CY,

What do you think the Iranians would do if we attacked their facilities? It's not an academic point. The most likely result would be an attack against Israel. Probably along two or even three fronts. They would mobilize Hezzbollah in Lebanon and Syria and could potentially even enlist Egypt to join in. In the end, that may be the best available option, an all out war in the region that definitively settles most of the intractable issues there but it's not something we should consider without also considering the risks. The country would support a war of this kind if it was told the truth about the potential pitfalls.

Last I heard, the Iranians had purchased Kilo class submarines from the Russians.

Since when do those not have torpedo or cruise missile capabilities?

The big problem is Europe. They get a HUGE percent of their oil from Iran--and when that flow is cut back (they don't have to stopt the flow completely), that's when the problems begin. The last CRS papers I read, Iran could cut production by almost half and limp through any additional sanctions for at least 8 months--it was estimated that Europe would suffer catastrophic economic failure from such a oil cut in less than three.

As for the subs, he's right, Iran is upgrading and many diesel subs are difficult to find and track when running on batteries (and have the improved screws). If Iran does lay any of those mines, oil spec prices will go through the roof and insurance on the tankers (which few people realize also affects the price of oil).

Even if the government is overthrown (a distinct possibility), the ensuing chaos will hammer the US and Europe for at least six months--quite possibly more--and once again, the same economic problems raise their ugly head.

I agree though, we do need to show a LOT of unhindered force against all of our foes at this point--but I don't think we have the stomach for it and I know Europe doesn't. And even though I could care less what Europe thinks about us, I know our economy will also tank when Europe takes a header off the high dive (though despite all their power-hype, the numbers show that we can survive such a European economic collapse better than the EU itself can). All said, we have painted ourselves into an awful corner that we won't get out of without terrible losses--in more ways than one.

What do you think the Iranians would do if we attacked their facilities?

What did Saddam do when the Israel leveled Osirak?

Saddam's response? Iraqi scientists Khidir Hamza and Imad Khadduri tell it (from Wikipedia):

"…actually, what Israel [did] is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us — we were 400… scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium… They [Israel] estimated we'd make 7 kg [15 lb] of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year."

Iran would probably react similarly. They would accelerate their nuclear program, decentralize it even further, and take it deeper underground. That, coupled with the myriad of other downsides (unleashing Hezbollah on Israel, ramping up militia attacks on our soldiers in Iraq, etc) make attacking Iran a really unwise idea.

Saddam's response? Iraqi scientists Khidir Hamza and Imad Khadduri tell it...

And what did that response get Saddam?

Its looking like a prison cell, and an invitation to a tall tree with a short rope hanging from it sometime soon.

One Ohio can deal with all of Iran if it ever comes down to it. All it takes is a US president with the stones to know when the gig is up and its time to do it.

"Massive firepower ... is the answer."
- You still haven't got it! (Seems, you ever will) Firepower is the problem, not the solution! In the modern asymmetric wars (not army vs. army, but army vs. insurgents) the defeat of the armies was never caused by the lack of firepower (cf. the French army in Vietnam and Algeria, the US-Army in Vietnam, the British army in Northern Ireland). The more firepower the more support for the insurgents! - Or do you want to terminate the Iraqui population in order to 'liberate' it?

"Sometimes you need to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut if you want people to pay attention and learn the correct lessons in life. If an IED blows up outside someones house and the homeowners tell you that they don't know anything about, bulldoze the house and salt the ground."
- These people didn't ask you to come to their country! Wouldn't you use IEDs if Iranian tanks roared in the streets of Houston to bring you "freedom"?

Wouldn't you use IEDs if Iranian tanks roared in the streets of Houston to bring you "freedom"?

It would depend on why they were there. Somehow, I suspect it wouldn't be to depose a despised dictator and allow for free elections though.

Excellent suggestions. Good luck finding a US President willing to try any of them.

We don't fight wars like that anymore. we CAN'T. we have lost the political and civic will.

I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/11/re-another-direction.html

One Ohio can deal with all of Iran if it ever comes down to it. All it takes is a US president with the stones to know when the gig is up and its time to do it.

Well, I suppose we could fulfill the fantasy of many right wingers and just nuke the entire country, killing millions of people in Iran and neighboring areas. That would sure show 'em.

fulfill the fantasy of many right wingers and just nuke the entire country

I hope it doesn't come to that. I am however willing to entertain the possibility.

So what's your plan should everything else fail? Losing major western cities doesn't seem like a "plan" to me.

