A New DIME Approach to Policy for Iran and China
By Jeremiah Shenefield
The role of any foreign policy, regardless of political leanings, should always focus first on the preservation of the national security of the United States. The central sticking points for politicians, government bureaucrats, and planners are what topics rise to the level of national security concerns? Policymakers have claimed national security extends to international terrorism threats, climate change, or ensuring lasting global democracy in the face of authoritarianism. While all reasonable, a common policy concern/goal is the pursuit of economic prosperity and the continued status of the U.S. as the global economic leader. Economies are broad, touch every aspect of society, politics, and foreign policy, especially in Washington. The driver of global economy and commerce is energy; either solar, wind, fossils fuels, commerce, and by extension, world economies grind to a haul without it. Outside regional terrorism and proxy/sectarian wars, energy is the reason Iran is still relevant in U.S. foreign policy circles. Policy effects regarding the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) must weigh risks to global shipping commerce, threats to gulf allies (themselves involved in energy exports and affairs), the proliferation of weapons and destabilizing governments, and the wider role energy plays in the newest global power struggle between the U.S. and China.
Assuming the current administration believes that China is the pacing and economic threat that analysts believe the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is, every policy decision should have an element that affects China. Regarding Iran, the IRGC and current regime should be the single focus for the Middle Eastern regional policy the U.S. needs to address in 2022. With an eye to goals and end states, the question becomes clear when viewed through a grand strategy of countering China. How does U.S. policy places DIME (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic) effects on the IRGC (and by extension, the regime) to undercut Tehran’s support for regional terror actors, secure regional stability, and eventually cut or eliminate Iranian energy exports to China? In doing so, impacting the PRC’s ability to expand its economic and military might in the years to come. The U.S. needs to accomplish all three of those goals without impacting the Persian people, destabilizing the country (causing further chaos across the region), or overtly challenging the Chinese economy, thereby forcing a higher likelihood of global conflict with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Every DIME recommendation involves differing degrees of risk assumption. Each recommendation involves the potential for regional instability, political fallout, disagreements with allies (large and small), and the remote likelihood of Chinese interference at any stage. If the overall strategic goal is to counter China; U.S. policy regarding Iran plays a role and opens potential new vectors to cool relations across the Middle East while continuing to pressure China globally.
The current administration, like every other recent example, claims to have a global focus but, moves from crisis to crisis with little consideration for how these moves impact the grand strategy. The Biden administration’s interest in returning to the JCPOA, for example, has had limited effects at stopping drone attacks against U.S. forces, nor have these efforts addressed how these moves relate to the wider regional security concerns or how these efforts affect the PRC.
Nesting a regional DIME policy regarding Iran under a grand strategy to counter China’s global advance makes sense. While regional actors such as the Houthis, Iraqi SMGs, and Hezbollah have a role in the implementation of various DIME effects, placing effects on China is the desired end state. China’s interactions with Iran are extensive. Not only does China supply Tehran with arms, but China also played a significant role in starting Tehran’s arms industry.
If the U.S. is to draft a DIME policy against Tehran, it should keep the vulnerabilities and outcomes inflicted against China in mind alongside U.S. goals of limiting effects against the Persian people. Effects with a higher risk level of implementation that also negatively impact either the Chinese/Iranian relationship or, more specifically, their energy relationship should be weighed and considered before all others. When considering a DIME policy to place effects on the IRGC and Tehran, the U.S. should first flip the script on China and develop and implement a whole of government grey-zone/unconventional warfare (UW) approach to strategy development and implementation.
New DIME Policy Recommendations
Older Iranian policies failed for being too narrow a scope and were not nested with a grand strategy. Former President Obama’s poorly conceived diplomatic outreach to curb the Iranian nuclear program via the JCPOA did not target the IRGC, nor did it address their actions across the region. It tried to succeed by appealing to the Persian people to reenter the international world and contribute to stability and economic growth instead of pursuing nukes.
Diplomatically U.S. policy should first examine how to appeal to a long-time enemy. The purpose of starting with diplomacy is to change the global and regional narratives of militarism and distrust between the US and Tehran in public and as a sign of goodwill to appeal to the Persian people. With an eye on China and with a constant focus on how the UW campaigns are used, removing sanctions is the first policy step to engage Tehran and the international community. With a nod toward non-European nations, sanctions relief could show good faith and push Iran back towards the international community. Nations such as Turkey, India, South Korea, and Japan could grow their economies and undercut Chinese efforts to leverage the energy and commercial influence unmolested from competition in Iran while also undercutting the animosity Tehran uses to feed self-imposed isolation and control of its population with the message of death to America.
