Why Not Bomb Iran?
Dave Price
Sooner or later, the obviousness of the truth will become apparent to even the least perspicacious observers: the campaign against Hizbollah can only have a short-term impact on their military effectiveness, as Iran will simply re-arm them as soon as hostilities end, and politically bombing Lebanon has been a disastrous boost to Hizbollah's popularity there. It’s also become apparent no disarmament or buffer zone is going to be seriously enforced by international forces: Hizbollah will either bomb them (as they did our Marines) or suborn them (as they’ve done to the UN forces).
As long as Iran is willing to spend $100 million a year funding them, Hizbollah will continue to be a major problem. So what if we or Israel targeted a few structures housing the elite in Iran, to deliver the message they can be held personally responsible for their actions by the high-explosive packed tip of a cruise missile? Let’s look at the potential outcomes:
The Gaddafi Outcome: Iran’s leaders decide they aren’t quite ready to meet Allah yet, and decide to behave. Their rhetoric doesn’t change, but their actions do.
The War Outcome: In a suicidal fit of rage, Iran’s mad mullahs declare war on us. There’s not really much they can do; worst case, they stir up trouble in Iraq and fire missiles into Israel (which is pretty much what they’re doing today anyway), but they can’t muster a serious anti-air defense and the ISF are taking the lead in Iraq. The Iranian government may be deadly to insufficiently chaste 14-year-old girls, but a single carrier group can lay waste to their armed forces. If they get really obnoxious, we cut off their oil.
The So What Outcome: Iran continues doing and saying more or less exactly what it did before, but at least they have to hide in bunkers while they’re doing it.
Obviously there would be implications to any of the above; oil might reach $100/barrel and perhaps a lot more if their oilfields have to be targeted. But can we afford to be held hostage to the convenience of cheap crude?
Remember, the nuclear clock is ticking…..
UPDATE: Robert Tracinski nails it: It is a war in which everyone knows the enemy's strategy, in which it is child's play to see through all of his ruses and propaganda tricks--and yet our leaders, rather than devising their own counter-strategy, fall for every ruse and play along with the enemy's game.
And people seem to be forgetting that Iran needs oil money more than the world needs Iranisn oil.
Iran may not have that much of an air defense (and are we sure of this?), but it has a fairly capable land defense, I believe, and a rather capable marine defense as well (they sit, I believe, in a strategically valuable location). They've threatened to mine the hell out of the persian gulf, IIRC, and mines are very expensive to clear.
And I do believe that you have that last part backwards. Small upsets in the amount of oil available (and Iran is no small player) can have devastating affects on the world economy, whereas Iran is already rolling in petrodollars.
Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner. Their principal exports are oil and exploding devices like bombs, missiles and jihadis.
I will note one thing, Russia has been selling Iran a lot of stuff that's designed to blow up our stuff. I know their planes and tanks are pretty inferior, but what about their subs and those high-tech torpedoes? What about jihadis posing as water-skiers? You know Iran would love to load a boat up with explosives and children so that either they blow up our boat or CNN gets good footage of us killing "poor, innocent children".
I hope everything turns out okay for everyone, I really do. But, we should have just left stuff alone. I agree with this point though, at this time we basically need to kill Iran, the threat level is overwhelming. But our opportunity to do that has already been thwarted by our inability to generate a better image and more convincing propaganda than the enemy. An attack at this point would only make us look "Tyrannical" and the end result would be a good chunk of the world refusing to help. Our military would be overdrawn forcing us to pull out totally and they would take it all.
It is moving that way now in fact. Only it is happening much, much more slowly. We still have time to repair relations and swing this to our advantage. An attack on Iran is needed but if it is done too soon it will act as a catalyst for their propaganda and it will unravel everything.
