The US remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Elements of its military and intelligence services (DoD and CIA) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts throughout the region and continued to support a variety of groups in their use of terrorism to advance their common regional goals. The US provides aid to Awakening Councils, Mossad, Shin Bet, The MEK, Iraq-based militants, and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan through aid drops.
The US remains a threat to regional stability and local interests in the Middle East because of its continued support for violent groups, such as MEK and Shin Bet, and its efforts to undercut the democratic process in Lebanon, where it seeks to build The US and Israel’s influence to the detriment of other Lebanese communities.
The US is a principal supporter of groups that are implacably opposed to the Middle East Peace Process, and continues to maintain a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Palestinian terrorist activity – rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Bush and President Cheney praised illegal Israel settlement operations.
Gridlock
Self hating suicidal tendency really is a private disease. Go slink back in to the closet and make a few cuts, it will all feel better.
But I would agree with the article and if you look around the lines are tightening across the board.
-Lebanon the March 14 are moving to direct challenge of the Hezbo's. They are currently just shy open warfare.
-Israel's pansy Olmert looks likely to be taken out by a mystery witness before he gives away whats left of Israel in a vain attempt to make a peacemaker legacy.
-Boxing in of Sadr's Mehdi in Iraq.
-Reinforcement of Afghanistan
-Completion of all the civilian attack drills pretty much all the Gulf states and Israel have gone through.
I still don't buy the US making the first move but I do believe we are turning up the heat on the pressure cooker looking for a reason.
"The U.S. military has drafted and won approval for attack plans in response to an Iran attack."
Iran's advantage of largely loose de-centralized command for their proxies is also a weakness in that it makes keeping those forces from overstep in high pressure brinkmanship near impossible.
I've been a Stratfor subscriber for a decade.....they don't make many miscues...Wonder where the new SSGN's will show up?????
Tincanman
This is a Professional Naval Blog.
Calling other contributors a "cunt" is a violation of the professional conduct policy of this blog.
You have been banned.
- CHIEF
Edited By Siteowner
An excellent analysis. Notice that we also see one of the strongest delegations from Iraq meeting with the Iranians this week to protest the Quds Force involvement, with some very strong evidence in hand. We may be seeing some final diplomacy getting its chance before further assets move into place.
My thoughts are, besides naval positioning, what do we see for Air Force preparations?
Leaving aside the politics of strikes on camps on the Iranian side of the border, is it really a good idea? After all, the Iranian government provides direct support to both pro-Maliki and anti-Maliki Shi'ite militia groups.
What exactly are we going to hit with our expensive Tomahawks and less expensive, but still expensive JDAMs? Firing ranges? Physical fitness fields? Ramshackle school buildings? Mud hut barracks?
The Israelis have been hitting "terrorist training camps" in southern Lebanon for over 30 years and it has solved nothing.
The history of cross border raids has not been good. Bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail did not win the Vietnam War - the collapse of the Soviet Union and exposure to capitalism eventually won the Vietnam War. The immediate effect of cross border raids into Cambodia was to destabilize the Cambodian government and enable the Khmer Rouge to take power. We certainly did not mean to tip Cambodia into genocide and we don't know what the unintended consequences are for bombing Iran.
And then there is the oil. Like paying four bucks a gallon now? Just wait for the Iran war premium. I'm training to ride my bicycle ever greater distances every day in anticipation.
In short - this is just sabre rattling. Strategically, the Iranians hold the upper hand. There is much to lose and not a whole lot of upside to overt military action.
"Leaving aside the politics of strikes on camps on the Iranian side of the border, is it really a good idea?"
I don't think so, but I don't make decisions, just observations. If we hit Iran, it will be the nuclear facilities and factories believed to be producing weapons for Iraq. I also think the US would hit the refineries, and break the back of the Iranian economy. In the end, I don't see how it will be productive, and fail to see the strategic advantage it would give the US.
If we buy into the Axis of Evil being Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and we observe that North Korea is a nuclear power involved in sharing nuclear technologies, and Iran is not... Seems to me the priority should be North Korea, who is actually sharing nuclear technology and is clearly violating all nuclear agreements. The big difference between Iran and North Korea I see is that assumptions are made about Iran while proof is evidence and at hand with North Korea. Priorities are out of line.
