« Hiatus | Main | Advice for Military Public Affairs »
January 6, 2006
Sinking Feeling
[Several updates follow the original post. Please scroll down.]
My spider senses are twitching about Iran. I sense a disturbance in the force. Several reports, from different sources -- Strategic Forecasting, the Turkish press, and now RegimeChangeIran -- are all hinting at windows of opportunity that are closing: for the US or Israel to stop Iran's nuclear program, or for Iran to exploit the situation in Iraq to its advantage before democracy takes root.
Pundits are all worked up debating whether 2006 will be like 1994.
Perhaps a better comparison might be 1914. Things might get hairy awful fast in the mid-east. Iran is not just another country; it is an entire Persian civilization with a long history of conquest from Darius and Cyrus fighting the Greeks, to the Sasanians, the Safavids, and the modern state.
The prediction markets currently have a 36% chance of a US or Israeli airstrike on Iran by March of 07. I plan to keep a close eye on these numbers.
Here's what I expect in the next 12 months.
-There will be airstrikes upon Iranian facilities by either the US or Israel.
-There will be catastrophic, if not cataclysmic, terror attacks in various parts of the Middle East, sponsored by Iran or its proxies; The Gulf States, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq are potential targets.
I'm not going to make any definitive statements of causality. Either of the above two events may happen before the other. What happens after those two is anyone's guess. But I think they are both coming, and coming faster than we may all expect.
I have a bad feeling about this.
Please discuss.
UPDATE: Many assume that Iran would not overtly use terror or the deterrent effects of its new nukes to its own gain in the immediate future, thinking instead that things would settle into a "cold war" of sorts.
This represents a best-case and is foolhardy for planning purposes. As usual in strategy, Iran's advantage rests in its ability to exploit seams; at the moment there is quite a transitional seam in Israeli politics and therefore policy. If there were plans on the drawing board for an Israeli strike, they are being shelved for sure. We are about to encounter another seam via the US election as well, wherein the entire Congress temporarily becomes entranced by domestic concerns and local politics.
If Iran declares itself a nuclear power, the institutions, systems, policies and governments of the region and the world will not just snap into a new paradigm of a "cold war" with Iran, though in the longer term, that is certainly probable. Instead, from the moment Iran makes the announcement, or detonates a bomb, a new seam begins between the old policy regimes and the new. And there lies Iran's advantage. Much hay can be made while the capitals of the west are engaged in debate on a response.
I'm calling it like I see it.
UPDATE2: Welcome, Instapundit readers.
UPDATE3: Between reading reader comments this evening, I was perusing a chapter in Grand Strategies in War and Peace entitled "British Grand Strategy in World War I" by Sir Michael Howard. This section struck me as particularly relevant to our current discussion on Iran:
In 1915, whatever British strategists may have intended, the eastern front was the major theater because the Germans had decided to make it so. During the course of that year the German armies in the east inflicted such drastic defeats on Russia that her Western allies began to doubt her capacity, and even more the will of her government to carry on the war at all. It was the need to relieve the pressure in the east that compelled the French and the British armies to continue their offensive on the western front. There was no longer any expectation of a strategic breakthrough leading to a major decision: the object now was to pin down the German forces and exhaust them. It was a strategy determined by the French High Command, and one into which Kitchener allowed himself to be drawn only very unwillingly. But if he did not do so, he feared, not only the Russians but even the French (who had already suffered over a million casualties) might be tempted to make peace. It was at this stage that the truth broke in on him that one has to make war, not as one would like to, but as one must.[emphasis added]Are we not perhaps in a similar situation with Iran? As much as Kitchener would have preferred to use British naval forces to merely blockade Germany, or to invade from the south, via the Dardanelles as Churchill disastrously suggested, thereby taking pressure off the Russians in the east, but without going straight into the maw of the enemy on the west, as much as he would have preferred these alternatives, he slowly realized that they would not work. And he was forced to fight the war in a much less than ideal fashion.
Here we are again. As much as we might like to a) have the EU diplomacy work or b) have no insurgency in Iraq simultaneous to this crisis or c) have a larger ground force in readiness or d) have more perfect intelligence or e) just let Israel do it, as much as we might prefer those things, they either aren't available or they won't work.
Iraq, as messy as it is, has perhaps spoiled us still for what war really is: a situation wherein every alternative is equally unpalatable, but in which one must act, must do something, risking possible defeat from the choice taken against certain defeat from the failure to choose at all.
UPDATE4: There is now a French-language trackback to this post, so I thought I'd investigate. The author is, of all people, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Swiss Army. Using the SYSTRAN Language Translation Technology, I translated his post and will copy it into the extended entry of this post, so click "Read More" if you are interested. His bio is here and you can translate that with Systran as well if you'd like. Certainly interesting: from private to LtCol in 9 years. Seems, impressive, oui?
UPDATE5: While we're all considering all the ifs, ands and buts to the Iran situation, I encourage those who haven't to read an article by Mark Helprin in the Claremont Review of Books, entitled "Let Us Count the Ways." Here is an excerpt particular to Iran:
Take for example Iran, a peripheral state that is nonetheless the most powerful and belligerent sponsor of terrorism remaining in the Middle East and indeed in the world. This is a country of 73 million, with a formidable military and difficult mountainous terrain. It is not, absent the kind of mass and power the United States and NATO needlessly relinquished at the Cold War's end, a country to invade, even in the "in-and-out" style advocated herein. And yet it has acquired and is acquiring intermediate-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, it is a habitual and recidivist supporter of terrorism, and its legislature frequently opens with chants of "Death to America."The sections I cut from the quote were mainly related to the 2004 election, the time when his piece was written. Helprin is an unabashed realist, and disagrees with the democracy push in the Arab world, a point on which I disagree with him. But man, do I love the way he thinks. Even with our forces still engaged in Iraq, there is absolutely nothing militarily to prevent us from executing the punitive actions he describes. Nothing. If we have but the will, it can happen tomorrow. And as he astutely mentions, the mere threat of such a program may be enough to cow Iran into abandoning its nuclear schemes.We treat this obvious threat as if it were insurmountable, because due to our insufficient preparation, current deployments, and strategical blindness, at the moment, it is. The administration has no policy . . .
. . . Meanwhile, Iran shelters al-Qaeda, acquires missiles, and races toward nuclear armament.
But were the open and bleeding flank in Iraq closed, the center safely held, and the American military properly supplied, rebuilt, and rejuvenated, the sure way to strip Iran of its nuclear potential would be clear: issuance of an ultimatum stating that we will not allow a terrorist state, the legislature of which chants like a robot for our demise, to possess nuclear weapons; clearing the Gulf of Iranian naval and coastal defense forces; cutting corridors across Iran free of effective anti-aircraft capability; surging carriers to the Gulf and expeditionary air forces to Saudi Arabia; readying long-range heavy bombers in this country and Guam; setting up an unparalleled search and rescue capability. If then our conditions were unmet, we could destroy every nuclear, ballistic-missile, military research, and military technical facility in Iran, with the promise that were the prohibited activities to resume and/or relocate we would destroy completely the economic infrastructure of the country, something we could do in a matter of days and refresh indefinitely, with nary a boot on the ground. That is the large-scale option, necessary only if for some reason the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities could not, as is likely, be accomplished by stealth bombers and cruise missiles. The almost complete paralysis of its economy, should it be called for, could be achieved with the same instruments plus naval gunfire and blockade.
UPDATE6: More fuel for the fire. Here's an excerpt from a recent report by Strategic Forecasting entitled, "The Iraqi Election's Effects, from Washington toTehran:"
One of the unremarkable constants in the Middle East of late is how hands-off a position the Israelis have been taking on everything. Threatening not-so-subtly to take action against Israel is old hat, but doing so against the background of increasingly touchy nuclear negotiations is another issue entirely. When the Iranian president began saying that Israel should be wiped off the map -- or at least moved to Alaska -- the Israelis obediently perked up and began dusting off battle plans to neutralize (read: nuke) Iran, with March bandied about as a realistic timeframe.Hmmm.There are many things that could complicate U.S. goals in the Middle East, but none would do so more efficiently than Israeli missiles striking Iran. Since the last thing the United States needs is an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran, and the second-to-last thing the United States wants is a new war in Iran, the Iranians are betting that the Americans will try to placate them as Washington does with North Korea.
What the Iranians want, of course, are guarantees on future Iraqi policy. They also want to make certain that their Baathist enemies are never again in a position to return to power. And they are expecting the United States to guarantee all these things. Of course the Sunnis are expecting the United States to guarantee their interests. The Kurds have always relied on the United States. And the Israelis want to make sure that the Iranian nuclear threat is not left to them to handle. Each has its own threat. The Sunnis can crank up the insurgency. The Shia can invite in more Iranians. The Kurds can try to instigate an uprising in Turkey (or Iraq, Iran or Syria). The Iranians can threaten Israel with nuclear weapons, and the Israelis can threaten a preemptive strike.
Washington does not want any of these things. That means the United States must juggle a series of nearly incompatible interests to get a situation where it can draw down its troops. On the other hand, the Shia need the Americans to protect them from the Sunnis and the Iranians. The Sunnis need the Americans to protect them from the Shia. The Kurds need the Americans to protect them from the Turks (and the Sunnis). The Iranians need the Americans to protect them from the Israelis. And the Israelis generally need the Americans.
