Mark Ames

Professor @vali_nasr latest @FT article on the military flare-up in the Gulf is a classic example of the poverty of analysis among some Western-based experts on Iran. There is no mention of the possibility that the mullahs in Tehran may be simply miscalculating in escalating their confrontation with the US or that they could be misreading the US’s determination to prevail in the Hormuz Strait. There are no hints of Iran’s own economic, military and strategic vulnerabilities; these remain unmentioned, as they have been throughout Professor Nasr’s recent coverage of the Gulf war. Instead, most of his article is devoted to allegations of how the US supposedly ignored the obligations it undertook in the MoU with Iran, by not releasing any frozen Iranian assets or by refusing to accede to Iran’s view on how Hezbollah should be treated in Lebanon. The fact that, in turn, Iran singularly failed even to begin clearing mines from the strait – as it was obliged to do under the MoU – remains unmentioned. And Iran’s determination to fire at shipping which ignored the mullah-imposed navigation routes is explicitly justified by Professor Nasr’s article. Indeed, he implies that US protection for ships that opted to ignore Iranian orders and navigate instead near the Oman coastline provides a key explanation for Iranian belligerence. Throughout, Professor Nasr portrays Iran’s leaders – whom he invariably equates with the country – as thoughtful and well-informed and as enjoying broad popular support. He claims, for instance, that “Last week’s mammoth turnout for the funeral of the slain supreme leader Ali Khamenei was also important in convincing Iran’s leaders that the population would support a hard stance on the strait,” without pondering for a second whether this turnout was manufactured rather than spontaneous. Support for the Iranian regime among Western academics comes in various shapes and forms. But probably the most insidious form is the provision of analysis that deliberately ignores key elements in the debate, that implicitly justifies the mullahs’ actions as reasonable and measured, conflates Iran’s rulers with the public at large and implies that Iranian leaders are both omnipotent, well-informed and visionary. Sadly, Professor Nasr’s analysis ticks some of these boxes. To clarify: all these remarks are my personal views, conveyed in my personal professional capacity, and most certainly do not represent either my Institute or the opinions of any of my colleagues. Why Iran is returning to war ft.com/content/22fdb2… via @ft

Russian forces are shifting from mass drone swarms to isolated, manually controlled strikes at ultra-low altitudes to evade radar and interceptors. Presidential advisor shared footage of a Shahed drone flying at just 22 meters, urging rapid adaptation. kyivpost.com/post/80582