What would be the objectives of bombing Iran? I can think of several:
1. Eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons development program.
2. Retard Iran's nuclear weapons development program.
3. Regime change.
4. Remove Iran's ability to de-stabilize the region.
Short of a genocidal attack on Iran with sufficient force to kill a significant number of Iranians (or all of them) of those the only goal that could be achieved by a bombing campaign is the second. It would have the undesired secondary effects of strengthening the current regime and providing them with even greater motivation to obtain nuclear weapons (if such a thing be possible).
We don't have sufficient military intelligence to identify all of Iran's nuclear development sites and, given the prudent conclusion that they've been hardened, it's doubtful we can eliminate all of the known sites with current weaponry short of the sort of strike I've described.
We can't achieve regime change in Iran through bombing. That is a fantasy. In all likelihood it would produce the opposite effect.
We can't eliminate Iran's ability to de-stabilize the region by bombing it. The current borders in the Middle East were specifically constructed to make Iran the 800 lb. gorilla there. The alternatives for eliminating the possiblity are partitioning Iran or uniting the Arab countries. We can't do either one of those by bombing.
For substantial exploration of the limitations of bombing in dealing with Iran read the many posts on the subject at Winds of Change (not doves) or my place.
So, why not bomb Iran to retard their nuclear weapons development program? Simple: because we can achieve that without bombing. I've written about that, too.
Highly debatable, but who said anything about a land invasion anyway?
Small upsets in the amount of oil available (and Iran is no small player) can have devastating affects on the world economy,
The price of oil has tripled, and the economy doesn't seem all that devastated.
Dave,
The objective I had in mind was simply to get them to stop killing Israelis, Lebanese and Americans via Hizbollah proxies. I was asking what about the consequences of bombing them, not the objectives of doing so.
We can't eliminate Iran's ability to de-stabilize the region by bombing it.
That's not the goal here. The goal is to persuade them it's not in their interest, by demonstrating to their leadership that their activities can have a very personal price.
No, it won't happen. Two reasons:
Shia v. Sunni. Huge, huge issue.
Arabs are not Persians. Persians are not Arabs. They don't even necessarily like each other that much when they're not focusing on the you-know-whos.
Well, I think I stated both of those in the post:
So what if we or Israel targeted a few structures housing the elite in Iran, to deliver the message they can be held personally responsible for their actions by the high-explosive packed tip of a cruise missile? Let’s look at the potential outcomes:
The Gaddafi Outcome: Iran’s leaders decide they aren’t quite ready to meet Allah yet, and decide to behave. Their rhetoric doesn’t change, but their actions do.
Hey, it worked with the nuts in Libya.
And as the other scenarios illustrate, if it doesn't work we're not much worse off. Iran is already more or less at war with us.
I have to disagree on that. Bombing Libya did crap. We did that in what, 1986? Pulling Saddam out of his septic tank, on the other hand...
Well, it seemed to change their perspective a bit. They started to cut down on terror support after that. Now we've even normalized relations.
That's another small piece of the puzzle.
Oh, it can get a lot worse. Iran can send its revolutionary guard into Iraq to attack US troops. Iran has French Exocet and newer Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles as well as several submarines. They have a fleet of small boats that can be loaded with explosives for suicide attacks. Even if they can’t sink US Navy ships with all that, they certainly can sink super tankers in the Persian Gulf. They could mine the Straights of Hormuz or sink several tankers effectively blocking it, cutting off all oil from the gulf region. Iran has medium range missiles that can reach Israel, US bases in Iraq or oil installations in Saudi Arabia.
It could get a lot worse.
They already are. And it's pissing off Iraqis.
Even if they can’t sink US Navy ships with all that, they certainly can sink super tankers in the Persian Gulf.
I doubt their navy would survive a week if they did that. If they mine the strait, every Gulf country will go ballistic.
Iran has medium range missiles that can reach Israel, US bases in Iraq or oil installations in Saudi Arabia.
They're already firing rockets into Israel. Let them start shooting into Iraq, and see what that gets them.
