The Downward Spiral

Apparently John Bolton thinks that if Israel (or, presumably, the United States) were to bomb Iran the retaliation wouldn't be so bad because they would worry about "an even greater response" from Israel or from the United States. And indeed they might. Were I in the Iranian government and we were faced with this situation, I'd be sounding notes of caution. But then again, from my perch here in the West I'm sounding notes of caution and there's also John Bolton on teevee talking about how the Iranians wouldn't dare retaliate.

But somewhere in Iran will be the Iranian John Bolton, explaining that the West and Israel are too weak and frightened of Iranian retaliation to counter-attack, so they may as well come at us with all guns blazing. As I've said before our American hawks think and act exactly like the irrational madmen they imagine to be running the show in Teheran.

Countries can either interact with each other in cooperative ways, that make the population of both states better off, or else they can engage in negative-sum conflicts that make both populations worse off. Once you're engaged in a cycle of negative-sum conflict, as the United States and Iran have been since the Revolution, it's very hard to pull out of it. Something like a direct military attack on Iran would clearly be a substantial escalation of that cycle. The rational thing faced with that would be to pull back from the brink, but it's been the case for decades that it would be better for both sides to pull back from the brink -- it's just a hard think to accomplish in the real world and it would become much more difficult in the context of an unprovoked military attack. But what's needed aren't speculations about the Iranian response to bombing, but a good-faith attempt to make a diplomatic breakthrough.

Comments

That is an absolutely remarkable assertion by Bolton. Let me get this strait -

1) America and Israel must strike Iran before they strike us;

2) Iran wouldn't dare strike back because they are afraid of retaliation.

So, by John Bolton's own logic, why bother striking at all?

Posted by calipygian | June 23, 2008 10:11 AM

Unlike Mr. Bolton, I fear you are underestimating the threat posed here, and for which he calls for bombing Iran -- namely Democratic control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, perhaps for a decade.

(You didn't think the Iranians were the threat, did you?)

Existential threats to the Rebublic call for extreme responses on behalf of the Republic. The alternative to war with Iran -- slightly higher marginal income tax rates, gay marriage, and a shitload of indictments up and down Wall Street and up and down K Street -- is simply too terrible to contemplate.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 23, 2008 10:15 AM

"Were I in the Iranian government and we were faced with this situation, I'd be sounding notes of caution..."

After watching a few American politicians, declaring my nation part of the "axis of evil" singing gleefully about bombing my nation, and discussing how they can kill my citizens with impunity, if i were the Iranian gov't i'd be getting my scientist building an A-bomb as fast as possible.

That would be the only rational response.

Posted by hankest | June 23, 2008 10:19 AM

Opponents of our upcoming attack on Iran should never forget 9/11.

Posted by Reason and Right | June 23, 2008 10:27 AM

What if Iran's response to the bombing was to do nothing, and only retaliate diplomatically?

Would that make the bombing ok, morally? I don't think so.

In the long term, what would be the effect strategically of such a response? Perhaps it would work in Iran's favor. The result may be to swing world opinion more to their side, as well as the policies of important countries like Russia and China.

Posted by Jim W | June 23, 2008 10:28 AM

You know what's great for a recession? Talking about a war with Iran. There's nothing like the prospect of a few hundred Iranian anti-ship missiles aimed at tankers carrying western-bound oil to make the oil markets go all calm and relaxed.

Posted by Helter | June 23, 2008 10:28 AM

Opponents of our upcoming attack on Iran should never forget 9/11.

Supporters of an attack on Iran should never forget 3/19.

Posted by Jim W | June 23, 2008 10:32 AM

Perhaps Bolton can afford $10/gallon gas if the U.S. bombs Iran, the rest of us will be out on the street.

Posted by KXB | June 23, 2008 10:33 AM

I haven't forgotten 9/11, which is why I always wonder why the cowardly bully-boys and chest-thumpers in the administration and their supporters have let bin Laden off the hook, and continue to do so, and continue to have toddler-level excuses for it.

Posted by The Third Policeman | June 23, 2008 10:36 AM

I love Matt Y's unwaivering belief in "good faith negotiations" with murderous nutcases. It was only a couple of weeks ago Matt was complaining about the need for more dialogue with Robert Mugabe about the time that Mugabe was burning alive the wife of his political opponent. How'd that work out?

Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is a country run by islamist theocrats who routinely murder political opponents and homosexuals while sanctioning the stoning deaths of women.

How about this idea - Iran's leadership is too crazy to be dealt with in any way which does not involve force or the credible use of force.

Posted by Erudite Hillbilly | June 23, 2008 10:37 AM

instead of bombing, let's just send all the "loyal bushies" in a first-strike human wave attack.

or better still, drop them in iraq and let them attack iran with all the not-yet-found wmd's that are still hidden in the "area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Posted by cha cha cha | June 23, 2008 10:37 AM

As I've said before our American hawks think and act exactly like the irrational madmen they imagine to be running the show in Teheran.

I know what you mean here, Matt, and I agree with what you're trying to say, but you should have made clear that you were talking about geo-political strategy and not internal politics. You'll be misrepresented as believing in a "moral equivalence" between our hawks and the Iranian leaders, which I don't think is what you're trying to say.

Posted by Led | June 23, 2008 10:38 AM

And let us not forget that at this point the Bushies are running a protection racket. If the Iranians don't retaliate, I'm sure SOMEONE will!

Posted by red@cted | June 23, 2008 10:38 AM

i don't like the bush administration either, but isn't "murderous nutcases" a bit harsh?

Posted by cha cha cha | June 23, 2008 10:53 AM

"The retaliation wouldn't be so bad."

No more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Depending on the breaks.

Posted by Tel | June 23, 2008 10:56 AM

Has Bolton been named to the Obama foreign policy "working group" yet?

Posted by centrist | June 23, 2008 10:58 AM

I don't think I saved the link but in the last couple of months I read about a war game the Pentegon ran where the person who was put in charge of Iranian forces managed to "kill" 10,000 American service people without resorting to any type of weapon of mass destruction (and I believe the war game didn't even involve retaliation in Iraq from Iraq forces allied with Iranian interest). The Pentegon forced them to rerun the exercise but the second time around forbid the "Iranian" general from using the tatics he used.

Posted by Napoleon | June 23, 2008 11:07 AM

As I've said before our American hawks think and act exactly like the irrational madmen they imagine to be running the show in Teheran.

I know what you mean here, Matt, and I agree with what you're trying to say, but you should have made clear that you were talking about geo-political strategy and not internal politics. You'll be misrepresented as believing in a "moral equivalence" between our hawks and the Iranian leaders, which I don't think is what you're trying to say.

Posted by Led | June 23, 2008 11:09 AM

Napoleon - I'm pretty sure that was from the book "Blink," and the war game in question was modelling an invasion of Iraq, not Iran. If I'm remembering right, the colonel they had in charge of the Iraqi side basically had every small craft in Iraq go out and sink the American fleet pre-emptively, before the Americans gave the final order to attack, resulting in the 10,000 casualties.

Posted by Tel | June 23, 2008 11:13 AM

The problem is not good faith. If you are willing to end sanctions emplaced for supporting Hamas while Iran still supports Hamas then you can have a breakthrough on the nuclear issue.

Or, if you are willing to allow Iran to enrich uranium as Brazil does - under IAEA safeguards but leaving Iran the theoretical capability of leaving the NPT and building a weapon (as Brazil has) then you can have a breakthrough.

If you are not willing to make one of these two specific changes to US policy, then you can not have a breakthrough, good faith or not.

This is a simpler problem than Matt is making it out to be.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 23, 2008 11:21 AM

You'll be misrepresented as believing in a "moral equivalence" between our hawks and the Iranian leaders, which I don't think is what you're trying to say.

Good point. There is no way these people are morally equivalent. The Iranian leaders are a bunch of intolerant, repressive tyrants. Its possible they may even cause real harm outside of their own borders someday.

The hawks in the Bush administration, on the other hand, are already responsible for butchering hundreds of thousands of innocents. They are truly evil monsters.

So, implying moral equivalence is extremely offensive.

