Iran: America's disastrous 'military option'

[Haltickling]

It's not my style to just copy and paste newspaper articles here, but I think this one deserves an exception. It's from today's International Herald Tribune. Of course it's biased, but there are a lot of hard facts in this article, too.

Does America really need new desasters?


Iran: America's disastrous 'military option'
By Amin Saikal International Herald Tribune

SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 2005
CANBERRA

Iran and the United States are now on a collision course. Despite warnings from America and Europe, who fear that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Iran has resumed enriching uranium, with its new hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, insisting it has a right to do so under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for peaceful purposes.

President George W. Bush has reacted by declaring all options open, including military action, which has drawn a stiff rebuke not only from Tehran, but also from Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, one of America's allies. Israel is also reported to have plans for targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. But the use of force against Iran could prove to be very costly for all sides. Iran has the capacity to respond in several nonmilitary and military ways in the event of a confrontation.

Iran could block the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which the bulk of oil from the Gulf countries is exported to the outside world. Iran has a considerable military and naval power deployed to the north, with a preparedness to carry out commando actions to mine or sink a number of ships to block the strait.

The best way for the United States to keep the strait open would be to land troops on the Iranian side, which would mean a ground war - something that the Iranians would welcome, but America would want to avoid, especially in the light of its bitter experiences in Iraq.

Tehran can also flex its oil muscle. A substantial reduction or a complete halt in Iran's oil output about four million barrels a day would push up oil prices dramatically, with devastating economic and political consequences for the United States and its allies. Such a development would also be extremely harmful to Iran itself, but several Iranian policy makers have indicated in private that when it comes to the survival of the Islamic regime, no means will be spared.

Further, Tehran is capable of making life a lot more difficult for American forces and its allies in Iraq. Iran has so far acted with much restraint in Iraq, in the belief that the U.S. push for democracy will ultimately deliver political power to Iran's Shiite allies there. But in the event of an American or Israeli attack on Iran, all the gloves would come off.

Tehran could be expected not only to encourage its Iraqi allies to fight U.S. forces, but also to send thousands of commandos and suicide bombers to support them. It could also count on the support of many Shiite activist groups within its regional Islamic networks to target Americans and Israelis and their interests throughout the region. Given Iran's extensive cross-border ties with Afghanistan, it could even stir up trouble to undermine that country's fragile stability.

Tehran also has the capacity to take retaliatory military actions. It has a formidable military machine, equipped with both medium- and long-range Shihab missiles capable of carrying heavy payloads to hit American and Israeli targets as far as 2,000 kilometers away. While unable to match American firepower, Iranian forces could make up for this to some extent by their Islamist and nationalist fanaticism.

Given the costs of a confrontation, it is essential that Iran and its three European negotiating partners, Britain, France and Germany, work out a mutually acceptable agreement. Yet for this agreement to materialize, the parties involved may need to go beyond the nuclear issue to address the conditions that have led the Iranians to live in constant fear of the United States and Israel, and the latter two to become increasingly suspicious of Iran's nuclear intentions.

A viable resolution of the nuclear row depends very much on how the parties can come to terms with each other politically. If Washington recognized Tehran's Islamic regime, stopped constantly threatening Iran, and agreed to controls on weapons of mass destruction across the region - including Israel's - it would make considerable progress in dealing with the nuclear issue. But Washington has never wished Israel to become subject to the same constraints as the Arabs and Iranians.

(Amin Saikal is a professor of political science at the Australian National University in Canberra, where he directs the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies.)
(Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/26/opinion/edsaikal.php# )

[milagros317]

Of course it's biased

I'm glad that you recognize that.

Professor Amin Saikal is Director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University. I can just imagine how neutral he is regarding any dispute between the U.S. and an Islamic regime such as Iran's.

[Newcastle Uni]

It would be shear lunacy for the US to embark on a war with Iran. I'm sure the US will go it alone on that one if they insist on War (which they haven't, but they haven't ruled it out either).

I don't know what to make on this. Is it dangerous that Tehran should have the most destructive of all Weapons? Perhaps. But it is more dangerous that Tehran should perceive it needs these weapons.
Afterall, the US is the only country to have used the Weapon in anger, not once but twice. Personally I think current and recent US foreign policy is more damaging to the world (and the US) than whether or not Tehran has those weapons.

[hivoltage]

This is why America should have attacked and destroyed the current Iranian dictatorship in its infancy.

But with Carter as President and the Vietnam War just barely over - that wasn't going to happen.

And of course that brings up the subject of what would have happened if George Bush, Sr. had finished the job in Gulf War I instead of the U. S. having to do it today...

That article points out the need for decisive military action when your sworn enemy is weak, not the virtues of diplomacy.

Now instead of the US and Russia - the nuclear cold war will be between Israel and Iran.

[Newcastle Uni]

This is why America should have attacked and destroyed the current Iranian dictatorship in its infancy.

But with Carter as President and the Vietnam War just barely over - that wasn't going to happen.