The most effective way I see out of Iraq is economic cooperation with Iran. That may not be popular, but the war itself isn't popular either.
I will note for the record that Stratfor has been wrong on two major points: the repeatedly-predicted demise of the Euro and the viability of the Surge (check out their November/December '06 archives; it's as close to panic as I've seen them get).
That said, whether we expect or plan for a negotiated settlement or war, we need to bring the biggest, baddest hand to the table that we can. I concur completely with Stratfor on that note.
I honestly don't have any solid feel at all; the risks for any action (most certainly including inaction itself) are very high, and there is no clear best solution. My personal preference is supporting the overthrow of the mullahs internally--something IMHO we should have been doing all along. There will not be a solid, long-lasting peace until the current regime has been overthrown--and given the reported views of the younger generation, the result would probably be much nicer to both us and their neighbors, even if they *did* continue nuclear research and construction.
That said, I don't know how much confidence I have in the administration to make that decision. For all the decrying of their warmongering, it took a solid year just to drum up support for a war that had in effect been going on for over a decade already, and had ample causus belli to go around (pity that only the WMD issue is allowed to be spoken of). Having taken the beachhead, they then squandered the position--the old adage of sitting on bayonets applies here. So, a part of me thinks that they'll never do it; OTOH, there is a sense of "nothing to lose politically" out there now, so it's hard to say.
The one thing that I don't think that we can successfully accomplish is to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities and leave it at that. We *might* be able to raid/seize some of the gulf islands and platforms without going all the way, but anything else will have to include direct attacks on the mullahs' ability to remain in power--either to elicit a de facto surrender, or an outright overthrow. Anything short of that will be as effective as bombing Serbia, which (Stratfor documented this well) did not yield until Yeltsin convinced them he was withdrawing support (resulting in *his* fall as well).
And yes, refineries and other economic targets would be high priorities, given how economically and politically dependent Iran is on them; Revolutionary Guards units would also be prime targets.
Economic cooperation with Iran????
That's a solution to the problem the US faces in the Middle East.....Did I miss something here? With all due respect to everyone's right to their own opinion, I
do not see anything viable (to be gained) by helping grow Iran's economy.
We've been doing it for China for the last several decades and look what that has brought us.
Je crois que non.....
Tincanman
It takes two to share. The Giver and the Receiver. North Korea isn't the only guilty party here. Assumptions made about Iran? Try this fact: They have flat out told us what they will do when they have a nuke. If the Israeli intelligence (which has been consistently better than our own)is correct then we cannot wait to discover we are in error as a mushroom cloud rises over Tel Aviv. They have been prosecuting a proxy war with the USA for years, killing Americans. We have the goods on them. It's about time our leaders wizened up and started implementing a strategy to remove the threat to our national interests and those of our allies.
Besides the nuke facilities you can bet the Quds force bases and assets will be taken out to lessen their influence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bob,
There is a good case to be made that the interconnected economies of China and the US contributes a lot to preventing war. I'd also suggest that if Iran had more at stake economically in Iraq, they would be less interested in creating problems there.
We are witness to the slow evolution of China, the economic connection is the driver. A solid strategy in that regard can play out with Iran. Economic power and the resulting prosperity are powerful influences, and they are two strengths of our nation we should exploit in foreign policy.
Soft power victories take longer, but can be just as effective as hard power victories.
This funny picture should be shown to every anti-US person who has a seizure at the sight of the awesome blue-water image above.
If they don't like carriers and stealth fighters, perhaps they will like this.
"There is a good case to be made that the interconnected economies of China and the US contributes a lot to preventing war. "
Galrahn - YES. This is a very unappreciated factor.
You will LOVE this article.
There truly are 10 different ways we can make Iran behave well, without much monetary cost to us, or any deaths of Iranian civilians.
Just read Sun-Tzu's Art of War.
Very interesting analysis and conjecture.
I would add: "One's bet bargaining position is only from STRENGTH."
Iran requires a large stick to take notice.
4.5 acres & 98,000 tons of loaded American Steel tends to make one take notice.
Especially when that acreage is multiplied!!
Friedman of Stratfor gave an excellent talk at the JHAPL lecture series awhile back
available here:
http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/
rethin...o.cfm#friedmang
If you aren't listening to that series, you should.