Posted by Jim W | June 23, 2008 11:21 AM

A large part of the neocon rationale for attacking Iran now is that they're irrational, and who knows what they'll do if they get nuclear weapons. Yet Bolton tells us they are rational and can be deterred. Yet if they are rational, why do we need to attack them in the first place? Just to prove that we can? So a bunch of guys who did their damndest to avoid serving in Viet Nam can prove how tough they are by attacking another country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Posted by Dave | June 23, 2008 11:24 AM

Since the Erudite Hillbilly seems to think the Iranians are murderous nutcases (or was he commenting on Bush/CheneyCo?) - implying pretty strongly that the Iraniana would counterattack a US bombing strike/naval blockade - because they are nutcases, and Bolton sez the Iranians are afraid of US might, we are left with a wingnut quandary. Counterattack or no from the Iranians?

Meanwhile, Iran has lots of small boats in their Persian Gulf Navy, and some really fast missiles that they can launch on the fly. Wouldn't it be a shame if The Hillbilly was smarter than Bolton, and the Iranians wanted to respond by creating a sealife sanctuary in the gulf by sinking a nuclear carrier with the missiles? Perhaps they'd chose the George W. Bush carrier to make sure their message was received in DC. Georgie II would surely drag out again his 'they tried to kill my daddy' rationale for invasion and eternal occupation of Iran (a two-fer on the gulf).

Perhaps Bolton and Hillbilly have forgotten the Battle of Midway and what some cheap weapons can do to an aircraft carrier - but the Japanese do recall this vividly since it was the (early) rehearsal for a lost war. Bottom Line: with fast missiles, nuclear aircraft carriers today are just as vulnerable as Japanese carriers were to no-so-many dive bombers and air-launched torpedos way back when.

But neither of the two US nutcases really care. They'll get their war, even as the Iranian populace are chanting in the streets: '4th quarter 2008, a preemptive attack on Iran that will live in infamy'.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | June 23, 2008 11:25 AM

Tel, I swear it was about Iran, but I can not find the article both searching for Iran or Iraq articles, nor does Amazon seem to show a book by that name that is relevant, but the tactics used were a combination of a massive use of small crafts and I thought Silkworm missiles or something like that.

Posted by Napoleon | June 23, 2008 11:33 AM

Amazingly, the Iranians are both so crazy that they can't be reasoned with and are itching to strike US/Israel, and they're hyper rational and reasonable enough not to retaliate if hit by a US strike. Thus, we must bomb them to prevent them from attacking us but we don't have to worry about them attacking us.

The clear implication of this is that the US has built a Crazy Bomb, which will eliminate the nutcases intent on striking us RIGHT NOW OMG, and leave the rational, reasonable guys in charge who will not retaliate. How else can one possible square that circle?

Man, scratch beneath the surface on these guys just a smidgen, and you find someone who really, really really enjoys the idea of bombing brown people for the sake of bombing brown people.

Posted by TheF79 | June 23, 2008 11:36 AM

Even if all this is intended to bluff Iran into concessions, it is dangerous. In December 1914, the European powers lost control of events and bluffed each other into war.

Posted by Laney | June 23, 2008 11:47 AM

JimPortlandOR, you seem to have it backwards. An attack on Iran by Israel, the subject of this post, would itself be a counterattack on Iran for their support of Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which have much Israeli blood on their hands. As for the US, Iran has been sponsoring attacks on coalition troops and Iraqis, which likely is an act of war deserving of a response. Either way, make no mistake that Iran is the terrorist supporting aggressor.

As for the effectiveness of the Persian navy, well, that fight has been fought before and it didn't turn out so well for the Iranians, did it? No doubt the US military superiority over Iran is even greater today, although your wetdream fantasy of US military casualties as comeuppance for an attack against Iran is noted

Posted by Erudite Hillbilly | June 23, 2008 11:48 AM

Even if all this is intended to bluff Iran into concessions, it is dangerous. In August 1914, the European powers lost control of events and bluffed each other into war.

Posted by Laney | June 23, 2008 11:48 AM

Reading all these comments, including mine, i wonder when did glibbly discussing murdering thousands of humans who are no threat to the US, and have never attacked the United States, become so widely acceptable?

We've gone mad....

Posted by hankest | June 23, 2008 11:50 AM

Even if all this is intended to bluff Iran into concessions, it is dangerous. In August 1914, the European powers lost control of events and bluffed each other into war.

Posted by Laney | June 23, 2008 11:50 AM

Tel,

I found what I think is a reference to the war game I was thinking of. We are both right/wrong. The "navy" the US faced was a composite of Iran/Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html

Posted by Napoleon | June 23, 2008 11:53 AM

And I hope the filthy hawks have a contingency plan up their sleeves when, in the event of a bombing attack, millions of basijis cross over to Iraq to wreak havoc on our troops.

Posted by ItAintEazy | June 23, 2008 12:01 PM

Bolton's remarks are proof that the speculation in oil futures is rational - it is not such a far fetched bet to project further hyper-aggression on the part of the Bush White house. On the other hand, I think, if that aggression comes, it will come as a sort of coup - rightwingers in Israel's government working in tandem with the Cheney side of the American government to force the U.S.'s had by attacking Iran with Israel's air force, knowing that such an attack would fail utterly without U.S. air space permission, plus U.S. refueling of Israel's planes, plus, most probably, the U.S. knocking out Iran's anti-aircraft emplacements.

The push back on this should not, however, be limited to saying no, not now. If the Dems don't adopt a positive foreign policy involving recognizing Iran, we will have what we had with Clinton and Iraq - a situation that inevitably evolves towards war, as the Dems give the Republicans foreign policy red meat in order to get some domestic policy crumbs.

The lesson should be: seize foreign policy from the Republicans. That the Democrats never made an issue of 9/11 - that they have never made an issue of Bush's incredible inability to crush even so small a group as Al Qaeda - that Tora Bora, Kunduz etc. happened without a single Democratic ad pointing out that 9/11 was due squarely to Bush's laziness and stupidity, that Osama bin Laden is alive now due squarely to Bush's criminality and stupidity, that al qaeda is active and as powerful as it was on 9/10/01 is due to a failure at the presidential level unparalleled in U.S. history - all of this is rather amazing. We've had seven years of the toughest talk and the weakest action of any American presidency in history, and the Dems still haven't developed any credibility on foreign policy by attacking it squarely? Hard to believe. Unfortunately, D.C. believes that foreign policy is too important to be "partisan" - by which they mean that it is owned by the GOP. How insane is that?

Posted by roger | June 23, 2008 12:07 PM

I just love the way the whole "Guns of August" lessons from history have no traction here. Sure, why not let our future be determined by 5th rate academics and oil hustlers?

Works for me.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 23, 2008 12:36 PM

Roger - Barack Obama on June 18:

"Well I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11."

Posted by Tel | June 23, 2008 12:46 PM

"That is an absolutely remarkable assertion by Bolton. Let me get this strait -

1) America and Israel must strike Iran before they strike us;

2) Iran wouldn't dare strike back because they are afraid of retaliation.

So, by John Bolton's own logic, why bother striking at all?"

Not that I am in favor of attacking Iran, but the flaw in your logic is that if we strike now, iran has no nuclear weapons. If we wait for Iran to strike first, they will.

Posted by Dave | June 23, 2008 1:01 PM

Those who would have us negotiate with Mr. AquaVelvaJad and never use military force against Iran have to ask themselves this.

"Am I OK with the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon? Am I OK with it?"

Because, frankly, if we do nothing to stop them, nothing will stop them and you HAVE to be OK with it.

Posted by Karl K | June 23, 2008 1:20 PM

If there is an Iranian John Bolton, then surely there must be an Iranian Michael Bolton...Is this better or worse than Iran possessing nuclear weapons?

Posted by Andy in Chicago | June 23, 2008 1:27 PM

Hillbilly: Asymetric warfare! You think that doesn't work on the sea as well as land? What's the seabound equivalent of a roadside bomb? A rubber boat with high speed missles. One rubber boat, five men, two missles versus $5 billion aircraft carrier. Yeah, the Iranians will fold in days and strew the waters with rose petals welcoming our attack. Heard that before?

Let's retarget your comment: your wetdream fantasy ofNOUS military casualties as comeuppance for an attack against Iran is noted. [and I won't tolerate the implication that thinking realistically about downsides means I'm anti-American, a traitor, and a islamnofascist freak: take that elsewhere - perhaps to LGF or NRO]. I served in the US military and have an honorable discharge and some nice awards to prove it.