So, there is enough symmetry in the situation that the Bush administration might just be able to pull it off. What "it" consists of is less clear and less important than the balancing act that precedes it. It is in that balancing act that the United States reduces its forces, pushes al-Zarqawi to the wall, plays Iraqi and Iranian Shia against each other and gives the Iranians enough to keep them from going nuclear before Washington is ready to deal with the issue on its terms. It is dizzying, but that's what happens when war plans don't work out on the field the way they did in the computer -- which is usually. The administration has actually crafted something resembling a solution, or a solution has presented itself. Between that and polls that are a bit above awful, there is a chance the situation could work out in the administration's favor.
However, as all of this suggests, a final agreement is not only nowhere in sight, but not even in mind. Any conclusive agreement that would be acceptable to one group would be unacceptable to at least one other. In fact, the only thing that all of the domestic players agree on is that Washington has a role to play as the ultimate guarantor of any new government. The United States has no problem with this save one condition: that Washington is not responsible for day-to-day security. That in turn requires one item: a functional, united Iraqi army. That too has a precondition: a united army must include the Sunnis. Again, there is a follow on: the only Sunnis with military expertise are the Baathists.
Of all the possible Iraqi arrangements, the one that terrifies Iran is the one that is actually happening: a political agreement, with the support of all the local players, that involves a united, functional military complete with unrepentant Baathist elements. Memories of the 1980-1988 war are suddenly running a lot closer to the surface. Iran's biggest problem in challenging this scenario is that it does not have an effective lever. All of the Iraqi power brokers have signed on for their own reasons, and no one -- even the Iraqi Shia leadership -- believes Tehran would offer a better deal.
Which means that the only power Tehran can talk to is the one player that has no interest in talking to it if Iraq is about to be settled: the United States.
Since Washington is trying to avoid an Israeli preemptive strike against Tehran, the United States suddenly has an interest in making Israel feel better. To do that, it needs to get the Iranians under control. To do that, it needs to talk to the Iranians. And now we have Iran with something the United States wants (an Israel that is not about to go ballistic) and the United States with something Iran wants (an Iraq that Iran can tolerate).
The United States is not going to hand Iraq over to Iran, but should Tehran choose to complicate matters, neither is the United States going to be able to withdraw its forces.
Within that imbroglio there is room for compromise: have the United States -- via a permanent occupation -- guarantee Iraqi neutrality. An Iraq with 165,000 U.S. troops is in neither Iran's nor the United States' interest, but an Iraq with 40,000 troops at bases in the western Iraqi desert is. It is enough of a force to prevent unsavory governments from arising, but not enough to make Iran fear that Tehran could be flying the Stars and Stripes after a hectic weekend.
Looking at headlines, here's some that catch my eye related to the scenario above:
ElBaradei 'loses patience' as Iran breaks UN seals at nuclear research centres
"I am running out of patience, the international community is running out patience, the credibility of the verification process is at stake and I'd like - by March - which is when my next report is, to be able to clarify these issues," he said.That makes yet another mention of the magical date of March, 2006 . . .
U.S. Has Votes on Iran, Rice Says:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States and its European allies have the votes to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council for possible censure over its nuclear ambitions, signaling increasing skepticism that continued negotiations with Iran will ever succeed.Could we see a UN Security Council resolution push by the United States beginning in March? The StratFor piece assumes that Israel would not just attempt to hit Iranian nuke facilities by airstrike, but would attempt to nuke Iran pre-emptively. I'm willing to bet that we can lean on the Israelis and get them to hold off on such an adventure while we let diplomacy run its course.
The questions are: how long does diplomacy have? what happens when it doesn't work? What might the UN resolution call for? And how does the mid-term congressional election impact the US decision-cycle, if at all?
Something else interesting: Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran is a report by the Strategic Studies Institute which looks certainly relevant. Here is the synopsis (sorry --haven't read the whole thing):
As Iran edges closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb and its missiles extend an ever darker diplomatic shadow over the Middle East and Europe, Iran is likely to pose three threats. First, Iran could dramatically up the price of oil by interfering with the free passage of vessels in and through the Persian Gulf as it did during the l980s or by threatening to use terrorist proxies to target other states’ oil facilities. Second, it could diminish American influence in the Gulf and Middle East by increasing the pace and scope of terrorist activities against Iraq, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, Israel, and other perceived supporters of the United States. Finally, it could become a nuclear proliferation model for the world and its neighbors (including many states that otherwise would be more dependent on the United States for their security) by continuing to insist that it has a right to make nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and then withdrawing once it decides to get a bomb. To contain and deter Iran from posing such threats, the United States and its friends could take a number of steps: increasing military cooperation (particularly in the naval sphere) to deter Iranian naval interference; reducing the vulnerability of oil facilities in the Gulf outside of Iran to terrorist attacks, building and completing pipelines in the lower Gulf region that would allow most of the non-Iranian oil and gas in the Gulf to be exported without having to transit the Straits of Hormuz; diplomatically isolating Iran by calling for the demilitarization of the Straits and adjacent islands, creating country-neutral rules against Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty state members who are suspected of violating the treaty from getting nuclear assistance from other state members and making withdrawal from the treaty more difficult; encouraging Israel to set the pace of nuclear restraint in the region by freezing its large reactor at Dimona and calling on all other states that have large nuclear reactors to follow suit; and getting the Europeans to back targeted economic sanctions against Iran if it fails to shut down its most sensitive nuclear activities.The authors of the study appear to think the clock is not ticking quite as fast as those of us here in the blogosphere. But these are all diplomatic actions we might look for in the next few months.
This is all just fascinating.
----------------------------
[A note on the translation: My French is, well, nonexistent, but I think this machine version does a pretty good job. The points come across. He's trying to figure stuff out just like we are.]
Iran: planning of employment (3)
What is difficult to represent here, it is that in a true planning work is made in parallel and that briefings regularly gather the planners to synchronize their activities, to provide new information or to give adapted directives. Up to now, on the initiative of the undersigned, one focused oneself on the operative concept (translation of operational design), which provides the overall picture of the operation. It is a question of taking a third step in this element, then then to pass to activities more analytical than conceptual, to return there with the articulation of the tasks according to the decisive points. It is thus an iterative process: one can return on certain things decided or accepted if one realizes that makes some they do not agree.
This third stage consists in determining the centres of gravity. In the case of Iran, the already held discussions largely contribute to specify the sights on the matter, but it is necessary nevertheless to be questioned. Which is the pivot of the Iranian power which it is absolutely a question of making rock if we want at the same time to stop the nuclear program, to neutralize the mode of mollahs and to support a change of this mode? Which thing, material or not, is opposed to these at the same time physical, psychological effects and ethics which our operation must deploy to achieve its goals? Which part of Iran is decisive for the attack of its probable objectives, of which most important are the acquisition of the nuclear weapon and the integral control of the capacity?
With my direction, the point of convergence between the protection of the nuclear program, the capacity of the current mode and its control of the population is certainly its sedentary, repressive, dissuasive capacity and manipulator. It is the force of any autocratic system which to aim to the monopoly of the weapons and information, but also its vulnerability vis-a-vis an external military action. Consequently, if these reflexions are correct, the “red” centre of gravity should be the capacity of the mode to be protected, repress and gather. In more general terms, one could speak about credibility or even about perceived perenniality of the mode; in more practical terms, such as one uses them at the operative level, one could speak about the sedentary and repressive apparatus of the mode.
Concerning the centre of gravity of the coalition, I propose in preamble to retain a coalition directed by the United States and centered around their means. That does not mean that Israel is not able to assemble an operation against Iran, quite to the contrary, but I do not think that this one can in the long term have the same effects on perenniality of the mode, and thus on the opinion of the Iranian population. Contrary, like showed it the case of Iraq, the United States have the capacity and the will to engage for a certain duration in a complex operation, aiming not only destroying or neutralizing, but more especially transforming a whole company and at diffusing precise ideas. If Iran is perceived like a sufficiently acute danger, the Americans will be determined to only engage if it is needed.
Under is these conditions, which the pivot of their power? What can most quickly stop, and even to block an operation on suspicion counters Iran? I think that the “blue” centre of gravity, like very often in a democratic nation, is not other than the support of the American population for the operation. A conflict counters Iran on bottom of nuclear warheads, of calls to died of the “Great Satan” and of vision conquering for Islam should exceed the framework in favour of the United States and found a consensus more easily than the offensive deliberated against Iraq. Reason for which it is with my direction the support for the operation, and not with the administration in place, which would be decisive.
Here are thus two centres of gravity to be discussed. To prepare the following stages, which will be focused on the analytical aspect of planning, I advise to follow this very interesting discussion on the blog of Chester, like this site gathering a great quantity of information, even if their reliability must certainly be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by Ludovic Monnerat At January 7, 2006 10:18 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ludovicmonnerat.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/365
Comments
The centre of gravity of the problem “Iran of mollahs” is the result of the complex/together weights and levers which are connected there.
Iran of mollahs is insulated neither in space nor politically and the power is not only the “force battles”;)
The blue centre of gravity when with him is already rather limiting with the operation Iraq (54%?), a new engagement (under these conditions) will be likely to make it pass to the “red”.
