Ezra Klein: The Aftermath

« Liberalism On The Rise? | Main | The Surge's Untrustworthy Numbers »

August 30, 2007

The Aftermath

Anthony Cordesman describes the avenues for Iranian-retaliation in the event of an American attack:

1) Iranian retaliation against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads; 2) using proxy groups including...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 demanding US forces leave; 4) attacking the US homeland with suicide bombs by proxy groups or delivering 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 shutting 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, inflicting damage on the global and US economies.

One of the slightly atypical dynamics of the Iraq War is that the enemy can't really hurt us. It can hurt our ability to occupy Iraq, but unless the jihadists we're training over there decide to refocus their efforts -- which they may well do one day, in which case we'll have created them over there to fight them over here -- the majority of the damage they inflict is localized to our mission in Iraq.

Iran, by contrast, can do us a lot of damage. It's much larger and richer than Iraq, with a much more mature global presence. Additionally, it can unleash hell within Iraq, where our presence vastly enhances Iran's ability to battle us asymmetrically. Americans are used to invading and bombing countries like Bosnia and Iraq -- it's been a long time since we've struck someone who can strike back. For that reason, there's very little talk of the consequences of bombing within the media. You hear a lot about whether such an attack would be effective, but very little about the likely aftermath, and thus almost no serious discussion as to whether a military attack would be worth it. We're simply used to evaluating American military actions as if there will be no retaliatory consequences. And that's very dangerous, and in this case, very untrue.

(via)

August 30, 2007 in Iran | Permalink

Comments

Thanks for writing about this.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Aug 30, 2007 4:38:10 PM

"One of the slightly atypical dynamics of the Iraq War is that the enemy can't really hurt us"
I didn't get the memo that Americans in Iraq (as right/wrong their presence there may be) stopped counting as "us".

Posted by: chuck | Aug 30, 2007 4:55:42 PM

Actually we didn't invade or bomb Bosnia. (We did bomb Kosovo and Serbia). Our failure to act on behalf of the Bosnians is a cause for shame.

Posted by: Bloix | Aug 30, 2007 4:59:43 PM

Anthony Cordesman is the top defense expert in America as far as I know.

Posted by: Denis Drew | Aug 30, 2007 5:01:15 PM

The potential (and in some cases, likely) consequences of a US attack on Iran far far exceed any short-term reason or gain from it. Maybe someday Iran would demonstrably be a threat (the intelligence estimates are still saying their atomic capability is years away).

In the meantime, the biggest threat to the US from Iran, not explicitely made clear in the list in the post is that our supply operations from Kuwait (and Basra to a lesser extent) could be rather easily be cut either by Shia militia attacks or Iranian Revolutionary Guards ground forces. We can't survive in Iraq without huge amounts of supplies flowing up the highways from Kuwait and that route is very dangerous already. Air resupply is out of the question given the volume. Fuel for vehicles, food, ammunition (and even water!) could be cut off, making the US forces do a forced (under fire) withdrawal.

Any general officer that doesn't realize this should be declared insane and shipped home for mental treatment.

Iran could easily put the Saudi, and oil emirates under attack, cutting the western supply of oil from the Gulf. We can't possibly protect all these targets.

It also isn't out the question that we could lose an aircraft carrier in the Persian/Arabian gulf given the tight movement rescriptions and Iran's fleet of fast small boats with high speed and quite deadly anti-ship missiles.

Finally, we risk both the Chinese and Russians joining the Iranian side, militarily and diplomatically. China needs Iranian oil and buys a huge amount of it. Russia doesn't want yet another US client-state on their southern flank and they trade heavily with Iran.

Escalating threats can get out of control very easily.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 30, 2007 5:01:42 PM

Jim: Good points. I hope you won't be offended when I say that reading your comment made me realize how badly we're all missing Steve Gilliard as war with Iran draws closer. He was talking about the aspects you mention at least a year before his death.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Aug 30, 2007 5:32:37 PM

War with Iran isn't drawing closer, in part for the reasons Ezra and Jim outline.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 30, 2007 5:40:35 PM

I've said this before: War with Iran? You and whose army?

("You" meaning whichever neocon happens to be slinging the idea around at the time.)

Posted by: litbrit | Aug 30, 2007 6:40:13 PM

Actually we didn't invade or bomb Bosnia.

We bombed Bosnian Serb positions within Bosnia back in the fall of 1995, which ultimately is what set the stage for the Dayton accords.

We didn't bomb Serbia until spring of 1999.

Posted by: Tyro | Aug 30, 2007 8:05:16 PM

The most devastating response Iran could offer to any attack, should it come?

Doing nothing. At least, nothing militarily. Throw open the doors to foreign reporters, call upon the international community to repudiate the US.

Antid Oto: you and me both.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Aug 30, 2007 8:25:19 PM

On the other hand...

it would drive up oil prices.

As my Dad said:

When Texas does well...the country is going to hell.

