Iran's role in the War on Terror and Iran's controversial relationship with the U.S. is discussed on this web page. Will a U.S.- Iran war be the next step in the War On Terror?
Iran is the new U.S. target in the Middle East and all signs point to an eventual U.S. - Iran war or even an Israel - Iran war. A U.S. war or, more likely, a limited U.S. attack on Iran might be be delayed until the Iraq insurgency ends although a U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is conceivable but now unlikely with the Obama administration calling the shots..
A full scale Israel - Iran war is not likely but an Israel attack on nuclear facilities is possible. In my opinion, such an attack by Israel is doomed to fail as will be discussed later.
What will be the U.S. strategy for dealing with Iran?
The strategy for a U.S. - Iran war or an Israel attack on Iran and whether such a war or attack would be successful is covered in this web page. My reasons for believing a war is not advisable are also discussed.
There is rightful concern in the U.S., Israel, and other countries about Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability. An attack to remove the nuclear threat is justified in some people's opinions. The problem is: What and where to attack? When Israel took out the Iraq nuclear facilities a few decades ago, there were far fewer facilities and Israel knew precisely where they were. From what I read, this is not the case with Iran and its nuclear facilities.
Iran Nuclear Facilities Larger than Iraq's. Iran allegedly has a much larger nuclear program going than Iraq ever did and the facilities are scattered in a larger country. It would take many air strikes to wipe out all of Iran's nuclear equipment. Despite all their threats in the matter, Israel does not have the capability to locate, attack, and destroy the Iranian facilities. Destroying the Iran facilities with air strikes would be a big job for even the much larger U.S. air force to carry out.
So you say, "the U.S. should simply invade Iran, take over the country, locate the nuclear facilities, destroy them, and then get the hell out of Iran before an Iraqi-type insurgency develops."
The above strategy sounds easy on paper but there are some negatives:
A full-scale U.S. - Iran war will require a major military effort on the part of the U.S. But our finest soldiers are still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan . Better wait until we finish those wars!
U.S. casualties would be high in a full-scale U.S.- Iran war. How long would the American people stand for that?
In retaliation to a U.S. attack, Iran has the rocket/missile capability to stop all oil shipments from leaving the Persian Gulf. That action could quickly set off a world economic panic.
After the Iraq WMD debacle, a U.S. - Iran war would be treated around the world with protest - even though Iran's nuclear facilities are, theoretically, much more of a danger to the world than Iraq's facilities ever were.
Other Moslem nations, e.g., Syria, Jordon, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., might be pulled inadvertently into a U.S. - Iran war. Also, Turkey might use the diversion of a U.S. - Iran war to move into northern Iraq and take action against the Kurds whom they have political problems with (not to mention the nice oil fields in northern Iraq that Turkey badly needs).
There are a few positives to a U.S. - Iran War.
A successful attack could end Iran's nuclear threat.
An attack might provide some political relieve from the severe recession we now find ourselves in . The American people would no-doubt rally around the flag if a war breaks out.
If a decision were made to occupy Iran, a vast treasure trove of oil, natural gas, copper, and other raw materials could fall into U.S. hands if we decide to stay there. Of course, I'm sure our leaders thought similarly about Iraq before initiating war with them (remember "we will be greeted with flowers and candy").
If the U.S. invades Iran as part of the War On Terror, a full-scale war will break out. Casualties on both sides of such a war will be heavy. The same scenario holds if Israel launches an attack. Iran would no-doubt retaliate against Israel with missiles.
In the event of a full-scale war with the U.S., Iran will likely use their missiles and air force to stop oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. This would cause a major world economic problem.
On the other hand, an limited air attack by the U.S. on the nuclear facilities would be less unsatisfactory to both sides. Iran would certainly resist the U.S. attack and try to shoot down U.S. planes entering their air space. However, a limited U.S. attack is unlikely to set off a major war. But, as discussed previously, the air attacks are unlikely to completely remove the widely-spread Iran nuclear facilities.
Limited commando-type attacks by U.S. forces would no-doubt be resisted by Iran but such small attacks would likely not set off a full-scale war.
Casualties on both sides should be low in the event of limited air or commando-type ground attack. That looks like a winning strategy to me - at least it looked like a winning strategy before the Hezbollah - Israel war which just ended. However, since the strong Hezbollah showing against Israel and the demonstration of the effectiveness of Iran's homemade rockets, I now question whether U.S. attack against Iran will occur in the immediate future. Iran has showed its missiles and rockets are capable of shutting down tanker traffic from the Persian Gulf and the U.S. has to keep the Persian Gulf oil flowing.
In any event, I think President Obama is too peace-loving and intelligent to attack Iran without severe provocation.
I anticipate no attack from Israel, acting alone, under any circumstances. Israel would be dreaming to think they could handle Iran in a non-nuclear clash without heavy direct U.S. military support.
The only problem with the multiple strategy scenarios presented above is that miscalculations and mistakes could be made and a full-scale war could begin entirely by accident.