He talked about long range forcasting and unforseen wars in the first few minutes of the intro - for example, France and Germany were highly intregrated trading partners - who in 1890 would have forseen WWI?
I remain sceptical that China will let large amounts of trade with the US get in the way of what it sees as its strategic national interest.
I am less confident that the US leadership would know a strategic national interest if it fell on us.
This summer corresponds to a likely surge against the Mahdi Army in Iraq. The availability of the ships may simply be a way to preserve escalation dominance if the Iranians push back on the conflict in Iraq when it is aimed at their proxies. A form of insurance, if you will--if the Quds force decides they want to shut down Hormuz to preserve their forces in Iraq, the US has an option to deal with that.
The showdown with the Mahdi army has been baked in for quite a while, so it wouldn't surprise me if they had planned for this.
Look, I know it's bad form to criticize spelling on the net. But that graphic showing the "Straight of Hormuz," copyright 1992, indicates blazing ignorance of the English lanquage by the one who drew it and the one who used it, ignorance uncorrected over 16 years.
The word is "strait," not "straight."
I really hope that all of this adds up to a real attack on the Iranians which is both well earned and well overdue. Better now than when they are post-nuclear.
We owe them a lot of blood going back decades and they are still spilling our soldiers blood as you read this.
It sucks, but the alternative is worse and we have to do it.
if an attack does occur and it is before November what effect could that have on the race for the White House?
G,
I left a link to this over at aces, I hope you do not mind.
Also, while I agree with you about the economic entanglement with China, it has been worked on for a while now. I only remember back to Nixon, so that is my starting point. We have no such entanglement with Iran and if we started now it would still take decades to work would it not?
I think an attack on Iran would bolster the Republican electoral position if only for the rally around the flag effect. The difficulty is that it has to be timed correctly so that the patriotic euphoria is at it's peak during the election but before any unpleasant feedback from the results of said war on Iran can be deduced. Irrespective of McCain's chances, which I feel are not good, the Republican party is set to be literally decimated in the House & Senate and probably State governments as well. The effect of an Iran war could serve as a wild card, it may wreak even more disaster upon the Republican Party (they are going to lose so it may not be important if they simply lose big or lose huge), or it may save the Republicans from defeat for one additional election cycle.
The Iranian regime is led by a theocratic fascist death cult.
That being said, they do cost-benefit analysis like everyone else.
War at this time is in neither party's best interest, but I suspect we are ramping up our military option so we're not caught short like we were in '06, the last time the Iranians opened up a region wide offensive in Lebanon. I expect the Hez to start raining rockets on Israel soon as a spoiling offensive against any plan to take out the Iranian missile industry. The problem? Now we'll have plenty of iron in the region and can deal with it.
Invading Iraq after Afghanistan only makes sense if Iran and Syria are the ultimate targets. We are either in a war vs terrorism and the states that sponsor it or we are not.
As to bombing countries wholesale I have my doubts and misgivings. The footnote in the bill mentioned above that Bush supposedly signed had a very important proviso--assassination.
We know where the leaders of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Al Sadr, Hamas are at all times. In fact they are in New York periodically on shopping trips while being feted at the UN.
They are the generals. Hopefully we will take them out first, all on the same night, before bombing countries and civilians. If these leaders knew there was a "very personal" price to pay for murder and mayhem I think there would be some behavioral modification going forward. If not fire up the B-52's.
I would assume that an attack by the Republicans on Iran in the fall, would fit the Democrats retreat and surrender plan for 2009 just fine.
For what it's worth, my Marine unit was wargaming the taking of Bandar Abbas (google it if you don't the city) waaaay back in 1981.
Those islands and platforms in the Persian Gulf are not the only places that will see Marine boots on the ground.
It'll drive the mullahs insane.
If we are to do this (and I do believe we should), we should do it thoroughly. And I would set the time frame for shortly after the elections.
I fat fingered (more precisely, pasted the wrong URL) in my second link above. That one (thoroughly) should have been to this.
For those of you who are offering how any military action changes the election, please find another location for that discussion.
If orders are given to the military to take military action against Iran, the military will follow those orders, regardless of who is president.
I'm sure some of the first questions being asked are along the lines of: what is the objective, what is the end game, how can we minimize collateral damage, how can we deescalate hostilities, and what is the exit strategy?
