|
The Day After We Bomb Iran
By Chris Weigant
There's a raging debate within the Bush administration, the
punditocracy, and the blogosphere about whether or not it is
time to bomb Iran. While this conversation scares small children
(and other sane people), most of the focus has been on (1)
whether President... oh, excuse me... Vice President Cheney
truly is moonbat-crazy enough to do so, and (2) whether anyone
else in America (including the military) would go along with the
idea. But not enough attention is being paid to what happens
after we rain death from the skies down on Iran. Which is a
shame, because that's what we ignored during the ramp-up to war
with Iraq. And we all know how that turned out.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the United
States actually does go ahead and bomb Iran. There are a lot of
different scenarios which could lead to this point, of course --
a "false flag" operation (think: Gulf of Tonkin Incident);
Iranian military captives the United States swears were killing
Americans in Iraq being paraded before the television cameras;
provoking the Iranian Navy and swearing we were in international
waters and not Iranian waters -- there are many ways to make the
case for war before the eyes of the world, so it's not very
productive to worry about which method it may take. But let's
assume George Bush presents some sort of a casus belli to the
world, which is immediately followed by the United States
military dropping bombs and cruise missiles on Iran.
Now the actual method of the attack (as opposed to the
rationale) may influence later events, so it is worth breaking
down the possibilities. The old plan was to destroy both Iran's
nuclear sites and enough infrastructure that rebuilding them
would take the Iranians years to accomplish (while bombing all
the military sites and radar installations we see along the way,
of course). The new plan (according to Seymour Hersh in his
explosive new article in the New Yorker) is to take out the
Revolutionary Guard (and to ignore the nuke sites), merely as
hot-pursuit retaliation for Iranian involvement in Iraq (while
also bombing all the radar installations we see along the way,
of course).
Rumors abound that Israel is also thinking seriously about
taking out the Iranian nuke sites. Perhaps a combination of the
two is what is envisioned? An American raid which conveniently
takes down the Iranian radar net would make it awfully tempting
for Israeli jets to use the opportunity of such cover to achieve
their main objective, it would seem.
This is all pure speculation on my part, I must admit. Whether
our justification for the bombing is "hot pursuit" or whether it
is to set Iranian nuclear progress back a decade will not matter
a whole lot to whoever's under the bombs as they fall. But it
may matter in the response Iran makes.
The neo-cons thinking: "They'll greet us with flowers, II"
So far, the Iranian response has seemingly been addressed by the
neo-conservative think tank "The Iraqis Will Greet Us With
Flowers Institute," which is fully as dangerous and deluded as
it sounds. Their basic argument is the Iranians will see the
errors of their ways (after we bomb them), throw out the Mullahs
in Tehran, and beg the United States' forgiveness. Or that
they're just too scared of our awesome military might ("Shock
And Awe II," you might call it) to retaliate in any way, because
they'd be terrified of losing a war with us.
That this is divorced from both reality and the history of the
United States and Iran for the past 60 years or so seems to
escape the proponents of this view. But then again, they sold
the Bush White House on the "we'll be greeted as liberators,
with flowers" line, so there's no guarantee it won't work a
second time.
Here are some chilling quotes from Hersh's article on the
subject of "what happens next?" after the bombs stop falling.
"They're moving everybody to the Iran desk," one recently
retired C.I.A. official said. "They're dragging in a lot of
analysts and ramping up everything. It's just like the fall of
2002" -- the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi
Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He
added, "The guys now running the Iranian program have limited
direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will
the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has
not thought it all the way through."
That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former
national-security adviser, who said that he had heard
discussions of the White House's more limited bombing plans for
Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an
American attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also
in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in
Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.".
. .
A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American
intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been
making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. "We
know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense
capabilities," he said, "and we believe they will react
asymmetrically -- hitting targets in Europe and in Latin
America." There is also specific intelligence suggesting that
Iran will be aided in these attacks by Hezbollah. "Hezbollah is
capable, and they can do it," the diplomat said.
The article does quote one unnamed "senior European official"
(most likely British) who has drunk deep of the neo-con
Kool-Aid:
The European official continued, "A major air strike against
Iran could well lead to a rallying around the flag there, but a
very careful targeting of terrorist training camps might not."
His view, he said, was that "once the Iranians get a bloody nose
they rethink things." For example, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Ali
Larijani, two of Iran's most influential political figures,
"might go to the Supreme Leader and say, 'The hard-line policies
have got us into this mess. We must change our approach for the
sake of the regime.' "
This is rebutted with a quote from an unnamed "former [American]
senior intelligence official":
"Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, 'Uncle
Sam is here! We'd better stand down'? " the former senior
intelligence official said. "The reality is an attack will make
things ten times warmer."
