« Iraq & The Forever War: To Everything There Is a Season: Burn, Burn, Burn
Diana and the Culture of Death & America’s Sinking Economic Ship »
Bush Stepping Up the Rhetoric: Iran Puts Region under Shadow of Nuclear Holocaust
US President George W. Bush is stepping up the rhetoric (directed towards Iran). He said that Iran is playing a destabilizing role in the region and that a nuclear holocaust could be the result of Iran’s nuclear program. Obviously, the US is determined to prevent such a nuclear holocaust from happening.
Meanwhile, Raw Story has a fascinating article up: it seems that the US has already done the necessary planning for a military strike against Iran. According to two respected scholars and experts, the US can launch strikes against Iran whenever Bush gives the order. Such a military strike, though, would not include ground forces: air power solely will be used to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites, infrastructure and most important governmental buildings. “The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions. ”
All in all:
# Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.
# US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.
# US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
# Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
# Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.
The authors of the paper on which the article at Raw Story is based, argue that ‘Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a “full-spectrum approach,” designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of “a weak or failed state”.’ More:
This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.
However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.
Israel Matzav’s Carl in Jerusalem argues that “I don’t see Bush planning on leaving office with this unresolved. The question is one of timing: At what point will enough be enough and how can the attack be pulled off in a manner that makes it not be a blatantly political tactic (recall President Clinton’s attack on Libya to try to distract the country from impeachment proceedings) that will divide the US for years to come. The US isn’t afraid to go it alone, and I believe that the UK and Sarcozy’s France (and of course Israel) will support the US anyway.”
I agree with Carl – I find it interesting to see that the authors of the paper do not seem to take France into account. Sarkozy seems to be quite different from Chirac. It seems to me that if the US decided to bomb Iran, Sarkozy’s France will support the US – if not militarily then at least politically. Furthermore, Germany will not oppose it too strongly – when the US invaded Iraq, Germany was led by Schroder. This time, there is a Christian Democrat ruling the country: Angela Merkel.
Meanwhile, Michael J. Stickings seems to believe that the only reason Bush might attack Iran is because he and “the neocons need it. Badly.” I see it quite differently, or at least more nuanced. Yes I think that Bush et al. feel that they need a military victory (somewhere, anywhere), but I also think that Bush truly fears that if he does not take care of Iran no one will (or only too late). In that regard, I think he might be right. With regards to Iran, other options are still on the table, but I think it is right for the US to plan for possible military action: whatever else happens, Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
The strategy may, indeed, also achieve something else that is very important: if Iran is seriously weakened, it will not be able to create problems elsewhere. As long as Iran is forced to rebuild itself, it cannot focus on destroying other countries and supporting terrorist organizations elsewhere. No – if Iran is weakened, its leaders have to focus on their own country and on the immediate needs of their own people. If they do not, the Iranian people might just decide that its time for a revolution. I am not calling on the US to attack Iran immediately, but I do believe that if Iran has not given up its program before George W. Bush leaves office, the US would be wise to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and to weaken its (economic) capacities.
H/t Memeorandum.Cross posted at The Gazette.
18 Responses to “Bush Stepping Up the Rhetoric: Iran Puts Region under Shadow of Nuclear Holocaust”
Michael, while I agree with the basic premise that Iran should not be allowd to develope nuclear weapons, I believe that bombing Iran at this time will result in catastrophic collateral events around the world. Chief among these events would be the loss of Pakistan ( which already has nuclear strike capability )to frenzied mobs of Islamists, a la Iran in 1979. Saudi Arabia itself may experience paralyzing upheaval. The list goes on endlessly –
even moderate Islamic states such as Turkey are likely to explode in rage. At the very least these events would cause paralyzing economic turmoil which could be devastating.
Bush & Co. have no one to blame but themselves for this quandry. 9/11 gave America a sort of moral imperative in the eyes of the Islamic world to pursue our enemies. I believe we could have even sent ground troops into Waziristan at that time in our pursuit of Bin Laden. Iran would have been surrounded by enemies on all sides; the pressure that would have been felt internally there would have been enormous. Anything at the point would have been possible.
Instead, the distraction of Iraq has enabled Iran to strengthen itself, pursue their nuclear ambitions, and grab the moral authority back from us in the eyes of much of the world, making a strike foolish at this time.
