|
The general theme
will be to place the Iran operation in the context of the larger “War on Terrorism” that has become the trash heap of American foreign policy in the last four years. Indeed, president Bush has already clearly identified Iran as the central member in its new troika “Axis of Evil.”
Argument 2
will be Napoleon’s old maxim that “The best defense is a good offense.” The strategists and their marketing teams usually find this line an easy sell with the American people, who still harbor a long simmering resentment against Iran because of the 444 day hostage crisis, and an even deeper fear of surprise attack that goes back to the Alamo, the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and now 9/11. Americans like the idea of “getting there firstest with the mostest” as the Confederate cavalry leader Nathan Bedford Forrest observed.
Argument 3,
then, will be to convince us that Iran actually has these dreaded nuclear intentions, and that if they do develop these weapons, they will certainly use them on America. Here is a list of their likely “talking points.”
Phase 1 – Shaping the Argument: They will assert, as they did with Iraq that:
Iran is “evil.” (A twelve year old’s view of the world, but there it is)
Iran is developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (Heaven forbid!)
Iran is actively supporting terrorism, (Hizbullah, Hammas etc)
Iran is interfering with Iraqi stability and opposes democracy there (Probably true)
Iran is therefore a major threat to the region and the world in general (False logic)
The nexus of a nuclear armed Iran and terrorism is intolerable (Blind assumption)
The newly elected President of Iran was a hostage taking terrorist years ago and an insane “mad man.” (Again, a twelve year old’s view of world
events)
The Iranian people yearn to be liberated from their oppressive mullahs
Since initiating a strike against Iran will take about 6 months planning and lots
of dollars, this time will be used to “prepare” the American public by making it seem as though a rational approach is being tried and is just not working. Just tune in FOX news and you will see that the
Neocons have already force fed that “news” outlet all of the above, and the Phase I points are all pretty much Gospel these days on that station, where reporters routinely refer to the Iran as
“evil.” and show missile parades in Tehran on an almost daily basis, and love fest meetings with Hugo Chavez.
Phase II – Masking the Plan. The war sellers will assert that:
Diplomacy is the best initial option
This is not just an American problem but an international one
Iran is disregarding IAEA rules and international treaty obligations
Iran is playing a shell game, buying time to hide their program
Diplomacy seems to be failing, and the UN is impotent
Economic sanctions will take too long to have any real effect
The threat is a matter of months away, not years
They will say that we suddenly “have no other choice” and push the military option
.
(UPDATE: We have now reached this point in the plan sequence. The Neo-Cons have established their premise, again unchallenged by any strong opposition voice
or power base in this country.)
While these messages are fed into the hungry 24-hour news cycle by war advocates, the military will be quietly pre-positioning “assets” it needs for the
operation, using the normal troop rotation plan for Iraq as a nice cover. The war sales pitch in the media will be closely timed with the military preparations, which may include the quiet positioning of Marine
Amphibious Units to the Gulf, along with minesweeper units and increased carrier air power.. When all is ready we will get…
Phase III – The Surprise Attack.
There will be no
announcement, no saber rattling buildup, no diplomatic ultimatum. This attack, if it is to have any chance of success, must be a surprise. Israel, a nation that has been yearning to attack Iran’s nuclear
ambitions, will join the operation, as they are likely to be targeted in reprisal in any case. There should be at least 2 US carriers involved, though the attack will be initially made by stealth bombers and cruise
missiles. I expect no big buildup of naval forces that would tip our hand, so watch for the relief cycles on deployed units, where the outgoing and incoming battlegroups will overlap one another.
If Bush gives the order, then the neo-cons will roll up several hundred million dollars worth of free TV time as the nation is glued to its TV sets, and the anti-war
rhetoric of Democratic challengers is simply swamped by “breaking news” right before the election. It’s Karl Rove’s dream come true--a real “Wag the Dog” to deflect the opposition
challenge yet again. The attack will be made, and then the diplomatic and political mess will be sorted out after.
Then the flags and freedom rhetoric will be floated out by FOX News, the images of “our
boys” fighting bravely will flood the airwaves, and we will be exhorted to support them. We’ll be treated by reporters embedded on the CV strike carriers, and get to watch those thrilling F-18 launches
live via satellite link. Americans love to relax in their family rooms in front of the plasma and take in a war or two, or three, all nodding their heads gravely with the FOX implanted notion that them darn
mullas and madmen had all this coming to them. The “bravery of begin out of range” is quite a luxury.
