Posted on 06/20/2015 3:02:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Since assuming office in 2009, President Barack Obama has consistently held that the United States would carry out airstrikes to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This position is supported by the vast majority of U.S. policy makers, lawmakers and the political elite, regardless of political affiliation.
Nonetheless, it is also generally agreed that airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities would only have a limited impact on preventing Iran from acquiring the bomb. To be sure, a concerted airstrike effort against Iran would delay its ability to build a nuclear arsenal by several years. Nonetheless, Iran would be able to rebuild its nuclear facilities before long, especially given the windfall in economic relief it would undoubtedly receive once the sanctions regime against it unraveled in response to America’s military action.
The only military action that can truly prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, then, is for the United States to invade and occupy the country, potentially turning it over to a U.S.-friendly regime that would uphold Iran’s non-nuclear status. Despite the widespread support in the United States for preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, this option is almost never proposed by any serious observer.
Part of this undoubtedly reflects America’s fatigue following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it goes much deeper than that—namely, while Iran’s military is greatly inferior to the U.S. armed forces, the U.S. military would not be able to conquer Iran swiftly and cheaply like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Tehran would be able to impose prohibitive costs against the U.S. military, even before the difficult occupation began.
Iran’s ability to defend itself against a U.S. invasion begins with its formidable geography. As Stratfor, a private intelligence firm, has explained, “Iran is a fortress. Surrounded on three sides by mountains and on the fourth by the ocean, with a wasteland at its center, Iran is extremely difficult to conquer.”
While the “stopping power of water” has always made land invasions far more preferable for the invading party, the age of precision-guided munitions has made amphibious invasions particularly challenging. As such, the United States would strongly prefer to invade Iran through one of its land borders, just as it did when it invading Iraq in 2003.
Unfortunately, there are few options in this regard. On first glance, commencing an invasion from western Afghanistan would seem the most plausible route, given that the U.S. military already has troops stationed in that country. Alas, that would not be much of an option at all.
To begin with, from a logistical standpoint, building up a large invasion force in western Afghanistan would be a nightmare, especially now that America’s relationship with Russia has deteriorated so greatly.
More importantly, however, is the geography of the border region. First, there are some fairly small mountain ranges along the border region. More formidable, going from the Afghan border to most of Iran’s major cities would require traversing two large desert regions: Dasht-e Lut and Dasht-e Kavir.
Dasht-e Kavir is particularly fearsome, as its kavirs are similar to quicksand. As Stratfor notes, “The Dasht-e Kavir consists of a layer of salt covering thick mud, and it is easy to break through the salt layer and drown in the mud. It is one of the most miserable places on earth.” This would severely constrain America’s ability to use any mechanized and possibly motorized infantry in mounting the invasion.
Iran’s western borders are not any more inviting. While northwestern Iran borders Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, Ankara refused the United States permission to use its territory for the invasion of Iraq. Regardless, the Zagros Mountains that define Iran’s borders with Turkey, and most of Iraq, would make a large invasion through this route extremely difficult.
The one exception on Iran’s western borders is in the very south, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers collide to form the Shatt al-Arab waterway. This was the invasion route Saddam Hussein used in the 1980s. Unfortunately, as Saddam discovered, this territory is swampy and easy to defend. Furthermore, not long after crossing into Iranian territory, any invading force would run into the Zagros Mountains. Still, this area has long been a vulnerability of Iran’s, which is one of the reasons why Tehran has put so much effort into dominating Shia Iraq and the Iraqi government. Unfortunately for any U.S. president looking to invade Iran, Tehran has largely succeeded in this effort, closing it off as a potential base from which America could attack Iran.
Thus, the United States would have to invade Iran from its southern coastline, which stretches roughly 800 miles and is divided between waterfront adjoining the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Iran has been preparing for just such a contingency for the better part of a quarter of a century. Specifically, it has focused on acquiring the capabilities to execute an antiaccess/area denial strategy against the United States, utilizing a vast number of precision-guided and nonsmart missiles, swarm boats, drones, submarines and mines.
