Five Reasons Not to Attack Iran
Image Credit: U.S. Navy

Five Reasons Not to Attack Iran

0 Likes
94 comments

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.   

Comments
94
Roclan
August 25, 2013 at 23:10

Iran and nuclear weapons… anyone using this as an excuse to attack Iran is a lame brainwashed worth-nothing maggot. Keep your terrorists home and stop murdering in the name of WMD-lies!!!

April 30, 2013 at 18:23

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.

Jean
November 30, 2013 at 22:00

And it shouldn’t be underestimated by truncated hence inappropriate comparisons either. The Iranian military actually destroyed much of the Iraqi army in less than 1 year after the war started and pushed them back to their border soon after taking the strategic city of Khorramshahr back, reverting the siege in the process. Notably during Operation Morvarid after which 90% of the Iraqi navy was sunk, or Kaman 99 that materialized 24 hours after the initial Iraqi assault, and resulted in a 55% reduction in the IrAF efficiency for a year to come. If it wasn’t for the complicity of almost every neighoring arab state sheltering its airforce, it would have been a remake of the ’67 debacle. Also, read about the brilliant and renowned IRIAF strike on Saddam’s remote H3 bomber base. in fact, It was only after the war dragged on because of Khomeini’s stubbornness that the embargo imposed by the same countries arming Saddam to the teeth started to have its toll on Iranian forces.

1991 Iraq absolutely hadn’t recovered from 8 years of deadly fight with Iran and was crippled by an abysmal war debt (which originally influenced the dictator into attacking Kuwait). A coalition of the world’s most powerful militaries PLUS a massive Pan-Arabic contingent (notably Egyptian, with tens of thousands of troops directly engaged) contributed to the rapid fall of Iraq’s poorly led, trained and motivated conscripts.

Shannon
April 11, 2013 at 00:53

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
August 10, 2012 at 20:35

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
August 10, 2012 at 20:31

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

John
February 16, 2012 at 02:00

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.

ScrambleScramble
January 25, 2012 at 06:40

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.

BenMo
January 19, 2012 at 11:36

Well as long as our currency is saved, what’s a couple ten’s of thousands of innocent lives eh?

BpSitRep
January 18, 2012 at 12:32

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
January 16, 2012 at 03:13

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.

Arthur Askey
January 15, 2012 at 09:49

“Iran was defeated by Iraq in 10 years fight in eighties.”

Wrong!

wxman
January 15, 2012 at 09:41

Very true in all regards. Other than doing Israels wishes to break up and destabilize the Middle East, we have no good reason to attack them, other than hyped up lies about them pursuing nukes. All 27 alphabet agencies of the US concluded, for the second time, that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and the inspectors that are routinely inspecting their plants concur: no missing fissiles, no enrichment beyond 20% for medical uses (you need over 90% pure for nukes) and so on. We were lied to about Iraq and Lybia, can’t you see we are being lied to again by corporate media talking heads? BOTH Russia and China have warned us at least twice recently that any attack on Iran will be considered an attack on them. Don’t let the neocon think-tank dual citizens who lied us into the recent wars, lie us into another, just to cause more war-profiteering and misery.

Iran has purchased the best torpedoes and anti ship missiles in the world from Russia recently, weapons good enough to be hard to defend against by our forces. Some of their own missiles would be hard to stop. Iran has not invaded any country for 300 years. By the way, another coinky-dink: there used to be seven nations without a Rothschild controlled central bank; Iraq and Libya were on that list, (and now are not) and so is Iran. Food for thought.

wxman
January 15, 2012 at 09:15

Iran has purchased the best torpedoes and anti ship missiles in the world from Russia recently, weapons good enough to be hard to defend against by our forces. Some of their own missiles would be hard to stop. Iran has not invaded any country for 300 years. Other than doing Israels wishes to break up and destabilize the Middle East, we have no good reason to attack them, other than hyped up lies about them pursuing nukes. All 27 alphabet agencies of the US concluded, for the second time, that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and the inspectors that are routinely inspecting their plants concur: no missing fissiles, no enrichment beyond 20% for medical uses (you need over 90% pure for nukes) and so on. We were lied to about Iraq and Lybia, can’t you see we are being lied to again by corporate media talking heads? BOTH Russia and China have warned us at least twice recently that any attack on Iran will be considered an attack on them. Don’t let the neocon think-tank dual citizens who lied us into the recent wars, lie us into another, just to cause more war-profiteering and misery. By the way, another coinky-dink: there used to be seven nations without a Rothschild controlled central bank; Iraq and Libya were on that list, (and now are not) and so is Iran. Food for thought.

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief