The Consequences Of Success In Iran.
By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in Military, The War On Terrorism, The World, WarMr. Bush may want to launch military attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. It may be a good idea, in the abstract. Some people point to the fact that Iran’s weapons production has been widely-dispersed and in some cases buried in hardened bunkers and suggest that it would be a very tough target.
I disagree. If we were talking about functional weapons, or even completed components then yes, it would be hard to be sure we’d gotten everything we needed to get. But we’re not talking about bombs buried here and there, we’re talking about a manufacturing system for bomb components. And systems are inherently vulnerable. We don’t need to be confident of obliterating every last element in the system, we just need to break enough pieces of the whole that the whole no longer functions.
So, we would almost certainly succeed in doing that, and probably without needing to resort to our own nuclear weapons.
But we need to think about the possible consequences of success.
I think it is a fantasy to suppose that the Iranian government would fall. We indulged that same fantasy in 1992 when we convinced ourselves that Saddam could not survive the humiliation of his deafeat by allied forces in Kuwait. He not only survived, he consolidated his power by punishing Iraqi Shi’ites.
I think the likely outcome in Iran is the same: the mullahs would profit from a wave of Iranian nationalism. Dissenters would be harshly dealt with, and the extremists in Iran would be even more firmly in control.
Iran is the world’s pre-eminent terrorist state. They have a great deal of influence over Hezbollah, and some influence as well over Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Unlike Iraq, Iran has not been weakened by sanctions. They have a good intelligence service, which has access through Iranian embassies to every major country on earth, including, by way of their UN mission, the United States. They have all the financing they need. They have an endless supply of willing martyrs now, and will acquire thousands more in the event we attack Iran. They own one side of the Persian Gulf through which passes much of the world’s oil. Iran has a Navy and an Air Force with direct access to that shipping.
So. If we attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is likely we would decide to declare a no-sail, no-fly zone, or eliminate Iran’s Navy and Air Force entirely, at the same time. Failing to eliminate those conventionl forces would leave Gulf shipping very vulnerable. We would also need to take out Iran’s anti-ship missiles — not an easy job to pull off with any certainty. A successful Iranian attack on even a handful of tankers could very likely disrupt — read, stop — shipping in the Gulf. The economic impact of a two or three or six week disruption of Gulf oil would be large. That disruption would sit very poorly with our close allies who depend on Persian Gulf oil to a far larger degree than we do. But American gas prices would skyrocket as well.
Maintaining a no-sail, no-fly zone is certainly within our capabilities, but we would need to fly thousands of missions from Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and maintain that embargo over a long period of time, from territories that may not welcome our actions.
Iran could retaliate by increasing the level of terrorism in Israel, but Israel is prepared for that, and would almost certainly consider it a worthwhile trade-off. Iran could increase the level of terror in Iraq quite dramatically. Americans would watch US casualty figures rise. And Iranian intelligence, or Hezbollah, could pull off Madrid-style terror attacks in Europe which would almost certainly react by further distancing itself from the US.
Most troubling, for Americans, is the likelihood that Iran could strike inside the US. Imagine the pychological impact of suicide bombings in American malls or schools or churches. Imagine the economic impact, especialy if the attacks were carried out while we were still reeling from a sudden jump in gas prices. Imagine the effect on American liberties.
We can almost certainly deny nuclear weapons to Iran. But it will not be a handful of air raids and we’re done. There will be days of Al Jazeera footage showing the Iranian civilian casualties. There may be a huge, long-term committment of American air and naval forces. There will be an oil shock that may be moderate, but may be very, very severe. We will likely lose what little support we still have in the world. We will consolidate the power of the mullahs in Iran, and radicalize the Iraqi south. We will lose more men in Iraq. We may lose Iraq entirely. And we will very likely be watching security camera video of young men in explosive vests blowing American children to pieces in American shopping centers.
I still think we may have to do this. But I don’t believe we can take this on with this administration. Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and Mr. Rumsfeld are incompetent, dishonest and prone to panic. This is a very dangerous situation, one which requires capable leadership. Unfortunately, the soonest we can hope for capable leaders is two and a half years from now. I think on balance we should wait. The risk that the Iranians may succeed in making a bomb is probably less than the risk of trusting Mr. Bush. Bad choice to have to make, but this is what comes of failed leaders.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 and is filed under Military, The War On Terrorism, The World, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:13 am
The timing of such attack would be critical. It would certainly be considered an act of War by Iran and there would be a response against our military bases in Kuwait, and our outposts in Iraq (using terrorists or ballistic missles ect.) If the intelligence reports tell us that Iran is still a few years from building a bomb, It might be wise to hold off until we can withdraw most of our troops from combat zones in Iraq.
I think the Europeans are getting sick of Muslims’ sh** right now, and a 9/11 type attack on another European city might actually tilt european society back in our favor. Plus, nobody disputes Iran’s pursuit of WMD this time.
It also depends on who is president in 2008, if we can hold off an attack until then. So far, the only Democratic candidate that might have the BALLS to strike Iran is Hillary Clinton! I think we are doomed.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:47 am
If we’re waiting for someone who is competent, honest, and not prone to panic, then Bush is already here. The Democrats have noone who fits that description since their current “clear vision” involves “Bush is evil, send us money” and apparently to have Mexico vote Democrat in US elections.
So basically do you think McCain could pull it off?
April 11th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Brian:
If you think Bush is competent, honest and not prone to panic you’re seeing a very different world than most of us. This is a terrible president, a historic embarrassment to this country’s voters. I went along with Mr. Bush’s Iraq war — I won’t get fooled again.
