Iran would likely be a far more formidable adversary than any the United States has faced in decades. The U.S. should be very wary about launching military strikes.
With U.S. President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announcing that major cuts are coming to the Defense Department, hawks seeking to stop nuclear weapons development by Iran by any means necessary will soon have less “means” to call upon. With the Army set to shrink by approximately 80,000 soldiers, and a broad swath of cuts set to affect every service, “Operation Iranian Freedom” may be far less likely than many hawks had previously hoped.
The diminished prospect for a military confrontation with Iran is particularly bad news for some considering that Secretary Panetta just last month suggested that Iran could – although it was unlikely – have a nuclear weapon before 2012 is over.
Yet while few outside the Iranian regime see a nuclear Iran as desirable, any decision that could lead to war between the United States and the Islamic Republic deserves considerable discussion before the American people. Simply beating the war drums so loudly as to drown out the voices of any opposition is a poor substitute for real debate.
Five points deserve particular consideration as decision makers consider the United States’ option. They are particularly important as the 2012 election gets closer and calls for a military solution increase.
First, Iran possesses what is likely the most capable military the United States has faced in decades. Iran is no Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq. In all of these examples, the U.S. military defeated an adversary incapable of competing with superior American land, naval, and air forces. The Iranian military is far more competent and capable, and after watching the war in Iraq for a decade has a good understanding of U.S. tactics and strategy.
For example, Iran's regular navy is adept at littoral combat and may be capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz for sufficient duration to wreak economic havoc. The recent naval exercises by the Iranian navy illustrate a clear strategy that would seek to close the strait while attempting to sink American combat vessels that enter the area. This would result in a significant loss of commercial shipping and cause the price of oil to skyrocket.
If it comes to war, the proliferation of advanced air defense systems to countries like Iran may give it one of the best integrated anti-aircraft defense systems the United States faces in combat. They may be capable of inflicting casualties on American airpower not seen since Vietnam. And with a declining bomber force, losses could be unacceptable.
Unlike Iraq, Iran’s regular Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps won’t lay down their arms at the first sight of U.S. ground troops. They, more than any other element of the regime, watched Afghanistan and Iraq for lessons on how to defeat the Americans.
Second, the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (MOIS), Iran’s espionage service, is among the most competent in the world. Over the past thirty years, MOIS agents have successfully hunted down and assassinated dissidents, former officials of the Shah's government, and real or perceived threats to the regime. MOIS is still capable of carrying out assassinations, espionage, and other kinetic attacks against government and civilian targets. The spy service is also likely to have covert agents in the United States.
While information is incomplete, there’s reason to believe that Manssor Arbabsiar, the Iranian who allegedly attempted to hire the Zeta drug cartel to assassinate a Saudi ambassador on American soil, was tied to MOIS. While the effort failed, it demonstrates the lengths to which MOIS will likely go.
MOIS has also been known to target Iranian expatriates, imprisoning their family members and causing bodily harm. A small number of the 1-1.5 million Iranian-Americans may very well become targets of such tactics.
Third, Iranian-backed Hezbollah is more capable of conducting terrorist attacks than al-Qaeda ever was. With three decades of experience fighting the Israelis in Lebanon and northern Israel, suspected ties to Latin American drug cartels, and a global network, Hezbollah is an international network that is able to conduct large-scale attacks against the United States and its interests abroad.
In fact, Hezbollah cells are believed to be active in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, making the organization more than a hypothetical threat. With the U.S. Marine Barracks bombing (Beirut,1983), Argentine Israelite Mutual Association bombing (Buenos Aires,1994), Khobar Towers bombing (Saudi Arabia,1996), and many other attacks under their belts, Hezbollah has a history of global terrorism. Should the U.S. military attack Iran, Hezbollah is likely to launch a series of terrorist counter-attacks that will not be as readily thwarted as those of al-Qaeda.
Fourth, Iran’s cyber capabilities are impressive and growing. An attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is likely to prompt a sustained cyber-attack unlike any we have seen. It will likely target critical data in the public and private sector and seek to wreak havoc, shut down systems, and destroy data.
