Gary J Carter
2008-07-16 03:42:24 UTC
Iran's Missile Test: A Clear Reminder That an Attack Would Be
Disastrous
By Scott Ritter, Truthdig. Posted July 15, 2008.
Irans recent missile test should remove all doubt that an attack by
either the United States or Israel would be a terrible mistake.
There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S.
and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors,
pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a
pre-emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of
neutralizing its nuclear-related infrastructure as well as retarding
its ability to train and equip "terrorist" forces on Iranian soil
before dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me,
have warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has
demonstrated why an attack would be insane.
I've always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the
enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy
gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on
Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast
its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and
rockets in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. Shipping
through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and
U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be
subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran were attacked.
The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display
as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran
is. But the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For
some time now, the admirals commanding the U.S. 5th Fleet in the
Persian Gulf have maintained that they have the ability to keep the
Strait of Hormuz open. But the fact is, the only way the United States
could guarantee that the strait remained open would be to launch a
massive pre-emptive military strike that swept the Iranian coast clear
of the deadly Chinese-made surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would
otherwise use to sink cargo ships in the strategic lane. This strike
would involve hundreds of tactical aircraft backed up by limited
ground action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations forces, which
would involve "boots on the ground" for several days, if not weeks.
Such a strike is not envisioned in any "limited" military action being
planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the
Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a
"limited" military attack on Iran.
The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of
Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and
industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including
the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates
and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait -- large, fixed
and well known -- would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying
deadly cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of
millions, if not billions, of dollars; and hundreds, if not thousands,
of U.S. military personnel would be killed and wounded.
To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States
would have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special
Operations forces, to a counter-missile fight that would need to span
the considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles
might reach potential targets. While there has been some improvement
in the U.S. military's counter-missile capability, one must never
forget that in 1991 not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully
interdicted by any aspect of American military action -- air strike,
ground action or antiballistic missile -- and in 2003 the U.S.
military had mixed results against the far-less-capable Al-Samoud
missiles. Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah from firing large
salvos of rockets into northern Israel during the summer 2006
conflict. There is no reason for optimism that the United States and
Israel have suddenly found the solution to the Iranian missile threat.
There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent
Iran from interfering with shipping through the strait. There is every
chance the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ships lost
and personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait.
There would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to
guarantee safe passage for all shipping, civilian and military alike.
The longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the better the
chances Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict
shipping. Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian
soil, the greater likelihood there would be of decisive ground
engagement. With U.S. air power expected to be fully committed to the
missile interdiction mission, any large-scale ground engagement would
create a situation in which air power would have to be redirected into
tactical support and away from missile interdiction, creating a window
of vulnerability that the Iranians would very likely exploit.
Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if
Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli
involvement is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful
fashion Israel would need to fly in Iraqi airspace, a violation of
sovereignty the Iraqi government will never tolerate. The
anti-American backlash that would be generated in Iraq would be
immediate and severe. In short, virtually every operation involving
the training of Iraqi forces would be terminated as the U.S. military
trainers would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the fortified
U.S. bases to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian contractors
would likewise need to be either withdrawn completely from Iraq or
restricted to the fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been made
in the "surge" would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi
countryside would become a seething mass of anti-American activity,
which would require a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be.
Iraq as we now know it would be lost, and what would emerge in its
stead would not only be unsympathetic to the United States but
actually a breeding ground for anti-American action that could very
well expand beyond the boundaries of Iraq and the Middle East.
The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a
U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially
showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting
an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran that would in turn bring
long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.
Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European
and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil
would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the
resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent
that most are predicting, there is a good chance that oil would top
$500 or even more within days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost
certainly strike every market-based economy, and the markets
themselves would collapse under the strain.
The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are
cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American
power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how
Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear
facilities or on bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard
Command, some planners might have thought that the United States could
actually pull off a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that
Iran has made it crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would
bring about a massive Iranian response, all military planners now
understand that any U.S. military attack would have to be massive.
Simply put, the United States does not now have the military capacity
in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of
U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected, either by Iran,
which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world.
Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such a horrific,
detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the
international community remaining mute as American military might is
assembled.
Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent
on the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it
would become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore
the consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and
politically. The same can be said of both major presidential
candidates. The decision by Iran to show its hand on how it would
respond to any American aggression has cleared the air, so to speak,
about what is actually being discussed when one speaks of military
action against Iran. In many ways, the Iranian missile tests have made
it less likely that there will be a war with Iran, simply because the
stakes of any such action are so plainly obvious to all parties
involved.
Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to
pursue a nuclear program that is exclusively intended for peaceful
energy purposes. Any concerns that may exist about the dual-use
potential of Iran's uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated
through viable nuclear inspections conducted by the International
Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA inspections should be improved upon by
getting Iran to go along with an additional inspection protocol,
rather than pursuing military action that would destroy the inspection
process and remove the very verification processes that provide the
international community with the confidence that Iran is not pursuing
a nuclear weapons program.
The reality is that Iran's nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has
every right under international law to pursue this program, and
regional and global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the
price of oil) if American policies, and in related fashion U.N.
Security Council mandates, were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoia
-- derived not so much from any genuine Iranian threat but rather from
an affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East -- must in
turn be subdued. This can be done through a mixture of international
pressure designed to punish Israel diplomatically and economically for
any failure to adhere to international norms when it comes to peaceful
coexistence with its neighbors, and international assurances that
Israel's sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will forever be
respected and defended.
Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought
to bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the
crux of the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate
national security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the
pro-Israel lobby will have considerable control over American national
security policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee's
continued push for congressional action concerning the implementation
of what is tantamount to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act
of war) by pushing House Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580 is
mind-boggling given the reality of the situation. Congress must stop
talking blockade and start discussing stability and
confidence-building measures.
There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to
conduct serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings
must not replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate
and House in the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a
facilitating vehicle for war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the
body of witnesses beyond administration officials and those who would
mirror their policy positions, and include experts and specialists who
could articulate a counter point of view, exposing Congress to
information and analysis that might prompt a fuller debate. This is
the last thing the AIPAC and the Bush administration want to see. But
it is the one thing the American people should be demanding.
Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as
viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and
current policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush
administration can be considered rational when it comes to the issue
of Iran. It is up to the American people, through their elected
representatives in Congress, to inject a modicum of sanity into a
situation that continues to be in danger of spinning out of control.
Disastrous
By Scott Ritter, Truthdig. Posted July 15, 2008.
Irans recent missile test should remove all doubt that an attack by
either the United States or Israel would be a terrible mistake.
There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S.
and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors,
pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a
pre-emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of
neutralizing its nuclear-related infrastructure as well as retarding
its ability to train and equip "terrorist" forces on Iranian soil
before dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me,
have warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has
demonstrated why an attack would be insane.
I've always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the
enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy
gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on
Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast
its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and
rockets in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. Shipping
through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and
U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be
subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran were attacked.
The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display
as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran
is. But the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For
some time now, the admirals commanding the U.S. 5th Fleet in the
Persian Gulf have maintained that they have the ability to keep the
Strait of Hormuz open. But the fact is, the only way the United States
could guarantee that the strait remained open would be to launch a
massive pre-emptive military strike that swept the Iranian coast clear
of the deadly Chinese-made surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would
otherwise use to sink cargo ships in the strategic lane. This strike
would involve hundreds of tactical aircraft backed up by limited
ground action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations forces, which
would involve "boots on the ground" for several days, if not weeks.
Such a strike is not envisioned in any "limited" military action being
planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the
Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a
"limited" military attack on Iran.
The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of
Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and
industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including
the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates
and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait -- large, fixed
and well known -- would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying
deadly cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of
millions, if not billions, of dollars; and hundreds, if not thousands,
of U.S. military personnel would be killed and wounded.
To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States
would have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special
Operations forces, to a counter-missile fight that would need to span
the considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles
might reach potential targets. While there has been some improvement
in the U.S. military's counter-missile capability, one must never
forget that in 1991 not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully
interdicted by any aspect of American military action -- air strike,
ground action or antiballistic missile -- and in 2003 the U.S.
military had mixed results against the far-less-capable Al-Samoud
missiles. Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah from firing large
salvos of rockets into northern Israel during the summer 2006
conflict. There is no reason for optimism that the United States and
Israel have suddenly found the solution to the Iranian missile threat.