It should be recognized that the “clan”, which replaced the USSR in are offensive “modern”, works with a certain success (it should be recognized) for a long time, with constancy and consequence of means, to sap the blau schwerpunkt, thus showing an in the long run realistic, coherent vision. Plans of state major of the “clan”, the “project”, having become public following the Swiss searchings (see Sylvain Besson). This “project” shows its coherence of objectives with the blackmail with oil continuation the war of the Ramadan (Kippour, October 1973), project known under the name of the review published by the authority European, Eurabia.
What indicates a “civilisationnel project” soujacent, registers “genetically” in the space of representation of the “clan-klan”.
I nevertheless am very astonished that one continues to speak about soldier when one is on the level géo-thing (political)
Posted by: Mikhaël At January 7, 2006 10:45 AM
The “red” centre of gravity: the sedentary and repressive apparatus of the mode.
the “blue” centre of gravity: the support for the operation.
I validate for what relates to me the definition of friendly” and “enemy” centres of gravity the “. No the sales leaflet particular to put forward for that, essence while having been largely developed since 2 days.
A remark however concerning the series of questions in connection with the third part: Would not be advisable it not to confront them with the factor “time”? Geometry of the answers likely to be brought being able to vary according to the time of which we lay out so much before during the action.
Posted by: Winkelried At January 7, 2006 12:27 PM
Posted by Chester at January 6, 2006 1:47 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/810
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sinking Feeling:
» Iran : planification d'emploi (3) from LudovicMonnerat.com
Ce qui est difficile à représenter ici, c'est que dans une vraie planification les travaux se font en parallèle et que des briefings rassemblent régulièrement les planificateurs pour synchroniser leurs activités, fournir de nouvelles informations... [Read More]
Tracked on January 7, 2006 3:21 AM
» Our Darkening Sky: Iran and the War from Winds of Change.NET
Yesterday, Tom Holsinger argued "The Case for Invading Iran." Today, Joe Katzman responds. There will be, he writes, no invasion. The effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is about to fail - and there will be consequences. [Read More]
Tracked on January 30, 2006 8:38 AM
» Special Report: The USA's Transformational Communications Satellite System (TSAT) from Winds of Change.NET
As video communications is integrated into robots, soldiers, and UAVs front-line demands for bandwidth are rising sharply. The Transformation Communications Satellite (TSAT) System is part of a larger effort by the US military to address this need. We ... [Read More]
Tracked on February 2, 2006 12:07 AM
» Has war with Iran begun already? from The Adventures of Chester
Back in January, I said: Here's what I expect in the next 12 months. -There will be airstrikes upon Iranian facilities by either the US or Israel. -There will be catastrophic, if not cataclysmic, terror attacks in various parts of... [Read More]
Tracked on February 23, 2006 10:03 PM
Comments
Would the national will of the US, flagging already, fail even further if the Iranians created the perception of chaos throughout the region, and not just in Iraq?
If Iran could engineer some sort of terror blitzkrieg attack in the region -- say in the capitals of Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq, it might bet that the American response would be to speed the US departure from Iraq, instead of causing a confrontation with Iran.
Posted by: Chester at January 6, 2006 3:59 PM
I'll take a contrarian position.
In my narrow vision of the world, conservatives tend to be the ones that actually take the "progressive steps". Liberals blather on endlessly about it, the conservatives actually do it. Reagan was perceived as one of the greatest American warmongers of the 20th century. He also functionally ended a 40 year old conflict without firing a shot. If Ted Kennedy or someone like him, had proposed the kind of cuts in nuclear arsenals that Reagen and Gorbachov did, their would have been zero support in the Senate and hence, no progress.
In terms of being a hardline nationalist nutcase bent on destroying the world,(a view much of the world had of Reagan and Thatcher during the 80's), the current Iranian leader wins the Grand Prize of all time. This also puts him in a position to acheive "Peace" with the West and Israel without internal opposition, if he were to so chose.
War is always a miscalculation by one or boths sides.
Posted by: Soldier's Dad at January 6, 2006 5:11 PM
And here I am with my spidey sense tingling.
Anybody wonder what all those ex SoDs and SoSs were doing meeting with the President the other day?
I have a feeling that 2006 is going to be as interesting as 2005 (and that ain't necessarily good)
Posted by: kat-missouri at January 6, 2006 6:19 PM
Anti-media says in his/her post
"3) A strike will "justify" their taking out of Israel, leaving only the US to oppose them."
How much do you think would be left or Iran (or the entire Arab world, for that matter) after an Iranian strike, given the nuclear arsenal Israel allegedly has?
Posted by: Pissedoffinnj at January 6, 2006 6:21 PM
Bush is too damaged politically to be able to lead America to attack Iran, barring a direct and incontrovertable attack on the US first. With Abramoff now adding fuel to the fire, American impotence will only increase.
Without national - even international - unity an attack on Iran will fail or be immensely costly. This was almost as true four years ago, and Iran was even then a charter member of the Axis of Evil. The initial attack was made on Iraq instead of Iran only because it was the best that could be done. The hope was, as Big Pharoah said, 'Buy Iraq, get Iran for free.' But national/international unity failed to sustain, and the gambit failed. We'll have to wait until the next round of raises circles the table to see how high the cost gets to continue this war on Islamofascism.
Posted by: Glenmmore at January 6, 2006 6:22 PM
I think we would be wise to take the Iranian President at his word. The prophecy of the Hadith (12th Imam - return of the Mahdi) gives true believing Islamists hope for the repeal of the modern world and establishment of Islamic heaven right here on earth. Much to hope for if you're an Islamic Jihadist, much to fear if you are not. My heart says wait and see, history says we'd better get ready, big time.
Posted by: Terry Baker at January 6, 2006 6:24 PM
While the UN is a dysfunctional body there will probably be a dance there before any strike. This could actually be a good political move because with Iran's current government, their attitude will likely be that they are going to build the bomb and the rest of the world can stuff it.
If the US attacks, it is unlikely that it will be just a surgical strike with cruise missiles. To keep Iran from attack Iraq and Afghanistan, and our other allies in the region the attacks should be with the intent of destroying Iran's ability to make war. It would be more like the 1991 Gulf War than the 80's Israeli strike. This would have the added benefit of making a general uprising, similar to that against the Taliban, more likely.
Posted by: Merv Benson at January 6, 2006 6:34 PM
Given 10's of thousands of US troops scattered across Iraq and very long suppy lines originating in Kuwait, I got to believe the US has zero interest in starting a blood feud with the Iranians. The world has yet to see a crazy Nuke power. North Korea is a candidate but still don't know if they have the bomb. Iran will get the bomb, I think that is a given. Deterrence will be used with new American guarantees extended to our MidEast friends.
Isreal simply doesn't have the military capacity, short of its own nukes, to cause much serious damage to Iran....tryanny of distance comes to play. For Iran to be set back years, a sustained air and ground op would be needed. Who can do that? We could, but then we'd have a much wider war in the middle east. During an election year. By a lame duck White House. Ain't happening.
Posted by: RichB at January 6, 2006 6:47 PM
If I were Bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Zawahiri, I would definitely be unenthusiastic, at best, about Iran's current course of action. OBL & Co. may be fanatics but they're not idiots: they know that Iranian miscalculations could well result in a war-to-the-knife that would quickly turn the once and future Caliphate into one giant radioactive crater, not to mention Islam itself into just a lengthy historical footnote. Indee, the "seam" Chester talks about could widen to the point where it could engulf them all.
The Iranians seem to have forgotten that, as in 1914, once the troop trains start rolling, it could be damn near impossible to call them back.
Posted by: Mark at January 6, 2006 6:57 PM
I believe the Iranians are (1) pushing as hard as they can to develop a nuclear weapon, (2) they will use it against their enemies, and (3) no amount of non-military pressure will persuade the Iranians to do otherwise.
They don't care about being censured by the UN. They're as immune to economic pressure as a country can be. They don't care if their athletic teams are excluded from the Olympics.
The only thing that will put off the day they get nukes is military action. A full scale invasion and occupation (ala Iraq) is not needed. We may not know of every facility, but the ones we know of and can put out of commission (whether by airstrike or by tactical insertion of Special Forces) will allow those who would be on the receiving end of Iranian nukes to live just a while longer... a worthwhile goal, in my estimation.
And, with Sharon out of the picture, we can forget about the Israelis doing our work for us. There is no way the new Prime Minister will order military action against Iran, for fear of being blasted by Bush as not 'helping things' along the path to peace.
Civilized countries have long had problems treating the crazies of the world as they are... instead we deal with them as if they are sane and logical and only need some nice talk and gentle pressure to come along. And the sooner we realize that the President of Iran is crazy (by our standards) and deal with that, the better and safer we will all be.
And for those who hesitate against using military force now because of fears of what Iran might to in retaliation, wouldn't we rather be dealing with them now, before they have the bomb, and not later, when they can wreak whatever mischief they want, knowing they have the greatest deterrence ever invented?
Posted by: steve sturm at January 6, 2006 7:12 PM
Merv,
I like your analogy to the Gulf War. A 6-week air war, but without the ground component seems like it is certainly within the realm of possibility. You are right -- this would be no surgical strike.