Fifth, after a decade of intense combat operations, the United States military deserves a rest from war. Afghanistan and Iraq have taken their toll on America's fighting men and women, their families, and the equipment they rely on. A “limited attack” on Iran will likely escalate into a wider war, making it difficult for the military to rest and refit.
When considering whether to use military force against Iran it’s important to understand that there is an asymmetry of interests at stake. The Iranian regime sees itself as fighting for its very survival. The stakes are considerably lower for the United States.
Even a focused strike against Iran's nuclear facilities will elicit a response well in excess of the United States' “limited” objectives. While a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and troop reductions in Afghanistan – Iran’s western and northern neighbors – may cause the Iranian leadership to slow the development of a “Shi’a bomb,” a strategic attack by the United States will only strengthen their resolve and solidify the regime’s worst fears.
While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bellicose statements make good political theatre, there is rarely much behind them. To suggest that Ahmadinejad is all bark and no bite is not far from the truth. The fact is that the Iranian regime is more risk averse than many give it credit for. Regime survival is of paramount concern and greatly explains why the regime acts as it does. Pushing the regime to the edge may turn empty threats into reality and will certainly undermine any effort by President Barack Obama to save defense dollars.
In the end, Iran may prove less capable than I’ve described, and a military conflict with Iran may be less costly in blood and treasure than suspected. However, weighing all options before resorting to military conflict is critical to reaching the best solution.
For the United States, determining what a nuclear weapons-free Iran is worth is critical. Had the American people understood the costs of Iraq before the war began, it’s unlikely they would have given their consent. Given the current economic woes of the country, that cannot happen again.
Dr. Adam B. Lowther is a member of the faculty at the U.S. Air Force's Air University. The views expressed are those of the author.
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Tom Bush
Perhaps the article over estimates Iran’s capabilities. For one thing they were in a stalemate with Saddam’s Iraqi army for about 8 years. The US army did what Iran could not do and smashed the Iraqi military in 72 hours during the gulf war. Iran’s navy is more like a coast guard. And finally our troops (US) are better equiped, better trained far better logistics and are highly experienced and battle hardened after a decade of continous warfare.
Shannon
Your credibility is hurt by your claim that Hezbullah is responsible for "the U.S. Marine Barracks bombing (Beirut,1983), Argentine Israelite Mutual Association bombing (Buenos Aires,1994), Khobar Towers bombing (Saudi Arabia,1996)". The marine barracks bombing occurred before the founding of Hezb — maybe some of those responsible went on to join Hezb, but that's only speculation. Khobar Towers is generally believed to have been done by an early incarnation of Al Qaeda, not Hezb. Although Saudi Arabia blamed Iran, in those days they went to great lengths to deny they had home-grown terrorism. And there's no smoking gun to prove the AIMA bombing was by Hezb. In fact, Argentine law authorities are pursuing the theory that it was Iran, although even that is fairly weak.
Hence your claim that "Hezbollah has a history of global terrorism" is weak, weak, weak.
major lowen gil marquez, phil army
The five reasons not to attack Iran is not a hard reason if Iran would choose to continue to be a nuclear warhead possession, if the Iran military hardware was came from USSR and China, they can be defeated even without using Intellectual Quotient… Chinese communist were expert in fake and low quality products with that culture they have it is a disaster in the long term…if the Chinese communist continue to intrude the Scarborough shoal in the Western Philippine which is an island of the Philippine province… in the long run Chinese communist will meet its self destruction..
major lowen gil marquez, phil army
The five reasons not to attack Iran is not a hard reason if Iran would choose to continue to be a nuclear warhead possession, if the Iran military hardware was came from USSR and China, they can be defeated even without using Intellectual Quotient… Ch
ScrambleScramble
What is rather disconcerting is that many of the people leaving comments behind here are completely missing the point of the article. They are also trumpeting their own precious, uneducated and uninformed opinions as the Godly truth, as opposed to the opinions of a man who has spent countless hours actually studying the issue. The rest of you watch “The O’Reilly Factor” and take the word of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as gospel.
