The Ramifications Of Attacking Iran

[madwriter]

Late last week I was having an interesting conversation with jordan179 in the comments here about the ramifications of attacking Iran. Put (probably too) simply, Jordan took the position that attacking Iran would be easy with few to no problems for us as a result, while I took the position that it might be more difficult than we imagine and could cause some problems in both the short and long term. So I thought I'd throw this open to anyone who wanted to talk about it.

This particular discussion isn't about the rightness or wrongness of attacking Iran. As it is, I see it as a fait accompli before Bush leaves office, barring any more unforeseen circumstances like a CENTCOM commander who resists his boss. For the sake of this entry, then, I'm pretending that it's already happened.

Here are some of the issues and arguments we discussed:

IRAN'S ABILITY TO RETALIATE. We both agreed that their Navy isn't much of a threat but parted ways on other means of Iranian resistance. Jordan took the position that we could level their military and nuclear infrastructure with ease; I thought it might not be so easy thanks to the fact that they have Russian technology at their disposal. For one thing, I mentioned the under-the-radar supersonic missiles they possess. How effective these would be against, say, a carrier task force is open to debate. Jordan believed it would take a lucky hit to get through to a carrier; I think that the ships' defenses themselves would only be capable of hitting missiles at a higher altitude.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember such a low-flying missile like a Sunburn would need to be taken out either by a fighter or the carrier's own guns. The AEGIS computer system may have helped with this, but I'm not sure how widely, if at all, that it's been implemented on the Nimitz-class carriers. If someone has more experience with this, please do fill me in.)

THEN WHAT? Jordan's opinion was that Iran's greatest threat comes from traditional means of warfare like long range missiles, particularly those that might be someday armed with nuclear warheads. I took the position that their greatest threat was from asymmetric tactics, ala terrorism. (The Bush Administration has portrayed the greatest Iranian threat as both of these at one time or another.) If Jordan is right then a massive bombardment will defang them. If I am, then most likely we'll be unleashing a bigger monster than Iraq has been.

As for the traditional form of warfare, Jordan pointed out that our first strike priorities would include taking out headquarters and communications. Many of the anti-ship missiles, however, are mobile, so we'd need to be mighty fast about taking out all of their comm.

THEN WHAT?, Part 2 One of the major reasons given for staying in Iraq is that if we leave it will become a hotbed of terrorism and that mass killings, maybe even genocide, will follow. What chance is there that a nationwide bombing of Iran won't result in the same things? If so, will we leave the Iranians to their fates, or send in ground troops?

KEEPING IT UP And if Iran doesn't surrender after a day or three of bombing? The opening of the Iraq War caused a major shortage in missiles, for instance, and everyone knows the problems we had getting simple items like armored vests to soldiers there. If the U.S. decides to attack again, when we would be in a position to do that? Jordan points out that we would be in a much better position to resupply faster than Iran. However, if you destroy their factory infrastructure, what would keep "THEN WHAT?, Part 2" from happening?

RUSSIAN AND CHINESE BACKUP Russia and China both have two major vested interests in Iran: one, it's a major oil supplier for both countries; and two, they want to prop up the nation as a counterbalance to American influence in the Middle East. They've supplied the country with weapons and other technology and have promised to help defend Iran if the U.S. or Israel attack it. How much will they actually commit to Iranian defense? Jordan figures not much; I'm not as sure, though I know Russia's own native oil industry is in a better position than it was even a year ago. On the other hand, China is still desperately thirsty for it. How much are they willing to risk being put in a position where they have a large portion of their oil supply cut off?

Would we be willing to attack Russian and Chinese nationals resupplying Iran?

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT We didn't go into this, but there's also the economic impact to consider. Primarily, oil. 20% of the Middle East's oil comes from Iran and an attack could cut that off indefinitely. Maybe we don't get much of it directly, but taking so much off the market could seriously affect the global economy, which we are now tied into inextricably, and our economy is in rough enough shape so that this could have a major impact on us as well.

Also consider the possibility that Iran doesn't surrender but somehow its oil facilities survive the bombing. They could simply turn off the westward spigot and sell all their oil to the east, primarily Russia and China again, who would no doubt both be happy consumers. This would be a bulwark to their economy and allow for rebuilding and resupply. How far would we be willing to go to stop this? Again, would we attack Russian and Chinese ships or trucks or trains?

This bit of info comes from my anonymous sources, so it also comes with the caveat of "Take it or leave it": apparently I'm not the only one assuming that Fallon's resignation will remove a major obstacle to a possibly immediate attack on Iran. A lot of investors apparently feel the same way, and the potential for the attack is making them even more nervous than they already are.

All in all, even Neocon founder Norman Podhoretz admits there could be a great many problems as a result of attacking Iran. His position is just that the problems of not attacking would be greater and longer-lasting. Anyone else want to throw their thoughts into the ring?