The question of "who will this help in the election" will not come up, or even be a consideration regarding what to do from the military POV.
The political discussion doesn't really belong here. Thanks in advance.
The Mullahs are widely believed to be planning a violence escalation to influence the U.S. election.
So a U.S. military buildup could also be the Dirty Harry Gambit: "Go ahead. Make my day."
A U.S. military buildup could be Bush's way of stating that he would use such an escalation as an excuse to take out everything that props up their regime (nukes, oil, IRGC facilities, political leadership, etc.).
And it wouldn't be a bluff. The advantages are too great (keeping the Israelis from doing it poorly later; buying time for the next pres.; even possibly collapsing the regime).
Bush has nothing left to lose and now just needs a politically-acceptable excuse.
.
As we learned in Iraq, it's easy to take down infrastructure. A blown transformer here, a downed high tension line there, and very quickly you've got a lot of pissed off citizens disgusted with their own government. When the time comes, send in Iraqis as demolition agents and act surprised if any get caught. Real war with Iraq is proscribed if the full might of the US is on display. In other words, don't kill anybody, but inconvenience the hell out of them, and then negotiate.
No. This is wrong.
I am on crutches and won't be deployable until the winter...I can't miss out on this.
Nice analysis.
BullNav - Please pop "In Harm's Way" into the DVD player and FF to the last five minutes. Nimitz (Fonda) to Torrey (Wayne)
".....They'll stick a peg leg on you and ship you back. You'll stump to Tokyo with the rest of us."
I think we can deal with your crutches.
Count me doubtful on US plans to attack Iran first. There would be too many leaks and we know that Bush is weak politically, no one fears him, and many inside the Pentagon would curry favor with the Dems to leak information.
Given the Democratic political climate, and Obama's lead within the Party and denunciations of Hillary's "nuke Iran" statements regarding US response to Israel being nuked by Iran, if the plan outlined above were true, I would expect Obama to denounce it. Since his entire platform is built on appeasement of Iran and other Muslim adversaries. Obama has enough political allies (who do not fear Bush) on the relevant House and Senate committees that he would soon be briefed on these matters.
What I do suspect is contingency planning for an Iranian attack or attempt to blockade the Straights of Hormuz. Iran needs oil at $300 a barrel to pay for Ahmadinejad's plans to not only increase nukes but massive welfare spending as Iran's rural population is unable to earn enough money to survive. That this creates a massive patronage obligation is also a plus. But the Iranians need money badly and have been taught by thirty years of appeasement that attacking the US gets us to retreat.
The US political scene, Obama, Bush's great political weakness, also probably makes them think it would be wise and effective to attack the US now, force us out of Iraq by closing off the Gulf, and force oil up to astronomical levels.
You've seen the wargamed results of speedboats harassing Carrier groups, staying just on the right side of the line of outright fighting, until US tactical forces are exhausted and then launching suicide attacks with the help of shore-based missiles.
Result: entire Carrier group sunk in minutes, though with heavy Iranian casualties. Narrow waters in the Gulf are great for that sort of thing.
The US needs a response to that, and quickly. In that case I would expect carrier groups to linger outside the Gulf, and perhaps some Air Force assets moved to places like Kenya, Diego Garcia, and maybe even Somalia (under Ethiopian control) to out-reach so to speak Iranian local dominance.
I would not predict a walk-over. The Iranians have had a long time to prepare, are neither stupid nor cowardly, and have lots of stuff from Russia and China and Europe. Politically, if we lost a Carrier Group in a Pearl Harbor surprise attack, there would be enormous pressure to just give up and surrender to Iran. I would certainly expect the Press and Obama to demand it.
I think the US can win, but it will be tough. The Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom were an anomaly. Iran is no pushover.
Jim,
Question, do you have a basis for your tactical analysis? I ask because if we are discussing the tactical situation, I see it much different than you.
My biggest concern isn't the ships in the Gulf, the tactical situation favors the US Navy there more than people realize. I have no intention to detail why.
However, we see the biggest challenge regarding how does the Navy prevent ABOT and KAAOT from going up in smoke? One can cripple the Iranian economy by destroying refineries. One can cripple the Iraqi economy by destroying the oil terminals. One can cripple the world economies by destroying multiple oil terminals in the region.
