Inside Islamabad: ‘End Iran’s Drone Industry or Face Destruction,’ Warns Peacemaker Mansoor Ijaz

Mansoor Ijaz is well-known in Washington and Islamabad power corridors – political, military and intelligence.  A physicist and neuro-mechanical engineer by education and hedge fund manager and venture capitalist by profession, Mansoor has long played an unofficial “citizen diplomacy” role in some of the most intractable problems the world has faced in the past three decades.  He ventured into Sudan when no nation was willing to talk to Khartoum so the US could get access to Sudanese intelligence files.  The Mukhabarat had a lot of data on Al Qaeda’s precursors before Osama bin Laden grew a ragtag group into a global network that was audacious enough to conduct the 9-11 attacks upon the United States.  Mansoor co-authored the blueprint for cessation of hostilities in Indian-held Kashmir in 2000 that brought about the “Ramadan ceasefire” and peace in the Kashmir valley for nearly a decade.  His “invisible hand” in Pakistani affairs, as CNN’s Fareed Zakaria once noted, caused much controversy and confounded many as to his intentions and ambitions.

So as peace talks get underway in Islamabad today between US and Iranian delegations, Capitol Times turned to the man once dubbed “The Peacemaker” for his take on how the US-Israeli led military actions against Iran might be brought to a peaceful resolution.

Our interview with Mansoor follows, and provides quite the forerunner for our larger, in-depth interview with him for this month’s Capitol Magazine print edition where he provides never before posited arguments for the strategic roadmap President Donald J. Trump has charted for America.

ANIL:   Mansoor, let’s begin by setting the stage for these penultimate talks in the Pakistani capital today.  We have Vice President J.D. Vance, the president’s trusted international negotiator Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner representing the US delegation.  What do you see as the framework for discussions with the Iranian delegation?  What are the guardrails?  What’s on offer?  Is there a bridge that can be built for the cessation of hostilities?

IJAZ:    First, Anil, thank you for reaching out and giving me the opportunity to voice some thoughts.  Let’s start by looking at what the US has done to deleverage Iran, and what Iran believes it brings as increased leverage to these important talks.  The US and Israel, through their penultimate bombing campaign, have destroyed most of Iran’s missile launch, manufacturing and mobilization capability.  They’ve targeted and killed Iran’s theocratic and military leadership down three or four levels – enough to remove the country’s “institutional memory”.  And Isreal has with great effect nearly wiped out Hezbollah’s offensive military capabilities in southern Lebanon.  Lebanese leaders can actually see a light at the end of the tunnel now, having been squeezed between Israel’s hawks and Hezbollah terrorists for much of the past decade.  So much so that they are ready to talk real peace with Israel as early as next week.  The Lebanese-Hezbollah element should be treated separately because Hezbollah, for all its intertwined connectivity to Iran, is a one trick pony – destroy Israel.  The United States is not front and center on that issue.

The problem these talks face is that America’s overwhelming military power coupled with Israel’s superlative “humint” [human intelligence gathering] inside Iran has been largely offset by the new leverage Iran has developed in two areas not seen in such conflict zones before.  First, Iran has successfully choked off oil tanker traffic in the Straits of Hormuz, sending oil prices up by as much as 100% and threatening the global economy with an energy shock that will certainly send the big economies into recession, and smaller ones – like Pakistan’s – into death spirals.  The second is Iran’s drone capabilities, able to inflict outsized damage compared with the cost and ability to deploy them.  Drone warfare has caused havoc in the Gulf countries.  Thousands of Iranian drones are targeting civilian, military, energy and tourism sites every day, even after the ceasefire was announced.  Drones were a key factor in President Trump’s decision to depose Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela where swarms of Iran’s Mohajer-6 combat drones were being manufactured and distributed in violation of international sanctions against both countries.  So, in my view, the essential topics to get resolved today are ending Iran’s drone warfare capability and resuming safe passage for the Gulf’s energy supplies to the world.

ANIL:   Are you saying that the nuclear discussion is no longer front and center?  Was that not the reason President Trump so forcefully gave for why American military personnel and assets are being put at risk?  What doesn’t add up here?

IJAZ:    That’s a great question Anil.  Allow me to put some perspective on it.  Pakistan’s greatest military and diplomatic victory over India was the mid-to-late 1990s nuclear policy of “strategic ambiguity”.  It was a deliberately deceptive approach aimed at maintaining uncertainty over whether Pakistan had the bomb or not, did it work or not and whether it could be deployed against an enemy or not.  Nawaz Sharif, the elder brother of Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, decided he had no choice but to lift the veil on Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities in May 1998, shortly after India had conducted a second nuclear test.  With strategic ambiguity gone, military conflict with India became a greater danger for Pakistan.  In May 1999, an incident in the Himalayas at Kargil, under the guidance of then Chief of Army Staff Gen. Pervez Musharraf, resulted in a military coup against the Sharif government that kept civilians out of power for more than a decade.

