Posted on 02/02/2006 4:20:00 AM PST by Flavius
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
Judging from the rather frantic behind-the-scenes efforts of Russia and China in Iran, they seem to appreciate that the Iranian leadership is in for a big and probably deadly surprise. The Bush administration has not only handled its Iran dossier much more skillfully than Iraq, but also managed to set up Iran for a war it can neither win nor fight to a draw.
If the Iranian leaders think they can deter an attack because the
US is bogged down in Iraq they are already between the jaws of a well-set trap. Though a Western war against Iran will be a big geopolitical defeat for Russia and China, they cannot but resign themselves to this outcome if they are unable to convince the Iranians to accept the Russian proposal - ie uranium enrichment in Russia.
The Russians saw the writing on the wall when France, Germany and Britain began to march in lockstep with the United States. In particular, the widely but wrongly discounted nuclear belligerence of President Jacques Chirac last month implied that France was ready to accept the US use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran if they saw fit to do so.
The Iranian leadership's obvious confidence in its ability to deter the US, Britain and Israel seems to rest on mainly four assumptions. Iran is militarily much stronger than Iraq, much larger, its terrain more difficult, its society more cohesive - thus more difficult to defeat, to occupy and to pacify. In addition, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seems to take particular comfort from the widely anticipated wave of popular outrage and anti-Western attacks in the wider Middle East if Iran should be attacked.
Moreover, the economic costs of a war against Iran in terms of the price of oil and the interruption of the Iranian supply would propel the world economy into a tailspin. And finally, Iranian leaders seem to accept at face value the US moans over its overstretched military forces and the demoralization of US forces in Iraq.
Certainly, Iranian misconceptions are helped mightily by the defeatism of the Western debate about such a war. "No good options" has become something like the consensus view: an airborne and special forces "surgical strike" (as well as a massive attack) against the Iranian nuclear industry and military targets could at best delay its nuclear program and will be followed by retaliation in Iraq, Lebanon etc; a ground attack is out of the question because most of deployable US ground forces are desperately busy in Iraq.
If such things could be planned, one might be persuaded to consider this debate as an aspect of strategic deception. In fact, the US and British forces in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf as well as the forces in Afghanistan are quite able to redeploy on short notice, for example during the days of an initial air campaign against Iran for large-scale operations against the remaining Iranian forces and can be reinforced during the war. The US military infrastructure at the borders of Iran has a very substantial capability to deal with surge requirements.
The somewhat standard scenario for this war - as indicated by Chinese and Russian war games - has the following features:
An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq. If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure. If not, an air campaign of up to two weeks will prepare the ground campaign for the occupation of the Iranian oil and gas fields.
Mass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem.
The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China.
Paul Levian is a former German intelligence officer.
Wow. Good summary. The Iranians may have been counting on more international support, but they blew that with their Nazi posturing; it is still a sore spot in Europe.
Ironically, in the run up to war, the American people will again rally around the President. Hopefully, only a few bombs will fall before their government topples.
Good assessment. I think he is right on.
I'm joining the United States Army just in time.
so that freedom shall not perish from the earth
Chirac last month implied that France was ready to accept the US use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran if they saw fit to do so.
That's really not what he said. Chirac said France would use nukes if France was attacked by WMDs. He said nothing about the US. Further, I seriously doubt the US would use nukes, even small ones, in the face of a chemical attack coming from Iran. I just don't buy his scenario of what would unfold.
Thanks for serving, and good luck!
It is a measure of how out of it the Iranian leadership is that they thought their Nazi rantings would make them popular or at least respected throughout the non-Islamic world. They live in a sick fantasy world that will hopefully go down in flames soon.
Seems the latter day Hitler may be setting himself up to experience the Blitzkrieg first hand.
I hope, when it comes to it, that the US doesn't make the same mistake it's made in all wars since the Second World.
This time the enemy must know and accept that they have been defeated.
None of this letting enemy formations slip away to become guerrilla fighters. Destruction "en masse" is essential.
The one thing the US got wrong in Iraq was the lack of destruction of the enemy in situ. Those many left unscathed returned encouraged to kill their liberators.
Less than a hundred US soldiers were killed in the military operations.
Many hundreds have sadly died since in a largely thankless effort to protect the Iraqis against "insurgents".
If you don't get any thanks for going easy, why bother.
Revolutionary Guard units and political (religious) leaders must be taken out en masse.
Any attempt to use religious sites as safe havens must be dealt with having regard to minimising US casualties regardless of the "architecture".
This must be a lesson to Syria, and Pakistan, and Egypt, and the Saudis.
"The Russians saw the writing on the wall when France, Germany and Britain began to march in lockstep with the United States."
With "insights" like this, it's obvious the writer is talking through his hat.
Ditto the WOW. Interesting points here. I question that the US would use nukes in the event Iran uses chemical weapons. It might happen, but probably only tactical nukes or bunker buster nukes that would not destroy civilian population.
However, what most people around the world know is that America is soft. We don't have the guts or will power to CRUSH the enemy and all resistors.
It is beyond me that we haven't bulldozed every radical mosque in Iraq and killed their loudmouth imans who spew hatred in the name of the FALSE PROPHET MOHAMMED.
Using our precious troops in Iran would be a terrible waste. Simply tell the loudmouth Iranian leadership, via quiet diplomatic channels, that we'll be using our "bright flash" policy if they don't comply immediately.
This article posits a strike by Israel after which Iran would be goaded to strike against the US military in the region.
The American people will fight ferociously and to the death against a state that attacks us and can be identified.
the problem with Iraq is that the war has little focus for people to grab on to. Some Iraqis good--some Iraqis bad makes for a poor message.
Thank God that, in the West, even most of the anti-Semites are ashamed of being linked to the Nazis.
The old-fashioned anti-Semites who are openly pro-Nazi are just a few idiots. They don't amount to much in the scheme of things. My point was that the Iranian leaders are sounding so much like neo-Nazi cranks that it is even causing some leftists to have second thoughts about the desirability of having common cause with the Islamists. The new Iranian Fuehrer is so delusional that he seems to think the world will worship him if he puts on Hitler's mantle. He miscalculated. Now even Chirac is alarmed.
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.