How's that Rumsfeld comment that troops will start withdrawal from Iraq in 60 days from hour zero working for ya?

Posted by JimPortlandOR | June 23, 2008 1:28 PM

And what did St. Obama say in 2004 appropos of Iran and Pakistan?

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said."

In case you thought the Peace Candidate had mellowed over time, he recently told AIPAC: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything.... We should take no option, including military action, off the table."

Recall that Hillary's "obliterate Iran" remark was in the context of an actual Iranian nuke attack on Israel, and hence within the traditional norms of self-defense. Obama, like Bush, can't be bothered with legal niceties.

Posted by Spudnik | June 23, 2008 1:29 PM

Once you're engaged in a cycle of negative-sum conflict, as the United States and Iran have been since the Revolution, it's very hard to pull out of it.

WTF? You don't think it was negative sum before the Revolution? It's because what the US deemed -- and continues to deem -- coooperative behaviour from Iran that there was a Revolution in the first place, more or less similarly to the fact that it's what the US deemed cooperative behaviour from Batista that produced Castro. The terms of US 'positive-sum' endeavours - oil rents for multinationals, accommodation of jewish colonialism and US military dominance - are not compatible with political success in Iranian civil society.

Posted by otto | June 23, 2008 1:30 PM

Erudite Hillbilly, despite the fact Petraeus has been claiming Iranian responsibility, he has been unable to produce any evidence and no one else at State or the Pentagon seems to have any idea what he's talking about.

"Because, frankly, if we do nothing to stop them, nothing will stop them and you HAVE to be OK with it.

Posted by Karl K | June 23, 2008 1:20 PM"

There are only two real military solutions:

1) the use of small-yield nukes on each and every relevant site

or

2) occupation.

As for #1, there is no room for error. Not only will the backlash from the Muslims world be massive on a scale we've never seen before, if we bombed the wrong site or missed any site, we would just end up shooting ourselves in the foot. We are not omniscient. As for #2, Iran's population is over twice as large as Iraq's and its land mass is also much greater as well. The Persian nation is rather old and Iranian nationalism is very strong. Picture the result of around 50 million Muslims united in throwing us out of their nation, especially considering the fact that Iran contains sites that are holy to Shi'ites.

Meanwhile, the mullahs in charge of the military have shown themselves to be regime conservative. Survival and holding onto power are key. The idea that they would commit national suicide just to nuke Israel is silly.

Posted by Reality Man | June 23, 2008 2:16 PM

Diplomacy doesn't score good Nielsens. Who has the better "Q", Jimmy Carter or Clint Eastwood? Go ahead, make my day! Gimme that hammer, Iran has "nail" written all over it......

Posted by steve duncan | June 23, 2008 2:25 PM

Re Iranian retaliation

There are only two ways to avoid massive Iranian mischief in response to a US attack.

1. Make the attack so overwhelming that there is nobody left in Iran to retaliate. This will obviously require massive use of our largest nuclear weapons.

2. Attack specific targets, namely suspected nuclear sites with precision weapons but inform the Iranian Government that any attempt on their part to retaliate in any way, shape, form or regard, will be met with the massive attack mentioned in 1 above.

If the Iranian mullahs are as sane as some of the commentors claim, the threat of using the hammer of item 1 will be sufficient to deter them from retaliating for an attack as in item 2. If they are as insane as I think they are, then only an attack of the level of 1 will solve the problem.

Posted by SLC | June 23, 2008 3:16 PM

Tel, excellent quote from Obama! The last two weeks, he has seemed to waver into Kerry land. Maybe it is the reporting. Oh, what am I saying - we are talking about the MSM, otherwise known as a lobbying group for the neo-con worldview.

Posted by roger | June 23, 2008 4:10 PM

SLC is getting off on his genocidal fantasies again - yikes. If someone repeatedly verbalized fantasies about raping women or torturing puppies in this comment section, I'm sure (at least I would hope so) he would be banned in no time. Fantasizing about genocide, however, seems to be just fine with the powers that be.