And it would tie the hands of the next president, who will probably be from the Republican side of the Democratic party...and thus will not want to withdraw forces to a sustainable position.

Posted by: S Brennan | Aug 30, 2007 9:19:57 PM

The potential (and in some cases, likely) consequences of a US attack on Iran far far exceed any short-term reason or gain from it.

The short-term political gain is enormous -- control of both houses of Congress, and the White House, and with them the ability to dictate fiscal policy, write the tax code, shape the regulatory environment, pack the judiciary, and justify the use of all the power of the intelligence state to perpetuate those advantages by harassing the opposition into impotence, all by wrapping yourself in the mantle of a 'wartime' administration, deep into mid-century. Only the powers available in 'wartime' will get you there.

Sure, there'd be immediate short-term losses, but in the long term the profit from running a bust-out on the world's largest single-state economy is almost inconceivably enormous. I'm not talking about simple oil-and Halliburton peculation.

I'm talking about taking it all, and owning it, forever.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Aug 30, 2007 10:00:43 PM

War with Iran isn't drawing closer, in part for the reasons Ezra and Jim outline.

A lot of serious people think we should go to war with Iraq. Why are you so anxious to start living with a nuclear Iraq, Sanpete?

Posted by: Exile on Ericsson St. | Aug 30, 2007 10:50:29 PM

meant to say "war with Iran." Luckily, the serious people prevailed and we have already ruled out the possibility of a nuclear Iraq.

Posted by: Exile on Ericsson St. | Aug 30, 2007 10:51:31 PM

Only the powers available in 'wartime' will get you there.

We're already at war, Davis.

Still wondering why this idea that people you disagree with can be serious thinkers and scholars bothers you, Exile.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 30, 2007 11:14:47 PM

These are for the most part short term responses. Iran would quickly collapse if it shut off oil production (it imports its oil because it doesn't have its own production infrastructure). The attacks on US ships, etc., would be quickly stopped.

The thing that is scarey is the terrorist attacks and further destabilization of Iraq. That's crazy.

Posted by: Tony | Aug 30, 2007 11:45:20 PM

Not bothered, Sanpete. I'm mostly agreeing with you here, though I think you're not bold enough about Iran.

Posted by: Exile on Ericsson St. | Aug 31, 2007 12:28:38 AM

Invading Iraq was stupid, but it wasn't crazy. There had been a soft occupation of the country since the 1991 attack anyway.

Attacking Iran, on the other hand, is mind-bottlingly insane. And not in the "so crazy it might work" way, either.

I'm watching for the typical fall correction in the stock market. If things get nasty (as they did in the fall of 2002), then I'm betting that these guys really will take us over the edge.

Posted by: David | Aug 31, 2007 1:09:28 AM

It's an odd point to get stuck on. But maybe you're just sticky.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 31, 2007 1:11:34 AM

(That's in reference to Exile's fixation, not David's remarks.)

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 31, 2007 1:13:58 AM

The most devastating response Iran could offer to any attack, should it come?

Doing nothing. At least, nothing militarily. Throw open the doors to foreign reporters, call upon the international community to repudiate the US.

Even if Iran does respond - say, by carrying out a mass-casualty attack against Washington - what do you think the world's response will be? How many people, even in close allies like the UK, will say "Yes, it's a tragedy, but the Americans do kind of deserve it for what they did"? I'd guess 60% plus.

Posted by: ajay | Aug 31, 2007 5:38:13 AM

Sanpete, I'm just worried that you're being serious enough here about Iran. There's a lot of serious, rational arguments in favor of going to war with Iran. Why are you ignoring them? Are you afraid of them?

Posted by: Exile on Ericsson St. | Aug 31, 2007 5:43:49 AM

There's a lot of serious, rational arguments in favor of going to war with Iran.

No, there aren't.

You people are delusional. You think there are no limits to American military power. Iraq, and before that, Vietnam, ought to have shown you that you were wrong, but you evidenctly are incpable of learning the lesson.

We have no military means of stopping an Iranian nuclear weapons program. We have no military means of changing the Iranian government. If we try to achieve these things by military means, our hubris will lead to a disaster, just as it already has in Iraq.

Giving you and your ilk control of the country's foriegn policy was like handing a drunk our car keys.

Posted by: rea | Aug 31, 2007 6:26:31 AM

And don't forget the $100 oil. A couple of months of that and we could have a full-blown global recession or depression.

Posted by: bob h | Aug 31, 2007 7:19:26 AM

"War with Iran isn't drawing closer, in part for the reasons Ezra and Jim outline."

Do you really believe the Bush Administration is making a rational calculation? I don't, not for a second. It looks more and more likely that we will attack Iran before Bush leaves office. They don't think of it as starting a new, third war on his watch. They still believe in shock and awe and think Iran will be cowed by an air and missile attack. And, just like Iraq, they couldn't be more wrong.

Posted by: SteveH | Aug 31, 2007 12:08:50 PM

I think by any objective measure going to war with Iran is a lunatic proposition.