And of course that brings up the subject of what would have happened if George Bush, Sr. had finished the job in Gulf War I instead of the U. S. having to do it today...

That article points out the need for decisive military action when your sworn enemy is weak, not the virtues of diplomacy.

Now instead of the US and Russia - the nuclear cold war will be between Israel and Iran.

No it won't necessarily. Pakistan and India each have the bomb and if anything it has made that region a bit more stable. Each side knows that to go to war means mutually assured destruction. The same will be true of Iran and Israel (if they ever get the bomb, well if Iran does i mean).

What happens when the majority of countries have the bomb though. In the same way as the entente cordiale failed to stop WWI maybe nuclear devastation is inevitable? What a scary thought.

[asutickler]

This guy isn't very well-versed in military strategy OR geography... I think he has the Strait of Hormuz confused with the Panama Canal.

[jim66e]

This guy isn't very well-versed in military strategy OR geography... I think he has the Strait of Hormuz confused with the Panama Canal.


What? You aren't serious are you?

[asutickler]

What? You aren't serious are you?

In his article, Mr. Saikal said:

"Iran could block the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which the bulk of oil from the Gulf countries is exported to the outside world. Iran has a considerable military and naval power deployed to the north, with a preparedness to carry out commando actions to mine or sink a number of ships to block the strait."


The Panama Canal is very narrow and could be effectively blocked by sinking a couple of ships in it, whereas the Strait of Hormuz is somewhere around 20 miles wide. That's what I meant by the author having them confused.


You didn't really think I meant that the Panama Canal is in the Persian Gulf, did you? :scared:

[MrMacphisto]

It would be shear lunacy for the US to embark on a war with Iran. I'm sure the US will go it alone on that one if they insist on War (which they haven't, but they haven't ruled it out either).

The way I see it is like this... At this point, if America attacks Iran, the U.S. will economically collapse. We can't afford what's going on in Iraq, and we definitely will be shit out of luck if we fight Iran. Then again, if we're stupid enough to attack Iran, then we deserve to fall.

I don't know what to make on this. Is it dangerous that Tehran should have the most destructive of all Weapons? Perhaps. But it is more dangerous that Tehran should perceive it needs these weapons.
Afterall, the US is the only country to have used the Weapon in anger, not once but twice. Personally I think current and recent US foreign policy is more damaging to the world (and the US) than whether or not Tehran has those weapons.

I totally agree, but you'd be hard-pressed to find other Americans that agree with you. Isn't it funny how so much of the rest of the world gets this concept, but America is so fucking slow on the uptake? You'd think that we'd realize that war only leads to more war, but whatever... Paranoia is gonna be the death of this country....

[MrMacphisto]

Now instead of the US and Russia - the nuclear cold war will be between Israel and Iran.

Let Iran and Israel duke it out. Why the hell do we care? Israel makes a habit out of pissing off its neighbors, and these Islamic leaders will never be satisfied with whatever we arrange. Fuck 'em... We need to get the hell out and move away from oil consumption.

[MrMacphisto]

What happens when the majority of countries have the bomb though. In the same way as the entente cordiale failed to stop WWI maybe nuclear devastation is inevitable? What a scary thought.

...a scary thought indeed... but maybe, humanity is due for another Dark Ages... you never know....

[jim66e]

In his article, Mr. Saikal said:

"Iran could block the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which the bulk of oil from the Gulf countries is exported to the outside world. Iran has a considerable military and naval power deployed to the north, with a preparedness to carry out commando actions to mine or sink a number of ships to block the strait."


The Panama Canal is very narrow and could be effectively blocked by sinking a couple of ships in it, whereas the Strait of Hormuz is somewhere around 20 miles wide. That's what I meant by the author having them confused.


You didn't really think I meant that the Panama Canal is in the Persian Gulf, did you? :scared:

No, I didn't know what you ment. You appear confused on geography and way off on military stratagy. You think it would be hard to shut down shipping in a 20 mile strait? When one of the countries doing the blockading borders the strait? Just to give you a comparasion, In the last 200 years, England has blockaded the coast of continental Europe at least three times. During the Napolianic Wars, and the two World Wars. Even though they did not blocake the entire coast the sections they did were far larger than 20 miles. Blockading the strait would be childs play for a nation with a compatant navy, which Iran apperently has.

[qjakal]

Their "navy" wouldn't last an hour vs the US forces...specifically the air power. Nor is their military really significantly better off. You cannot fight when your enemy doesn't allow you to position troops or maintain supply lines. Until someone can deter American air power their actual military options are nearly zero.

I hope Iran can resolve its difficulties without pushing the envelope past reasonable. Be nice to see some diplomacy working once more....

Q

[Cosmo_ac]

If the US creates another war, they are going to be effectively cutting off there own dick and sticking it up there ass. A war with Iran for the US at this time would cause huge problems for them, in the way of Finance, manpower, and international respect. Just way too many problems for a war unless it was an absolutle last means of survival.