Another thought: before Iraq there was much consternation about "the Arab street." Turned out to be a case of conventional wisdom gone wrong. Now, we have similar concerns that a US attack would radicalize the Iranian populace and turn them toward their masters in the clergy rather than away. Could this piece of conventional wisdom be off-key as well?
The plan for US troops in Iraq in the near future - say the next 5 years at least - seems to be to have 40,000 or so in Baghdad and Anbar, and then another couple of divisions on call in Kuwait. Pundits usually examine this plan through the lens of how it affects our strategy in Iraq, but it will have greater effects on the region as a whole. Two divisions in Anbar to keep the peace and be two-days driving distance from all Arab capitals. And two in Kuwait that can serve as a trip-wire to Iranians coming south (or actually defeat them) or can turn south themselves and seize the Al-Jubail oilfields if all goes to hell in Saudi Arabia. This force-planning will come to fruition in the next 18 months, and is the realistic counter to our idealistic drive for democracy in Iraq.
Finally, Glenmmore, I think you hit perfect pitch as to how constrained Bush is at this point. But all bets are off if Iran provokes anything. Bush is constrained in terms of starting anything for now. But if provoked, the easiest response for him, politically and militarily, is the kind of air war that Merv implies and I detail above.
This is one reason why I'm making no predictions about which of the two events -- airstrikes, or large-scale terror attacks -- will come first.
Posted by: Chester at January 6, 2006 7:15 PM
It's apparent that at least some of the responders are unaware of Iran's intentions.
When the leaders of Iran get to together, they end their meetings with "Death to Israel! Death to America!" It's not an empty threat.
Iran has successfully tested its Shahab-3 missiles...firing them off of freighters and detonating them at high elevations.
According to President Reagan's chief scientific advisor, William E. Graham, the sole purpose of a test like that would be to detonate nukes at high elevations...creating EMP nukes (electro-magnetic pulse nukes.)
EMP nukes fired from the Atlantic and detonated over the east coast would shut down all the electricity as far as Chicago and St. Louis and cover the entire east coast.
There would be no refrigeration, tap water, working toilets, trucks, cars, etc.
It would result in chaos and pestilence for half the country.
The nexus of Muslim fanaticism and EMP nukes means we must act quickly and dramatically.
THAT is why the former Secretaries of Defense and State were brought to the White House. We are about to ebark on an extraordinary venture to protect our very existence.
If we don't..."Death to America!" will not be just a slogan...it will be a dream come true for the demented, twisted Islamists and their messianic 'million-man-Jonestown-kool-aid' fantasies.
Posted by: Kelley at January 6, 2006 7:18 PM
The US won't make a strike. The American people have no will for another war on another front. By all rights we should be in Iran & Syria for what they've done supporting the "insurgents", but it simply ain't gonna happen.
Israel probably would want to, but they can't do anything. Iran is further than Iraq and and learned the lessons of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear program, and has spread things out and has bought air defenses.
Iran will get a bomb, and just about the only thing will happen is Israel will go public with their nuclear problem, making sure that Iran knows the price they will pay if they try anything.
Posted by: JeremyR at January 6, 2006 7:21 PM
From what I've read Iran is developing in nukes in heavily populated civilian areas knowing that this gives them some protection against the more compassionate west.
If we were to strike, the resulting civilian deaths could likely turn the population against us -- or it could be like Germany after WWII...the people were tired of the Nazis, the country was obliterated, and people just wanted to get on with their lives.
Posted by: Carolynn at January 6, 2006 7:28 PM
Tried to send a trackback but your server isn't accepting them.
I've written two articles on Iran and the Bomb. We are coming to a decision point, probably by the end of March: do we accept Iran as a nuclear power, or not? If not, what are we going to do about it?
Iran used all of the EU's diplomatic efforts to stall for time while they raced to complete their quest, and they are almost there. I don't believe we can let them into the nuclear club, because Iran is governed by an aggressive and irresponsible regime that has demonstrated its complete and utter disdain for the respect of sovereignity, international law, and human life. Letting Iran have the Bomb is akin to letting Charles Manson own a gun shop... except, unlike Manson, the Iranians are capable of planning and execution.
War's coming, and it isn't going to be pretty. We can't count on the Israelis to take care of the problem, and we never realistically could, anyway. If anyone's going to take care of Iran before they attack, it's going to have to be us.
Posted by: johnclif at January 6, 2006 7:29 PM
Two of you have now mentioned that Bush's meeting with former foreign policy officials earlier this week was actually about Iran. That's intriguing so I took a look at his remarks on the occasion. No mention of Iran, and 4 mentions of Iraq or Iraqis.
But who knows what they talked about with the doors closed and the cameras gone.
Posted by: Chester at January 6, 2006 7:30 PM
johnclif,
I'll double-check my trackbacking. Why the end of March? I've read this elsewhere too. What's the rationale there?
Posted by: Chester at January 6, 2006 7:32 PM
I'm not as convinced as some of you guys that Iran's leadership has a big hard-on to use a nuke as soon as possible. Look how significant a player Iran has become since knowledge of its nuclear program became widespread. I'm sure there are factions within the Iranian power structure who recognize that they are about to acquire a big pile of chips.
"Cold war" assumes that rationality drives Iranian strategy and that the rational course is survival. I doubt Iran sees it that way. ... said somebody in an unattributed post above. No, I would counter, that would only be the course if survival were the only option. And it would only be the case if some kind of monolithic Iran would "see it that way". Iran isn't doing the thinking, a group of human beings, all competing for power, is doing the thinking.
Cold War is actually the better model for what is going on, better than WWI. The "entire Persian civilization" is actually smaller and easier to diplomatically isolate than was post-WWII U.S.S.R. There is no Shiite equivalent to a Communist Internationale because the Shia constitute a minority within the world of Islam. Although Iran has active elements within e.g. Lebanon via its client state Syria, they are not exactly the kind of allies that inspire confidence in a foxhole. Syria's moribund regime is less stable than that of Iran.
To my knowledge (and I very well could be wrong on this; please correct me if you can point me to a source) there is no tradition within Shia Islam which can be thought to be analogous to Sunni Qutbism/Wahhabism. Therefore, although Ahmadinejad might spout the occasional partially-coherent anti-Semitic rant, I doubt they have a plan in place that goes, "Okay, Imam, first we nuke the heck out of Tel Aviv, and then, after the passing of the resulting nuclear winter from the massive retaliation, we can REALLY push ahead with the Universal Caliphate!"
Posted by: k. pablo at January 6, 2006 7:49 PM
...Why the end of March?...
I posted this over at Froggy Ruminations...
I've got an internet-acquaintance who has a theory that the reasons for our war in Iraq has more to do with macro-economics than oil or Saddam's brutality. It goes something like this...
Roosevelt took us off the gold standard, and ever since then our currency has been tied to "the full faith and credit" of the US. Since then, when the government needed money, they just printed it. [Imagine bumping up against your credit card limit, and then simply moving the limit.] There have been many requests for audits of the Gold Reserves at Ft. Knox--all of them ignored--the implication being that Ft. Knox doesn't have any (or anywhere near as much as we're lead to believe.)
We live in a world where the Dollar is the world's standard trading currency. I don't quite understand the reasons why, but we derive benefits from this. [The lefty-moonbats may actually have a point when they scream about the debt crushing the Third World, left to them by the World Bank and WTO policies. Otherwise, they're still moonbats.]
Saddam was about to begin trading his oil for Euros. The Euro is partially backed by gold. Therefore, Saddam was on the cusp of starting an Economic War against us. The Euro was making a play at becoming the world's standard trading currency. Knowing this, it is no wonder that we got no help from the French or Germans. We went to war to keep the Dollar preeminent.
What does this have to do with Iran? In spite of the nuke issue, and their irrationality over Israel, the Iranians are about to do exactly what Iraq attempted to do. They are about to sell oil on the Iranian Bourse--basically a stock or trading exchange.
The only difference I'd have with you Froggy is on the timing. The "point of no return" isn't going to be in '07 nor is it tied to the American election cycle. It's going to be this March--when this Bourse opens.
The domestic intelligensia is aware of the threat that Iran poses, but for the simple reasons--nukes pointed at Israel, the US, and the rest of the West. They don't understand the macro-economics of the matter.
Posted by: azlibertarian at January 6, 2006 7:51 PM
Ah the joys of Iran. Plenty of options, each worse than the other.
Ultimately it comes down to assumptions about the intent of the Iranian regime. Are they messianic mad men who will launch a nuclear attack to bring about the destruction of Israel and the return of the 12th Imam or are they simply going to try to play big boy power politics?
Neither option is very attractive.
I think we’ll get a good read on where the President is going during the State of the Union. If Iran figure prominently, I think we can read that as the beginning of the campaign to build support and prepare the public for what’s coming. If he doesn’t, it’s not definitive of course, but I think it may indicate that the administration may ultimately be willing to accept a nuclear Iran (or they’ve come to the conclusion they can’t stop it).
If an attack does happen, I agree that a sustained air campaign is still the most likely scenario but the issue then becomes, what happens the day after? Iran isn’t going to take it without striking back. They can make life a lot harder in parts of Iraq that have been calm till this point. They’ve had 20+ years to place terror cells across the world and of course the Lebanon-Israel frontier may explode.
Unfortunately, that may be small potatoes compared to what Iran with nukes will do.