I suppose that the next step will be Cheney will be telling us how the Iranian people will rise up against their government, greeting us a liberators, throwing flower at our troops as we triumphantly enter Tehran. A majority of the Iranians will rally to to support their leaders if we attack, not revolt. Air power alone is never a real military solution. You will need feet on the ground to subdue Iran, lots of them, and we don’t have enough available right now. Just because the leaders of Germany and France might agree with the idea of setting back Iran’s nuclear program, don’t expect anything more than vocal backing in an other one of the Bush/Cheney excellent adventures. No, the leaders of Iran will not solely focus on their people, they are an expendable commodity (look at the Iraq/Iran war). The leadership of Iran will be looking for revenge, be it disrupting oil shipments in the Persian Gulf or pushing terrorist organizations to do their bidding.
John: why would the US need to use ground forces? The idea is not to topple the regime, the idea is to weaken Iran and to destroy (as much as possible) its nuclear capabilities. For this, ground forces are not necessary.
The US can leave the Mullahs in place (unless the Iranian people do something) while weakening Iran severely.
I’m not sure this is going to work. Instead of weakening them, airstrikes may very well, as John said, increase support for the Iranian regime, especially if there are considerable civilian casualties (which would be likely if the bombing is indeed widespread). And isn’t Bush overstating things when he talks about a “nuclear holocaust”?
Michael,
If the US were to do ‘limited’ air strikes against ‘strategic’ (sp??) targets, this will obligate Iran to respond. It could mean Iranians pouring into Iraq by the tens of thousands and/or bombing US naval ships in the Persian Gulf. If either response happens, of course the US will be obligated to up the anti again. The 150k troops in Iraq will not be able to significantly hold back up to 500k very pissed off Iranian soldiers.
Like after 9/11 former soldiers were lining up to re-enlist all over this country, the same will happen in Iran should the US make an unprovoked air strike against it. An attack by the US will solidify the Iranians into one cohesive unit, like what happened in the US after 9/11. And like JimFM said, the surrounding Muslim nations will rally to Iran and Pakistan has nukes. Not only does Pakistan have nukes, but they’re on the verge of radical islamist take over of the federal government and these radical islamist leaders would like nothing more than a whisper of an excuse to use the nukes, preferrably against a Western power that they preceive to have caused all their troubles.
Look at how we rallied around our leadership after 9/11. This would be the best PR tool the Iranian govt could dream up to unite the country. They could also use it as an excuse to crack down further on dissidents or to keep Ahmadinejad in power longer by cancelling elections.
Also, the Iranians would use the attack to attack our vulnerable forces in Iraq, and as a recruiting tool for Hezbollah.
The nuke sites are not well-known and are located in high population centers- are we prepared for the fallout from killing so many civilians, or hitting targets in error?
Michael,
While I am certain that you are right that plans have been drawn up on how to attack Iran I highly doubt that the President will implement them.
Attacking Iran in any way carries tremendous risk. Here are just a few of them.
1. This would galvanize the Iranian people behind the Mullahs. The Iranians will see any attack by the Americans as yet more anti-Islamic hostility from the US and believe that an invasion will be imminent. They have been told, since they were children, that the US cannot be trusted and that we will invade them someday and this would legitimize the claim.
2. As mentioned upthread this will cause severe repercussions in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Their hardliners will also view this as more US agression against Islam and push their leaders to distance themselves from the US.
3. This will absolutely cause problems in Iraq. This will be used by all sorts of groups to delegitimize the American presence in Iraq.
4. Without causing pretty severe casualty counts I question how efficacy of any air attack against Iran. We may be able to harm their nuclear facilities but, from what I understand, they built those facilities to withstand fairly heavy attacks. Certainly we could damage them but this seems to me to be nothing more than a delaying action.
5. The Iranians will have an absolute PR field day with such an attack. They will very likely turn Western opinion even more strongly against us.
6. The Democrats will go absolutely bonkers. Then they will use this attack to bludgeon whatever Republican wins the nomination since they will almost certainly be required to fully support the attack.
This would be a very high risk act by this Administration.
First of all, Clinton never attacked Libya.