Yeah, I kinda hope it doesn't come to that too. All else being equal, I think I'd prefer that we not kill millions of people. God knows the liberal MSM would be yakking on and on about crap like radiation sickness and massive human misery on a biblical scale, and I just don't need waste my beautiful mind listening to that.

Months ago now, some contributor [I'm going on memory here] on NRO's "The Corner" saw what the current slow-motion escalation might ultimately lead to. He said he dared not say the word openly online yet; he called it "the G word." He concluded, "Please, God, let it not come to that."

But I fear it will, because the drastic means necessary to avoid "the G word" are unlikely to be employed even by a Republican U.S. President, certainly not the newly-neutered G.W., let alone any future Democrat. The drastic means required are unlikely to be supported by any future P.M. in the U.K., and would only be supported by the current P.M. in Australia, John Howard, but probably not by any plausible successor.

We could, for example, bomb all of Iran's nuclear sites and half of their oil production facilities, and make the continued existence of the other half of the oil contingent on submission to ruthlessly invasive inspections of any future civilian nuclear facilities.

(For those who fear the economic fallout, consider: That oil will be used as a weapon against us anyway, no matter what. Why not choose our own time to remove Iran's "queen" from the chessboard, instead of waiting for Ahmadinejad and Chavez to prepare their own sudden stoppage? Taking the initiative in this way has psychological advantages as well: Iran has drunk too long from their bottle of "invincibility by petrodollars"; the threat of removing their entire economy from under their feet would be a quick path to sobriety, even at the cost of a recession which, I repeat, would eventually happen at a time of Ahmadinejad's choosing anyway! But I digress.)

Such drastic moves could certainly stop Iran's nuclear production for a long, long time, and degrade their military preparedness. (Both nuclear weapons research and large militaries require MONEY; without oil, Iran has none.) It could potentially result in the overthrow of the mullahs.

But...it isn't going to happen.

Therefore, Iran will get nukes. They will use one in Tel Aviv as soon as it is practical to do so: No reasonable person has any doubt of THAT. It may not be "practical," according to their definition of the word, until they have twenty or more nukes in their arsenal, since they'll probably try to forestall an American response to the destruction of Israel by threatening one or more U.S. cities with terrorist nukes.

But the U.S. will ultimately respond anyway, before or after the destruction of Israel, which (let's face it) the U.S. will simply not allow, even if (just as obviously) Europe would.

So Iran will therefore set off a terrorist nuke, or a bioweapon, or just send agents to hose down shopping malls with AK-47's, to deter U.S. forces abroad by sowing chaos at home.

The U.S. will then be forced to take one of two options: Either escalate gradually, destroying bits of Iran at a time with conventional weapons and eventually nukes, while Iran responds with escalating non-conventional terror attacks, or else go directly to maximum devastation.

To decide between the two options, they'll bring in the games theorists, who'll tell them that it's a choice between (a.) nuclear tit-for-tatting over months until there are tens of millions dead on both sides, or (b.) just going all out immediately, in which case there'll be millions dead only on the Iranian side.

So, finally, the U.S. will go all out. There will be a lot of double-flashes in a short period of time, and a short while thereafter, no living being larger than a housecat will still have a heartbeat in Persia.

Welcome to the twenty-first century, chock full of hope and promise.

So, finally, the U.S. will go all out. There will be a lot of double-flashes in a short period of time, and a short while thereafter, no living being larger than a housecat will still have a heartbeat in Persia.

Here's another right-winger just champing at the bit for nuclear war with Iran. Right on, bro. Eff those Muslims. Turn it into a parking lot, I say. The hell with civilian casualties. They're all terrorists anyway, when you get right down to it.

The U.S. will then be forced to take one of two options: Either escalate gradually, destroying bits of Iran at a time with conventional weapons...

Actually its much simpler than that when you understand the mechanics of the Iranian economy.

They import ~80% of their gasoline even though they're lousy with crude.

From what I know about Vietnam (not enough), what got the N. Vietnamese to agree to peace was a massive bombing campaign (rolling thunder 2?) where the pilots were finally given free reign to blow up what was important the the N. Vietnamese.

Of course we lost anyway, because we didn't support the south after we pulled out, but the point is that brutal aggression seems to be the only way to win a war. The only way we've been able to lose wars is by not allowing our soldiers to do so.