As always, Iran benefits in any A2/AD campaign from the geography of the Iranian coastline; in The Revenge of Geography, Robert Kaplan observed of Iran’s coastline, “its bays, inlets, coves, and islands [make] excellent places for hiding suicide, tanker-ramming speed-boats.” He might have added hiding ground-launched missile systems.
Michael Connell, director of the Iranian Studies Program at CNA, further reflected: “Geography is a key element in Iranian naval planning. The Gulf’s confined space, which is less than 100 nautical miles wide in many places, limits the maneuverability of large surface assets, such as aircraft carriers. But it plays to the strengths of Iran’s naval forces, especially the IRGCN. The Gulf’s northern coast is dotted with rocky coves ideally suited for terrain masking and small boat operations. The Iranians have also fortified numerous islands in the Gulf that sit astride major shipping lanes.”
All of this plays into an Iranian A2/AD strategy. Back in 2012, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) studied how Iran would use A2/AD against the United States, stating:
“Iran… is developing an asymmetric strategy to counter U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. This strategy may blend irregular tactics and improvised weapons with technologically advanced capabilities to deny or limit the U.S. military’s access to close-in bases and restrict its freedom of maneuver through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s ‘hybrid’ A2/AD strategy could exploit the geographic and political features of the Persian Gulf region to reduce the effectiveness of U.S. military operations. Such an approach may not, in itself, be a war-winning strategy for Iran. Significantly raising the costs or extending the timelines of a U.S. military intervention may, however, create a window of opportunity for Iran to conduct acts of aggression or coercion.”
As this implies, the United States would sustain significant damage and casualties trying to establish a beachhead in southern Iran. America’s challenges would not end with establishing this beachhead, however, as it would still have to conquer the rest of Iran.
Once again, geography would work to Iran’s advantage, as almost all of Iran’s major cities are located in the north of the country, and reaching them would be a herculean challenge under the best of circumstances. For starters, the terrain—as always—would be challenging to transverse with a large invading force. More importantly, Iran is enormous. As Stratfor notes, “Iran is the 17th largest country in world. It measures 1,684,000 square kilometers. That means that its territory is larger than the combined territories of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal—Western Europe.”
Of course, U.S. forces would not be operating under the best of circumstances. In fact, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has long planned on mounting an insurgent and guerrilla campaign against an invading force trying to reach Iran’s northern cities from its coastlines. Referred to by the IRGC as a “mosaic defense,” the plan would incorporate the joint efforts of the IRGC, Basij and regular armed forces. Connell describes it as follows:
The mosaic defense plan allows Iran to take advantage of its strategic depth and formidable geography to mount an insurgency against invading forces…. As enemy supply lines stretched into Iran’s interior, they would be vulnerable to interdiction by special stay-behind cells, which the IRGC has formed to harass enemy rear operations.
The Artesh, a mix of armored, infantry and mechanized units, would constitute Iran’s initial line of defense against invading forces. IRGC troops would support this effort, but they would also form the core of popular resistance, the bulk of which would be supplied by the Basij, the IRGC’s paramilitary volunteer force. The IRGC has developed a wartime mobilization plan for the Basij, called the Mo’in Plan, according to which Basij personnel would augment regular IRGC units in an invasion scenario.
IRGC and Basij exercises have featured simulated ambushes on enemy armored columns and helicopters. Much of this training has been conducted in an urban environment, suggesting that Iran intends to lure enemy forces into cities where they would be deprived of mobility and close air support. Iran has emphasized passive defense measures—techniques used to enhance the battlefield survivability —including camouflage, concealment and deception.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States found that conquering a country is the easy part. It’s the occupation that proves costly. While occupying Iran would be at least as difficult as the Iraqi and Afghan occupations, even invading Iran would prove enormously challenging. Consequently, while conquering Iran is the most sustainable way to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon, Washington is unlikely to attempt to do so anytime soon.
Just carpet bomb the place with EBT Cards.
Iran’s plan was to get Obama elected. He’s done more damage than Iran could ever hope to do.
And Obama had his chance to change Iran for the better, when they had the student uprising. If Obama gave one word of support the Iranian Mullahs would have been thrown out by now.
Wouldn’t have to invade. All wee need to do is support those factions who would willingly overthrow the government. ..