And remember this:
This concern was exacerbated by the "Doolittle Raid" on Tokyo (April 18, 1942) by U.S. Army B-25's staging off the carrier USS Hornet. The Raid, while militarily negligible, was a severe psychological shock to the Japanese, and demonstrated that their military could not prevent attacks against the Japanese home islands
Iran badly needs such a demonstration.
Alliances in the Middle East seem to follow a certain hierararcy: when the US or Israel is involved:
- the brotherhood of Arabs and Muslims vs. the US/Israel. If one group of Shia or Sunni appears to be allied with the US or Israel, they become the enemy, but the main effort is concentrated on getting rid of the auslanders.
- When we're out of the picture, it's Arabs vs. Persians (but since the fundamentalist Mullahs are considered to be de facto Arabs by the Iranians, it's not clear where they stand)
- Then it's Shia vs. Sunni, then it's one Sunni or Shia tribe vs. the other, then it's neighbor vs. neighbor, then it's neighbor vs. dog.
I wouldn't be surprised if Iran unites a good chunk of the Middle East under its banner. The destabilization of the region and the elimination of its largest rival was just the motivation they needed to reunite the Middle East under the mullahs. They will say it's for "peace" and convince the hippies to stick up for them at every turn. Since Lebanon and Hizbollah already seem to have world sympathy (or close to it) I don't believe this is a poor assumption.
That's why we should be patient. The al Qaeda supporting Sunnis and the Hezbollah supporting Shia are both our enemies in this war. If they could be riled up enough to united under the Mullahs, and if we take out the (relatively poorly defended) Mullahs, we dismember the terrorist infrastructure. If there is no real terrorist infrastructure, the occupation/restructuring is made easier, because the "spontaneous local insurgencies" are without their traditional foreign fighters and funds. That should be our goal in this war.
If we attacked Iran now, we would be doing the al Qaeda supporting Sunnis, like the sponsors of 9/11 in Riyadh, a huge favor. We really don't want to do that.
Iran is weak, but they'll scream, yell and threaten in an effort to hide it. The Arab street will do the same. When they're all screaming together, drunk on their perceived power (incited by our media's favorable coverage), that would probably be the best time to hit. Use their hate against them for a change.
Good, but you forgot dog vs cat.
We've already done them that favor by attacking Hizbollah.
The Saudi royal court has issued a dire warning that its 2002 peace plan — offering Israel full recognition by all Arab states in exchange for returning to the borders that predated the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — could well perish.
LOL. Horrors!
Anyone with the discipline and technology required to build a nuke is going to make damn sure the thing has a better than 10% chance of actually detonating before they actually try to use it aggressively. And trying to deliver it via missile multiplies the difficulties exponentially.
So maybe they can smuggle their experiment into Syria or Lebanon, and do their test blast there. And maybe they could try to blame Israel for it, or something far out like that. But I think the world will know where such a nuke really came from. And then its go time.
But still, I think its worth holding off for now. Revolutions and coups do still happen.
And there is no such thing as too much preparation on our end. If we have X bunker busters, thermo-baric bombs, or what have you now, we might have 2X or 10X by the time we really need them. And the pilots of the F-22s are getting better every day. And the rookie grunts are getting battle hardened in Iraq. Etc. Etc.
And on a related note, it could be argued that Israel decided to ratchet up the intensity of the Hezbo/Lebanon conflict as a way to divert Iran’s attention and dilute their resources.
The Hezzies have already said they didn’t expect Israel to react so strongly, and that seems believable to me. This was a very good time for Israel to make such a move. And the longer they keep it up, and the closer they push towards Syria, the worse things get for Iran, IMO.
Iran’s supply of dedicated jihadis and weaponry isn’t infinite. The mullahs are now fighting or supporting a de facto war in Iraq, and a real war in Lebanon, and probably preparing for fighting in Syria.
And they still need to keep a good chunk of their forces at home, to protect against incursions originating from Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Plus, unlike the US or Israel, they need to keep a large number of their best and brightest in their immediate vicinity, to protect themselves from insurrection. I don’t think things are looking so rosy for those guys…..