Secondly, I think the meme that Bush and Cheney would attack Iran for their “legacy” or to get some kind – any kind – of military victory is hyperbolic hearsay. There is no evidence for such a theory, which may explain why it continues to have legs.
Finally, attacking Iran will at most delay Iran’s nuclear program. I tend toward the hawkish side of US foreign policy, but I personally think that given the choice between attacking Iran and a nuclear Iran – I’ll go with managing the threat of the nuclear Iran. Of course, that is ultimately a false choice at this point and there is still much that can be done to prevent Iran from weaponizing.
Micheal – Thinking that the people of Iran will do what would seem logical to you is a mistake. You are dealing with an entirely different perspective of the world we live in and how one responds to. If we leave the Mullahs in place, they will be endlessly seeking to avenge the attack we would have made on them. Feeding nationalist feelings to the equation only adds to what makes people blind to what is logical. Bush has learned (or should have learned) this lesson in Iraq. Expecting the Iranians to do what is expected of them in a fully valid logical argument is a mistake. It is like something I heard/read about the Viet Nam war, those in favor of US involvement there had valid logical arguments about why we were there and could win, but in the end it didn’t matter. Wars are not won or lost at the debating table. If you want to commit to attacking an other country, you have to go all in (the total defeat of your enemy) or stay out.
Ok, I have to take issue with some of the comments about Pakistan. Pakistan is NOT on the verge of being taken over by radical Islamists. The military in Pakistan is the kingmaker and they would not allow an Islamist government. Certainly there are strong Islamist elements in Pakistan, but they are not as strong as portrayed in the western media.
Also, I should note that Iran has put the bulk of its defense spending over the past decade into its naval, coastal defense, and air defense. Why is this important? Look at the strategic terrain in the region – it’s the Persian Gulf. Iran’s military is really designed to control the Gulf and especially the strait of Hormuz, through which the bulk of world oil exports flow.
The most common scenario in any conflict with Iran is that they would close or “regulate” the strait. So, if we went to war with Iran, even for a “limited” strike on the nuclear facilities, we would, in all likelihood, be compelled to destroy Iran’s Navy, the bulk of it’s Air Force, hundreds of mobile coastal defense missiles, thousands of tubes of artillery emplaced to fire on ships in the strait, Iran’s vast show-navy of civilian vessels used for military purposes, etc.
In short, it would be no easy thing. Sure, the US would roll the Iranians up, but how long would it take to ensure safe passage of ships through the strait? Hard to say, but it’s probably safe to say that such a major disruption in world oil supplies would be, shall we say, not so good for the global economy.
Of course Iran would commit economic seppuku by doing this since they are just as dependent on Gulf shipping as anyone.
Entropy,
While I do agree with you that an Islamic revolt is probably not terribly likely in Pakistan let’s not forget that General Zia was a pretty hard core Muslim that actively aided people that were hostile to the United States.
Certainly the military and ISI run the show in Pakistan but there are plenty of people in both that could turn that nation for more towards Islam that the government currently is.
Entrpy, I agree that Pakistan is not on the verge of a radical Islamist takeover. At this time. But I feel that you underestimate the fear that our actions have engendered in the Muslim world. Not the anger, or the frustration, but the fear. The fear that our motivation is not to tame Iran, but to destroy Islam, root and branch. Any military establishment, however entrenched, relies on the loyalty of the common soldier. When even moderate Muslims mob the streets can you be sure that these soldiers will not then support their brothers, sisters and cousins, out of the conviction that their faith is under attack?
This very scenario played out in Iran in 1979. A tipping point was reached, and the common man – the butchers, bakers, and, yes, the soldiers – turned against an establishment that they perceived as beholden to the West.
The response in the streets to any strike will be massive, full of rage, and destructive. I believe that you would agree this is likely. Can we be sure that the common soldier in Pakistan will turn against their brothes and sisters at this time, to restore an establishment that is seen as aiding and abetting the destruction of their faith? Maybe you are right – but there is a chance that you are wrong.
disclaimer: I’m opposed to war in most situations
We can guess about the outcomes until we’re blue in the face. War is, by nature, unpredicatable. People die. The survivors no longer act rationally. The survivors define themselves – it could be all Shiites everywhere in the world.