Wait.....
Yes it was published in the W-P on Dec 7th, 1997.
Did Bush reverse the Clinton Launch on Warning cancellation? I doubt it.
Clinton instructed the military (and us) to take the nuke hits, then. . . ?
"The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In this connection, [Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control for Clinton's National Security Council] said the 1981 [Reagan] directive 'reads like a document you would expect to have been written at the height of the Cold War, not something that you would want operative today....'"
"Bell said 'in this [Clinton] PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning -- to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence.'"
[My emphasis]
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd.asp
Lots of the Clinton PDD was withheld from the public but probably the orders are to take the nuclear hits, form a committee, announce there's no Islam connection (Bush Obama addition), ask the U.N. for permission to find out who done it . . . .
Not surprising that the Wash Post carried the details of this on December 7th (1997).
Thank you Presidents Clinton, New Democrat Third Way progressives. This is a fine mess you got us into. Oh.. and F-you Hillary 2016.
Sunni Cleric: Allah Will Send an 'American Gorbachev' to End the American Empire Soon published May 19, 2008.
It is a strategy that works fine if you don't bail out and undermine the US-friendly regime.
It worked perfectly in Japan and Germany, two places that never knew democracy, liberty or freedom. It just took decades of US involvement to make sure it worked.
Fornicate precision munitions, carpet bomb it to oblivion. Let the big dog eat. The IEDs were provocation enough.
That's a croc of sh!t.
The USN/Marines could establish docks and a 15,000 man beach head in 5 days.
From their the Army cold roll off the pre-positioned ships on Deigo Garcia and the Air Force could start building runways.
It's like, who could stop them?
Thanks. I recall a startling tale of the first time Fife heard of Barack Obama—18 years ago in Russia.
I don't think I had a link.
(for my future google searches for this thread: 1990s man working in Russia on contract is told Soviets picked Obama as president)
You mean the "friendly regime" that refused to agree to the Status of Forces agreement with the Bush administration? The one which turned its own armed forces into a corrupt joke and which is so crooked that its own people won't fight for it? That US-friendly regime?
The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012
It's running a little late but . . . .
Back in 1992 a Lt. Col. wrote about the future that many back then envisioned.. a hollowed out military is sent off to the Middle East after years of neglect by U.S. administrations. Disaster resulted and the military finally! acted in 2012
-- it's going on four years, guys! What are you waiting for? It's okay to do it and then go to war with what you have to win easily and quickly.
Only an idiot would try to invade Iran.
Imminent war ping.
Yup. That is the one.
If you can't handle some tough negotiations, then maybe you don't deserve granny panties.
Almost any decent US POTUS would have come to a status of forces agreement with Iraq. Obama did not want one....the result is ISIS.
Both Germany and Japan wanted us out many times. But we always stayed because letting them fall into chaos was what happened after World War I and resulted in the rise of Hitler.
Well, Obama did it again and it is resulting in the rise of ISIS.
“”The USN/Marines could establish docks and a 15,000 man beach head in 5 days.
From their the Army cold roll off the pre-positioned ships on Deigo Garcia and the Air Force could start building runways.””
I have no doubt we have the know how to do this. But do we have the needed forces (trained and ready troops, equipment, and logistics) to do this today?
When we did the “Surge” it took 6 months from the decision to do it, and that was only 10,000 troops into an area we already occupied, not establishing an area of operation on enemy soil.
Aren’t our forces marshaling to blunt China’s expansion in the South China Sea at this time?
All these demands with resources supposedly at the lowest levels the military has seen in 50 years.
> Thanks. I recall a startling tale of the first time Fife heard of Barack Obama—18 years ago in Russia.
Obama’s story all sounds like a combination of The Manchurian Candidate, Rosemary’s Baby, The Omen, and a Cheech & Chong movie all rolled into one....
[and 85-90% of the world's Muslims are Sunni, IOW, Shiites kill twice as many per capita]
If the objective is ‘regime change’, invasion should obviouly be the last option. The U.S. doesn’t need to invade. Actually the non invasion method (s) could have been used 35 yrs ago.
Also the article didn’t mention a couple of other obstacles to invasion....
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.