The Badr Corps militia of the SCIRI party was trained and equipped by the Iranian revolutionary guard, but they have generally avoided confrontations with the US military so far. I get the feeling you have no idea how much worse Iran could make the situation in Iraq.
I doubt their navy would survive a week if they did that. If they mine the strait, every Gulf country will go ballistic.
Survival is not the objective. The Iranian objective would be to cut off all oil shipments from the gulf. The Iranian navy doesn’t have to survive to do that.
They're already firing rockets into Israel. Let them start shooting into Iraq, and see what that gets them.
They are firing small, inaccurate rockets into northern Israel. Iran could fire much larger rockets, with 2000 lbs warheads into Tel Aviv or any city in Israel.
This concern was exacerbated by the "Doolittle Raid" on Tokyo (April 18, 1942) by U.S. Army B-25's staging off the carrier USS Hornet. The Raid, while militarily negligible, was a severe psychological shock to the Japanese, and demonstrated that their military could not prevent attacks against the Japanese home islands
Iran badly needs such a demonstration.
Did the Japanese give up after the Doolittle Raid? Did the Doolittle Raid lead to regime change in Japan?
While the Doolittle Raid may have been a shock to the Japanese and it may have lifted US morale at a time when the US was trying to recover from the shock of Perl Harbor, it did little to hasten the end of WW II. Even three years later after the firebombing of Tokyo in February and March 1945, which is thought to have killed 100,000 Japanese civilians, Japan was still ready to fight to the last man.
You are really underestimating how much worse things could get. Bombing another country doesn’t make them recognize the error of their way. Usually exactly the opposite happens. It makes them more determined to fight.
The navagable portion of the strait of Hormuz is over 20 miles wide, with an average depth of over 100 meters. How many sunken tankers do you suppose it would take to block it?
Without control of the sea, mining would require a fleet of mine laying submarines. Mining a waterway as wide and as deep as the straits of Hormuz is not a quick-and-easy operation, even with nuclear submarines - of which Iran has none. And while it is true that Iran has a few conventionally powered submarines, your scenario presupposes that the USN is either totally incompetent at ASW or will do nothing but stand by and watch as the operation is completed.
Nope - the only way to deny the strait of Hormuz would be to control the sea and air around it for a substantial period of time. And that will require a navy and an air force much more powerful than what the Iranians actually have. Some older Russian warplanes, a few surface warships, and a handful of Kilo class submarines - it doesn't matter. In a toe-to-toe fight - which is what you are proposing with this mining operation - the USN and USAF would make short work of them.
"Survival is not the objective. The Iranian objective would be to cut off all oil shipments from the gulf. The Iranian navy doesn’t have to survive to do that."
Yes - they do. Controlling a major sealane like the straits of Hormuz - or even sea-denial - for any length of time requires staying power - either on the sea or in the air. And neither the Iranian navy nor the iranian air force has the necessary staying power at the present time.
(...And lest we forget, this has been tried before back in the late 80's when Iran was attacking neutral shipping in both the straits and Persian gulf. It didn't work then and it won't work now.)
Note, that I didn't say the USN wouldn't take any casualties. They likely would. But it's a long way from inflicting a few casualties to controlling the straits of Hormuz.
No, but they knew they were vulnerable.
Did the Doolittle Raid lead to regime change in Japan?
Let me check. Hmmm, looks like the militaristic regime has been replaced with a pacifist one. Did we ever invade them?
You are really underestimating how much worse things could get.
No, I'm well aware -- though it's important to realize many of the things you contemplate will be far worse for Iran than for us, and thus they may try to avoid them.
You're ignoring the fact that things are going to get much worse whether we bomb them or not. They're going to have nukes soon.
Bombing another country doesn’t make them recognize the error of their way.
Worked in Japan, Serbia and Libya.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.