BpSitRep
Very credible article with sound reasoning. But to allow Iran and Hezbollah to continue to go unchecked, will in the end, bring only more damage to the World overall. This is like having two bullies run over an entire neighborhood as the men do nothing. A few very big bombs, at the right places, will take care of most of the fighting forces of Iran. The U.S. knows that any long protracted conventional conflict with Iran will be too costly, so if any fight comes, technology will lead the way.
Doug J
A war with Iran is a requirement. The US has printed so much money that it cannot control inflation through ordinary means. An extraordinary means is required. If the price of oil triples then inflation is contained as the petrodollar is in much higher demand.
If the Iranians were able to produce a nuclear device, the use of it would cause the destruction of the whole country in the form of western nuclear retaliation. This is a stupid way to commit sovereign suicide.
The strait will be closed, prices will triple, the initial attack will fail and a much larger coalition force will be amassed. Iran will be destroyed, the US dollar will be saved.
BenMo
Well as long as our currency is saved, what’s a couple ten’s of thousands of innocent lives eh?
John
Both comments easy to say from a computer.
However both incredibly myopic. Irans leaders cannot possess a nuclear weapon..PERIOD. suitcase nukes alone are reason to hold no other opinion than destroying their capability.
These nutjobs want apocalypse. Ascribing anything logical to people who think they have a destiny to go down in flames is ludicrous. A surgical strike is the key here. People imagining an all out war dont understand the situation. You set this evil regime back and keep setting them back until they’re out.
hp
20,000 sorties in Serbia/Kosovo and NATO destroyed a record amount of microwave ovens, blow-up tanks and log bridges.
Along with, of course, the usual war crime bombings of civilian businesses, markets, foot bridges, bakeries, foreign embassies, rescue workers, etc.
I well remember the aftermath tour of bombing results. So shockingly poor they were silenced faster than you can say only 17 tanks destroyed?!!
Not to mention the infamously infernal hand holding photograph of Gen. Wesley Clark, NATO Commander, Gen. Sir Michael Jackson, KFOR Commander, Bernard Kouchner, UN Administrator of Kosovo, Hashim (want to buy a used kidney) Thaci, UCK (KLA) leader and Agim (the snake) Ceku, Commander of KPC.
WHAT A TEAM!!! WHAT A TOWN!!!
Glad THAT ONE is over! Oh yeah, riiiiight. Never mind.
Michael Helweg
I agree with Backasone when he says “The purpose of Iran’s recent provocations was to verify its thesis of the weakness and decline of the West. Leaving them unanswered and watching Tehran build nuclear weapons increases the risk of all-out war in the region as the Mullahs feel increasingly invincible.”
There is a much bigger risk to the peace if the Iranian Government is allowed to continue their manufacturing of WMDs. Ahmadinejad, a leader of the Iranian people actually stated numerous times that Israel must be “wiped off the map”. Quite frankly there is no love lost between myself and Israel but you cannot idlely sit back and ignore the Iranian regime while they threaten to decimate tens of millions of people, and then go about constructing the means to do so. The problems resulting in adopting a hands-off approach to this situation will far outweigh the repercussions incurred by addressing this situation now. As I’m sure we are all aware, there are already numerous plans already conceived to deliver “Death from above” targeting uranium enrichment facilities, oil refineries and military installations which will remove any and all capabilities the Iran has of making war. This could all be achieved without “Boots on the Ground” Threats of retaliation by Iran would then be responded to with a show of force that will be so costly to them that they will abide by what the international community expects and deserves. The destruction of Iran’s oil production capabilities will remove the possibility of another country providing military assistance as there won’t be any oil commodities to bargain with for at least 7-10 years.
quibish
Ahmadinejad, a leader of the Iranian people actually stated numerous times that Israel must be “wiped off the map”.(Links if you please,for as far as I know he has never made such a statement).
Bakasone
Let’s pray the author’s view is not common sense in the U.S. military. The purpose of Iran’s recent provocations was to verify its thesis of the weakness and decline of the West. Leaving them unanswered and watching Tehran build nuclear weapons increases the risk of all-out war in the region as the Mullahs feel increasingly invincible. Taking out their nuclear facilities would certainly help them cool down a little.