I give this example because the United States now knows what type, location where and how much highly enriched uranium Iran has.  “Strategic ambiguity” is no longer a factor, which means that while Iran’s 400kg of highly enriched bomb-grade uranium remains a big problem, it’s one that can be managed, and therefore flows in as part of the discussion, not necessarily the most pressing thing on the END HOSTILITIES agenda.  Putting a stop to Iran’s use of asymmetric warfare capabilities, however, must be a defining element in any peace agreement.

ANIL:   Is there, in your view, a difference between the political leaders Iran has sent for these talks versus those who have remained back in Tehran?  Is the US delegation led by Vice President J.D. Vance capable of bringing about a peaceful resolution?

IJAZ:    Now you’re going to get me in trouble.  But let’s have a go at this very tough needle-to-thread question.  In a theocracy, there can be no divergence from the ideological path that sets every road traveled on fire.  The Iranian delegation sent to Islamabad sports its most pragmatic theocrats.  But they are not empowered sufficiently to make the hard calls these meetings will require.  The IRGC will have a strong hand, perhaps the deciding one, in any Iranian response.  I have long held that IRGC commanders, who are likely guarding the Supreme Leader, are writing coded directives attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei while he lies in medical distress.  The uncertainty and inability to deliver a defining YES or NO will create a lot of handwringing on the US side.  And it could get worse – a lot worse – if the Iranian pragmatists say YES to reasonable U.S. options, head back to Tehran only to find out they’ve been overruled by the hardliners and mercenaries – there is no deal.  That would be the worst outcome.

For the U.S. side, the delegation is a perfect representation of President Trump’s negotiating style – mix things up a bit.  Internally, disagreements over style and content will always be there.  Each of the three men on Team USA have definingly different characters, knowledge bases, ideas for resolution and tone of delivery.  And that’s precisely why they have been sent in as a team, Iranian objections to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner notwithstanding.  Iran doesn’t trust the Dynamic Duo because they believe Iran’s ideas for resolving the enrichment conundrum were not presented in good faith to the president.  The truth, however, is more vexing.  Iran’s mendacity is, in part, to blame – yes.  But in larger part, the fact that Iran has been held hostage for the past 47 years to its forked tongue governance system means we may never know who we are really dealing with.

Vice President J.D. Vance is the one man Iran might trust to sort the problems out.  He enjoys the full confidence of the president, has near brotherly relations with Field Marshal Asim Munir and gets on with the very pragmatic prime minister, Shahbaz Sharif.  But for the Iranians, the vice president’s most endearing quality is his deeply held Christian beliefs – an American ideologue, if you will.  That type of personality the Ayatollahs can do business with because Iran takes the vice president’s religious character as a sign he can be trusted to convey with fidelity what they propose.  

America’s global roving ambassador, Steve Witkoff, is the man the president sends in to not just help negotiate the details, but to read the room and give the president intangible advice that can become paramount in making decisions.  As he also interacts with many other world leaders who are on the president’s TO DO LIST, it allows him to give first-hand briefs where appropriate, and that currency is one you cannot buy with all the gold in the world.

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, is in his blood a peacemaker.  He knows how to diffuse elevated anxiety and distress with just a few words, spoken with a quiet but firm tone that delivers a certain kind of confidence we have not had in our diplomacy for a long time.  And those he speaks to see the invisible hand of the president on his shoulder. 

So our U.S. delegation could not be more perfectly suited for dealing with men who are battered (did you see their faces as they walked off their jet in the wee hours?), who know what failure means for their decimated country if they fail, and who must face the reality that having shown their teeth (of the drone and Hormuz variety), they need to quickly adopt reasonable guardrails and get a peace deal done, or every one of those teeth will be ripped from the jaws of their own defeat. The elephant in the room in Islamabad will be Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.  These merchants of death and chaos are well-trained in the Art of War, rules of military engagement authored in the 5^th Century B.C. by Chinese General Sun Tzu.  They don’t operate like typical special forces units do throughout the world.  In the past, they used women and children to populate their sleeper cells behind enemy lines.  These cells, once activated, conducted very effective asymmetrical assaults against the West.  Now with IRGC’s adoption of drone warfare, their mercenaries can hit much stronger and more militarily powerful enemies with surgical strikes that debilitate them from internal razor-like cuts.  As I said in my previous response, finding a palatable way to remove drone warfare as a threat to Iran’s neighbors will be central to the success of these talks.

ANIL:   It’s interesting that you mention Chinese General Sun Tzu.  At this hour, there are intelligence reports circulating and making headlines that China is using this two-week hiatus in hostilities to ship weapons to Iran.  How would that change the calculus of war?

IJAZ:    Well, now you understand the real problem we have in this conflict.  It is also a good reality check on why Pakistan is the right host for these talks, and why such a high-level delegation was sent by the Americans.  What was the saying from the Apollo 13 moon mission?  “Houston, we have a problem….”  And it’s a doozy.