Posted by novakant | June 23, 2008 4:53 PM

Note to Erudite Hillbilly

The previous encounter between navel forces of the Iranian Republic and the United States was fount some twenty years ago, and some things have changed. Iran has purchased a quantity of the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" anti ship missile, which was designed by the former Soviet Union to specifically sink our carriers in a North Atlantic battle. The Sunburn is a high speed sea skimmer that can "jink" in high gee maneuvers to avoid CIWS defense systems such as the phalanx. The Raytheon RAM is said to be able to intercept a Sunburn, but that has yet to be seen.

If you go to Globalsecurity.org, you can educate yourself on other sea denial weapons in the inventory of the Iranian Navy. Any strike on Iran would have to take these into account, since the Iranians would be highly motivated to "use it or lose it". Sinking any U.S. warship would be a huge propaganda coup for Iran, regardless of how much damage they sustained in return. Sinking one of our ships (and especially a carrier) would be read as a "victory", similar to the Israel/Hizbullah war of 2006. Arguably, Hizbullah didn't really win anything...but Israel's victory conditions were, well, who knows? Hizbullah won the war of perception, and Iran may win more then that if we let a launch platform get anywhere near one of our ships once we start shooting. Of course, everything in the Gulf counts as "near" to begin with...

Posted by celticdragon | June 23, 2008 6:12 PM

Note to Erudite Hillbilly

The previous encounter between navel forces of the Iranian Republic and the United States was fount some twenty years ago, and some things have changed. Iran has purchased a quantity of the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" anti ship missile, which was designed by the former Soviet Union to specifically sink our carriers in a North Atlantic battle. The Sunburn is a high speed sea skimmer that can "jink" in high gee maneuvers to avoid CIWS defense systems such as the phalanx. The Raytheon RAM is said to be able to intercept a Sunburn, but that has yet to be seen.

If you go to Globalsecurity.org, you can educate yourself on other sea denial weapons in the inventory of the Iranian Navy. Any strike on Iran would have to take these into account, since the Iranians would be highly motivated to "use it or lose it". Sinking any U.S. warship would be a huge propaganda coup for Iran, regardless of how much damage they sustained in return. Sinking one of our ships (and especially a carrier) would be read as a "victory", similar to the Israel/Hizbullah war of 2006. Arguably, Hizbullah didn't really win anything...but Israel's victory conditions were, well, who knows? Hizbullah won the war of perception, and Iran may win more then that if we let a launch platform get anywhere near one of our ships once we start shooting. Of course, everything in the Gulf counts as "near" to begin with...

Posted by celticdragon | June 23, 2008 6:15 PM

Erudite Hillbilly, despite the fact Petraeus has been claiming Iranian responsibility, he has been unable to produce any evidence and no one else at State or the Pentagon seems to have any idea what he's talking about.

Huh? I guess you are not aware that the Pentagon has also reported that Iran is sponsoring violence in Iraq (and elsewhere).

Regarding celticdragon's post, with the possibility of military conflict with Iran, there's been a lot of overhyping of Iranian weapons systems and military capabilities. The SS-N-22 he/she names, for example, is untested in battle from what I've read, easily detected by it's plume and speed, and is radar guided, which means it can be defeated without intercept. I'm sure we'll be hearing more and more about "unstoppable" weapons systems that Iran has in its possession for which we "have no defense".

Posted by Erudite Hillbilly | June 23, 2008 10:04 PM

"Regarding celticdragon's post, with the possibility of military conflict with Iran, there's been a lot of overhyping of Iranian weapons systems and military capabilities."

******************************************

Possibly. The Iranian Navy has been neglected, and the submarine force, such as it is, isn't even really seaworthy. The SS-N-22 still remains a nasty threat, and I would count as a fool if you think that Russian anti-ship missiles are nothing to take seriously...especially in numbers.

******************************************

"The SS-N-22 he/she names, for example, is untested in battle from what I've read, easily detected by it's plume and speed, and is radar guided, which means it can be defeated without intercept."

*******************************************

The correct pronoun for me is "she".