We do a lot of wargame simulations, our observation of the challenges are thus influenced. We agree with many, there is no such thing as casual war, or inconsequential war.
This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.
Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.
Didn't we make this mistake before by arming the Mujahedin in Afghanistan?
Sigh.
I wish someone who knew what they are doing was driving the bus.
The inescapable fact is that Iran is planning on acquiring nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them anywhere in the world with ICBMs.
If there is a way to stop that, we must. The cost of letting Iran go nuclear are incalculably huge (see this Pajamas Media article, for example).
Iran and North Korea are not similar - they present very different problems. I suspect that the US was deterred from attacking North Korea by at least 2 of the following:
-NK's ability to kill many millions of South Koreans in a few hours
-NK's ability to target Japan with chem/bio weapons
-Lack of adequate assurance that an attack would destroy enough nuclear infrastructure in ultra-secret, tunnel digging North Korea.
Iran, on the other hand, has three primary threats:
-drive up oil prices by interdicting Persian Gulf shipping, and possibly attacking oil facilities throughout the region using missiles and/or special forces ("terrorists")
-unleash terrorism within the US and the west
-increase the pressure on US forces in Iraq (although this would probably be a big mistake)
Bush at the moment is far from powerless. He may be very unpopular at home, and facing a Democrat controlled congress, but he also has little to lose in doing what he considers to be the right thing, which might be an attack on Iran.
FTFA:
Still, he said Iran continues to back the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Sorry but Shites don't back Sunnis
/Americans won't fall for the BS the second time around
Just one note: if a carrier was actually lost to a sneak attack, there would probably be a lot of demands for the unconditional defeat of Iran by any means necessary. Carriers, each with more troops than we've lost in 7 years of combat, cross the line into strategic national assets.
That said, I take a very dim view on anyone being able to sink a supercarrier out there, especially with speedboats.
Don't forget that there is one restraint on Iran that keeps being sort of mentioned, but not really covered--they cannot afford to lose their own commerce. Once shooting begins, this is exactly what would happen. That will tend to constrain them somewhat--only somewhat, though, because the mullahs are experts at acting both rationally and completely irrationally.
"Strategically, the Iranians hold the upper hand. There is much to lose and not a whole lot of upside to overt military action.
calipygian | 05.08.08 - 12:15 pm | #"
Factually inaccurate. The USA has very little to lose by the proper sort of attack.
Yes if we repeat all the mistakes we made in Iraq, it will be another mess. I don't think that will happen.
The key will be targeting. So long as we target the Mullahs and Quds force. We will be OK. And you don't bomb the training camps. You bomb the headquarters of the groups supoting the training camps.
As far as the nuke program, don't attack it directly. Knock out the power grid. Centrifuges require a lot of power.
What's important is that any military action against the Mad Dog Mullahs will force them to order their proxies into action. Even if we don't kill the Mullahs, forcing them underground will cut them off from the terrorist groups they control. So thy will be in a use it or lose it position.
If nothing else, forcing the Mullahs to expose their covert operations capability would be worth the cost of the bombs we drop. If we can kill the Mullahs or at least pin them down long enough, the Citizens of Iran will do the rest.
Unlike Iraq, there would be no need to do boots on the ground in Iran. Get the Mullahs and their minions off the backs of the Iranians and they will deal with the rest.
I don't think the 6+2 is ever actually going to be put into action. There will always be at least 2 carriers in WESTPAC for obvious reasons (Taiwan and NK). Now, that is not to say they couldn't roll on Iran with 4, they probably could pull in enough ground based aircraft operating out of Iraq and Horn of Africa to get it done. You should also watch the minesweeper movements, as they will wait to have just about every one of those that are still floating from WW2 begged borrowed or stolen from their current owners. The Indians have a dozen, but 8 are set to be retired this year. the brits might have a few... most of the last of ours were scrapped in the late 70s. Wikipedia shows there is a minesweeper attachment for the Sea Knight chopper, but that would be far from ideal for clearing the way for strike groups. Don't think for a second the Iranians won't mine Hormuz.