The China rumors may or may not be true.  But I guarantee you that it was not Iranian weaponry which shot down two American F-15E aircraft and trapped one of our weapons systems pilots behind enemy lines.   It wasn’t Iranian weaponry that shot down our helicopters either.   My fear is that Russia (and maybe China soon as well) is about to make this conflict a proxy battlefield to test Russian and Chinese military hardware against the best America has puts to work. 

President Trump understands very well that both the Russians and Chinese would like to test their military hardware against the best American hardware out there.  The problem is that only one downed pilot has to be taken hostage to make this military action a nightmare politically, strategically and diplomatically.  We cannot afford to start World War III in a proxy battlefield test of wills that hands a pyrrhic victory to the maniacal leaders in Tehran.  It’s the strongest reason for us to get the heck out of there, if we can achieve two objectives through this peace negotiation.  End drone production and deployment.  Open the Straits of Hormuz.

Otherwise, just raze the place to the ground and park American Destroyers in the Straits to guarantee safe passage.  We have our own mine removers – just deploy them at the mouth of the Straits and sweep the place at a frequency and efficiency that conveys security.

ANIL:   So how would you frame the solution with these difficult needles to thread?  What are the tenets of durable and lasting peace?

IJAZ:    Let’s start with the easy stuff.  Iran should be invited to join the Abraham Accords.  Even though it is rooted in the Shia branch of Islam that represents about 10% of Muslims worldwide, bringing the Ayatollahs into a framework that embraces the Jewish state and Islam’s penultimate Sunni State (Saudi Arabia) will do much to defuse the maniacal nature of the Ayatollahs.  It will also force the IRGC to decide what it wants to be – an organ for national security, or at outcast gang of misfits that will be disbanded and stripped of their resources to act like mercenaries.  Iran would get in return the release of its frozen assets, normalization of diplomatic ties and a phased release of sanctions that were aimed at Ayatollahs and other senior personalities / their families on a personal level.

Second, Iran should agree a formula for disgorging itself of the 400kg of highly enriched uranium.  For this, there are two options in my view.  A friendly country that America trusts (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, for example) could become the initial repository for that enriched uranium until a longer-term solution could be found, thereby reducing the transport problems and the time it takes to arrange for such sensitive materials to move.  The decision-making bureaucracy would also be more streamlined in these authoritarian states.  The wealthy Arab states, together with America, Russia and China could buy the enriched uranium in tranches of 40kg each.  That money would be restricted in its use within Iran to rebuild civil society and institutions that serve its people.  Priority to the citizenry, reduced emphasis on militarism.  The US might also consider releasing certain sanctions (for example, on Boeing aircraft parts and planes) that help revive commerce and trade within the country by facilitating travel and commerce.

Third, the drones.  This is a tough problem to solve equitably because ending Iran’s offensive ability to use drones will remove the last vestiges of military security where everything else has been destroyed (missiles, launchers, airfields, fighter jets, tanks, etc).  Losing any ability to defend the nation is not something any Iranian official – theocratic, secular, mercenary – could easily agree to.  But perhaps this could be achieved on a gradual downslope as a first step in any peace agreement. Iran might agree to stop targeting its Arab neighbors, with the IRGC confirming cessation, in return for more robust security guarantees from Israel and the United States.  Trade and commerce agreements, both in the region and beyond, could be introduced as part of the framework.  Only Iran knows what it needs to restore any semblance of normal life for its citizens.  But removing the use of such razorblade weapons as a tool of state engagement will go a long way in getting commerce and trade jumpstarted.

Finally, Hormuz.  Pakistan should become a cornerstone contributor to the Peace Plan whose opponents it hosts.  Field Marshal Munir could propose the use of Pakistan’s naval forces, including divers (who by the way are among the best in the world), advanced sonar, underwater drones (perhaps even ones being developed by some of America’s most advanced defense manufacturers), aerial LiDAR and artificial intelligence systems that can conduct Automatic Target Recognition to identify where, if any, sea mines have been placed.  Whatever hardware Pakistan does not have, America, France, the UK and others should just make it available.  Further to Pakistani involvement, Iran should agree to allow the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman provide patrols and joint “securitization” of the Straits so those whose products are being shipped are also helping protect.  If China wants to join in, most welcome.  If India wants to join in, most welcome.  But the more multilateral the patrol forces are, the less probable there will be any hostile confrontation.

What should the U.S. offer Iran in return?  The toll concept can work, as long as the reward is split with all who have an interest in the Straits remaining open.  The wealthy Arab states could voluntarily donate their share back to Iran as part of their contribution to rebuilding the country.  They could even provide matching grants if Iran agreed to use their construction industry players and other industrial capacities that would commercially increase the volume of trades in goods and services throughout the country.  As the toll booth became an integrated part of Hormuz’s operation, the United States could begin reversing sanctions policies.  Step by Step.  Iran could present it’s list of most impactful sanctions so the working relationship resulted in changes to sanctions policies that actually benefit Iran, rather than being window dressing.

I wish the teams a lot of luck – it is so important that energy flows, that the tankers set sail, but only when we can be sure Iran’s bad behavior stops.