Jimmy:
On the GOP side I would trust McCain or Hagel with this, certainly. On the Dem side my first choices for this particular issue would be Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark. But I’d also actually trust Hillary, maybe Mark Warner, John Kerry or Al Gore. (I don’t know nough about Edwards on foreign policy, but I have to mention him since he’s living here in my subdivision.)
April 11th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I would say Fallows has a must read. Some of us still remember his “iraq our 51st state” as well as “blind into Baghdad.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran/2
April 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I would feel comfortable with Clark. then McCain. Not so sure about Gore. Hillary is a yes. Definitely not Bush!!
April 11th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
“We don’t need to be confident of obliterating every last element in the system, we just need to break enough pieces of the whole that the whole no longer functions.”
I’ve been thinking exactly along these lines ever since it was first pointed out how spread out the facilities are. Additionally, even if the bombs fail to fully destroy a complex, partial destruction is quite probably sufficient in many cases, with a few obvious exceptions, such as the critical enrichment facilities.
The real question is how dangerous Iran will be after we bomb them and they retaliate without nuclear weapons.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Wesley Clark, sure… Maybe, maybe McCain. But I think he wants the job too badly. I never trust someone who really wants the job. Hillary, heck no! Again, same principle, magnified ten times, then compounded with the fact that she’s the senator from my state and all my encounters with her office thus far have been incredibly negative. Not a fan. I like Ron Paul, and if I could, I’d vote for him for just about any office except president, unless he moderates the libertarianism a wee bit. But since he’s probably not going to run for that office again… <shrug> I don’t like Kerry, Edwards, Gore, or Warner for the job. I might vote for Warner, but only if the Republicans came up with really lousy candidates.
Right now, Chuck Hagel would be my preferred pick. No doubt about it.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Michael : For the most part I agree with what your saying.
However, I do think your underestimating the damage that can be caused in the gulf. It’s shallow and narrow at spots and sinking a couple of ships could put it out of operation for a long time. That means no oil comes out, and no supplies get to our troops in in Iraq.
Is this situation really any different that when Stalin got the bomb?
I think we should be considering a cold war not an attack.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Bob:
You may be right. I listened to an NPR story in the car today where someone — sorry, wasn’t paying that close attention — was saying that some at the Pentagon believe we can deter a counterattack from Iran. In other words, they think we can destroy the nuke facilities, and then, by threatening escalation, convince the Iranians to let it go. The obvious question is why a conventional decapitation air strike would deter them from launching suicide bombers, but nuclear annihilation — the likely response to an Iranian nuclear attack on us — somehow would not deter them.
I don’t trust religious nuts. I wouldn’t trust Pat Robertson with a nuke, and I certainly don’t trust the mullahs. Stalin was all about power and survival — not sure these guys are that rational.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is certainly acting nuts. The whole, “I’ve got a magic auraâ€Â?, thing is scary, but is it real?
After all Bush touted the whole compassionate conservative thing.
The mullahs on the other hand , seem to be very attached to money an power. Wasn’t the corruption of the mullahs the reason Ahmadinejad won the election?
April 11th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Not Al Gore or Hillary. Al Gore is the same guy who flies to Saudi Arabia and fabricates stories about America in a sensitive time for us in the middle east. I wouldn’t trust Al Gore with guarding a woman’s purse, nevermind a war. The same for that two-faced idiot John Effing Kerry. When he’s not busy accusing our troops of commiting atrocities he’s getting 5 star hotel treatment and lifetime tenure in Massachusetts office. Hillary isn’t as traitorous but still extremely duplicitous and a vapid race-baiter. Howard Dean is already convinced we are doomed to failure.
Lets face it, The Democrats have noone to run who has any credibility whatsoever. McCain is the only viable and electable option as I see it.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
MR – a very considered and perceptive post … I am thinking that the wacker in Iran spouts a lot of retoric for the benefit of the crowds and his own ego …. but consider this …. Why hasn’t this guy attacked the Jewish State? Why hasn’t Pakistan used the bomb? or India? or, for that matter, Korea? most of the whackers are ego driven … this guy has no more of a religious fanatical bent than … well, Michael Reynolds … but he is running a pretty good scam on the rest of the world and his own people. I measure the danger factor on these folks by the potential to create a movement due to instability. Adolph Hitler was able to start a movement whereby he garnerred not just “support” but “loyalty” because he had a singular vision in his mind that gave him inense mental power. He was able to nearly destroy a race and in addition brought the world to their collective knees over a vast geography.
Osama Bin Laden has been able to do the same thing. No one in the Muslim history has ever achieved the loyalty and impact over such a vast geography. He is the danger … and as you noted in your post on MM the other day … it is unsettling that we haven’t dealt with him.
The wild card in your scenario is George Bush … If he straps on the spurs and saddles up with the imposition of a plan like the one you described it will be because of his sense that he has already received the blessing of congress to do whatever it takes to fight the WOT. We will be in deep sh*t if he does that … at this point I don’t believe that he would get approval from congress to change the batteries in the Oval Office wall clock, but he hasn’t seemed to need there permission for much. With Bush and company out of the equation the Iran thing could be handled with “cold war” tactics. It is all a little scary … no … mor than a little scary.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:55 am
I am not comfortable with the idea that Cheney/Bush Inc. will allow enough time for diplomatic solutions. If it’s like the buildup to Iraq, they already know when they’re going into Iran, they’re just putting on a show of diplomacy for the rest of the world.
Agreed this needs to be tabled and discussed by intellectual experts, not “guys you’d rather have a beer with,” before we get ourselves into another huge mess.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Besides, most experts say they’re years from making a bomb! Slow down, Tex!