This is not what it takes to win in Iraq, I doubt any captain would suggest that it is. If they did, and if you really in turn agree, may I suggest some reading:

Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam
by John A. Nagl, Peter J. Schoomaker

P.S. Sorry to hear you guys just lost Kissinger.

P.S. Sorry to hear you guys just lost Kissinger.

Never had him to begin with, so there's nothing to lose.

" ' Wouldn't you use IEDs if Iranian tanks roared in the streets of Houston to bring you "freedom"? ' (he)

It would depend on why they were there. Somehow, I suspect it wouldn't be to depose a despised dictator and allow for free elections though." (Purple Avenger )

Of course Saddam was a dictator and is a murderer, but he had been this since 1979. And the US didn't mind him being that when he was attacking Iran and when Rumsfeld shook hands with him.

I believe the Germans tried this on a larger scale at Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane. It doesn't work. In US history, it also did not work during Sheridan's Valley Campaign during the War Between the States. The good captain, while a valiant warrior and a gentleman, must have slept through military history at The Point or ROTC.

Now, if he had advocated the destruction of public facilities or the temporary suspension of public services (except security)...go for it.

And the US didn't mind him being that when he was attacking Iran and when Rumsfeld shook hands with him.

Yea, the Iranians were always the good guys...

Arbotreeist gets zero out of ten for reading comprehension.

I disagree with the massive firepower theory. It did not work for the Russians in Afghanistan and it will not work in Iraq. The people of Iraq will not turn against the terrorists and start shooting them when they lay an IED...the reason is that if they shoot them, there are a few hundred more who will avenge their death and kill the family that stopped the IED attack.

I don't think America has lost the political will to fight a war at all. If you look at history we really never had it. WWII and the Civil War were the only two wars that had polarized sides and simplistic objectives. Most of the other wars we have fought (except the Revolution) were nebulous in their goals...Panama Canal, Spanish American War...we even had war protestors for WWII. Bottom line...this is a hard fight with no definite way to win except time and the will to not give up. To give up now would be irresponsible, illogical and would do nothing more than ruin our foreign policy by giving the impression that we don't finish what we start, but view things as disposable....even Iraqi lives.

RC,

Actually the problem is not comprehension. It is selectively picking things to reply to, taking them out of context, and then adding the universal left talking points to prove his point. There is a formula for it. Double standards and moving the goal posts. Remember, if a lefty can't answer with facts they change the subject, swear, or call names. Simple. Look at Earl...LOL

Jason,

I tend to agree with your analysis. The difficult part becomes how to fight an insurgency. It really becomes a security issue to quell violence. And I think that the smaller, leaner US armed forces, with quick-strike ability, is the way to keep going. Set piece, large formation forces will not work. That is what the Russians tried to employ in Afghanistan. It didn't work. It is what the British tried to apply in our Revolutionary War. It didn't work. You have to apply the correct tactics to the circumstances.

I disagree with the massive firepower theory. It did not work for the Russians in Afghanistan

Perhaps because the Russians never used it in Afghanistan?

It worked pretty well against Japan though.

The people of Iraq will not turn against the terrorists and start shooting them when they lay an IED...the reason is that if they shoot them, there are a few hundred more who will avenge their death and kill the family that stopped the IED attack.

Exactly right. We're already past the point of diminishing returns with the level of firepower being used in Iraq. The more force you use, the more you alienate the general population. The insurgents will be the ones reaping the benefits of that, not us.

The people of Iraq will not turn against the terrorists and start shooting them when they lay an IED...

How do you explain the new position of the tribes in Anbar then?

Friends:

The solution is Iraq is a mix of nuanced military, as in target the bombers with the fruit of Intel and citizen tips, diplomacy and internal politics. I understand completely the frustrations of this Captain as I have felt them myself. Combat power will not win the day alone. It must be metered out on exact targets of opportunity. The key is bridge building between Sunni and Shia with the Kurds helping as they can. There has been some steps taken in this direction. Iraqis are a proud people, and they understand TRUST and DEEDS as in the manner of Ronald Reagan's "Trust but Verify." This takes time, but once momentum is built, it will be hard to side track by the enemy. This is nuance in its purest form, and you don't read it in any newspaper. You are hearing it from a participant in the process.

The
Isrelis have pursued a policy of razing homes that were proven terrorist facilities. It has not resultd in any Palestinian restraint. Quite the reverse. Any policy that rests on a rational responce by adherents of a death cult is bound to fail.

So much ignorance in such a small space.

It has not resultd in any Palestinian restraint.

Other than attacks within Israel being down of course...