a sitting duck. (Thanks to UN and US sanctions, he notes, Iran has little access to the technology and materiel needed for a modern air force.)
Dadras says Iran needs a major rethink of its strategies, and urges “imaginative diplomacy” to reduce the risk of war. He suggests making it clear Iran “has no intention of aggression against any country.” Thus, unlike Jaafari, Dadras does not call for “wiping Israel off the map.”
He also urges a review of Iran’s relations with Muslim countries — now almost entirely tepid or tense. To break out of isolation, Iran should seek allies among Muslim nations, he suggests. Relations with non-Muslim regimes in Venezuela and North Korea should be downgraded to “tactical alliances.”
Dadras points out that, though sanctions have forced Iran to become self-reliant in some fields, their continuation could undermine national security by wrecking the economy. The remedy is a major review of foreign policy.
And he urges the political leadership not to try to impose domestic order by force. Military power should be regarded as a tool of economic and cultural development, not repression; Iran needs “a stable atmosphere” with military capacities deployed in support of domestic and foreign investment.
He also reveals that the army is unhappy with its budget, which is “not commensurate with the dangers we face.” His formula would mean a 22 percent increase, something current economic problems preclude. (The Guard is in a better financial position. It controls numerous profitable corporations and benefits from import-export monopolies.)
Dadras shows that when the “Silent Beauty” talks, it does so in a calm and pondered manner, in contrast with the Revolutionary Guard’s shrill populist shouting.