Also, typos_r_us...... The mullahs have a good deal of support, and any attack on Iran, for the purpose of "liberation" or not would just ossify public opinion in favor of the Ahmedinejad and the Quds force.. It will be a messy and terrible war. in the Iran-Iraq war the iranians used human wave attacks against tank battalions. That is why we gave Saddam chemical weapons (through the germans, of course, and then sent our covert ops to teach his men to aim them for maximum effect). Your statement reminds me of the "greeted as liberators" "flowers in the streets" BS that the present idiots tossed on us.
Strategic bombing doesn't work. Whether it is the would be society destroying strategic bombing of the likes that didn't force Japan or Germany to surrender (Germany made more aircraft in 1944 than any other year of the war), it is the type to interdict supply lines (bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail did not win the Vietnam war), or like Israel does in Lebanon or we did in Iraq (Hezbollah still operates in Lebanon despite 25 years of Israeli strikes on terrorists camps and strategic bombing did not win either war in Iraq). And, I can only think of one case in history where a leadership decapitation strike actually worked and that was in Chechnya, where there was a very specific set of tactical circumstances that facilitated the strike. And even then, the Russians got their asses kicked in Chechnya and it really didn't affect the course of fighting.
You can bring it to the bank. If there are strikes on Iran (who are probably a decade or more away from having an ICBM that can deliver a device to New York, BTW), the following will be the consequences:
1) A 25 dollar/barrel war premium as countries, including Iran, start trading oil in Euros and not dollars,
2) Supply and training operations for groups operating in Iraq will not be seriously disrupted based on the fact that bombing has NEVER IN HISTORY seriously disrupted those operations,
3) We wont get all the Iranian nuclear facilities because we don't know where they all are,
4) Targeting "the Mullahs" isn't like targeting a SAM site. They move and they are hard to find. And you can't fully shut down modern communications short of sending the country back to the Stone Age which would put to lie our strategy of "separating the Mullahs from the people". Targeting "the Mullahs" WILL provoke a Persian nationalist backlash, much as the invasion of Iran by Saddam propped up a failing Revolution in 1980.
All of this you can bring to the bank, and then when someone like Condi Rice gets up there and says, "No one could have anticipated..." you know it is not true, because I just did.
From a strategic point of view, bombing Iran is about the stupidest thing we can do.
As for "Iran threatens Israel": let the Israelis handle that. Thats why they have 200+ nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Stalin and Mao were thought to be undeterrable and it turned out they were very deterrable, no matter what crazy things they said or did. The same will prove true with Iran, because unlike our leadership these days, I guarantee that the Iranian leadership does cost-benefit analysis and are not prepared to trade Tehran, Shiraz, Esfahan, Qom, etc. for Tel Aviv.
Iran is not going to launch a preemptive strike. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. Iran's defense relies on deterrence derived from its retaliatory strike force. A US attack of any kind must attempt to neutralize that retaliatory strike force, to the best of its abilities. That is where Galrahn's post (including timeline) is interesting. It points out a potential maximum for the USN. A similar perspective for the USAF would be useful.
Don't worry about the Iranian oil. With the high prices, we ate getting large cut back's is use of oil, more than equal to the Iranian output.
So with the dependy gone, now is the time to just shut off their oil output, and watch Iran stop working.
I predict, if we just shut their oil flow off, they will ask for inspections in less than 30 days.
Folks,
Iran is a net importer of refined POL, and barely breaks even on raw exports. A campaign which culminates with destruction of Iranian POL import and export facilities leaves them critically short of refined products and without their primary hard cash export.
Without that hard cash, how would they rebuild their Military forces, fund terrorism, rebuild their Nuclear program, and rebuild their POL import and export facilities? Who is going to offer them credit for those things when we stand ready to smash them on delivery?
Rodney, the Iranians have been there before, during the Iran-Iraq War. However, this time around, they are better linked to the global economy. And a stronger nation, overall. Take out Iran's oil contributions, as well as that lost collaterally by war, and certain sensitive economic sectors of the world have a major problem on their hands. This is the biggest thing that has prevented war from breaking out, so far.
Another theory (and grist for the rumor mill) is the increasing discontent among the up and coming generations of Iranians. There have been rumblings of operations encouraging these folks to stage some type of coup against the current regieme. Would not the presence of a large contingent of American Men o' War serve to embolden them, whilst various covert operations forces work in a direct action role?
zepplin,
I think you're a little off here about the amount of knowledge floating around about the Iranian weapons program. The designs and equipment they have were provided by A.Q. Khan (who I am shocked no one ever discusses as in need of a serious public thrashing), but were not however accompanied by the requisite designers to put the thing together.