If the Democrats stage any appreciable opposition to funding or authorization for this nasty new war, we will probably get an ominous announcement about an imminent
revenge terror attack and see the warning light glow orange, or even red--(or even get more anthrax or nerve gas scares in the halls of congress, a tactic that has been successfully used twice to stampede measures
through anti-war opposition on the hill.) If you speak out against military action you will be called “unpatriotic,” or one who “blames America first.” You’ll scratch your head and
remind folks that it was the US who launched this treacherous little Pearl Harbor against Iran this time around, and that no Iranian military units have attacked us, or even threatened to attack us in decades. No
matter. Once the war starts if you don’t back our boys, then you’re worse than a godless gay commie planning your next child molestation for the Nancy Grace show.
Ain’t democracy wonderful? We get to threaten and attack any nation we wish, on false pretenses, or just because our president thinks he’s the
reincarnation of Winston Churchill, (a thought that stretches the imagination well beyond the breaking point, it is so laughable.) The idea that your opposition to this war stems from a real love of your country, its founding values and principles, the rule of law, the possibilities of diplomacy, and the idea that preemptive wars, in fact all wars, are inherently immoral,
well...that counts for nothing. Oppose the war and you’ll be labeled a “liberal.”
And have you noticed that Bush appears to be planning all this without any sanction from congress? He assumes the old “use of force” resolution for Iraq
is his carte blanche to do whatever he desires, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The power to wage war is vested solely in Congress, not the executive branch, but Bush has gotten away with so much
already, he will act unilaterally, covering his constitutional power grab by claiming he has “briefed” a handful of key members of congress. Unfortunately, the constitution does not say you can wage war
if you brief a few insider party favorites on the hill first. But who cares about the law when you are about to do the most lawless thing ever conceived by a US president, when you are about to do the very thing
Japan did to us on December 7, 1941?
This, my fellow Americans, is what you may have to look forward to in the near future. So just remember, “Fool me twice… Shame on me.” This
attack would create complete chaos in the region, and the consequences would be catastrophic.
Consequences:
It sounds so easy when the operation begins.
The US and Israeli forces begin to pulverize the opposition, and the military goals of the campaign are quickly achieved. But the consequences of an operation in Iran will be dramatic. First, the opposition there
will be deeply rooted and pronounced. Even if they are destabilized or thrown out, (which is highly unlikely), they will organize a resistance to any new government we might install, just like the
Sunni’s did in Iraq. But the majority of the Iranian population is Shiite, like the Shi’a majority in southern Iraq. The deposed “bad guys” in Iran will also launch a major campaign to
try and provoke their brother Shi’a to rise up and throw out the American occupation in Iraq. In short, the guerilla war we now have in the Sunni triangle will increase in size by a factor of ten, with open,
active, and declared Iranian support for the insurgency in Iraq.
So, if you are sitting at home still simmering over that Iranian hostage crisis thing, and hankering for a little payback, you had better be
ready to sign off on your young son or daughter for an extended tour of the Middle East in the Army. Years after invading Iraq, the best military in the world can still not provide security to just a handful of
towns in the Sunni Triangle, an area comprising only 1/3 of that country. The roads are perilous to travel, even for heavily armed US convoys. The US backed administration is holed up in the Green Zone and comes
under daily attack, reporters are virtually imprisoned in a few hotels because it is too dangerous to move about Baghdad. Our troops are fatigued and ever more jumpy, as the Haditha scandal will show. The population
is increasingly more restive and the insurgency is gaining strength and sophistication as they evolve tactics to counter US operations. And one other thing... The bad guys live there. They’ve been inviting their friends to join them from all over the Middle East and they aren’t going away.
Occupying and pacifying Iran is therefore completely out of the question. We just don’t have the troops available to accomplish a task of this magnitude without
a massive, WWII style buildup of forces. And I don’t want to hear anything from military types who will boast of “Force Multipliers” in the USAF and the inherent superiority of the US fighting
machine. I don’t want to hear that we’ll use our air-mobile special forces to hop over opposition on the ground while we obliterate it from the air. I don’t want to hear that we’d simply drop
into Tehran with a host of special action teams backed up by the 173rd Airborne and quickly run them mullahs to ground. Sure, we can bust up the Iranian Army as easily as we sent the Iraqi Army packing. But a
nation is not conquered simply because its uniformed armed soldiers have been bested, or because its former regime leaders have been rounded up and pulled from their hiding holes. The people of a nation will decide who rules them, one way or another. If the Iranians don’t want a US installed government, no amount of military muscle is going to prevail there.
