I strongly suggest that you read this very important post on Winds of Change. Guest blogger Tom Holsinger explains why he believes that it’s necessary for the United States to invade Iran, what might be expected in such an invasion, and what might be expected in the subsequent occupation.
I wonder if Tom Holsinger may be too inflexible in his speculation. An all-out invasion may not be necessary. Following a concerted air campaign against Iran’s nuclear sites and removal of their air defense system, the entirety of Iranian airspace will be a functional (and maybe UN-sanctioned) no-fly zone, allow us complete command of the skies. This would give us the ability to target the mullahs and their supporters, in support of or to help instigate a popular uprising, hopefully with the cooperation of the Iranian military.
In terms of actual occupation of ground, beyond securing the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian oil facilities, do we want to do more? Can we seriously want or can we afford to do more given global economic impact of any action against Iran? Personally, I prefer the option of a few well-placed car bombs.
Magical chicken littlism.
I think it would be irresponsible to dismiss the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon entirely, collounsbury. The preponderance of the evidence seems to suggest that the regime’s claims that all they’re doing is nuclear energy development is claptrap. But IMO whether they’re actually trying to develop nuclear weapons or only trying to convince us that they are doesn’t make a great deal of difference. We need to respond as though they were. That seems to be the thinking of the British, French, Germans, and Russians as well.
What the response should be is another question entirely. If you’ve notice I’ve argued generally against military options here.
I would actually argue for military options. Where they are on the list depends on how close Iran is to a weapon, and thus (and actually more importantly) how close Israel is to obliterating Iran.
If Iran is “months away”, as el Baradei gave as a worst case, then military options should be front and center. If instead Iran is some 3-5 years away, as appears to be the Conventional Guess, then military options are somewhere down the list.
I would say our (meaning the West, not just the US) options include:
1. Mild sanctions affecting only the regime and maybe the nuclear program
2. Severe sanctions affecting the Iranian people directly
3. Ramping up support for and incitement of domestic revolution in Iran
4. Blockade of imported refined petroleum and of war goods (here and on are acts of war)
5. Total blockade, including land routes via airborne interdiction
6. Bombing nuclear sites and destroying Iran’s air defenses
7. Option 6 plus government offices, terrorist training camps
8. Option 7 plus troops, equipment and military infrastructure
9. Options 3 and 8 plus civilian infrastructure
10. Option 8 plus occupation of oil fields and terrain adjacent to Straits of Hormuz
11. Options 9 and 10
12. Full-scale invasion, toppling of the government, and withdrawal
13. Full-scale invasion, toppling of the government, and occupation
14. Obliterate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with a nuclear attack
15. Obliterate Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure with a nuclear attack
16. Obliterate Iran with a nuclear attack
(Diplomatic pressure has been tried and has failed. It should at this point be off the table.)
In my opinion, options 1 and 2 are unlikely to be effective. Saddam was under a sustained sanctions regime for some 12 years without noticeable effect on Iraq’s will.
Option 3 would only be useful in conjunction with at least limited ground invasion: Iran is a totalitarian state and there is little will to get slaughtered without knowing someone might be coming to your rescue.
Options 4 and 5 should be tried if we have time; they may or may not work (likely not), but they should be tried because we can’t know beforehand whether or not they will work.
Options 6 through 8 are unlikely to work well at changing the regime, but if sustained might push the ball significantly down field. (That is to say, if we can retard their ability to develop nuclear weapons, that might in itself be a worthy goal.)
Option 9 is about the minimum that I think makes sense if we decide to commit to warmaking: it has a good chance of temporarily solving the problem and some chance of permanently solving it. Also, the risk to us is fairly low.
Options 10 and 11 show a lot of promise, and would probably be where I would place my bets if I had to make the decision to go to war. There is a significant chance of being able to solve the problem, and the risks and commitment (both in force levels and time) are lower than options 12 or 13.
Option 12 is doable, but would be very high cost for little added gain over options 10 and 11. It would be faster, but not otherwise better.
Option 13 would require a massive national commitment in the US, and I don’t think it’s going to happen. The occupation would be very, very difficult, long-term and costly in both blood and treasure.
I doubt there would be much controversy in saying that options 14 and up would be exactly what we are trying to avoid by undertaking the lesser options. If we didn’t care about avoiding nuclear annihilation of Iran, in whole or in part, we could let Iran get a nuclear weapon and then destroy them if they use or transfer it.
The danger of taking any path 4 or higher, including simple limited blockade, is that Iran will defend itself, and could easily escalate the conflict. We have to be prepared for option 12 or 13 even if we only intend option 4.
I believe that if Iran comes within a camel hair of realizing the full potential of developing a nuclear weapon and with all other options exhausted we must without hesitancy or doubt attack iran and or it’s nuclear and military infrastructure with a limited but punctuated use of nuclear weapons and destroy any of it’s ability to continue or progress in this direction and completely and utterly destroy irans ability to retailiate. Send shockwaves throughout mideast and world. If we do not destroy iran we are asking for our own destruction.