I wish I could say that I believe that such manifest lunacy rules it out as a possibility. Given the history of the past 6 years, I can't.

Those who have bought into the decades long argument that use of military force is the sine qua non of "global leadership" aren't to be relied on for rational judgements.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 31, 2007 12:19:11 PM

I certainly agree with those potential problems. Iran is a difficult problem, and there are clearly no easy answers.

The question that I have though for those that outline a list like this, is would our alternatives be better or worse if Iran had nuclear weapons.

Iran has quite a history of pushing international norms and proper nation-state behavior to the limit. It seems reasonable to me that this sort of behavior would be more likely, rather then less likely, if they had nuclear weapons as a deterent to any retaliation. With that in mind, it seems quite likely that Iran will do something that will force a response, and if we decide that that something isn't the pursuit of nuclear weapons, then they will have those weapons when we finally do decide that they have crossed the line.

That would be a nightmare scenario that makes those above look like pleasent dreams.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Aug 31, 2007 12:30:41 PM

Steve, who are "they"? Do you think Gates and Rice support invading Iran? Who in the Administration does? Maybe Cheney, whose influence has lessened. Unlike with Iraq, the department who would have to do all the planning, proposals and carry out an attack isn't going to favor this one, and will argue in the strongest terms against it.

Dave, the USSR also pushed the boundaries, and flouted them (as we have as well at times). Yet it was better to contain them than to invade.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 31, 2007 12:45:36 PM

Sanpete,

The USSR actually generally operated well within the norms. Iran much less so.

Beyond that, with the possible exception of immediately following WWII, there was no use of force option with the USSR, certainly after they gained nuclear weapons that option had to be off the table for all but the most severe of circumstances.

Of course, that did end up working out fairly well. I regard the peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union as a fortutious event, it is equally possible that facing catastrophe a different set of leaders would have chosen a much more distasterous route. I don't want to gamble that a nuclear Iran will transform peacefully before they commit an act that demands response if their is any other alternative.

It doesn't seem impossible to me that Iran would aid Hezbollah in a chemical attack against Tel Aviv (just one possibility) believing that their nuclear weapons would protect the from retaliation. Further interference in Lebannon, Iraq, and other places are also a distinct possibility.

It also seems to me that if we lack the will or ability to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons, we also lack the will or ability to contain them. They could respond to any attempt at containment with the same methods they could use against an attack, and indeed have already threatened such should they be faced with sanctions.

Perhaps you are right and we can purchase peace in our time by 'containing them' and not making them mad. I view that as an unlikely prospect.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Aug 31, 2007 1:48:32 PM

"Steve, who are "they"? Do you think Gates and Rice support invading Iran?"

Did Colin Powell support invading Iraq? Did Gen. Shinseki? There were indications that the military knew Iraq wasn't going to be all flower petals and candy once Saddam was gone, but they don't make the decisions on whether to go or not. It's Bush and Cheney who make the final decisions and if Gates and Rice don't like it they can either salute or leave and Rice, at the least, gives every indication she'd rather be in the inner circle rather than take her blessed principles and leave.

Posted by: SteveH | Aug 31, 2007 2:00:51 PM

"The USSR actually generally operated well within the norms. Iran much less so."

Does Iran arm "terrorist" groups? Does the US? Does Iran meddle in other country's business? Does the US? Does Iran look out for its interests? Does the US? I'm not quite sure what norms Iran has violated that the US hasn't beaten the path for them long before.

Posted by: SteveH | Aug 31, 2007 2:03:02 PM

Dave, I can't tell which norms you have in mind. The Soviets invaded nations, supported wars and terrorism, killed tens of millions of their own, broke close to every standard of human rights, etc. They were far more dangerous than Iran is likely to ever be.

Realistically, the risks of attacking Iran far outweigh the risks of not attacking, not least because we can't stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons without invasion and occupation, which we can't do. All we can do militarily is slow them down in the short term and make them far more determined and implacable enemies in the long term, while throwing Iraq away completely.

Steve, Powell and Shinseki disagreed about the tactics most of all. Neither strongly opposed an invasion done the way they thought it should be done. Again, everyone at Defense is going to be opposing attacking Iran--it would doom all efforts in Iraq, for nothing much. Unlike with Iraq, no one that's involved in planning and acting will support this. The advice will be 180 degrees counter to what Defense was giving Bush on Iraq. Cheney's record of advice to Bush is shit, and Bush knows it.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 31, 2007 2:15:37 PM

Attacking Iran would confirm anti-American sentiments among many, and probably push a lot of borderline pro-Americans (especially among Muslims) over the line. Future administrations would have little room to try to make nice with the Islamic world, should they be so inclined. I suspect that possibility is very attractive to the neocons.

Posted by: tinman | Aug 31, 2007 2:36:04 PM

Oooo, boy, there goes them "serious people" again! That worked out SOOO well for us the first time, no?

Posted by: Adrock | Aug 31, 2007 4:50:44 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