Posted by: Drew at January 6, 2006 7:53 PM
I'll double-check my trackbacking. Why the end of March? I've read this elsewhere too. What's the rationale there?
ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, has said that Iran could have a nuke by the end of March.
Since the maniacal head of Iran believes that the end time is near, one might expect Iran to follow through with his vision...a vision held by 20% of Iranians, according to an article today on WorldNetDaily.
Posted by: Kelley at January 6, 2006 7:59 PM
Chester,
Your contrarian scenario is far too rosy. Ahmedinajad was deeply involved in the 1979 hostage taking. Moreover, you leave out what many analysts really fear - an alliance among China, Russia and Iran. Russia has the most advanced ICBM technology currently deployed. China has economic vitality and cash to buy. Iran has strategic position. An alliance like this increases the probability of a 1914 scenario, but with nuclear weaponry.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at January 6, 2006 7:59 PM
I think the current stalemate results out of what Iran can exploit in Iraq if the West were to launch an actualy strike. That's why any move will probably come at the very last minute -- in order to buy time. Of course, there's the typically reported Iranian agent infilitration into the south of Iraq, and the general pro-Iran sentiment and connections there. But I also read that Iran is amassing some 200,000 troops on its western border, in preparation of an invasion of the country -- blitzkrieg style -- in the south, should the West try to attack it. And most of our own men aren't down there.
In terms of buying time, I mean building up the Iraqi army and the country's national institutions so that it can deal with such a threat should the West actually have to do something about Iran.
Posted by: Robert Mayer at January 6, 2006 8:02 PM
The Israeli elections are at the end of March. This creates a temporary power vacuum of its own.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at January 6, 2006 8:03 PM
Iran will use their nukes as a deterrent for any regime-change and then can do more damage by exporting terror, etc.
This way they've got their "defense" all set up and can work "safely" at whatever nefarious stuff they want to do.
Plus the leadership gets to live, which won't happen if they use a nuke. Nuking Israel is just their fantasy and not a reality, much like some Americans want to turn France or Mecca into a glass parking lot...not for real.
Also, keep in mind Iran has experienced poison gas attacks and city-busters from Iraq before. If their original program was designed to counter any Iraqi WMD's can you really blame them?
Posted by: Aaron at January 6, 2006 8:08 PM
Great debate here.... first time listener, first time caller.
It is practically impossible to ascribe to Ahmadinejad any kind of an understandable "rational" strategy. And the mullahs are nuttier.
Iranian hard line politics are infused with the concept of the 12th Imam, caliphate, yada yada.. Unfortunately for the schizocracy of Iran, they rule a bunch of Persians. Persians are civilized.
The Iraninian government does not have the benefit of the support of its people. Eventually, the islamic republic will fall, and that time is close. From 79 til now, they have gone on further and more incoherent rants about Israel and the Great Satan, which can only lead one to the conclusion that as their political rhetoric becomes more insane, their leadership has done likewise; to wit: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khatami would never have engaged in the damning talk and insan policies of the current government. Neither would he have blown off a meeting with the EU or the IAEA. Tehran Sally has done both.
Don't act as if we are dealing with a rational "realpolitik" player in Ahmadinejad; we're not.
There will be no cold war because there will never be a nuclear Iran. A joint US-Israeli-NATO strike involving both air and ground forces will eliminate the Iranian nuclear program and likely cause a revolution by the civilized Persians who desparately want to join the civilized world. This WILL be far easier than Iraq.
Posted by: ruester at January 6, 2006 8:26 PM
Chester, the rational for the end of March has to do with elections, but in which country I can't recall.
Iran signed an agreement with Syria, in December, which allows Iran to send nukes and missiles to Syria for safe-keeping if attacked by the US and Israel. It also allows Iran to station their military forces in Syria to launch nuclear missiles at the southern parts of Europe, Italy and Austria to name two, in case of hostilities with the US and Israel.
It's like chess: we checked Iran by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, now they have made a compromising move. Next move is our's.
Most of the positive comments here are valid. I agree with Chester that EMP nukes, just one, could turn Fortress America into Tomb America in an instant. That the meeting between former SoDs and SoSs are a prelude to something big on the horizon requiring more experinced thinking and consensus than available with Administration secretaries alone. Saving the nation, saving or culture requires all hands on deck and in agreement.
Iran doesn't care about killing millions of Palestinians along with Israelies, both are infidels as far as Iran is concerned. We have to stop them and soon!
And we should not be worried about the civilian casulaties in Iran, as has been mentioned in Regime Change Iran several times, the people would defend their country against American troops on their soil even though they hate the Immams.
There is this one point, the president of Iran does not have his finger on a launch button, president Bush does and can launch Irans demise instantly.
Posted by: JimM at January 6, 2006 8:29 PM
Frankly guys, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran scares the sh*t out of me. Thanks Kelly for the larger stain on my trousers.
I'm not sure I agree however with the idea that Bush is too politically impotent to do anything about it. I believe the president(and his cabinet) have the brains to see the writting on the wall, and the balls to do what needs to be done. At least I fervantly pray so. The citizens of this country have spent untold billions financing a military to protect us from just this sort of senario. If our leaders are not going to use it in our time of need...I want my money back.
Posted by: lee at January 6, 2006 8:40 PM
The scariest element is that the people of Iran hate the mullahs and vice versa. I have spoken to several Iranians who have gotten out at different times and almost all say the people absolutely despise the religious leadership but the mullahs have the guns.
Most think that the mullahs would be just as happy to lose Teheran and other cities. The city people really hate the religious leadership.
The leaders of the Soviet Union still loved their own people and didn't want to risk a nuclear war. The mullahs really don't care.
Posted by: Rabblais at January 6, 2006 8:45 PM
On the purely political side, what would be the domestic and international repercusions of a US strike against Iran? I have been trying to figure that out for a while now, and to little avail domestically. I think I can figure out the international side. The usual suspects will declaim the US, our allies will mostly sit on the sidelines or perhaps slap our wrist, and most will secretly be glad that the US has removed one more problem that they would have to deal with. But now that Bush has won re-election, domestically what can be expected?
Posted by: Final Historian at January 6, 2006 8:58 PM
Lots of good comments here. I do feel that many comments here underrate how quickly American public opinion will change and harden in response to an Iranian nuclear attack. I often thought how Bin Laden, Arafat, Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and now Ahmadinejad look at the West the same way that Hitler and Tojo did. They see the affluent society where people are comfortable and do not want war. Nor do they need war to enrich themselves by plunder, the capitalist economy affords better opportunities. That desire to avoid the unpleasantness, brutality and destruction that war entails is reflected in the attitudes and actions of their leaders.
Those actions, observed by people with the mindset of Hitler, Bin Laden, Arafat, Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and now Ahmadinejad, create the germ of an idea – “Just with ferocity I can conquer this society and plunder its wealth.” Not having an understanding or tendency towards democracy they do not appreciate how quickly public opinion can change in response to events.
The classic example of this occurred during WWII. I saw related first by John Derbyshire of National Review:
“….during the early weeks of what in England was called "the phony war" (the Germans called it sitzkrieg — "the sitting-down war"), there was an illuminating exchange in the House of Commons. Some members of Parliament were putting pressure on Sir Kingsley Wood, the head of the air ministry, to bomb German munitions stores in the Black Forest. Sir Kingsley was shocked. "Are you aware it is private property?" he protested. "Why, you will be asking me to bomb Essen next!" Essen was the home of the famous Krupp munitions factories.
Four years later the Royal Air Force firebombed Hamburg, completely leveling eight square miles of the city and slaughtering 40,000 people — most of them civilians — in one night alone….”
My point is that people who think Bush is constrained or unwilling to fight Iran are not considering how American public opinion will change in response to Iranian aggression.
Posted by: Buck at January 6, 2006 9:00 PM
I think I've read everything I could find on this subject over the last few days, and everything I've read has bypassed one key possibility: Does Iran already have a nuke?
If so, that changes the game. If Iran is simply waiting for a pretext to detonate a weapon, then the situation is far more dangerous.
Posted by: Rob Thompson at January 6, 2006 9:14 PM
"3) A strike will "justify" their taking out of Israel, leaving only the US to oppose them."
Huh?
If Israel strikes first, Iran will not have the capability to retailate.
Israel can field 18 divisions of infantry and armor (that's 50% larger than the authorized strength of the US Army and Marines combined) in 72 hours. Israel has more first-strike aircraft than the US Air Force.
Right now, I bet half the Iranian Jews (who migrated to Israel) are back in Iran. Marking targets.
Five times the combined Muslim world has tried to eradicate Israel. Five times the super-powers stayed Israel's hand.
Wonder what will happen with Iran?
Posted by: Ymal Brucker at January 6, 2006 9:19 PM
The one thing that would make US action against Iran impossible is Bush's political future. Thing is, Bush has no political future, nor would he care. Bush can not run for anything.
Fifty percent of Americans already know that Iran has always been a bigger problem than Iraq or Afghanistan. Those of us that remember the Carter Administration have always assumed that Afghanistan and Iraq have been have simply been a way to put bases and troops within striking distance of Iran.
