David Ignatius: "Military action would be irrational for both sides. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. I wish the Bush administration could see that with each step it takes closer to conflict, it is walking toward a well-planned trap." The thing is that the planning behind this trap isn't really all that impressive and it's pretty obvious what's going on. The scary thing is that even though the trap's not particularly clever, it's very plausible that we'll stumble into it anyway.
« Calorie Count | Main | Where to Find Qualified Women »
A Trap
28 Oct 2007 11:49 am
Comments (22)
it's so obvious what's going on that david ignatius gets it, but then again, this administration has always been the purloined letter writ large.
Ignatius's commentary is pretty well informed on this issue, but I don't get this:
"By using its control of global finance to exacerbate the split in Iranian politics, the United States is wielding its strongest weapon to challenge its adversary at the weakest spot."
The sanctions in question largely target businesses that are controlled by Rafsanjani. By targeting these businesses, we are essentially weakening the Iranian opposition, not strengthening it. How can Ignatius not see that? I guess he had to find something for which to praise Bush, but he should look elsewhere. Weakening Rafsanjani is counterproductive, and he should know that.
So what trap is being laid?
Why doesn't D.I. tell this directly to Hiatt and Co.?
Is D.I. saying Iran is smarter than Cheney and the Neo-cons? Doesn't he know the surge is working? Kagan just declared victory.
"The scary thing is that even though the trap's not particularly clever, it's very plausible that we'll stumble into it anyway."
It's highly plausible because Bush is an idiot. It's no longer even possible to argue convincingly that he is anything else.
even great tacticians like admiral ackbar of the mon calamari can stumble into a trap... i mean, what? who said that?
The interesting thing about Ignatius' column is his unexamined presumption that Russia is seriously commited to stoping a US-Iranian firefight.
The consequences of a US attack, (rocketing oil prices, and increased international perception that America is a belligerent psychotic, while breaking the American ability to project force in the future) are all rather GOOD for Russia's goal to be the alternative/contrary pole to America's (imperial?) adventuism.
Assuming we can discount Putin's humanitarian motives as decisive, I think it's fair to say that if Russia is our last best hope (Help me Obi-won Kenobi??) that we REALLY need a plan B.
The unknown unknowns in the aftermath of an attack on Iran are so huge that even Bush probably gets it. One of the biggest from a political perspective is economic, as gas shortages and prices way above today might cause a meltdown in the already fragile and wildly unbalanced financial system.
All the big money in the world does not want war with Iran and in the end that is what should prevent it.
Alternately, war with Iran might be a way to deflect blame for severe financial/economic trouble from the financial plutocracy and it's political partners of both parties to those nasty Islamofacists. The key to that being timing. If economic trouble comes before war then this story might be a bit harder to sell. A bit.
The Ignatius column is rather odd.
While it is true that Iran may well be planning to lure the US into a war with it in order to once and for all bleed the US dry militarily, economically and geopolitically in the ME, they also know how costly that war will be to their economy and infrastructure. Iran will be nearly destroyed, as Iraq has been. Iran will win in the end, just as the Iraqi insurgents will, but it will be at a devastating cost.
While some of the hardliners in the IRGC may wish for war, I don't see the top leadership doing so.
I also don't see that Iran is underestimating the US capability. Their agents saw it first hand in Iraq, so there can be little doubt they know what a war will cost them.
OTOH, just like in the US, the war is not likely to cost the Iranian leadership much. It is very unlikely that they will be overthrown by it, and even if they are, their replacements will be in no mood to kowtow to the US.
Also, we need to keep in mind on the US side the fact that Bush and company will NOT be the ones paying for the war. The US taxpayer and companies not part of the military-industrial complex or oil will be the ones paying. So Bush and Cheney don't really care.
It would be nice to believe that the same circumstances that produced a deal in North Korea will do so in Iran. But it simply isn't going to happen. Iran has oil, North Korea does not. North Korea had a dangerous militaryt and actual nukes, Iran does not. And the US military STILL does not understand that it can not win a 4th Gen War.
That makes all the difference. Bush will go to war with Iran.
Neocon sage Charles Krauthammer stated the other day that BushCo "would not leave office with Iran's nuclear program intact", and he reflects their thinking. They've really got the cover they need from Hillary, Pelosi, and Reid, and the major media. Who's gonna stop them? - Oprah?
Aggression against Iran? Yes, the Strait of Hormuz will probably get blocked and the price of oil will certainly go through the roof. But maybe more interesting will be the situation of the U.S. military: no provisions or reinforcements will be able to reach by sea the naval fleet in one or another Gulf State, the military in Iraq will be entirely dependent on air links and even those might become unreliable if the Turks cut of U.S. access to their airspace in the event of a big confrontation with the PKK and other Kurds of Iraq Kurdistan. The U.S. will be trapped in Iraq, encircled, inaccessible except by air. Now how will that be for a humdinger of a quagmire as Bush packs his bags for his Paraguay Shangri-la?
