What Would War with Iran Look Like?

The American Interest ^ | July - August 2011 | Jeffrey White

[neverdem]

The debate over what to do about an Iranian Islamist regime apparently bent on acquiring nuclear weapons has been on or near our front burner for at least six years, and is now almost a settled feature of the policy landscape. There is general agreement in the United States on two points. First, an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is “unacceptable”, as both the Bush and Obama Administrations have put it; and second, we prefer getting to an acceptable outcome without using force. The debate gets testy when we consider that means short of force, such as sanctions and covert technical sabotage, might not work.

It may be too simple to reduce the argument to just two sides—those who fear the regime’s acquisition of nuclear weapons more than the consequences of a war to prevent it, and those who fear the consequences of a war above all else—but in this case simplicity has the virtue of capturing the essence as observers ponder which set of unpalatable risks they would rather run. What is remarkable, though hardly surprising, is that the two sides usually put forth very different assessments of what using force would entail. Those who fear Iranian nukes above all else tend to minimize the risks of using force, while those who fear war tend to exaggerate them. Neither side, however, has persuasively spelled out the reasons for their assessment, leading one to suspect that much of the argument rests on less than rigorous analysis.

What would an honest assessment of the risks of military conflict with Iran look like? How should we think about it? These are difficult questions even for those who are not partisans of one side or the other. Wars are notorious for yielding unintended and unexpected consequences; for reasons explained below, a war against Iran...

[Polybius]

What Would War with Iran Look Like?

That is the question that George W. Bush should have been asking himself long before:

1.) Barack Hussein Obama became Commander-in-Chief

2.) Iran successfully orbited a satellite (Translation: an Iranian payload can now reach America)

3.) Iran was eight weeks away from acquiring nukes.

Iran's Nukes: Apocalypse Soon? ..... 06/08/2011 ..... the Rand Corp. determined that the Islamofascist government is less than two months from being able to build a nuclear explosive, and that only an occupation force — not just airstrikes — can stop it.

[null and void]

It would look like a sun bright flashes of light in a few major cities followed by abject surrender.

Under Obama the cities and surrender would both be American...

[neverdem]

Offensives against Iran out of landlocked Afghanistan and Kurdistan would be logistical nightmares.

[Bryan24]

What would war with Iran look like? It would look like anything we wanted it too. WE have the power to wipe out anyone we wanted to. Our problem is the will to engage in total war.

[Kevmo]

Offensives against Iran out of landlocked Afghanistan and Kurdistan would be logistical nightmares.
***That’s one reason why I proposed a third prong, an amphibious landing.

[dusttoyou]

Heck Iran couldn’t even whip Iraq.

I say it would sound like Bang... Bang .... BOOM, bang....bang.... and the voices of thousands of camel jockeys begging to surrender to Apache helos as one of the AC-130’s circled overhead picking off the streakers.

[ex-snook]

It would depend on what China would do. They are our main rival, not Iran.

[parisa]

You make a mistake by thinking carter wanted mullahcracy gone. He helped establish it, he wasn’t about to jeopardize what he’d accomplished — and I do believe what he, in his leftwinger ideological illogicality believed over time would be his most “righteous” accomplishment, the little ignoramus monster. If a few American were going to suffer, so be it; all means to an audacious grandiose leftist end!

[x]

I never was a fan of Carter, but it looks like you’re assuming that because mullahs took over Iran Carter must have wanted it that way. That implies a lot more competence and foresight in the man than he actually had.

[Repeal The 17th]

We would have no interest in “taking” Iran; only in destroying it.
Iran could be decimated from the air and from the sea with little effort.
Iran delenda est.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“You make a mistake by thinking carter wanted mullahcracy gone.”

No, I don’t make that mistake! Carter is despicable. But it’s what he should have done!

[parisa]

That implies a lot more competence and foresight in the man than he actually had.

Carter was an ideological animal. I don't assume that he was the brains. He was only animated from his twisted illogical liberal mindset, but his men and specifically Brzezinski knew damn well what he was doing. This was a leftist conspiracy to make up for their supposed "wrong" of the CIA by "installing" the Shah as well as protect ME from communist expansion. Look what they have done to the world now? If you read between the leftists' lines specially their elite journalists, they pretty much concede it ....begrudgingly.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

If Carter hadn’t blown it—a lot more Irans would be alive today.

Mark my words—someday we will have to go to war with them—like it or not. My bet, they will strike us first and force the war. Our only choices are how far we should go to beat them into submission. We need to put the Shahs son on the thrown and bring back a secular unconstitutional monarchy.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“someday we will have to go to war with them”

Yes, we will! I have no doubts about it.

[familyop]

"What Would War with Iran Look Like?"

What will it look like in reality? Considering the obvious position of our bipartisan leadership and our trading partners over the past decade or so, it will look like this. We'll be further into default and economic collapse. Winter may be colder and longer (see lack of sunspot activity, increasing volcanic activity). When you least expect it, nearly all electronic equipment around you will cease to function. Much later, by word of mouth, you'll hear about terrible damage in and around some of our cities.

Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2640111/posts

How to keep it from happening? To keep that from happening, we Americans would be suddenly, unexpectedly and consistently humble and thoughtful. We would be hard working, considerate for each other, and we would engage in complicated hassles to improve standards of living. We would mind our own business, respect the property rights of our American neighbors and stop regulating against them. We would become very productive at manufacturing necessities with all allegiance to our country and to each other. We would avoid underestimating our foreign enemies and regard them as enemies.

If you care instead of scoffing, get a rural place and prepare.

[Dundee]

I’d be inclined to signal USS Alaska to come back empty. Maybe a missile might go off course. Sorry Mecca...

[x]

This was a leftist conspiracy to make up for their supposed "wrong" of the CIA by "installing" the Shah as well as protect ME from communist expansion. Look what they have done to the world now? If you read between the leftists' lines specially their elite journalists, they pretty much concede it ....begrudgingly.

There's two things there. One was guilt about the CIA's actions in the fifties. The other was a desire to head off the Soviets.

I don't doubt that Carter's people felt that kind of guilt and didn't back up the Shah to the degree that they could have. Whether they really wanted the mullahs to rule is another matter.

If you saw all the protests of "Iranian students" in the West, it didn't look like most of them expected the kind of Islamicist regime they got. If they were that blind, I doubt Carter and Vance had much more insight.

According to Wikipedia (a doubtful source to be sure, but convenient) Brzezinski supported the Shah to an end and even favored US military action to keep the Shah in power. If Carter overrode him I suspect it was more because of mushy-headed idealism or guilt than any plan to bring the Ayatollah to power.

The other motivation -- keeping the Soviets and Communists out -- was shared by people across a broad spectrum of political opinion. Republicans and Democrats, for example, both supported the Afghanistan resistance, which became a breeding ground for radical Islam.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess. Whether it really was for the best depends on what happens in the future. In any case, however screwed up Carter's views have been over the years, if it was a wrong headed policy, the guilt goes far beyond Carter and his team.

You can certainly attribute blame for what happened to Carter as well as to the Iranians involved, but I suspect the results were more a result of his not having a clue as to what would happen than of his having a conscious plan to achieve what actually resulted.

It's not that I'm defending Carter's incompetence, I just don't see any master plan to mess things up.