So, in my view, an “invasion” of Iran to effect regime change is impossible for the US, and planners are more likely considering options for a limited strike there to let the Iranians know “we mean business.” Business, after all, is what all of this is all about. We don’t fear Iran will get the bomb and start lobbing nukes at US cities. What we really fear is that their acquisition of nuclear weapons would make them invulnerable to future punitive strikes like the plans that have been floating about on the Internet. They would be able to exert far more power in the oil rich region than they can dream of now, and be a serious challenge to the current order there--US dominance. Still, the “planners,” whoever they may be, still insist on a little military poke or two, but it will have the effect of poking a stick at a hornet’s nest. Could Iran pose a threat to US interests in the Middle East if attacked?
 What could they do?
It is not likely that Iran would try any major movement of its regular army into Iraq. US air power is simply too lethal, and our satellite coverage would make Iranian strategic
surprise impossible. On the other hand, the IRGC could dramatically increase its funding, weapons infiltration, and human intelligence support for the Iraqi insurgents, and aim at sparking a more general
uprising in the Shi’ite south. This would completely wreck any hopes for a free and democratic Iraq and the US would be faced with a chaos there that the
American public would not tolerate. Iran could easily collapse the effort at building a secular government there in the fervor of religious and anti-US/Israel sentiment.
Saudi King Abdullah made a highly unusual public condemnation of the US presence in
Iraq as a “illegitimate foreign occupation.” It is extremely significant for the normally reticent Saudis to say such a thing in a public forum, a clear sign of the anger the house
of Saud now feels over the mess in Iraq. The Saudis are a predominately Sunni nation, and they are witnessing Iraq coming under the control of an ever more radicalize Shia
majority, heavily influenced by Iran. No outcome could be worse for Saudi Arabia, and anything that further antagonizes the Shia clans would only exacerbate tensions and
strain relations between Riyadh and Washington.
The ruckus in the Middle East could also see Syria involved, and in Lebanon,
Hezbollah will definitely mobilize its terror masters and rocket artillery to go into high gear again. (UPDATE: Many feel that Israel’s pre-planned wars in Lebanon and Gaza
were designed to defuse the ability of Hezbollah to pose a threat when the US goes after bigger fish in the region. Meanwhile, Israel recently issued a warning to its
overseas citizens in Middle Eastern and Asian countries, advising them to leave. After that they conducted a 133 city national air defense drill. Looks like they think they will soon be even more unpopular. ) Their unspoken truce with the US will end, and we
may get exactly what we fear---Hezbollah styled terror attacks against Western targets in Europe and here in the US. That means car bombs on our crowded freeways,
suicide bombers walking into the Met or detonating themselves on our crowded city streets or shopping malls. Just a few such attacks would make real to us the pain we
seem so eager to bring to our perceived enemies in Iran. Can you imagine an America where this goes on every week? But the pain could come to us without any of this happening at all.
 Iran could launch its newly acquired Russian
Sunburn (SS-N-22) missiles and the more advanced SS-NX-26 at commercial traffic in the Straits of Hormuz. Just watch the insurance rates for all traffic in the region
skyrocket. They also have other means of interdicting the Straits of Hormuz, like rocket assisted magnetic mines, submarines, a new high speed underwater torpedo, swift boat
attacks, and even a possible air strike. It will only take a few hits on lumbering oil tankers to achieve a drastic result. The oil flowing from all Gulf nations will diminish, and the price will
shoot up like a Shahab III. Yes, some companies are going to get very, very rich when all this happens, if they can manage to ride the whirlwind that follows. (You may want to revisit the novel Whirlwind by James Clavell. It tells the story of a small oil company
in Iran when the Shah fell and the Ayatollah arrived.)
Iran has a host of longer range missiles that could hit ports and airfields in Dubai,
Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and even Israel and Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine the effect of a Shahab-III striking a major Saudi refinery or oil terminal? They will certainly use these
missiles in reprisal. During Gulf War I we failed to confirm even a single kill on Saddam’s aging SCUD missiles. The Shahab missiles are a far more dangerous and effective weapon.
After a visit by Dick “Bomb ‘em now” Cheney in late March, 08, check out his little
news item that appeared in the Saudi press: “The Saudi Shura council will secretly discuss national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's
Bushehr nuclear reactors, media reports said Saturday.
The Saudi-based King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology has prepared a proposal that encapsulates the probabilities of leaking nuclear and radiation hazards in
case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran, the Okaz Saudi newspaper said.”