Furthermore, I think what Iran (and many other national governments) has to realize is that any form of non-conventional strike is deterred by (as the saying goes) "real and credible threat of overwhelming response."
Simply: The Iranians know that they can talk all the smack they want, but the minute they step into the ring they'll find themselves living in the largest self-lighting glass-floored parking lot in the world.
The U.S. has nothing to gain by attacking them preemtively either due to them threatening people.
John Moore,
I am with calipygian on this one. The media paranoia over Iranian ballistic missiles is hype. Engineering an ICBM with that type of capability is incredibly expensive, not to mention the amount of design work that would go the physics package and MIRV of a device that would survive the transit.
The intent to build does not equate the capability to build, as was more than adequately demonstrated by the DPRK fizzle from some months ago.
Finally, I do hope that everyone understands the complexity of putting together a nuclear weapon and ICBM. We're not talking about banging some sheet metal and fissile material together for a couple of days and calling it good. These are systems that draw on incredibly complex (and disparate) disciplines. Given that the Iranians began working with A.Q. Khan between 1986-1988 on a weapon, and that Pakistan detonated an approximately 9kT (stated design yield weapon of 18-40kT) weapon in 1998, the question is what is the progress of the Iranian weapons program now?
Likely not very far. Without access to a robust system of subcritical experimentation and computer simulation, the only way the Iranians can validate a weapon design would be through an active, below-ground test. Much like a kid with a candy bar, there isn't much motivation to hold back when they've got something they want to set off. They certainly have a program of some form or another, but the likelihood of them having a viable weapon is extremely low.
Good thing the US Congress voted for war like the US Constitution dictates.
Oh, wait...
Drew,
You are both right and wrong.
Assembling a deliverable nuclear device is trivial if you have weapons grade HEU, which the Iranians have the technology to make. One constructs a non-implosion device. Hiroshima was hit with a weapon of this type, and the design had never even been tested (Trinity Site was for a Pu implosion weapon).
It has been pretty well established that a BS degreed engineer, with access to HEU, can make a non-implosion weapon based on publicly available information. All it takes is the ability to work Uranium metal and a bit of electromechanical stuff.
Higher yield devices require implosion designs. Even higher yield can use tritium boosting. Both of these are within the technological range of Iran and North Korea. Furthermore, it may be that the Chinese design (detailed blueprints) given to Pakistan and recovered by the US from Libya may be for an implosion weapon.
You mention Pakistan's 9kt yield. That's way more than plenty to cause immense devastation to a US city, even though the area devastated (sans fallout plume) is only a couple of tens of square miles. Imagine the social and economic impact of such an event.
Beyond that, you are into three-stage thermonuclear devices, which are MUCH harder to make.
However, for deterrence/terror uses, small yields (say, 10-20kt) are very useful. You can kill a whole lot of Americans with one of those. If you fuse it for ground (or very low altitude burst), you can also create a radioactive wasteland in the downwind fallout plume.
MIRV is not an issue. MIRV is not required.
Furthermore, very small HEU nukes can also be made without implosion. The US made at least one nuclear artillery shell using this technology. That is light and small enough to be put into a re-entry vehicle.
Building ICBM's is harder, but with Iran and North Korea working together, it is only a matter of time. Iran supplies the money and a lot of smart engineers and scientists, and North Korea supplies their existing missile experience, which is non-trivial.
Building accurate ICBM's and re-entry vehicles is a lot harder, but if you are targeting cities, you don't need much accuracy. Furthermore, advances in electronics and computers, available to the Iranians, makes guidance systems dramatically easier than in the past.
Deterrence has been mentioned here. Deterrence has worked (so far) between the US+UK+FR, USSR/Russia and China. However, deterrence may not work against a smuggled weapon attack, as its provenance may not be determinable - leaving one with the question of who to retaliate against. That latter problem gets worse rapidly with the increase in the number of nuclear weapons owning states. Furthermore, messianistic governments may not be deterable, seeking nuclear destruction.