I'm not sure what you have read, since my information is quite different. It is made to be difficult to jam or spoof, and even harder to shoot down. Again, from Globalsecurity.org:

Moskit
SS-N-22 Sunburn

The NATO designation SS-N-22 ‘Sunburn’ is believed to be designated P270 Moskit, the air-breathing variant of the naval missile 3M80 (the designation 3M80 apparently referring to the Mach 3 speed of 1980 weapons). It may have been designed originally to enhance the effectiveness of Missile Cutter Brigades (that is, units of missile-equipped FACs) and Destroyer Brigades hitherto dependent upon the Malachit or SS-N-9 ‘Siren’. It is used on "Sovremennyy" destroyers (eight missiles on each) and on "Tarantul [Tarantula] III patrol ships (four missiles on each). A high supersonic speed was specified to reduce the target’s time to deploy self-defense weapons, indeed the weapon was designed specifically to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon control system and the SM-2 surface-to-air missile.

The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

* * *

There is some confusion as to whether Iran really has this variant. I sincerely hope not. In any event, smug certitude has already led us into one near-disaster in the region, and I am not eager to see a repeat. I do not see an immediate need to launch any attack here based on available evidence, and I am no longer willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt that he has "better" info then what we have. That being said, if he pulls the trigger on this, then I hope to God that the Navy targets and accounts for EVERY SSM launch platform in the region, including every Iranian ship. We would need to sink them all, and close the airfields. I would absolutely count on the Iranians to launch EVERYTHING, because I would in their shoes. If we loose an Aegis cruiser or destroyer, then we effectively "loose" the war for most practical purposes (since perception now trumps military reality, for some reason), as well as having to deal with the awful loss of life.

Posted by celticdragon | June 23, 2008 11:48 PM

"Erudite Hillbilly" has an appropriate handle. He types better than Matt, but is about as ignorant of the real world as Jethro Bodine.

The Iranians have over a thousand small craft. Each one has either man-portable missiles (in the smaller craft) or a built-in missile launch capability (on the larger craft). They will use "swarm" tactics. The only thing the US Navy has said about that is "it's difficult to coordinate a swarm attack" - thus demonstrating that they haven't got a fucking clue about the tactic, since the entire point of a swarm attack is that it is uncoordinated and thus cannot be defended against effectively.

I don't care how many "escorts" the US Navy has, or how many jet fighters they can call on, or how many cannon they have mounted on their ships. If you surround a US naval vessel with a thousand small boats loaded with explosives, at least one - and probably ten or twenty - are going to hit that ship and sink it, or at least damage it so badly it will have to be retired from the field.

The USS Cole had a forty-by-sixty foot hole blown in it by ONE small boat.

Retired Marine General Riper demonstrated the feasibility of this attack during the 2002 war games referenced above. He sank 14 US warships in ten minutes. This of course will not be reproduced in real life. It doesn't have to be. If the Iranians can sink even one US naval vessel - and preventing that is likely to be impossible - they will have essentially won that part of the war involving the Persian Straits and the Gulf, even if every one of their naval craft is subsequently destroyed.

More importantly, Iran will easily be able to force the US out of Iraq within thirty days. Using their own agents and the assistance of Iraqi Shia militias, they will cut US supply lines. Within thirty days, the US forces in Iraq will be out of food, water, fuel and ammo - and under constant attack. They will have to evacuate the country out through Turkey - if Turkey allows this - while under fire.

If the situation develops that Turkey does not allow US evacuation via northern Iraq, the US forces in Iraq will be in very deep shit. Fourth Gen War strategist William Lind believes that it is just possible that, given some favorable bad weather to limit our air power, the Iranians could then roll in four divisions of their conventional troops (in addition to the Iraqi Shia and Sunni forces and Iranian agents already operating in Iraq to that point) and roll up most of the US forces in Iraq.

Lind makes this point explicitly - it is possible, if not likely, that the US could LOSE - not be defeated, LOSE - its entire military force in Iraq. This would be a defeat greater than any the US military has suffered since Pearl Harbor.

The US retaliation for that loss would likely be a nuclear attack on Iran. The cost of THAT decision would be paid by the US for the rest of US history.