In the potential outcomes above, some may be right, most will be wrong. I believe the real question is: is the point of view of the opponents of this plan within our military being taken into consideration? What are the contingency plans if we don’t “roll over them”.
The military planners are experts – they’ve done these analyses for years and it’s their full-time jobs. I’m sure all of the above scenarios are known by the military planners. Are they being listened to? Is there a plan for at least the more likely repercussions? In my opinion, there should be a plan for all but the unlikeliest scenarios. Has the commander-in-chief been fully apprised of the scenarios and has he acknowledged that war seldom goes the way of the first gulf war.
It’s bad enough that we are ignoring lessons of history. It would be truly absurd if we can’t remember the lessons from four years ago.
Jeff, if we have learned one thing in the past several years , it’s that Bush & Co. don’t listen to the military planners; they don’t plan for unexpected contingencies; and they don’t take into account the collateral effects of their actions.
After all, Bush believes that he is personnally charged by God to right all wrongs in the world. Therefore anything he does is right by default.
Jeff,
The problem is that someone must disseminate the analysts work to something that the decision makers can act on.
If those disseminators are charged with coming up with viable military options for Iran they may discard worst case stuff because it completely rules out military options.
I always felt that the main reason why we went into Iraq in the first place was because the White House made it clear that they wanted to and the disseminators provided options that met that demand.
I believe the proposed strike against Iran as laid out in the article would be a disaster for the US. The Israelis learned in their war last year air power has limitations. Yes, it can produce lots of destruction but does not significantly curtail retaliatory power of the bombed party.
In Iraq we own the sky, but it has not materially cutoff the insurgency. We cannot bomb our way to victory. We can hurt Iran miltarily and set back their nuclear program by 5 years or so. What can happen to us?
1 – The Iraqi Shia very probably will rise up against us and turn Iraq into all out war again. Can you imagine what would happen if 2 million armed Shia men from all directions marched to Camp Victory outside Baghdad? There are 30,000 American soldiers there who could very well be slaughtered. At the very least the Green Zone will be invaded by the Shia and all the American civilians there will be slaughtered.
2 – The Gulf will be closed to shipping – that includes all the oil as well as supplies for American troops. Yes, we can take out some of the fixed implacements on the coast line but the Chinese silkworm missles that Iran has by the thousands are very mobile and will devastate tankers and slow cargo ships. The sinking of these ships will block further traffic in the Gulf.
3 – The Shia who are dominate in the Saudi oil fields will start to sabatoge oil production. The shia in Bahrain will sabatoge the oil and gas production in that sector.
4 – 40% of the worlds oil production would be cut off for an indefinite period of time. Prices would be in the $200-$250/b range. Our own strategic oil reserve would run out within 2 months.
5 – The world’s economy could crater- leading to world wide depression. The US would be blamed and we would be held in contempt for generations.
6 – American casualties would skyrocket. Iranians would come over the border and be sheltered by the Shia population. They would use modern anti-tank weapons that can devastate our M-1′s and Bradleys.
7 – The Iranians have a supply of the new Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles with 500 lb warheads. These can take out aircraft carriers. While we can intercept some of them, we will not get every one. Just think of the implications of 5000 sailors and all the aircraft aboard a $500 million carrier going under. How about all three of them?
War NEVER goes according to best case scenerios. Even Grenada was full of problems and unanticipated errors. Just think of the catastrophe errors made in a war with Iran would cause. It’s three times the population and size of Iraq. What the article describes is an air war only. We all know that an air war alone never wins a war. This time it won’t be an air only war for long as Iran WILL retaliate.
G-d help us if this insanity is pursued.
Let’s the start with obvious. A ‘limited’ strike would not be an invisible strike. It would most definitely be noticed throughout the ME. In effect, we would be giving an extra boost to all extremists in the region.
I don’t think we need to give the likes of AQ and Hezbollah credence when they paint us as the agressors. They don’t need another excuse to rally around the cause of destroying the US.
BTW, Bush’s speech was the worst possible thing he could have done, so, naturally, he did it.
Even if you’re planning militaary action, it’s foolish to announce (or hint at it) on international TV. By the same token, if you have no such plans, then his speech was just bluster, bluster guranteed to stiffen Iran’s spine and increase the determination of our enemies.