We will see a few days of the B2 Spirits and G117 Frisbees knocking out Iran's anti-air, then a few weeks of open season on anything bigger than a beebee gun by everything we have that flies. That includes both the zoomies and the rotorheads. Then the sixty days of the War Powers Act will loom, the idiots in Congress will squeal and scream, Bush won't care, he can't run for anything anyhow. The Dems will screech, Bush will stop the 'fight' and the Republicans will pick up another few Senate and House seats in '06.
Posted by: Peter at January 6, 2006 9:35 PM
Can't argue with your predictions or most of the analysis here. Only two points. First, Ahmadinejad sounds exactly like Hitler in the late 1930s. The worldwide political situation is close enough to 1936-1938 for government work. Failure to take action will lead to some cataclysmic event resulting in war somewhere due to a failure to appreciate Islam's basic tenets of conquest for Muslims against all infidels.
Second, Everyone, including most of us here, have consistently underestimated President Bush's resolve and guts. I don't think he cares one wit about whether he has the political capital to generate support for war in Iran. He will go to war if it is required to defend America from this threat, even if Congress can't get their act together. Don't ask me how he would pull it off, I just feel the man has a finely developed sense of right and wrong and doesn't care if Congress has insufficient courage to do the right thing. He has managed to exceed everyone's, (and I mean everyone's) expectations of what he can accomplish. And this is no exception.
He'll not allow Iran to develop AND deploy nuclear weapons -- one way or the other.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk at January 6, 2006 9:37 PM
"at the moment there is quite a transitional seam in Israeli politics and therefore policy. If there were plans on the drawing board for an Israeli strike, they are being shelved for sure."
I wouldn't be so sure of that. No particular quotes or links, just various things I've been reading about how Israeli govt is organizing post-Sharon.
Posted by: Yehudit at January 6, 2006 9:53 PM
These comments are absolutely spectacular.
I say let the Iranians mass their troops on the border with Iraq as much as they want. Let them leave their troops there and then when they do something stupid, we'll turn it into a free-fire zone and make the retreat from Kuwait City in 1991 look like a kindergarten picnic.
chsw, I think there are possibilities for loads of ad hoc cooperation among the Iranians, Chinese and Russians, and really, let's be honest, such cooperation already exists. But I think the idea that they will create some kind of alliance is unlikely because they all distrust each other way too much. Especially Russia and China. Iran can play them off against each other and get favors from both with ease though.
Posted by: Chester at January 6, 2006 9:55 PM
Subsunk,
Even though I can't figure out how he'll pull it off, I share your basic and unfaltering belief that Bush will save the day simply on the cojone factor.
Posted by: Chester at January 6, 2006 9:57 PM
If Iran gets the bomb, they will see it as cover to intensify their terrorist war against Israel. They won't pre-emptively nuke Israel and won't expect (rightly) Israel to do the same.
That being said, I don't think they plan on stopping with Israel. Half of Iraq and the oilfields of Saudi are Shi'ite, and I'm sure they don't like our presence in Afghanistan. Plus, I'm sure they have no qualms about using Hezbollah in Syria, either.
They have expansionist ideas and will push them unless their face is pushed into the mud.
We'll eventually do it, but I bet we wait too long.
If I were the Israeli defense minister right now, I'd be pretty GD nervous.
Posted by: ElamBend at January 6, 2006 10:02 PM
I don't think Iran already has a nuke. The first one off the line will be tested in the desert and held up for all the world to see. Malmood will bludgeon every one he can with the propaganda it provides while he builds the stockpile. However he has an achilles heel. Oil.
He's totally dependent on oil and gas for his foreign exchange. He's already causing serious financial disruption with the stock market down 30% and wealth fleeing the country. Dismantling the oil and gas infrastructure one facility at a time, is a low collateral damage operation which can be accomplished with Special Ops, Stealth JDAMS, Cruise Missles and a few MOABs for effect.
We will be supported by all our "friends" in Europe and the Congress will give the go ahead. Of course this option depends on a timely response. There's a diminishing return the longer he gets to acquire further weapons.
The nuke threat will be what's in the news, but the key to Tehran is its oil and gas facilities. The mullahs may decide it is time for Malmood's workplace accident and car swarm rather than give the reformers so much ammunition and leverage.
Posted by: Ed Poinsett at January 6, 2006 10:03 PM
It's definitely a worrisome situation, particularly as a lot depends on the rationality of the Iranian power structure.
We should note that Mao was extremely bombastic during the 1950s. Then the Chinese got the bomb. Suddenly they were much less bombastic. (There's an interesting analysis of the question at http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html)
It boils down to realizing just how much horror you have available, _and that the other side does too_. Which means that actually doing anything can result in destruction.
_If_ you're rational about it. Mao was a materialist and didn't want to risk China getting blown off the map. I don't know -- and a lot depends on -- whether the Iranians really believe that they can win a nuclear war with Allah on their side.
Posted by: Tony Zbaraschuk at January 6, 2006 10:15 PM
Terry- The 12th "Imam" is NOT the Mahdi, he's a Shia fantasy aimed at dividing the Persians and setting up Persian nationalism from other Muslims; the real Mahdi (Mohammed ibn Abdullah) will be the next elected Kalif by the shura council (in Saudi Arabia). The ahadith are clear that he will be in Mecca and that an army will come across the desert from the east in Arabia to fight him. The Mahdi will come via peace and economic prosperity- not through a war with Tehran. If anything, the new Islamic dinars, and Iran's plan to dump US dollars in March 2006 will do more to bring the Mahdi than Israel's bombs. Don't forget that Palestine will be back in Muslim hands before the Massih-ad-Dajjal is slaughtered, and in the last days there will be little technology. If you would like to claim that the annihilation which creates this scenario is eminent, then Allahu 'alem.
Posted by: Shellie at January 6, 2006 10:17 PM
I wonder how many people realize that it is Israel who is playing the cards here? If you don't believe me- go read the Ha'aretz Daily and the Jerusalem Post sometime. Israel has been pulling the strings of US military policy in the middle east for a long, long time. Israel just loves freaking out Americans and having Congress attack its enemies for it, so precious Israeli blood doesn't get spilled. Ask yourself- who gets caught in the middle when Iran and Israel go at it? It's the US troops in Iraq, and they are downwind of any nukes. Hasn't anyone noticed that this whole Iran scare is fairly recent? I mean, no one was complaining 5, 6, 7 years ago that Iran has nukes... they may have just elected a jerk this summer, but the whole nuke scare was just starting to pick up at the same time, and BANG! Everyone's in panic mode.
Posted by: Shellie at January 6, 2006 10:29 PM
This is a tremendous discussion.
One time, roundabout 1993, I was a sort of referee in a political debate between two friends with WIDELY divergent views. At sometime during the rambling discussion, my friend on the Left said "We should not be waging war for oil." My friend on the Right replied, without hesitation:
"Can you name a better reason?"
If Iran wants to start the world in a slide back toward the Middle Ages, their target would not be Israel or any Westernized nation (although the Eastern US EMP idea must look tantalizing to them).
It would be across the Gulf, in Saudi Arabia (in my opinion). Last time I saw numbers, Saudi Arabia sits on roughly 25% of known conventional petroleum reserves, produces about 30%, and supplies over 60% of Europe's needs (that last number is fuzzy and may be errant).
Two thirds of all that goes through Abqaiq, population ~20,000, nearly all expats. Most of that comes out of two huge terminal on the Gulf, where it THEN must pass through the Straits of Hormuz.
Were Iran to render those ports or Abqaiq itself unoperable, they'd not need to kill the West, as the West would kill ourselves fighting over $30 loaves of bread.
Maybe that last part's hyperbole. Maybe not.
The Saudis are conducting a study on building a pipeline through the Empty Quarter through the Yemen to the Arabian Sea. Why?
Anyway, great discussion. My point is that a lot of these scenarios are hideous bloody scary; Iran taking Saudi Arabia offline, to me, is slow death scary and makes my hands sweat more.
Posted by: Tim at January 6, 2006 10:39 PM
Tim,
Good point about Iran v. Saudi Arabia. But Iran doesn't have to actually use the nukes, they just have to be seen as being crazy enough to. Suddenly, they run OPEC and set the price of oil.
Also, I would assume the Saudis are working on getting thier own nukes and the day Iran announces that they have one, the Saudi effort goes into overdrive.
Anybody sleeping better thinking there are two nuclear armed countries in the gulf? It's not like the Saudi's government has great long term prospects and thier replacements aren't likely to be pro-Western liberals, are they?
The possiblilites just get better, don't they?
Posted by: Drew at January 6, 2006 10:52 PM
Since two commenters seemed puzzled by my third point, I feel compelled to expand upon it. (Both Pissedoffinnj and Ymal Brucker brought it up.)
3) A strike will "justify" their taking out of Israel, leaving only the US to oppose them.My point is, if Israel strikes Iran in an attempt to eliminate their nuclear capability, Iran will feel justified in firing every nuclear weapon they have left at Israel.
With all due respect to Israel's renowned fighting forces and their will to survive, it would only take two well-placed warheads (say Beersheba in the south and Nazareth in the north) to obliterate the state of Israel entirely. And Ahmadinejad has been quite clear that he intends to do just that. I doubt seriously he's concerned about collateral damage. The Negev would shield Egypt to some degree. Lebanon has enough Christians to "justify" deaths there, and Jordan is a "corrupt" western-style country. The Palestinians would die, but they're martyrs anyway.