Re: Yes, the Strait of Hormuz will probably get blocked and the price of oil will certainly go through the roof.
While I definitely agree that the US will not be able to conquer and then pacify Iran, I see no problem with the US having sufficient naval and air power to keep the Straits open and destroy Iran's capacity to make mischief there.
I also have to wonder what the Iranian leadership thinks it is up to. It has a lot more to lose in this game of chicken than the US does and I disagree with the poster who said the Iranian leadership would be able to hold onto power in the face of such a debacle. The US would not win a war with Iran. But neither would Iran. The country would end up devastated and I don't see that Mullahs presiding serenely and unchallenged in the ruins.
"While I definitely agree that the US will not be able to conquer and then pacify Iran, I see no problem with the US having sufficient naval and air power to keep the Straits open and destroy Iran's capacity to make mischief there."
The very fact that the US would need to keep the straits open will slow traffic to a crawl. The delays caused by the need for military escort are enough to seriously impact the oil markets. About half the world's oil flows through the strait. Imagine if that flow were reduced by 20%. It would be enough to overwhelm the 5% reserve capacity that currently exists in the oil market. Iran can win the battle in the Strait of Hormuz by merely bluffing.
Whether we can keep Strait open or Iran can keep it close is one of the unknowns.
If a military organization without airforce or even air defence is bent on lobbing missiles that were hidden in their thousands in hundreds of underground tunnels, it should be simplicity itself to bury outlet of every tunnel under rubble and put end to such a brazen attempt. Several days worth of air sorties. Then quick mopping-up operations by the ground troops.
Except that the war between IDF and Hezbollah did not follow that script. Ominously, beside thousands of obsolete Katyushas, Hezbollah launch succesfully an anti-ship missile and damaged an Israeli naval vessels. So with thousands of anti-ship missiles rather than Katyushas Iran could have a fair shot at keeping the Strain closed.
However, the largest unkown is mercurial Mr. Putin. What if he cobbles together a defensive aliance of oil exporting nations consisting of malcontents with American domination, Russia and clients. It could be Equador, Venezuela, Algeria, Libia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan, and perhaps Turkmenistan. The plan could be to view attack at one member of the aliance as attack on all, and embargo all nations supportive of such an invasion. For the duration of the hostilities the total export should be no more than, say, a third of pre-war level. This could make a shooting war at Strait of Hormuz unnecessary. The latter is a bit like economic MAD, the former, more conventional economic warfare.
The plan would have many advantages for the parties involved, including huge benefits in domestic politics.
Another part of the plan could be a creation of a banking organization that would make member states immune from purely banking sanctions. Each of the members could clear transfers using banks of allies. China would be invited as a member, of course. At the moment, it is a bit abnormal that USA is dominating the world financial system from the debtor position. The creditors could make their bid for balance, and eventually, for dominance.
"What if he cobbles together a defensive aliance of oil exporting nations consisting of malcontents with American domination, Russia and clients. It could be Equador, Venezuela, Algeria, Libia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan, and perhaps Turkmenistan."
I hadn't thought about it, but Putin might be able to achieve a global alliance that the Soviets could only dream of. Apparently, it is better to rely on greed than fear.
"At the moment, it is a bit abnormal that USA is dominating the world financial system from the debtor position."
When you owe the bank ten thousand dollars, you are at their mercy. When you owe them ten million, the situation is reversed. I don't know who first said that, but it's true. China would love to unload their dollar-based debt, but they have so much of it that they could devalue their own position by unloading it. It's like if you were holding a huge boulder over your head. You can't hold it forever, but how do you drop it without it falling on you? For this reason, the US can still maintain economic dominance. But history has shown that situations like this get resolved. And they don't resolve themselves in the debtor's favor. The dollar will decline to the point where everyone can safely drop it.
'Never start a war you can't win.'
Sun Tzu, Alexander, Caesar, Khālid ibn al-Walīd, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Clausewitz, Lee, Moltke
Marshall and every other military strategist in history.
The biggest unknown about the Straits of Hormuz is whether the Iranians could get a ship out there. You see, if you sink one reasonably sized vessel in the middle part of the Straits, it's blocked. Reason being the Straits are not very deep and supertankers are very large.
The Iranians don't have to sink a US vessel, they could send one of their own out and sabotage it in the right place.
Yes, it can be cleared, but the clearing work will be much more vulnerable to missile fire.
So it could be much simpler than people expect for Iran to send oil prices through the roof...
Re: However, the largest unkown is mercurial Mr. Putin.
I don't see the Russians risking war with the US. Vladimir Putin is many things but a hot-headed fool he is not.
As for the Starit of Hormuz, I'm not even sure the Iranians would try to block it. They'd be shooting themselves as well-- and not just in the foot but in the gut. How would they get their own oil to market? And let's not forget they'd be courting the displeasure of quite a few other nations too, notably China whose good will they have actively sought.
"I don't see the Russians risking war with the US. Vladimir Putin is many things but a hot-headed fool he is not."
