Currently, rumors of war abound, fueled by the presence of three US navy strike groups in the regions, as well as (unsubstaniated) reports of irregular call-ups and activations for long-term deployments.The question has captured my interest to a great degree, and I've spent a few weeks reading relevant commentary and background.
I now believe that an American attack on Iran is *inevitable before Bush's term is up*.
Here is my attempt to organize and summarize my thoughts. Perhaps some of you can help by adding your own.
Underlying assumptions:
------------------------
1) Bush is a man who sees himself as a figure of historical greatness, with a destiny to do something of historical significance while in office. Critics be damned, he believes history will absolve and vindicate him.
2) We are at the Apex of Neocon influence, a height from which it may soon fall. Awareness of neocon influence is growing, and people are increasingly seeing the driving role they have played in America's "war on terror". Although this cabal is not dependant on any particular president, they enjoy great influence and status under Bush - A situation that could change with a new President. Even if the next president is neocon-friendly, they may not wish to spend the political capital required to maintain/permit the current level of neocon influence/presence in their administration.
3) Israel will not tolerate a threat to it's nuclear hegemony in the Middle East, and would like to see the issue forced, while they still have the upper hand. Israeli interests in the white house will drive the US to intervene on their behalf.
But but but what about....
---------------------------
How can America attack Iran when it's army is tied up in Iraq?
Simple: The army isn't needed. This won't be a war of occupation, or even an invasion. It will be purely a war of destruction, to cripple the technological ability of Iran. For that, only the Air force and the Navy is required. Ostensibly, the war will be to halt Iran's nuclear program, but in practice, Military installations and infrastructure will also be targeted. At most, there will be a few special ops teams sent in for sabotage/assassination
How can this possibly benefit the US?
It doesn't benefit the US at all. To assume that the "War on terror" needs to benefit the US is misleading. The "War on terror" has served to neutralize regional threats to Israel, as it will continue to do. Special interests in the American government will put Israel before America, and leave America paying the bill and holding the bag.
This is a historically unique situation in which a smaller nation (Israel) has enlisted a larger nation (The US) in a proxy war against its enemies.
Currently there are many within the current administration urging for war on Iran - And few voices against it. The voices of the American people are not part of this equation, and short of national or military revolt, there is nothing they can do to influence these decisions.
My take on much discussed elements of Iranian defence.
---------------------------------------------------------
1) Sunburns and Squalls: There's a lot of hysterical commentary on the web talking about how these weapons will sink the surprised and defenceless carrier strike groups. As good an idea as this sounds, it's unrealistic. This hysteria is predicated upon the tunnel-vision analysis that Americans have no defence against these threats. Developments in countermeasures and defences have largely closed this gap. Although these countermeasures may not have been live tested against these threats, simulations and evaluations should be sufficient to determine their approximate efficacy - And improve upon it. In addition, it is likely that the Americans will put a lot of effort into identifying launch sites, and taking them out up front.
Squalls may be used for by the Iranians for littoral defence, but it's not likely that the Americans are going to let Iranian subs/ships close enough to launch the 7KM-range squalls.
2) Shahab-3's. These missiles can't reach the US, but they can reach Israel. It's estimated that Iran slightly over 100 of these, each with a payload of roughly 1000KG HE. As this isn't likely to be a protracted war, Iran has little to gain by taking out American bases in allied gulf states, but would instead launch all of it's estimated 100+ Shahab-3's at Israel. It's an oft-repeated axiom of modern warfare that missiles can't be shot down with missiles. While this may not be entirely true, Israel's dubious ABM capability would likely be overwhelmed.
Ultimately, Iran will be completely outmatched, although it will make a good show of itself. America will not hesitate to play the nuclear trump card, as laid out in CONPLAN 8022.
In the context of the war on terror
------------------------------------
Take a moment to break out a map and look at the location of Iran. Looks at who its neighbors are. Seeing a pattern? It is increasingly apparrent that the attack on Iran isn't necessarily an extension of the war on terror, but it's culmulation. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have laid the groundwork for an attack, by neutralizing possible support for Iran, gaining control of local airspace, and allowing America to establish forward bases close to the objective.
Ecological impact.
-------------------
The impact on the persian gulf would be terrible. In such a tiny, enclosed sea (~800km by 140km), the mining or sinking of even a couple of tankers would be an environmental catastrophe.
What will this mean to Americans?
-----------------------------------
Although there's a lot of discussion about a spike in "terrorism" in the US, I would be surprised if Iran didn't direct all of it's retaliation at Israel, a far more accessible target. Nonetheless, an increased war footing would result in further loss of freedoms, and redirection of more public funds to the Military/Industrial/Zionist complex. Petrol prices would increase. America would lose the last of its credibility on the world stage.
Although there would be a short-term increase in call-ups, A military draft wouldn't be an issue, as there'd be no increased long-term requirement for troops - If anything, there could be many returning from Iraq, with the need to occupy it gone, and pretexts for invasion made irrelevant.
What will it mean to Iranians
------------------------------
Significant destruction, particulary if the Americans use nukes. The "collateral damage" will be massive. Humanitarian crisis that will dwarf that caused by Israel in Lebanon/Palestine. It will remove Iran as a world power. Regional efforts to assist with rebuilding will be halfhearted.
What it will mean to Israel
----------------------------
Iran is the last remaining obstacle to Israeli hegemony in the ME, and it knows it. On the converse, Iran is the last Muslim state with the ability to seriously damage Israel, and it likewise knows it.
It is possible that Iran will launch all of it's remaining MRBMs at Israel, overwheming ABM defences, and causing massive damage. Really, one need only do significant damage to 15 major municipal/industrial centers in Israel to set it back as a world power. Ironically, although this attack will take place in the name of Israeli interests, it could very well be Israel that pays the highest price among the agressors.
What it will mean to Canadians.
---------------------------------
Increased gas prices, but a corresponding economic boost, particularly in the oil-rich regions.
Harper has already contributed A Canadian warship to the gulf buildup. When the attack/counterattack takes place, this token participation will be used as an excuse for more contribution and committment.
Canada has already played an enabling role by backfilling and relieving American forces in Afghanistan, thus freeing up their resources for other efforts.
War fever will consolidate the right-wing conservative party's hold on the public. Politicians will climb over each other to "stand with Israel".
The spark to light the gas
---------------------------
Once the battle plans have been drawn up, the missles armed, the troops fed, and the gas tanks filled, America will still need a justification to attack, a casus belli. Some sort of quasi-plausible justification to look good for the headlines.
The American attack on Iran commence over some sort of Nuclear-Program halt deadline. It may be based on an Iranian retaliation to an (underreported) American provocation. Perhaps a false-flag attack on American ships.
The attack will happen, and when it does, the event that will be used to justify it shouldn't be misconstrued as legitimately causal.
The gulf of Tonkin incident stands as an excellent example of American provocation, overreaction, and deception in the name of justifying premeditated war.
Margin of error
----------------
It's difficult to imagine that America will not attack Iran before Bush's term is up, although it's possible that the following events could divert the current collision course:
- Major catastrophe in Israel rendering defence of it a non-issue. It would have to be non-military in nature, as a military catastrophe would be used as pretext to attack Iran. Unlikely.
- Major catastrophe in Iran rendering it's technological potential and military power irrelevant. Unlikely.
- Military revolution in the US - Refusal of the military leadership to participate in the war. Unlikely.
- Catastrophe in the US. It would need to span regions and cripple the nation. Anything less would not derail the path to war. We've seen the government's indifference to regional disaster via Katrina.
I'm sure these musings must be a lot to swallow. Time will tell.
[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]