There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent
Iran from interfering with shipping through the strait. There is every
chance the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ships lost
and personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait.
There would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to
guarantee safe passage for all shipping, civilian and military alike.
The longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the better the
chances Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict
shipping. Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian
soil, the greater likelihood there would be of decisive ground
engagement. With U.S. air power expected to be fully committed to the
missile interdiction mission, any large-scale ground engagement would
create a situation in which air power would have to be redirected into
tactical support and away from missile interdiction, creating a window
of vulnerability that the Iranians would very likely exploit.
Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if
Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli
involvement is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful
fashion Israel would need to fly in Iraqi airspace, a violation of
sovereignty the Iraqi government will never tolerate. The
anti-American backlash that would be generated in Iraq would be
immediate and severe. In short, virtually every operation involving
the training of Iraqi forces would be terminated as the U.S. military
trainers would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the fortified
U.S. bases to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian contractors
would likewise need to be either withdrawn completely from Iraq or
restricted to the fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been made
in the "surge" would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi
countryside would become a seething mass of anti-American activity,
which would require a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be.
Iraq as we now know it would be lost, and what would emerge in its
stead would not only be unsympathetic to the United States but
actually a breeding ground for anti-American action that could very
well expand beyond the boundaries of Iraq and the Middle East.
The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a
U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially
showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting
an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran that would in turn bring
long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.
Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European
and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil
would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the
resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent
that most are predicting, there is a good chance that oil would top
$500 or even more within days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost
certainly strike every market-based economy, and the markets
themselves would collapse under the strain.
The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are
cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American
power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how
Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear
facilities or on bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard
Command, some planners might have thought that the United States could
actually pull off a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that
Iran has made it crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would
bring about a massive Iranian response, all military planners now
understand that any U.S. military attack would have to be massive.
Simply put, the United States does not now have the military capacity
in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of
U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected, either by Iran,
which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world.
Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such a horrific,
detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the
international community remaining mute as American military might is
assembled.
Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent
on the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it
would become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore
the consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and
politically. The same can be said of both major presidential
candidates. The decision by Iran to show its hand on how it would
respond to any American aggression has cleared the air, so to speak,
about what is actually being discussed when one speaks of military
action against Iran. In many ways, the Iranian missile tests have made
it less likely that there will be a war with Iran, simply because the
stakes of any such action are so plainly obvious to all parties
involved.
Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to
pursue a nuclear program that is exclusively intended for peaceful
energy purposes. Any concerns that may exist about the dual-use
potential of Iran's uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated
through viable nuclear inspections conducted by the International
Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA inspections should be improved upon by
getting Iran to go along with an additional inspection protocol,
rather than pursuing military action that would destroy the inspection
process and remove the very verification processes that provide the
international community with the confidence that Iran is not pursuing
a nuclear weapons program.
The reality is that Iran's nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has
every right under international law to pursue this program, and
regional and global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the
price of oil) if American policies, and in related fashion U.N.
Security Council mandates, were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoia
-- derived not so much from any genuine Iranian threat but rather from
an affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East -- must in
turn be subdued. This can be done through a mixture of international
pressure designed to punish Israel diplomatically and economically for
any failure to adhere to international norms when it comes to peaceful
coexistence with its neighbors, and international assurances that
Israel's sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will forever be
respected and defended.
Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought
to bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the
crux of the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate
national security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the
pro-Israel lobby will have considerable control over American national
security policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee's
continued push for congressional action concerning the implementation
of what is tantamount to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act
of war) by pushing House Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580 is
mind-boggling given the reality of the situation. Congress must stop
talking blockade and start discussing stability and
confidence-building measures.
There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to
conduct serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings
must not replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate
and House in the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a
facilitating vehicle for war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the
body of witnesses beyond administration officials and those who would
mirror their policy positions, and include experts and specialists who
could articulate a counter point of view, exposing Congress to
information and analysis that might prompt a fuller debate. This is
the last thing the AIPAC and the Bush administration want to see. But
it is the one thing the American people should be demanding.
Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as
viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and
current policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush
administration can be considered rational when it comes to the issue
of Iran. It is up to the American people, through their elected
representatives in Congress, to inject a modicum of sanity into a
situation that continues to be in danger of spinning out of control.