The point is, they don't have too. Putin would be more than happy to have the price of oil skyrocket. What would he lose? Anarchic conditions which would allow him to remain in control, the US bled of soldiers, treasure, and pretige?
"And let's not forget they'd be courting the displeasure of quite a few other nations too, notably China whose good will they have actively sought."
I would not be so confident which side the Chinese will take. They might also decide that an antagonistic US is bad for business.
"As for the Starit of Hormuz, I'm not even sure the Iranians would try to block it. They'd be shooting themselves as well-- and not just in the foot but in the gut. How would they get their own oil to market?"
We wouldn't be giving the Iranians much of an choice if we attack.
Dear me, it is all so unnecessary!
Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.
Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.
If Israel can live with an Iranian bomb then so can the rest of the West.
I agree that Putin, publicly anyway, is unlikely to directly take the side of Iran in the war in any economic or military way. I could be surprised by him, however. He's been pretty aggressive lately in countering US moves that he knows are directed against Russia.
As for the Straits, Iran can definitely do damage there. Not long lasting damage, but they can definitely do one or more of the following:
1) Sink at least one US Navy ship of some size - probably not a carrier unless their subs have real luck in evading US attack subs, which is unlikely. However, mine-clearing ships and escort ships are definitely going to be targets, and they will get at least one of them. Swarm tactics with 1,000 small craft loaded with anti-ship missiles, plus dozens of anti-ship missiles in bunkers all along the coast is not a good deal for the US Navy. They don't have thousands of really good anti-ship missiles - it's not certain that they have the deadly Russian Sunburn - but they have a few hundred good ones and probably thousands of bad ones. It only takes a couple to take down a ship.
2) They can simply release the thousands of mines they have - but slowly. They only need to let it be known that the US Navy is clearing mines every day to prevent any oil traffic going through. Some of those mines may already be there - as they have mines that wait on the bottom until they are activated, then they sense a ship, and then attack the ship. As for attacking the minelaying vessels, these are small craft that are hard to detect in anything but completely calm seas. The US is not going to be able to keep up day after day.
4) The problem is time. It will take weeks - not hours or days - for the US to clean out the missile bunkers, drop all the small craft, sink the subs, and clear the mines. The economy doesn't have that kind of time. Oil prices at $200/barrel and up for a month or more? Fergeddaboutit...
The real threat is in Iraq. William Lind really believes that we could LOSE the entire US force in Iraq. He even thinks its conceivable that the Iranians, after weakening the US by cutting off supplies via Kuwait with the help of Iraqi Shia militias and IRGC forces already in place in Iraq, could then simply invade Iraq with four to six divisions under cover of bad weather, and just roll up the US forces, at least in the south and around Baghdad. The rest of the US forces are scattered all over the country. And US airpower, while deadly, could be at a disadvantage given a few days of bad weather enough to let the Iranians get close in to the US forces.
Personally, I suspect the Iranians won't try that. It would be too risky and almost certain to cause humongous casualties on their part with no real likelihood of total success.
Much more likely would be smaller incursions to lure the US forces into the Zagros Mountains on the border. If those mountains have been prepared as Hizballah prepared southern Lebanon for the Israelis, that would be deadly for the US. Since the US intends to seize the Khuzestan oil fields, this would be an easy lure, too. Dick Cheney would be all for it. The result would be a disaster.
However, if Lind IS right, as he's said, Baghdad could become the US version of Germany's Stalingrad. It would destroy the myth of US invincibility. And as he says, that IS a myth: nobody's military is invincible.
But again, I doubt that will occur. More likely is that the US will have enough problems in Iraq that they will be forced to either retreat through Kuwait, or through Turkey. Even with the problems Turkey has with the US, I suspect they will allow a US retreat without any problems. The Kurds won't be attacking the US troops, so that's the safest way out. Most US troops will leave via Kuwait - under fire from the Iraqi Shia and IRGC, however. Most of the troops in the west and north of Iraq will leave via Turkey - or perhaps not even leave at all, although if the Sunni insurgents and the Shia militia concentrate on the US at this time, the US forces really will probably have to leave the entire country.
And that will mean leaving behind scores of billions of dollars worth of equipment for the Iraqi insurgents to seize - or destroying it.
And destroying it will mean it will have to replaced before the US can press the ground war against Iran.
There's just no upside to any of this, as I'm sure the Pentagon has informed Bush repeatedly.
Update: I might be wrong about Putin not taking sides that strongly.
According to Pepe Escobar, a diplomat who was present at the recent meeting between Putin and Khameinei says that the two have a plan to "nullify" Bush and Cheney's war intentions.
Scarily, the phrase was "if you attack Iran, you attack Russia."
Now, we don't know that this was actually said, and we don't know what it means. And it would seem unlikely that it means what it sounds like.
But it doesn't sound good.
Escobar's article is here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html
Comments closed November 11, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"... we'll stumble into it ... "
What do you mean, "we"?
Wouldn't it be great to live in a country with a legitimate government? Maybe it will happen in our lifetime!
Posted by lambert strether | October 28, 2007 12:04 PM