So unless you think Israel knows where every missle and warhead would be and they can successfully take them out on the first strike, then the possibility of Israel surviving a nuclear attack would be almost nil.
Posted by: antimedia at January 6, 2006 11:01 PM
The last part is hyperbole. maybe even ignorant hyperbole. Go ahead, slag the oil fields, that just means the trillion barrels of oil shale under Montana, Wyoming and Alberta are not economically viable to develop. So Gas gets a little more expensive. Big deal.
I've watched Gas go from $.99 to $2.30 and unemployment is still 5%.
The EMP threat is overhyped (like Y2K).
Posted by: Eric Blair at January 6, 2006 11:05 PM
Chester asked
Would the national will of the US, flagging already, fail even further if the Iranians created the perception of chaos throughout the region, and not just in Iraq?
If Iran could engineer some sort of terror blitzkrieg attack in the region -- say in the capitals of Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq, it might bet that the American response would be to speed the US departure from Iraq, instead of causing a confrontation with Iran.For the next two years, the national will is irrelevant. Bush will do what he thinks best regardless of public opinion. He'll worry about propping up the national will afterwards. (I'm not being critical of Bush - simply stating observable fact. One of the reasons I support him is because he doesn't sway with every wind of public opinion.)
Posted by: antimedia at January 6, 2006 11:07 PM
Whoops. Make that "the trillion barrels of oild shale under Montana, Wyoming and Alberta are *now* economically viable to develop".
Posted by: Eric Blair at January 6, 2006 11:07 PM
Commenting as I read through. If the reputed "flagging of the national will" is based on the perceptions created by the Alien Nation Media, it is a chimera. The polls reporting this flagging are as trustworthy as the 'reporting'. I don't think Iran will initiate any blitzkrieg attacks, as it invites a retaliation which needn't be too fussy about collateral impacts. I suspect Iran will continue to creep, backstab, pay off killers and push blackmail and Madrids. I think Iran sees a nuclear weapon (Homer, "It's pronounced nooklier") as another kind of defensive fortress. The stakes immediately raise, because if anyone uses one, the piling on will be horrifying. That Armegeddon scares me. That the population of Iran is some 50% under 25-30, (help me, is this correct?), the mullahs have this potential brushfire/firestorm at their own feet to contend with. Given our military's skill with small unit/Special Ops, it's a resource waiting to be exploited. (I suspect it's being exploited already.) Will a nuclear Iran dampen down that dry grass enough to slow the overt passing out of SF matches? don't know. And finally, there is the impact of a Democratic Iraq next door. Elections are force multipliers to be sure. Another finally, Tim may be most correct.
Posted by: Kerry at January 6, 2006 11:18 PM
Chester is on the money here.
Sharon gone, confusion in Israel; Democrats chattering about impeachment of Bush; open divisions in the US as November 06 approaches. All this will mean TO IRAN that it CAN attack Israel and cause havoc in the Middle East. As Armageddon and the mullahs "KNOW", the US is basically gutless, and in the face of real havoc, will happily withdraw. Europe and Russia are not even important factors anymore. India will stand back and watch.
"Iraq the Model" is depressed because of the problems Iraq has in putting together a democratic government; this being the first time in Middle East History, the expectations have been - perhaps - too high; and the disappointment, too crushing...
Victor Davis Hanson made a speech at Hillsdale, in which he pointed out that Sparta attacked Athens because ... it could.
Iran will be thinking that it can. Now.
Posted by: heather at January 6, 2006 11:27 PM
Maybe an analogy is in order here. No one here would consider robbing a bank, because the risk of bad things happening are far too great and it's morally untenable.
But there are people who do rob banks. Some might even do it knowing they're going to get caught. The difference in thinking between those of use who would never consider robbing a bank and those who actually do rob banks is huge.
And then there are the truly crazy people. That brings us to Ahmadinejad (sp?). He apparently drives a 30 year-old car. That might be our first clue that his motivations are not the same as ours.
He also believes that a mystical light shone on him during a recent speech he gave. He even believes that the people in the audience never blinked during his 22 minute address.
He also thoroughly believes that the end of the world is near. He might be nearly right with his self-fulfilling prophecy.
What makes Ahadinejad so dangerous is that his nation is taking every step to carry out his promise...those Shahab-3 missile tests off of freighters aren't being done for nothing.
But Ahmaddinejad isn't alone in his wish...meetings are ended with chants of "Death to America!"
When there is a leader with messianic dreams of end times, combined with the ability and support to act out the dream, the only suprise would be that this zealot would betray his own heart and NOT attack the US.
Ahmadinejad is not the type of person who would decide against his own grand obsession. His mind is that of the crazed robber...not the mind of rationality.
He isn't motivated by money...he is motivated by a passion to create end times. His every move indicates that is where he is headed.
Posted by: Kelley at January 6, 2006 11:27 PM
This spring. No later.
Political considerations and popularity fall way down the list on the operative influences that G.W. Bush will consider when the safety and security of the nation are at stake.
I don't see a standoff war conducted over the course of weeks or months - DS Redux - as being useful at all. Not that we couldn't break Iran's infrastructure and their military that way, but the objective doesn't require a broad target set to achieve victory.
What do we need to accomplish here? We aren't targeting Muslims for being Muslim. We aren't targeting populations to bring about total surrender of states.
This isn't about genocide, on our part. Yet. It has never been anything else but that on the part of our enemy. The pivot is become the existence of a nuclear armed jihadi nation - which Pakistan is not, but Iran most certainly will be.
Jihadis conduct operations as Joe family man - right up to the moment they detonate their little bombs inside schools, mosques, funeral parties, buses, or restraunts - because their existence is dedicated not to victory but instead to death. Armed with boxcutters, shitty little bombs, websites, stolen airplanes, or guns, they get to do their act all the time. They win no war. They win no battles.
Except each murderer killing random innocents is just the head of a long line of nihilist savages waiting for their turn. And the swamp just keeps breeding more. They will never win the war - but that's not the motivation behind the murders. It's the murders for murder's sake that drives them.
The savages are on the cusp of unveiling a REAL bomb. What paradise awaits the shahid who sacrifices not only himself, but an entire Muslim nation, in attacking the infidel?
None, say I - but no jihadi has ever evidenced the least interest in a theological discussion on the point. Not one that didn't involved death for somebody. The jihadi lives to die in the act of empty murder.
Does anyone here doubt that Iran won't use a bomb? I don't.
The end objective of the war on terror remains to be restoring the safety and security of the nation and the safety of our citizens.
We have chosen to instill (not install) representative democracy across a swathe of countries in the HOPE that such governments will break the cultural and tribal cycles of despotism that produce Islamic jihadis.
We have tried a new kind of war to this end; sadly, there isn't going to be time to see if surgical war would have worked. All previous clashes between western civ and Islam have ended, without exception, when one or the other side ran out of resources or interest in conducting wars of annihilation. Capital "A" annihalation: no prisoners but women and children, cities and regions laid waste.
The Iranian people may well be awfully tired of the mullahs. They will soon have a window of opportunity in which to stand up for civilization, or they will join the mullahs as ash drifing east over south central Asia.
Targeted airstrikes and ground raids. Destroy known facilities, locate, kill/capture leadership, and sieze and hold known or suspected nuke related sites.
There will be a pause in which the Iranian population will be granted a choice.
We may be cursed with a high ratio of ne'er- do -well legislators and a population jaded by too much cable TV and Mickey D's, but we've got a president who understands his office.
Faster, please.
Posted by: TmjUtah at January 6, 2006 11:29 PM
The EMP threat is overhyped (like Y2K).
What do you base that assertion on? Not only does William E. Graham, the former scientific advisor to President Reagan, believe in the danger of an EMP nuke, so does former CIA director Woolsey.
But perhaps more importantly, so does Iran...which is why they've tested detonating Shahab-3 missiles at high elevations after firing them from freighters. In other words, Iran is going to try it...if they get the chance, they are going to fire a nuke up high over the US to see if it will knock out our electricity.
If it works, it will put the US into a true disaster. Even if we flatten Iran with nukes from subs in response, the US will still experience untold starvation and pestilence.
Posted by: Kelley at January 6, 2006 11:42 PM
Who and What is Ahmadinejad? A violent radical who's only experience with Westerners was torturing hostages seized from our Embassy in 1979. That's it. Of COURSE he will nuke Israel. Decisively. Killing most of the Israelis. Unfortunately without Sharon there exists no will politically to strike first despite this knowledge. Everyone knows Iran will destroy Israel. There just isn't the ability to muster the political courage to do something about it. And as a practical matter it would require US support which won't be forthcoming.
The Democratic Party defacto opposes Israel's existence and objected to a resolution condemning Iran's desire to "wipe Israel off the map" and Holocaust denial. A poster upthread could come out of Kos or DU or Howard Dean's office.
We of course will also be hit. Iran shelters bin Laden's senior staffers and Saad bin Laden, most influential son. Ahmadinejad has said publicly that striking the US will cause us to collapse, and has threatened to burn the Great as well as the Little Satan in the "fire" of Islamic nuclear weapons. When you are the agent of the 12th Imam, and God shines his special light on you at the UN with world leaders at your feet, what other course of action can a devout Muslim take?
