Lando 
Posted on 04/11/2004 6:34:56 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Just who is backing Moqtada al-Sadr? Is he backed by a groundswell of Shiite opinion? Hardly: all media whining aside, there are no signs of a true “mass uprising” among the Shiite population of Iraq. If there were, the “civilian” dead in Southern Iraq would number in the thousands or tens of thousands and the pictures would be being played around the clock on television. In fact, when given their chance to voice their opinions democratically in the form of local elections, the Shiites of Iraq have repeatedly and consistently opted for secularists over Islamists. Who then is backing al-Sadr and his al-Mahdi “Army”? It almost certainly isn’t the Ba’athists for, while they may work together from time to time, the remaining Ba’athists have little interest in an Islamist Iraq run by Shiites. Who then? Iran.
Sadr has travelled to Iran and he has been supplied with money, training, spiritual support, and probably arms. Iran is spending nearly a hundred million dollars a month on operations in Iraq and is reported to have trained over a thousand members of the Sadr’s militia in guerrilla tactics. Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran, is directing terror attacks in Iraq, working with Sadr’s forces. Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are also reported to have entered Iraq to join the fight against the United States.
Iran is also sheltering a number of senior al-Qaeda figures, including one of Osama Bin Laden’s oldest sons, Saad, who has emerged as a senior leader of the terror group. According to several accounts, these leaders are planning al-Qaeda operations within Iraq under the shelter of Iran.
In other words, in Iraq, Iran is waging war against the United States. The leaders of Iran have American blood on their hands and for their crimes they should be made to pay a price a thousand times that they have extracted from the West. In assaulting the United States, the Iranians have interfered with the primordial forces of nature and for this they must be made to atone.
I do not propose an invasion of Iran, at least for the time being. Occupying Iran would, without a general mobilization of all Reserve and Guard forces, require virtually the entire remainder of the active United States Army. Moreover, an invasion of Iran would require several months of mobilization, meaning that it would have essentially zero short-term effect on events with Iraq.
What I propose instead is a “show of force,” a reprisal if you will. Several days of massive and unrestrained air strikes might prove sufficient to force Iran to back down and, even if they do not, would serve as an objective lesson to those who would dare to oppose American power. If Iran persisted after the initial attacks, one or more re-strikes would remain an option.
Note, I say “unrestrained” air strikes and I mean what I say. Forget surgical strikes against military bases: the Iranian military is mostly useless in any case and would be destroyed in open battle. The minds of those who lead the Islamic world understand only brutal force, so let us send them a message that we can comprehend.
Certainly, those air defense sites which must be neutralized for the safety of American air crew should be destroyed. As well, this would serve as an excellent opportunity to strike Iranian nuclear and missile sites. However, the primary target of any reprisal strike should be the homes of senior Iranian leaders. In fact, such a warning strike could be conducted without risking American aircraft (if that is the fear). A half-dozen surface warships could launch two hundred Tomahawk missiles, two each at the homes of one hundred senior anti-American personalities in Iran. After all, these people don’t really have the same sense of nationalism that we do: the best way to strike at them is through family and tribal loyalties. Sure, the United States would be condemned for “assassination” and the like but, let’s face it, among our “target audience” (the Islamic world) the United States is already condemned for these things anyways. The result is the worst one possible: the people believe that the United States engaged in such activities and hates us for it, but we don’t get the advantage of actually killing senior enemy leaders and frightening some of them into submission. To a Moslem world already subjected to daily tales of (fabricated) American atrocities, the destruction of the homes of some terrorists would hardly be overly shocking or traumatic. But to those at the centre, those who have grown used to a sort of quiet immunity, it would be very shocking indeed.
Of course, as I see it, this should be simply one element of an impressive “show of force” designed to frighten not only Iran, but the entire world as well. The question then is this, without giving prior warning, just how much damage could the United States do to a country in a day or two? The obvious answer is this: a lot.
Iran possesses a small and fairly weak Navy. The United States already, in 1988, sank a great deal of it. US Submarines and Aircraft should now be tasked to sink whatever is left of it. Given the extreme weakness of the Iranian Navy I imagine this could be pulled off without casualties. Or, rather, without any casualties that count. The only potential danger might come from the Kilo Submarines that Iran bought from Russia a few years ago. However, I imagine that, given the potential danger these could pose, they are constantly tracked by American forces and could, if necessary, be destroyed within minutes. In any case, there are serious questions as to how seaworthy those Kilos are and the odds are that they’re rusting away at some dock somewhere. Iran possesses large quantities of Chinese-made Silkworm anti-ship missiles, so I suppose it would be best to keep surface ships away from the coast if possible.
Air strikes could also be launched against government buildings in Tehran, with the goal of levelling them on worldwide television. As well, if there is any Iranian infrastructure with a particularly high value, it could be targeted and destroyed as well.
Of course, it is possible that Iran might respond to such strikes by ordering its Army to strike into Iraq, but I would suggest that the possibility of such a development is minor. After all, the Iranian Army proved incapable of defeating the Iraqi Army that the United States destroyed in 1991. Several Iranian Corps trying to cross into Iraq would probably be scorched from the face of the Earth by American air power and, surely, the leaders of Iran know this. They might also increase their support of anti-American terrorism, however, by most accounts the resources they can devote to terrorism are already stretched to their limits. They could be further impoverished by the imposition of a US Naval Blockade of Iran.
We cannot let those who would support terror against American forces get away without paying a price. Those responsible for the death of a single American should pay for their crimes not only with an eternity spent in Hell, but also with their own blood and the annihilation of everything they hold dear in this world. If God wishes, he may show mercy upon their wretched souls, but we should not.
Lando
What of it? Thanks to our friends the Democrats, we're right back to where we were pre-9/11; unable to act militarily against our enemies. And they know it.
Not sure it is the RATs fault or not, but you are correct that if Iran (or Korea or Taiwan/China) were to escalate hostilities, there isn't much we could do and still maintain control in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No complaints from me!
Understand the frustration, but please.
Lando
Not sure it is the RATs fault or not, but you are correct that if Iran (or Korea or Taiwan/China) were to escalate hostilities, there isn't much we could do and still maintain control in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh yes there is. Iran had a long-standing treaty with the Soviet Union that in the event of an invasion or occupation of Iran [presumably by Iraq, though not so specified] the Soviet Union was authorized to act unilaterally without further diplomatic overtures from the Iranian government, possible prisoners at such a point. It was the possible Russian response to that treaty that caused the cancellation of the 1979 *Operation EAGLE CLAW* Iranian hostage raid and the reported Russian warning via the Moscow-Washington hot line that the Russians knew of the coming raid, that caused Carter to order it aborted.
But that treaty is presumably still valid, and a halfhearted Iranian *invasion* gesture would be all the excuse the Russians would need to enter the country and occupy it until the threat fom us nasty, land-grabbing Yankee dogs disappeared, in say, 400 years or so. The Russians would gain a warmweather, year-around port in a nation whose railroad gauge is compatable with the standard Rrussian 5-foot guage equipment.
Interesting point, as usual.
Sadr's Iranian Mahdi aren't terribly effective here. They pi## people off by blowing overpasses and mining roads. The local Shiites don't particularly like or support them. There are many theives and thugs among them and looting is common.
Due in no small part to a lack of local support and his use of Iranians Sadr is running out of time, fast. He is a marked man and his inner circle is fleeing, most back to Iran.
The Mahdi will no longer be an effective force after this week. They have nowhere to hide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.