|
Iran:
A Bridge too Far?
The
weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf
A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that,
after preparing the initial draft, I didn’t want to believe it
myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I
only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my
thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several
more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I
believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence,
no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story.
Don’t be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is
not to make predictions –– history makes fools of those who
claim to know the future –– but simply to describe the peril
that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of
that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation
and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even
create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving
the monumental conflicts of our time. MG
Iran:
A Bridge too Far?
by
Mark Gaffney
10/26/04
"ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer
Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide,
that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first
exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of
which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an
international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force
readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to
any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so
many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation.
Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean
during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion
of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and
August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group
consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full
complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted
aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was
in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises
with the Taiwanese navy.
But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What
potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups
than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past
years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its
naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this
global show of power?
The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China
Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show
of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different,
and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing
US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer
Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an
unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is
viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China,
because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers
recently acquired from Russia.
“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible.
How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific
fleet?”
Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit
acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the
United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military
technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being
wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise
very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for
Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO
designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy
currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US
status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply
saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which
other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric
advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the
immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of
overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.
The Sunburn Missile
I was shocked when I learned the facts about these
Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us
suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our
assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the
breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but
it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy
continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in
certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our
own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship
cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a
ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with
our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons ––
probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam
Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion
that I will now attempt to rectify.
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US
Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The
Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US
spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada.
They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic
defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively
inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets
succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles,
one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most
lethal missile in the world today.”
After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military
establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow
awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology
to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was
made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian
missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian
missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for
Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet
Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of
advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the
US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the
massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should
for this reason be mothballed.
The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge,
which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more
widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of
course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During
the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from
Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And,
in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in
half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On
that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter
(a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50
miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and
return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his
weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and
were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into
the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.
The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers
posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more
serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the
sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger
and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance
system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably
come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian
Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he
requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were
only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he
placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.
The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a
750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more
than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach
2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern
that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to
elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to
defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx
point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn
missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution
–– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US
Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000
depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise
coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”
The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce
tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences
for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large
warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although
the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system,
its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has
never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day
face in combat.
Implications For US Forces in the Gulf
The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon
like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well
ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and
defeat them before they can get in range and launch their
deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to
each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The
planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet,
and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.
But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious
challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal,
environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is
nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its
northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that
affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in
Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment
of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also
makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely
reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in
the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt”
–– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud
launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over
and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys
–– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to
confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to
the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in
official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop
the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days
of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an
almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf
quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater
chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in
Kuwait.
But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow
the Scud’s ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other
missile. The Sunburn’s amazing accuracy was demonstrated not
long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese –– and
observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile
destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye,
hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s
bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a
cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.
The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as
the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and
Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to
destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been
darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel
upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15
fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000
bunker-buster bombs from the US –– weapons that many observers
think are intended for use against Iran.
The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials
have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to
develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity
for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome,
because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989
book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will
Iran Be Next? posted at < http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info/article3288.htm
>)
Never mind that such a determination is not Israel’s to make,
and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in
the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the
International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) recent report
(September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile
claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the
report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its
grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors
have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which
they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed
the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had
been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date,
either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build
them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)
In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El
Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear
weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for
emphasis: “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally
don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are
clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent
danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I
have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear
enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran.
Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means
before thinking of resorting to other alternatives.”
(
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5051
)
No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with
200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians’
insistence on keeping their options open is understandable.
Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the
slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful
crossroads.
A Fearful Symmetry?
If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man
who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the
world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President
Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months
for gathering too much political power to himself. But according
to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed
on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed
a tyranny upon Russia –– yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury
is still out on Putin.
Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir
Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely
recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents
not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that
the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald
Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans
forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and
had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared
secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in
1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the
Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter
gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming
stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but
the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated,
the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world
cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.
This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin
thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of
history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his
closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States
could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e.,
Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as
vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East. One can almost hear the
Russians’ animated conversation:
“The Americans! What is the matter with them?”
“They simply cannot help themselves.”
“What idiots!”
“A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a
lesson…”
“Yes! For their own good.”
“It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget…”
“Are we agreed, then, comrades?”
“Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of
military power!”
Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to
seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and,
in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands
the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has
blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in
Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of
Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now
beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to
conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is
first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that
Iran is “one bridge too far”?
If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net
with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry,
indeed…
Springing the Trap
At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian
general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful
advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller
force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few
thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching
the Romans Hannibal’s soldiers grew so tired that the fight went
out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and
bedraggled Romans their lives…
Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on
duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the
fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against
them, however, because they will face the same type of danger,
tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already
have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even
more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made
(speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along
the Gulf’s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and
vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake
will become a killing field.
Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor
have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is
probably only because these horrible weapons have never been
deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war
the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed
to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might
have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although
we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is
exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf.
Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class
missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds,
as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The
questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking
themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day
write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship
missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more
are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly
reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles
from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the
more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks
against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is
“able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.”
The numbers were not disclosed…
The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not
participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s
nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s
brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has
sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an
attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will
hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged
into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result
will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as
complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real
fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within
their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world
will see it this way, and will support them, not America.
The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the
unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In
the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be
difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes
control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in
the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run
red with American blood…
From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied
cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet,
the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying
Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian
Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist
the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces
on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by
the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn
against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin
to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become
precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged…
With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker
traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of
oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will
skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will
begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock
session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode
into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and
even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel
to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto
the world body will be powerless to act...
America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the
increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media
will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that
is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak
in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel’s defense, while
blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian
talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical
prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to
accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to
nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard
histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft.
Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for
an escalation of the conflict.
A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use…
Conclusion
Friends, we must work together to prevent such a catastrophe.
We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The
US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary
responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and,
immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We
must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA
inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other
states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid
East –– so essential to the region’s long-term peace and
security.
* * *
Mark
Gaffney’s first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a
pioneering study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Mark’s
articles about the Mid-East and proliferation issues have appeared
in the Middle East Policy Journal, Washington Report On Middle
East Affairs, the Earth Island Journal, The Oregonian, the Daily
Californian, and have been posted on numerous web sites,
especially Counterpunch.org. Mark’s 2003 paper Will Iran Be
Next? can be viewed at < www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm>
Mark’s newest book, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, was
released by Inner Traditions Press in May 2003. Email <Mhgaffney@aol.com>
For more
information go to www.GnosticSecrets.com
(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 Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