Diplomatic efforts visible to the Persian people are key to undercut the IRGC influence within the nation. Some believe that constant brinkmanship has failed and the time for reasonable peace movements can appeal to the people under Tehran’s thumb.
Information (IO) messaging, Cyber, and non-kinetic UW operations are the lead efforts in the new policy recommendations to place effects on the IRGC because the overall purpose is the split Tehran and Beijing apart as covertly and cost-efficiently as possible. The Intelligence Community (IC) should implement the ways and means under the direction and oversight of the NSC. The IC needs to direct focused and cohesive negative messaging against IRGC while directing positive messaging campaigns towards the populace. This is a tall order but there are tips to start planning for future IO. First, cyber-attacks have shown effectiveness at placing effects to limit Iranian nuclear advancements such as the Stuxnet virus attacks years ago.
Each of these cyber efforts can also benefit wider IO campaigns which also have impacts on the international community and can further shape efforts against China. First, IO campaigns highlighting Chinese abuse of Muslim communities, such as the Uyghurs, while also highlighting Chinese equipment used to repress the Persian people during protests is an avenue to affect the views of the Persian people towards Beijing.
Many of these tools rely not only on skilled U.S. operators and algorithms but Farsi speakers, and above all, placement, and access to Iran’s networks. These efforts take time and have significant risks, but these ways and means are much less expansive and expensive than current efforts to deploy massive strategic assets to the region and can nest efforts into the wider fight to limit Chinese influence globally and in the Middle East.
The term “gray zone” or Unconventional Warfare (UW, going forward) was coined by the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Command “to describe activities, actions, or conflict in the space between peace and war.” “The types of UW campaigns…are considered elements of soft power and are differentiated as instruments of national power (diplomatic, information, military, and economic) and tools of national security policy (finance, intelligence, and law enforcement).
Each policy recommendation element assumes varying levels of risk both domestically and internationally. Narrowing risks assessment to a simple list is not possible and planning considerations/high-risk decision points should be weighed alongside normal planning risk concerns such as timelines and gaging political fallout if things go wrong. A recommendation allowing Iran to keep its ballistic missile inventory while lessening sanctions could cause preemptive escalation from Israel and any overt military actions or cyber operations that are attributed to the U.S. could cause “escalatory” actions such as attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which have direct economic blow-back globally and further impact the grand strategy.
Alternative Analysis and Evaluations
To fairly evaluate the proposed new DIME foreign policy measures, critical war gaming outlined the specific strengths and weaknesses weighed against criteria such as the cost, the risk of success/failure, and effects on grand strategy, among other factors. The outline of risk initially described was also factored into the scoring. After thoughtful analysis, the recommendations to focus on diplomatic efforts extended to the Persian people; information, and cyber operations to place effects on the IRGC, and their relations both internally and externally to proxies (not to mention on the PRC) all ranked as strengths. Limiting military operations to UW operations to weaken the IRGC’s control over the nation while providing a more cost-effective counter to expensive military asset deployments such as deploying troops or aircraft carriers also all ranked as strength along with olive branch economic measures to divide the Persian people away from the regime in Tehran and by extension to Beijing.
This policy is not without weaknesses. Damaging domestic and foreign allies and political capital through diplomatic efforts with nothing in return from Tehran upfront rated low. IO and cyber operations have risks associated with poor execution, loss of assets, and risk doing further damage to attitudes towards the U.S. Couple those weaknesses with the potential danger faced by the loss of U.S. personnel conducting UW training and operations alongside the potential for wider escalation which could further destabilize the region or even risk of inflaming relations with China. Assuming these weaknesses have alternatives such as a heavier military hand or more aggressive diplomatic actions; there is no indication those effects would increase the likelihood of success. Most alternatives have categorically failed in the past. New actions only risk escalating tensions and damaging the overall strategy of countering China which is a reasonable planning concern.
These policy recommendations are radically different from those implemented since 1979 but any policy towards Iran should be complete, have an assessment of risk, while also nesting each DIME effect with the global grand strategy to keep pace with China. A focus on information and diplomacy with a mind toward UW implementation for all future military actions coupled further with new economic opportunities could give the Persian people just enough operating space to cut themselves off from China while limiting the IRGC’s control over the people. This is not a clean DIME policy, but if implemented successfully the IRGC’s influence abroad could be cut significantly and this trickle-down of influence coupled with the rise of the newly impacted and internationally linked Persian people could impact the flow of energy to Beijing, thereby nesting with U.S. grand strategy. There is still a significant risk, but this policy survived vetting, review, and plausible alternatives and delivers a course of action that is dramatically and potentially more cost-effective means of addressing both Tehran and Beijing.
