Which Path to Persia?

Financial Times ^ | 9/18/2009 | Dan Dombey

[Saije]

If you woke up this morning wondering how best to attack Iran, this book provides your answer.

At the start of a US invasion, marines would secure a bridgehead, then occupy a port and launch the push for Tehran. An American bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities would need fewer resources but would still be extensive and take several days. An Israeli strike, however, would have to rely on just one round of attacks due to the difficulty of flying over neighbouring states.

These are three of the more startling scenarios examined in Which Path to Persia?, in which experts at Washington’s Brookings Institution address a perennial foreign policy problem: how to handle Iran.

The think-tank writers analyse the options open to the Obama administration – and find all unpalatable. The blood of realpolitik courses through the book; some readers may find it bracing, others offensive.

“Meddling in the internal politics of another country requires excellent intelligence if the efforts are to succeed,” reports a section on how to help inculcate a velvet revolution (note that three of the authors previously worked at the CIA).

“Coups are typically more successful and easier to instigate and assist from abroad than popular revolutions,” adds the chapter on military takeovers. “It would be far more preferable if the US could cite an Iranian provocation as justification,” reads the section on airstrikes.

"Which Path to Persia? Options for a New Strategy Towards Iran" By Kenneth Pollack, Suzanne Maloney, Daniel Byman, Michael O’Hanlon, Martin Indyk and Bruce Riedel

[Saije]

The article continues:

"Through the formulaic examination of nine different ways to deal with Tehran, with probable timelines and lists of pros and cons, the book lays bare some truths. An invasion would incur huge costs; even a US airstrike would delay Iran’s nuclear programme by as little as a year or two and could inflame Iran’s neighbours, the authors suggest. An Israeli attack would run the same risks, with less chance of success.

As for regime change, that appears to be in the hands of the Iranians. Indeed, the crackdown over Iran’s elections, which occurred after this book was compiled, indicates that much depends on the will and ability of the current system to maintain control.

So far, the Obama administration has focused on what the book calls persuasion – a mixture of threats and promises. But the tactic has not worked, and the US may have to make another choice. That means reconsidering the military path, unconditional engagement or backing pro-democracy movements.

None of these options is likely to succeed, the book concludes. The US may be left with the least popular path: containment. The US used this deterrence-based policy with the Soviet Union – and for the past 30 years, this is more or less what Washington has practised against Tehran.

More containment is not a prospect that inspires anyone. But if the authors of such an exhaustive book can’t come up with a more satisfactory way to cope with Iran, is there really a better answer to one of the great questions of our time?"

Okey dokey then. Now I don't have to read the book.

[Islaminaction]

Obama is not going to lift a finger against Iran.

[poindexter]

[SolidWood]

An ground invasion of Iran is insanity and belongs to the realm of fiction. No politician would risk the costs and fallout of a land invasion. Any military action (if any) would be confined to airstrikes, naval action and Spec-ops.
Destroying the nuke facilities, some petro-economic installations and a blockade combined with assassination of key regime goons and support of a Coup make more sense, are cheaper and more tangible than an invasion.

[SunkenCiv]

At the start of a US invasion, marines would secure a bridgehead, then occupy a port and launch the push for Tehran. An American bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities would need fewer resources but would still be extensive and take several days. An Israeli strike, however, would have to rely on just one round of attacks due to the difficulty of flying over neighbouring states.

If Israel knows for certain that Iran has the Bomb, Iran will cease to exist in short order. And they won't apologize for self-defense, unlike some Moslems in the White House.