War-gaming the Iranian response
The Iranians have missiles. They also have a shadowy world-wide
terror network that, from all accounts, is quite competent and
deadly. And geography gave Iran a chokepoint that could cut off
roughly 20% of the world's oil supplies.
Put all of these together, and you have quite a range of options
for the Iranians to take. Let's assume that they would use these
on an escalating scale, with proportionate responses by the U.S.
The very first thing the Iranians would do is bomb the MEK camps
in Iraq. This would be on a "tit-for-tat" level and they could
make a good case before the world for doing so. The MEK ("Mujahedeen-e-Khalq")
is an Iranian dissident group who have been trying to overthrow
the government of Iran for quite some time now. They used to
operate out of Saddam's Iraq, in cross-border raids into Iran.
When we invaded, we kind of institutionalized a stalemate with
them -- we accepted their surrender, told them we would protect
the safety of their camps, but we allowed them to stay. The only
problem is, they're a terrorist group. Which we're protecting
with the American military.
You can easily see the parallels with what we would be claiming
Iran is doing -- supporting outlaw groups from within their own
territory who cross the border and perform terrorist actions.
Which is why they would be target number one for Iranian
retaliation if we used the "hot pursuit" rationale. Iran would
loudly proclaim American hypocrisy and attempt to convince the
world of the justification of their actions. They might even
succeed in doing so.
If America kept attacking Iran, the options get much grimmer
much quicker. Iranian missiles may start targeting the Green
Zone in Baghdad with a passion. They may start targeting those
sprawling US bases out in the desert in Iraq. Remember the
Kuwaiti war with Saddam? America kept saying "oh, we've taken
care of all of Saddam's missiles" while the SCUDs kept raining
down, proving us wrong. Imagine that scenario coming from Iran.
Iran may also unleash the terrorists it sponsors. Hezbollah, in
particular, may begin spectacular terrorist attacks within
Europe. They could even conceivably (unlike Bush's bugaboo "Al
Qaeda in Mesopotamia") successfully attack the United States
mainland. So not only are missiles raining down on the Green
Zone, but shopping malls and train stations and power plants are
getting blown up all over Europe and the United States, or
(failing to reach America) U.S. Embassies worldwide.
But these nightmare scenarios aren't the worst weapon. Iran's
real leverage comes from sitting on top of the Straits of Hormuz
(some use the singular Strait of Hormuz). Check out a map of it
on Wikipedia, and notice that Iran surrounds this tight
bottleneck on three sides. Twenty percent of the world's oil
moves through these straits every day, on supertankers. Imagine
Iranian mines, torpedoes and missiles taking out oil tankers
here. They'd really just have to successfully take out one, or
maybe two to prove they could do it whenever they felt like.
What would happen after the first of these successful attacks
would be oil trading at astronomical highs: $150 to $200 a
barrel. Or roughly two to three times what is has been trading
at during the Iraq war. Six to nine dollars a gallon at your
local pump.
If this went on for a short period of time, it could cause a
devastating recession on the American economy. If it went on for
a long period of time, it could cause a worldwide economic
depression.
If the American economy crumbles, it's going to be harder and
harder to find the money to continue three wars at once.
Remember, we essentially outspent the Soviet Union in the arms
race. It'd be awfully ironic if it happened to us, since it
would be almost impossible to pour the amount of money we have
been into the Middle East if our economy was on its knees.
And really, what would the eventual end to the American military
escalation of an Iranian war? A military draft here at home, for
one thing, since the Army just could not withstand to supply a
ground invasion at its current level of soldiers. Or we could
escalate bombing on a level not seen since Vietnam -- carpet
bombing from B-52s, not "smart" bombs in pinprick raids. Or the
Bush White House might even be tempted to test out those nuclear
penetrator bombs we've been working on -- to take out "deeply
buried Iranian nuclear sites," no doubt.
My point is that the consequences for an Iranian adventure would
be severe. In all the arguments swirling around Iran currently
inside the Beltway, not enough attention is being paid to the
likely outcome of such military action. If you're a neo-con and
are arguing that Iran needs to be taken out because they're the
world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, then fine -- make
your case. But be sure to realistically address what the costs
of such rash action would be for America.
Because last time around, we ignored that part of the equation
with "we'll be greeted as liberators" -- and we just can't
afford a second mistake of that magnitude.
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