After both sides fire off their missiles, (and the US may even use tactical nukes) then
we will have a long term asymmetrical war, like the current insurgency in Iraq, only it will be directed at US, Israeli and oil company infrastructure targets throughout the
region. Under any scenario, attacking Iran is playing with real fire. There are limits to US military power, as most planners should have clearly seen by now. The escalation of the war to include Iran is strategic madness for the US.
 Economically, we would now have two
of the top five oil nations in the region in chaos. It will soon dawn on the resistance that they can do far more harm to us by threatening oil exports than by blowing up GIs in Hummers. In
fact, there are already articles on the web reporting that well trained and financed terrorist teams (bred in Iraq) have been moving across the porous, unguarded borders to the Gulf States
and Saudi Arabia. The threat to the oil will quickly inflate the price per barrel to over $150 and we will see gas here at $5 per gallon or higher. The economic shock, combined with our
deflating housing bubble and massive national and personal debt, will probably trigger a new recession, with attendant job loss. Perhaps posters like the one here will have new meaning in
our car happy society when oil hits the roof. Beyond that, the cost of the sustained war in the Middle East will bleed the nation
financially (as it is now)—which is exactly what Bin Ladin stated as his objective on the tape he released just before the Nov 2 election of 2004. Old Bin Ladin will just sit up
in his mountain cave (if he isn’t already dead) and watch us sink into the tar pits of our wars of liberation. Eventually, the American people will wake up and demand that we
cease fire and withdraw--in ignominious defeat.
Still feel like lobbing a few cruise missiles at the Bushehr reactors?
 But there will be many who argue the consequences
of not taking military action outweigh the risks. They are the same ones who brought us the war in Iraq, the same planners who make estimates of civilian casualties in an operation and then write them off as
“acceptable.” These are the guys who thought Iraq would be a two week affair with a liberty party at the end, balloons and all. These are the fellows who said they knew exactly where the WMDs were:
“Somewhere east, west, north and south of Baghdad.” These neo-con military geniuses disbanded the Iraqi Army, and then took three years to produce one
single combat effective battalion again. These are the strategic experts who failed to guard the Iraqi borders, being more concerned with the oil facilities, so the terrorists
who were never in Iraq came flooding in to set up shop. These are the stalwart planners who failed to secure the vast stores of conventional arms in Iraq, so the
terrorists and insurgents had plenty to work with, and they have been using them to kill and maim thousands of American boys for the last four years. These are the strong
armed Republicans who aim to keep us all “safe” over here, and what a bungling mess they have made in the Middle East so far. They wonder what would happen to the
country if the lilly-livered Democrats ever got back into the White House.
How about this...
Instead of a decade of treasury busting war, we’ll get rid of SUVs, design better cars, mandate fuel efficiency, slim down to one car per family and drive only when necessary
, building out light rail and mass transit systems to replace our aging freeways. We’ll pursue alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, widely distributed like the
Internet works, and forsake big central oil company dominance to our energy industry. We’ll practice rigorous conservation. We’ll live in peace with our neighbors and wean
the US from its dependence on foreign oil and gas, and we’ll clean up the environment while we do it. This is a different game entirely, but no one seems to want to play it.
Unfortunately, the US is not taking alternative energy strategy seriously. A friend passed on an article indicating that the US is currently debating a $36 billion dollar 10
-year program to spur alternative energy development. That works out to $3.6 billion per year, or roughly the cost of one Trident nuclear sub or one fully loaded B-2 stealth
bomber, or a week in Iraq. By the end of this year we will have already spent over $500 billion in Iraq... over 13 times the planned budget for a decade of alternative
energy development. To use an old maxim from the Watergate era, if you want to know what your government is up to, just follow the money.
They have clearly decided on a supply side strategy, with wholesale military invasion and occupation of key petroleum production regions as the goal. Securing the oil, by
any means, at any cost, appears to be the game now, and the big winners in all this are the oil and energy companies. Halliburton alone, (Cheney’s old organization) has just
passed the $10 billion mark in contracts for Iraq, with a reported $1.4 billion in bogus bills they sent to be paid by Uncle Sam. Soon they will turn their bungling attentions to
Iran, because they are too enamored of their war games to think of anything else. And, if we let them, war is exactly what we will get.
 The choice is ours.
Article by John Schettler - 2004 - Updated March 2008
P.S. A month after I first wrote this, in Dec 2004, Seymour Hersh released an article in January’s issue of the New Yorker outlining a great deal of
the insider buzz about these new wargame plans. He recently updated his information with a new follow-up article that merits reading. - JS
Related Articles:
|
