Iran Shows Its Cards
http://www.truthdig.com/re****t/item/20080714_iran_shows_its_cards/
Posted on Jul 14, 2008
By Scott Ritter
There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S. and/or
Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors, pundits and
blustering politicians alike have been advocating a pre-emptive military
strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing its nuclear-related
infrastructure, as well as retarding Irans ability to train and equip
terrorist forces on Iranian soil before dispatching them to Iraq or
parts unknown. Some, including me, have warned of the folly of such
action, and now Iran itself has demonstrated why an attack would be insane
Ive always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the
enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy gets
to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran, the
Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast its vote. Iran
recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and rockets, in a clear
demonstration of capability and intent. ****pping through the Strait of
Hormuz, regional oil production capability and U.S. military
concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be subjected to an
Iranian military response if Iran was attacked.
The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display as
yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran is. But
the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For some time
now, the admirals commanding the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf have
maintained that they have the ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
But the fact is, the only way the United States could guarantee that the
strait remained open would be to launch a massive pre-emptive military
strike that swept the Iranian coast clear of the deadly Chinese-made
surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would use to sink cargo ****ps in the
strategic lane. This strike would involve hundreds of tactical aircraft
backed up by limited ground action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations
forces which would involve boots on the ground for several days, if not
weeks. Such a strike is not envisioned in any limited military action
being planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the
Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a
limited military attack on Iran.
The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of Hormuz,
Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and industrial
facilities of the United States and its allies, including the oil fields
in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait, largefixed and well known
would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying deadly cluster bombs.
The damage done would run into the hundreds of millions, if not into
billions, of dollars, and hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. military
personnel would be killed and wounded.
To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States would
have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special
Operations forces, to a counter-missile fight which would need to span the
considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles might reach
potential targets. While there has been some improvement in the U.S.
militarys counter-missile capability, one must never forget that in 1991
not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully interdicted by any aspect
of American military action (airstrike, ground action or antiballistic
missile), and in 2003 the U.S. military had mixed results against the far
less capable Al-Samoud missiles. Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah
from firing large salvos of rockets into northern Israel during the summer
2006 conflict. There is no reason for optimism that the U.S. and Israel
have suddenly found the solution to the Iranian missile threat.
There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent Iran
from interfering with ****pping through the strait. There is every chance
the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ****ps lost and
personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait. There
would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to guarantee
safe passage for all ****pping, civilian and military alike. The longer
ground forces could operate on Iranian soil, the better the chances
Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict ****pping.
Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the greater
likelihood there would be of decisive ground engagement. With U.S. air
power expected to be fully committed to the missile interdiction mission,
any large-scale ground engagement would create a situation in which air
power would have to be redirected into tactical sup****t, and away from
missile interdiction, creating a window of vulnerability which the
Iranians would very likely exploit.
Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if
Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli involvement
is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful fa****on Israel would
need to fly in Iraqi air space, a violation of sovereignty the Iraqi
government will never tolerate. The anti-American backlash that would be
generated in Iraq would be immediate and severe. In short, virtually every
operation involving the training of Iraqi forces would be terminated as
the U.S. military trainers would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the
fortified U.S. bases to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian
contractors would likewise need to be either withdrawn completely from
Iraq or restricted to the fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been
made in the surge would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi
countryside would become a seething mass of anti-American activity, which
would require a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be. Iraq as we
now know it would be lost, and what would emerge in its stead would not
only be unsympathetic to the United States but actually a breeding ground
for anti-American action that could very well expand beyond the boundaries
of Iraq and the Middle East.
The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a U.S.
strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially showed
restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting an Israeli
counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran which would in turn bring long-range
Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.
Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European and
Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil would
almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the resulting
conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent that most are
predicting, there is a good chance oil would top $500 or even more within
days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost certainly strike every
market-based economy, and the markets themselves would collapse under the
strain.
The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are cognizant
of this reality. They know the limitations of American power, and what
they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how Iran would respond
to a limited attack, either on their nuclear facilities or bases
associated with the Revolutionary Guard Command, some planners might have
thought that the U.S. could actually pull off a quick and relatively
bloodless attack. Now that Iran has made it crystal clear that even a
limited U.S. attack would bring about a massive Iranian response, all
military planners now understand that any U.S. military attack will have
to be massive. Simply put, the United States does not now have the
military capacity in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any
redeployment of U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected,
either by Iran, which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of
the world. Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such horrific
detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the
international community remaining mute as American military might is
assembled.
Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent on
the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it would
become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore the
consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and politically.
The same can be said of both major presidential candidates. The decision
by Iran to show its hand on how it would respond to any American
aggression has cleared the air, so to speak, about what is actually being
discussed when one speaks of military action against Iran. In many ways,
the Iranian missile tests have made it less likely that there will be a
war with Iran, simply because the stakes of any such action are so plainly
obvious to all parties involved.
Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to
pursue a nuclear program which is exclusively intended for peaceful energy
purposes. Any concerns which may exist about the dual-use potential of
Irans uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated through viable nuclear
inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA
inspections should be improved upon by getting Iran to go along with an
additional inspection protocol, rather than pursuing military action which
will destroy the inspection process and remove the very verification
processes which provide the international community with the confidence
that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The reality is that Irans nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has every
right under international law to pursue this program, and regional and
global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the price of oil) if
American policies, and in related fa****on U.N. Security Council mandates,
were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoiaderived not so much from any
genuine Iranian threat but rather an affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony
in the Middle Eastmust in turn be subdued. This can be done through a
mixture of international pressure designed to punish Israel diplomatically
and economically for any failure to adhere to international norms when it
comes to peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, and international
assurances that Israels sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will
forever be respected and defended.
Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought to
bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the crux of
the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate national
security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the pro-Israel lobby
will have considerable control over American national security policy. The
American Israel Public Affairs Committees continued push for
congressional action concerning the implementation of what is tantamount
to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act of war) by pu****ng House
Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580 is mind-boggling given the
reality of the situation. Congress must stop talking blockade, and start
discussing stability and confidence-building measures.
There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to conduct
serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings must not
replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate and House in
the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a facilitating vehicle for
war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the body of witnesses beyond
administration officials and those who would mirror their policy
positions, and include experts and specialists who could articulate a
counter point of view, exposing Congress to information and analysis that
might prompt a fuller debate. This is the last thing AIPAC and the Bush
administration want to see. But it is the one thing the American people
should be demanding.
Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as
viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and current
policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush administration can be
considered rational when it comes to the issue of Iran. It is up to the
American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, to
inject a modi*** of sanity into a situation that continues to be in danger
of spinning out of control.
Scott Ritter was a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is
the author of Target Iran (Nation Books, 2007)
--
Keep well,
Steve Hayes
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
|