Also, deterrence requires that the deterred party believes that the attacked party has the will to retaliate, even if that leads to a retaliation to the retaliation. The US, esp
A.Q. Khan.... don't think for a second he isn't allowed to do what he does without implicit approval by some level of american or european government. otherwise mossad would have him dead with 10 days.
"as its provenance may not be determinable"
that is the trouble with nukes... you always know what mountain or reactor it came from. the blame will come easily... the holocaust afterwards... not so simple..... maybe buy an old silo and line it with lead., then set up a mushroom farm based on a basic reactor.... who knows... humanity may survive.
I disagree with Jim Rs comments in total. He assumes that Bush is weak? He has no clue to Bushs personal fortitude. Bush stood up to his own base when we demanded a wall along the Mexican border. Bush will do what he thinks best and if others think him weak, so much the better as the surprise will be so much greater.
Our naval forces are exhaused? And as a result the entire task group will be sunk? This is not analysis. This is Iranian wishful thinking. As was Sadam 'Mother of All Wars' threat.
I am not concerned with taking out the nuclear facilities. That's childs play. My only concerns are; how the Iranian leadership will be toppled and how we can encourage the Iranian people to elect a new leader who better represents their interests.
Seems to me we should try something quieter than dropping a bunch of explosives on probably hardened targets. It might be better if the attacks came from within, from the oppressed Iranian people.
Maybe a few critical infrastructure components could be 'persuaded to malfunction' in rapid succession: a refinery or two, telecom switches, computer networks, that kind of thing. This could shake things up and maybe lead to an opportunity for a popular uprising.
In the '80s, the CIA executed a master stroke by secretly selling pre-bugged electrical components for Soviet refineries. One of these did its job (by intentionally malfunctioning) and this resulted in a massive explosion that wiped out a major refinery, I think. My understanding is that this was one domino in a coordinated strategy by the CIA's Casey that helped bankrupt the USSR and end the Cold War.
I really hope we are still that smart.
Unfortunately, the Iranian internal political situation is not likely to help.
While apparently the majority of Iranians want to get rid of the mullahocracy, they are unlikely to succeed in the forseeable future. It only takes 5%-10% of the population to rule the others, if they are willing to use totalitarian methods.
Even worse, most Iranians believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons. An attack on their facilities would actually improve the political position of the Iranian leaders, at it would unify the people around nationalism in the face of foreign attack.
Nevertheless, I think we should destroy the facilities. The thread of Iranian nuclear weapons trumps the desire for freedom for the oppressed Iranian people.
Perhaps the authenticity of the photo used in conjunction with this article should be called into question. it looks photoshopped to me, and I only looked at it for a few seconds...
With regard to Iran's vulnerability regarding refined POL products, note that their largest refinery in Abadan is within easy mortar range of Iraq.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&...058022&t=h&
z=14
If they continue to fund militias lobbing mortar rounds into Baghdad's Green Zone, they might get an Iraqi militia lobbing mortar rounds into their refinery! That would restore some symmetry to their asymetrical warfare.
And if the truth be told, all that training we've done to make the Iraqi Army an effective force would pay off in spades if Iranian forces wanted a replay of the Tanker War.
It probably would also help to let the Iranians watch the PBS series "Carrier" http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/ to find one important fact, that the subject carrier did a whole tour in the Gulf without dropping a single bomb! That's a lot of unused firepower on call. That series could be a very useful way to "show the flag".
Y'all are overlooking something. We (the US) don't have to initiate an attack against Iran. Our new buddies, the Iraqis, might get fed up with Iranian meddling and declare such to be an act of war.
Iraq starts the war, and we follow along as part of the coalition. Iraq provides the legitimacy for going in.
Sean,
Compare the AUMF for the First Barbary War (could have been the Second) and the AUMF for Iraq.
If the Barbary war was a valid precedent then Iraq was done fair and square.
The amount of ignorance floating around is astronomical. I think Einstein said that.
"1) A 25 dollar/barrel war premium as countries, including Iran, start trading oil in Euros and not dollars, "
It costs $25 per hundred dollars to convert dollars to Euros?
Who knew?
"Sorry but Shites don't back Sunnis"
Well that completely explains Iranian backing of Syria. Excuse us all for being so stupid.
Commenting by HaloScan