Bennett, Brian. "'A Decision Was Made.' Biden Faces the Fallout for His Chaotic Retreat in Afghanistan." Time (online), SEP 02, 2021: 1. Accessed FEB 17, 2022. https://time.com/6094786/biden-afghanistan-fallout/.
Bozorgmeha, Najmeh. "Iran Vows to Import Vaccines Despite Curbs: US Sanctions Rouhani Orders Overseas Jab and Says Vulnerable Groups Will Soon Benefit." Financial Times, DEC 10, 2020: 6. Accessed JAN 04, 2022.
Chmaytelli, Maher. "Drone Attack on U.S. Forces Foiled West of Baghdad." Reuters (online), JAN 05, 2022: 1. Accessed JAN 05, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/drone-attack-us-forces-foiled-west-baghdad-2022-01-04/.
Cordesman, Anthony H. Iran and U.S. Strategy: Looking Beyond the JCPOA. Government, Burke Chair in Strategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies. 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep33760?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Disney, Patrick, John Feffer, and Danny Hosein. "Dealing With Iran's Hardliners." Foreign Policy in Focus, APR 04, 2008: 3. Accessed JAN 02, 2022. https://fpif.org/dealing_with_irans_hardliners/.
Erbschloe, Michael. Social Media Warfare: Equal Weapons for All. Boca Raton, FL: 2017. CRC/Taylor & Francis.
Gould, Joe, and Mark Pomerleau. "Why the US Should Right Russia, China in the ‘Gray Zone’." Defense News (online), JAN 04, 2022: 1. Accessed JAN 12, 2022. https://www.defensenews.com/information-warfare/2022/01/04/why-the-us-should-fight-russia-china-in-the-gray-zone/.
Harold, Scott, and Alireza Nader. China and Iran: Economic, Political, and Military Relations. Policy, Center for Middle East Public Policy (Rand Corporation), Santa Monica: 2012. Rand Corporation.
Lamear, Geoff. "A Nonsense Policy is Needlessly Putting American Troops At Risk in Iraq and Syria." Task and Purpose (online), JAN 07, 2022: 1. Accessed JAN 07, 2022. https://taskandpurpose.com/opinion/us-policy-iraq-syria/.
Lamson, Jim. "New Missiles, New Risks: The ESCALATORY IMPLICATIONS OF IRAN’S PRECISION-STRIKE WEAPONS." War on the Rocks, JAN 14, 2022. Accessed JAN 14, 2022. https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/new-missiles-new-risks-the-escalatory-implications-of-irans-precision-strike-weapons/.
Landau, Emily B., and Ephraim Asculai. "the JCPOA, Three Years On." INSS Insight (Institute for National Security Studies) 1-4. 2019. http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep19405.
Nicoll, Alexander. "Green Berets Train Sights on Battle for Local Loyalties." Financial Times (2): 1. 2001.
Obama, Barack. "Disarming Iran: a First Step." Vital Speeches of the Day, NOV 23, 2013: 5.
Paphiti, Anthony, and Sascha-Dominik Dov Bachmann. "Russia’s Hybrid War and Its Implications for Defence and Security in the United Kingdom." Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies 44: 28-67. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5787/44-2-1175.
Ramani, Samuel. "Iran's Careful Approach to China's Uyghur Crackdown." the Diplomat, SEP 18, 2018: 1. Accessed JAN 06, 2022. https://thediplomat.com/2018/09/irans-careful-approach-to-chinas-uyghur-crackdown/.
Scobell, Andrew, Alireza Nader, and Jon B. Alterman. China in the Middle East: The Wary Dragon. Report 1229-A, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Arroyo Center, Santa Monica: 2016. Rand Corporation. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep37658.
The Alma Research and Education Center. "Iranian UAVs are in Venezuela Within Range of Miami." UAS Vision. JAN 05, 2022. Accessed JAN 10, 2022. https://www.uasvision.com/2022/01/05/iranian-uavs-are-in-venezuela-within-range-of-miami/.
Troeder, Elizabeth, and Army War College (U.S.). A Whole-Of-Government Approach to Gray Zone Warfare. Carlisle, PA: 2019. Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press.
Ward, Steven R. and Georgetown University. Center for Peace and Security Studies. Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Washington D.C.: 2009. Georgetown University Press.
Zraick, Karen. "What to Know About the Death of Iranian General Suleimani." the New York Times (online), JAN 03, 2020: 1. Accessed JAN 07, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/world/middleeast/suleimani-dead.html.