Of COURSE we will get war. It's not ours to choose. Democrats have so poisoned the ability of the President to face REAL dangers that we will certainly lose at least one and possibly two cities. Ahmadinejad with no experience of the real West believes this will cause us to collapse in wickedness and Kerry take over, grovel with apologies. Or perhaps Pelosi. HE understands us less than we do him. Unlike the Soviets who understood us very well, since they were just a nasty variant of ourselves.
Likely happenings? Strikes on Israel that kill most of the population, with retaliation by the Israelis that kill many but not all Iranians which Ahmadinejad expects publicly. Probably also strikes against Europe, and several terrorist smuggled nukes into US cities, likely San Diego (important Navy base) and LA (using the Iranian exile community, probably as dupes, to facilitate shipment of the nukes).
At that point, well the Dems will certainly be happy with Israel being wiped off the map, and us being hit ("we deserved it" they will cry). However I guess most people will turn them out in a fury, and we will be launched into a real, global, ongoing war against Militant Islam that will make the slaughter on the Western Front 1914-18 seem like a picnic. The lights are going out all over the World, and we will not see them lit again in our lifetimes.
Just like the slaughter in the trenches could have been solved by fixing the Balkans before it errupted, so too could Iran before they went completely capable. IMHO their nukes are already there, they just need the warheads fitted to the new Shahab 3 missiles. This is the seam they seek to exploit. They've been open about it. They tried guerilla warfare in the Gulf in the 1980's found that it doesn't work on the Ocean against the USN. Now they have their trump card. Nukes. Probably with the threat of more against us unless we surrender. It's just a bigger version of the 1979 Hostage takeover. "Do this or we kill them."
That's what Ahmadinejad knows
Posted by: Jim Rockford at January 6, 2006 11:43 PM
Chester -- Wouldn't be so sure about Russia and China being bitter enemies. 2005 saw a breakthrough in diplomatic and military relations, with both countries holding unprecedented joint military exercises (invasion style, looked like practice for Taiwan). And they've re-energized the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a once relatively irrelevant institution, in what looks to me like the beginning of a drive to oust the U.S. from Central Asia post-Andijon. I'd say the new world is more about practical interests on both sides rather than ideology, etc. There's likely a mutual benefit to making sure Iran stays alive and kicking as people in the upper hierarchies of their governments have extensive business interests there -- and in Syria, as they did Iraq.
Iran's counting on their vetos and they'll probably get it. What will be more important is not if they side with us, but if Europe can revive its will to fight as its patience wears thin with its own negotiations. The Holocaust comments from Ahmadinejad seem to be really taking the piss out of Germany.
Posted by: Robert Mayer at January 7, 2006 12:27 AM
No nation has received the full extent of our collective power/wrath for decades.
The commentors here who opine that the Arab world sees the US as weak are correct. They even teach that to the jumpin jihadis in their fun little schools.
We need to make an official statement putting us firmly into an alliance with Israel. A statement to the effect that the Arab world's first nuclear detonation, for any reason anywhere, would be their last.
These thugs do not understand diplomacy at all, but are impressed with power.
Time to start "testing" our nukes in international waters in the Arabian sea.
Posted by: Peter Bland at January 7, 2006 12:47 AM
Welcome back, Chester. I missed your blogging.
Excellent discussion. Allow me to throw in my $0.02.
Predicting Iran's future behavior after they acquire nukes is futile...and misses the point. The US simply cannot allow Iran to have nukes.
There's no question that the American people would be overwhelmingly in favor of decisive military action in response to a nuclear attack against the US. But that also misses the point. It is absolutely essental for the US to take action to prevent this from occuring.
Any suggestion that Bush is politically constrained from taking such (dare I say it?) pre-emptive action is to risk committing the oft-repeated error of misunderestimating (;o>) him. I'm sure that Saddam, bin Laden, Kerry, and Gore all have unique insights concerning this.
I think the sustained air campaign is the most likely military scenario. I don't think it wouldn't be necessary to hit every single nuke-related facility in Iran to throw their nuke program into disarray. And signficantly degrading their military capabilities in the process wouldn't hurt our cause either.
As we speculate on how the US will react to events in Iran, I think it's fair to say that this scenario we currently face has already been war-gamed in great detail. If you look at a map of the ME, I think you will see that a grand strategy has been unfolding over the last four years. Bill Roggio made a great point on this over a year ago:
It is no accident that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia have been divided and surrounded in this manner. These nations have been ringed with a series of logistical bases, naval, air and special operations bases and prepositioned military equipment. The facilitie provide the support and logistical chain needed in the event that military operations must be executed from the spearhead in Iraq. Without Iraq, threat of invasion into Iran was limited to amphibious assault from Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf. While not militarily impossible, an amphibious assault would require enormous resources and increase the risk to Naval assets and the assault force. The American ground presence in Iraq provides for increased flexibility and safety if future operations are required.
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure our course WRT Iran has already been charted, our future actions having long been planned in advance. We're just waiting until a decision point is reached, based upon success or failure of diplomatic options. The ball, I think, is in Iran's court.
And speaking of Bush's meeting with the former Secretaries, I think that had much more to do with Iran than Iraq. Despite the negative view promulgated by the media, Iraq is not a crisis. It does not merit such an unprecedented consultation with so many former high-level administration officials. But Iran is and does. And I have to wonder: was Bush soliciting policy advice for a difficult decision to make...or seeking political support for a difficult choice already made?
Posted by: Enigma at January 7, 2006 12:51 AM
The EMP threat is overhyped.
To some degree, that's true. I used to work at SAC headquarters and part of my job involved EMP studies. First of all, any nuke will create an EMP burst, albeit localized. To create an effective high-altitude EMP burst, you have to hit a sweet spot in the ionosphere. Even if you do that, the EMP distribution is not uniform due to the electromagnetic sphere; the degree of upset varies widely. You don't just draw a circle of X radius around a burst point. And if you want to cover the CONUS, you'll need several bursts. One won't do it.
Sorry, I can't get more specific. Any more detail is, AFAIK, still classified.
Some will cite that one high-altitude test in the Pacific that supposedly turned out half the lights in Honolulu. But remember: half the lights stayed on.
Posted by: Not for Attribution at January 7, 2006 12:56 AM
I'm betting no Iranian nukes will ever reach Israel because any missiles would have to navigate a gauntlet of American and Israeli anti-missile systems from the Patriot in Iraq (PAC-2 and PAC-3) to the more capable Arrow as point defense... Anyone know if Aegis cruisers in the gulf would be able to intercept? Firing 2nd maybe a better option. Although waiting for an EMP over the US does scare me.
Posted by: Dan at January 7, 2006 1:31 AM
Great discussion -- very smart bloggers -- but to save us having to stay up all night typing and reading -- let's just ask the expert -- the guy who started it all: Jimmy Carter, remember?
Posted by: Lew at January 7, 2006 1:33 AM
Robert,
Your musings on China and Russia make me wonder about things from a different perspective:
Is there a chance, any chance at all, that such a Chinese-Russian-Iranian pact could galvanize NATO into working better, both in this instance and in the future?
Sadly, even if so, the most the Germans and French could offer would be moral support, not military forces. They just don't have that much.
Enigma,
I agree with Bill's estimation, except that I have to point out that the ground option in Iran is really a last resort. And I also think you are right about that big meeting this week of officials. It just sounded strange to me that Bush would consult all those folks on Iraq. He's not going to change his Iraq policy, no matter what Madeleine Albright says. But as you state, has a decision already been made about Iran that he is seeking consensus for? My guess is that the decision has not been made and he's seeking second opinions and outside the box thinking. Look for similar meetings with Congressmen about "Iraq".
Also, recapping what many have posted, looks like all of the above will happen in March:
-Election in Israel -- outcome not sure
-Iran has nukes according to El Baradei
-Iran sells oil on in Euro-denominated instruments
So perhaps we are looking at a 90-day time-frame. I'm just spitballing here.
Also, I'm about to post another update in the main body of the original post, so check it out.
Posted by: Chester at January 7, 2006 1:40 AM
Chester -
I stand by my "sieze and hold".
The word is already laid down: "Iran will not become a nuclear armed state."
Better to capture the evidence than destroy it.
Not for Bush's political comfort or cover, but to bring the evidence of Iran's threat front and center. The left will ignore any evidence, of course, but they are on their way out.
Would that we could send the 3ID and maybe 2d MarDiv up to conduct an inventory in Syria...
I bet that NOT doing that in 2003 is regarded as a crucial error. Allowing the left to promulgate the "no evidence of WMD" unchallenged turned out to be a pretty detrimental move.
Posted by: TmjUtah at January 7, 2006 1:51 AM
Well, to calm down some of the "they'll nuke us if they get it", I think there are some things that need to be addressed.
First of all, it's obvious why the mullahs ousted the moderates and put in a hardliner as their front man. WE ARE on more than two of their borders. We are not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we are in all of the stans (except uzbekistan due to political issues, one of which is that it is still leaning hard on its Russian relationship), not to mention in the Persian Gulf and we own the Straits of Hormuz. All of which spells something ugly for Iran's future, at least to the Iranians.
On the otherhand, the last four years have seen both Iraq and Afghanistan getting serious economic aid from Iran including building power infrastructure, roads and trade agreements. All of which seems odd in t