Iran's leaders do not like Israel and have stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. They even sometimes deny that the Holocaust ever happened. If Iran ever gets nuclear weapons, the weapons will be pointed at Israel although I don't believe that they would use the weapons even if a shooting war broke out with Israel. The Iran leaders may talk a little crazy at times but they are not stupid! Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and would use them if they had to.
Iran is also very wary of the U.S. After all, it was the U.S. (with British support) that instigated the overthrow of the government in 1953 to protect U.S. and British oil interests. The U.S. and British put Shah Mohammad Reza Pablavi in charge of Iran. In 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeni threw the Pavlavi government out of the country and took over. The takeover of the American embassy in Tehran occurred at this time.
No, things have not gone well between the U.S. and Iran!
Iran or Persia, as the country was formerly known as, has a historical past that was over a thousand years old when the U.S. was born. The Iranians are a proud people and there is every indication that their present strategy includes an attempt to resurrect the old Persian empire that fought many battles with Alexander the Great. With oil revenues pouring in and vast deposits of natural gas, copper and other materials to be developed, and with a substantial part of Iraq likely to eventually fall under their influence, the Persian empire appears on its way back.
Yes, everything is looking lovely for Iran. (At least, it was looking lovely. However, the dramatic drop in the price of oil may take some of the starch out of their sails.)
Iran is twice the size of Texas with a population of 70,000,000. Their GDP is high for a developing nation. With the abundance of natural resources as discussed above, Iran has an excellent chance of moving up quickly into the ranks of developed nations. Then, they could assume a true world leadership role for Muslim nations.
Not exactly the strategy the Bush administration had in mind for Iran when they made the country one of the axis of evil!
Defense-wise, Iran has over 1,700,000 men in their active military. This is an impressive number but remember Saddam's "million man army"? How many of Iran's soldiers are adequately trained and equipped to fight effectively is a question mark. However, based on the excellent performance of the Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters in the Lebanon - Israel clash of 2006, we should not assume that Iran's troops are of the same poor caliber as the bulk of Saddam's army was. Saddam didn't believe in squandering too much money on his troops. He kept the money for himself and his cronies.
Iran has more of an air force than Iraq did but the air force is still insignificant at this time. The air force has not fully recovered from the ravages of the Ayatollah Khomeni who virtually destroyed the once-proud air force (trained and equipped by the U.S.) with his purges. Khomeni took irrational actions against the entire military just before Iraq attacked Iran in 1980. His purges weakened the military and emboldened Saddam Hussein to attack.
In the Iran-Iraq war, despite the poor condition of the purged military and despite the tens of billions of dollars of aid poured into Iraq by the U.S. and the Arabian oil-rich kingdoms, Iran was able to eke out a draw in the conflict.
Things have changed for the Iranian military since that war.
A substantial, home-grown rocket and missile fleet is probably the best single weapon that Iran has developed. In the event of a U.S.-Iran war or Israel-Iran clash, Iran should be able to totally stop oil shipments from leaving the Persian Gulf. A world energy crisis could soon develop.
No, I don't see an easy U.S. strategy for the developing U.S. - Iran crisis. I suggest we talk to them. At one time the U.S. and Iran were allies.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has certainly kept things in the Middle East stirred up with his big mouth. He has stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Also, he constantly attacks the U.S. verbally.
You have to give Ahmadeinejad credit. He is not afraid of controversy.
The summer 2006 Hezbollah - Israel clash ended in a cease fire. I see the U.S. as even a bigger loser in that war than Israel who suffered heavy casualties and loss of military prestige in the war.
Certainly, Bush & Rice were guilty of egging on Israel in their reaction to the Hezbollah soldier kidnapping incident that instigated the war. In addition, the U.S. were allegedly rushing their newly developed "bunker busting" bombs to Israel to help the Israelis in their not-as-easy-as-expected fight with Hezbollah. Since these weapons are close to being weapons of mass destruction, I question that we should be providing the weapons for indiscriminate use in a local war like the Hezbollah - Israel clash was.
Even worse, the U.S., by committing themselves so solidly on the side of the Israelis, have removed themselves from any pretense of a neutral position in the Middle East.
Whatever happens, Iran apparently has the strategy of becoming a major supplier of weapons to the undeveloped world (competing with the U.S., France, etc.). The Hezbollah - Israel war gave Iran's excellent home-built missile & rocket capability a lot of free publicity.
Think the missile orders aren't rolling in to Iran?
And the Iranians didn't received even a scratch in the Lebanon affair.
1. Iraq War Compared to World War 2. The Iraq War has kept U.S. military forces occupied. As a result, Iran has been free to act as it sees fit and is rapidly emerging as the major force in the Middle East.
2. Holocaust. The most horrendous event in modern human history. Will Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust cause an Iran - Israel war? Will the U.S. ever have a Holocaust-type event?
3. Germany in World War 2. Causes, major events and strategies of World War 2. Could Germany have won?
The war rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran is escalating and may result in a military clash as part of the War On Terror.
Last Updated: 06/06/10
e-mail me @ vanc13@cox.net