[Haltickling]

This is why America should have attacked and destroyed the current Iranian dictatorship in its infancy.
Maybe we should not forget that the US actively "destroyed" the legitimally elected Iranian government to replace it with the Shah regime. Mossadegh may have not been an ideal president for Iran, but eventually only the Shah tyranny made Khomeini possible...

@ asu: The Strait of Hormuz may be 28 miles wide, but the actual shipping channels are much narrower: 2 miles in each direction. There are alternative routes, but they're spiked with navigational hazards like reefs and undercurrents. According to some sources, 2-3 sunken ships in each channel would be sufficient to block the Strait for the big tankers. No need of a big navy to do this: a few coastal fish trawlers loaded with explosives would do the trick. Note that I don't want this to happen; I just refuse to close my eyes to this threat.

Even though the US imports only about 10% of its consumption through the Strait of Hormuz, the effects on the global oil prices would be devastating.

I also found a very interesting study on the strategical importance of the whole region, prepared by American experts. Despite their almost Machiavellian approach to the issue (highly favorable to the US view), it contains extremely valuable facts. Warning: it's over 20 pages! Here's the link: http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/GulfSecurity.pdf

It also backs the IHT article mostly. Read it! :cool2:

[jim66e]

Despite their almost Machiavellian approach to the issue

Is there something wrong with Machiavelli? or his approaches to things?

[Haltickling]

Is there something wrong with Machiavelli? or his approaches to things?
Not in general, but his view has become a synonym for the philosophy that the end justifies ALL means. Replace "Machiavellian" by "cynic" if you wish...

[MrMacphisto]

Machiavellian tactics are effective if they are done right, but if you resort to them, you should at least have the dignity to admit to it. If America chooses to operate in a Machiavellian way, it should not continue to pretend that is fighting for some ideal. We're fighting for our interests, not some idealistic "freedom" bullshit. This isn't about democracy, this is about power, stability, and resources. If the neo-cons actually came out and said this, then I'd at least have more respect for them.

[jim66e]

Machiavellian tactics are effective if they are done right, but if you resort to them, you should at least have the dignity to admit to it. If America chooses to operate in a Machiavellian way, it should not continue to pretend that is fighting for some ideal. We're fighting for our interests, not some idealistic "freedom" bullshit. This isn't about democracy, this is about power, stability, and resources. If the neo-cons actually came out and said this, then I'd at least have more respect for them.

Very True, honesty is important

[jim66e]

Not in general, but his view has become a synonym for the philosophy that the end justifies ALL means. Replace "Machiavellian" by "cynic" if you wish...


Which is sad because that was not Machiavelli's philosophy or take at all

[asutickler]

No, I didn't know what you ment. You appear confused on geography and way off on military stratagy. You think it would be hard to shut down shipping in a 20 mile strait? When one of the countries doing the blockading borders the strait? Just to give you a comparasion, In the last 200 years, England has blockaded the coast of continental Europe at least three times. During the Napolianic Wars, and the two World Wars. Even though they did not blocake the entire coast the sections they did were far larger than 20 miles. Blockading the strait would be childs play for a nation with a compatant navy, which Iran apperently has.



England's blockade efforts over the past two centuries are hardly relevant here. We have two aircraft carriers with a full complement of support vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf right now, supporting ground forces in Iraq... Meaning that we already enjoy air and naval superiority over the immediate area. Iran's navy may be competent in comparison to the rest of the Middle East, but that hardly puts them on our level. A blockade would be suicide for the Iranian navy, and sinking two or three fishing trawlers in a two mile wide channel would make it hazardous, but not impassable. Iran's proximity to the strait also does them little good, as we can sweep their coast clean using air power and shipboard bombardment.

[Haltickling]

...and sinking two or three fishing trawlers in a two mile wide channel would make it hazardous, but not impassable.
Sorry, I have expressed myself unclear. The scenario I meant was to steer a few fishing trawlers ("swimming bombs") alongside the big tankers and blow them up where the Strait is the narrowest. Two or three big tankers per channel ARE sufficient to block them.

The Iranian navy doesn't pose a big threat to the US Navy, but a war on Iran would be another example of asymmetric warfare, with suicide commandos and guerilla tactics.

Just read the cdi study, it shows what to expect...

[Strider]

I highly doubt there's going to be any military action against Iran.

[MrMacphisto]

I hope you're right, Strider.

[Strider]

The current view among IR wonks on Iran is that if they go nuclear then the American will basically be some rhetoric about it in public,while behind the scenes there's pretty much an agreement that a nuclear Iran is just something we're going to have to grit our teeth and live with as long as the bomb is strictly a deterrent to invasion.OTOH,if they use it specifically as a shield to be able to revert to a more Khomeini-like policy of regional destabilization then the international(not just American)response will be much more forceful.That doesn't strike me as particularly likely though as it would put too much strain on their economy and the recent relative prosperity and growth of the middle class has been basically the only thing preventing hostility towards the Mullahs from boiling over.