« Hey, It’s Been Sixteen Months Since I Last Did These! | Main | Throw Them an Anchor »
Iran Amok
By Jeff Fecke | May 15, 2006
Gregory Djerejian does a great job at breaking down what US policy toward Iran should and can be from a clear-eyed, realist point of view. To wit:
Yes, of course, we can bomb the hell out of Iranian nuclear installations. But there are a few issues with this ‘strategy’, alas. We aren’t sure we know where all the nuclear installations are, that is, unless ‘Dusty’ Foggo or some such notable got all the locations down pat sometime between the Royal Flushes, Johnnie Blacks and Dominicans (cigars, of course, not gals…) at the Watergate. There will be too (cue furrowed brow and faux expressions of regret) ‘collateral damage’. Even if, you know, ‘we don’t do body counts,’ people in the region who aren’t lucky enough to be taking in the Big Show from their couches in stolid New Hampshire will get a tad malcontent at the reality of the third war, in almost as many years, consuming their ‘region’. And then, there’s the reality that, even if we hit the jackpot, and decimate every last nuclear installation in Iran (highly unlikely) you can bet your bottom dollar the vast majority of the Iranian public will be united in demanding their government (whether a Khatami or Ahmadi-Nejad type) do its damn utmost to reconstitute the program–full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes (or Tomahawks)! It will become the issue determining Iranian pride and national dignity in the post-bombing era. Are we going to bomb perenially, every two years or so, for decades?
There are also the possible Iranian responses. Anthony Cordesman spelled a few of them out recently, and they include (his language, with slight B.D tweaks): 1) Iranian retaliation against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads; 2) using proxy groups including al-Zarqawi and Sadr in Iraq to intensify the insurgency and escalate the attacks against US forces and Iraqi Security Forces; 3) turning the Shi’ite majority in Iraq against the US presence and demand US forces to leave; 4) attacking the US homeland with suicide bombs by proxy groups or deliver CBR weapons to al-Qa’ida to use against the US; 5) using its asymmetric capabilities to attacks US interests in the region including soft targets: e.g. embassies, commercial centers, and American citizens; 6) attacking US naval forces stationed in the Gulf with anti-ship missiles, asymmetric warfare, and mines; 7) attacking Israel with missile attacks possibly with CBR warheads; 8 ) retaliating against energy targets in the Gulf and temporarily shut off the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz; and 9) stopping all of its oil and gas shipments to increase the price of oil, inflict damage on the global and US economies.
Yes, we can game plan for some of these contigencies and take preventative action. But, lest we forget, we have a gross incompetent at the helm of the Defense Department, so chances are he’ll make a mockery of a good deal of the war-planning. I don’t say that cheaply for kicks. I say it because, you know, it’s pretty much true. Frankly, as Tom Friedman recently queried, what’s worse? An Iran with nukes, or Inglorious Ruin Rummy’s Great Persian Campaign? A close call, eh? Smart money is with the latter, I’d think, given the collossal blunders Rummy has presided over in Mesopotamia, plain to all observers say, oh I don’t know, Larry di Rita, Hindrocket, Charles ‘Pali Towelheads Smell But Are Fed Well’ Johnson and, lest we forget, The Decider himself (even Fred Barnes has gotten on the clue train, at this stage…).
Read the whole thing, it’s a useful primer and reality check. Djerejian’s ultimate solution? Talk to the Iranians. I know, super-wussy, and not as cool as blowing stuff up…then again, it has the added bonus of actually possibly working, which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Topics: Foreign Policy, Iran | 1 Comment »