Personally, I don't think the Iranians would try that approach. I think they will simply recognize that the point of a US attack on Iran is to seize the Khuzestan oil fields right across the border from Iraq. That's certainly Dick Cheney's objective. They will lure the US into Iran by conducting limited cross-border incursions into Iraq. Once the US launches an attack into Iran, the Iranians will use standard guerrilla warfare - similar to that the Sunnis used in Iraq, but better equipped and about four times bigger - to bleed the US to death in Iran. This is the "Vietnam Strategy" and it cannot fail.

It won't matter how much damage the Iranian infrastructure and economy takes from the US air bombing that will undoubtedly occur. They will of necessity win this war. It may take ten years of bleeding the US economically, militarily and geopolitically, but Iran will win this war - just like North Vietnam won, like the Taliban are winning, and the Iraqis have won.

And all this for a nuclear weapons program the Iranians do not even have. There is ZERO evidence that the Iranians have or ever had a nuclear weapons program, i.e., a program to actually develop and deploy one or more nuclear weapons, as opposed to a nuclear weapons database program, or as Arnold Evans has pointed out, the potential to have a nuclear weapons program - like Japan, Brazil and other countries have.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 24, 2008 3:19 AM

Is that what the neocons imagine - a couple of weeks of intensive air strikes, and then the Iranian nuclear weapons programme is completely neutralized for several years? What if Iran just intensifies their effort using hidden, distributed facilities. If its possible, I'm sure they've already planned it out. The campaign of air strikes will have to be extended, at a lower intensity, for months or even years.

Posted by CSI | June 24, 2008 4:41 AM

Matt, I would really like to see everyone who comments on the Iranian issue include as the first paragraph of every such comment the fact that the US put the Shah in power and helped keep him there until he was overthrown. I don't think it is possible to understand Iran as it exists today unless we continuously remember that we installed and supported a brutal dictator in that country. Any effort to deal with them effectively will have to take this into account.

Posted by sewells | June 24, 2008 8:15 AM

The 600-800 Tomahawk cruise missiles probably aboard U.S. warships already near Iran have a range of about 1,000 miles. The newest version can be retargeted in flight. The U.S. therefore could hold its cruisers, destroyers, or carriers outside the Gulf until the anti-ship missile sites and fast craft had been destroyed.

An SSGN (with up to 154 Tomahawks) might operate in the Gulf, carrying SEALS to locate these weapons in the days before an attack. These forces might also land on small islands at the start of an attack. There they could designate for bombers any weapons that had been camouflaged too well for aerial reconnaissance to detect.

B-2's would probably bomb Natanz, Arak, and other nuclear-related sites as several hundred Tomahawks were blowing up runways, aircraft, barracks, fuel tank farms, SAM sites, ports, dockyards, radar and communications facilities, offensive missile sites, etc.

As the attack began, the U.S. might quickly fly 200-300 land-based bombers into airfields in Oman, Qatar, Dubai, Turkey, Diego Garcia, and Kuwait, as two carrier groups with 50 strike aircraft each started toward the Gulf.

Marines would also be landing on Kharg Island and other oil terminals to prevent sabotage. They might also land on several small islands near the Straits to deal with any remaining garrisons and secure them. A secondary goal of seizing these islands, which Iran itself seized, might be to further humiliate the regime in Tehran.

As the first bombs were falling, the U.S. might warn Iran not to retaliate. After two days or so, it would be disarmed and helpless. And it would be facing enormously powerful air forces in position to destroy vital military and industrial targets throughout Iran.

At the top of the list would probably be the few refineries and dozens of Revolutionary Guard HQ's and barracks. If the forces evacuated they could be tracked. They would surely be killed by the thousands. The regime's existence depends so heavily on these forces that retaliation (e.g. in Lebanon or Iraq) would be almost suicidal. It seems very unlikely that such an unpopular regime would survive all this. It's boasted too much about its invincibility, and for too long

Posted by Mike Hollins | June 24, 2008 6:16 PM

The 600-800 Tomahawk cruise missiles probably aboard U.S. warships already near Iran have a range of about 1,000 miles. The newest version can be retargeted in flight. The U.S. therefore could hold its cruisers, destroyers, or carriers outside the Gulf until the anti-ship missile sites and fast craft had been destroyed.

An SSGN (with up to 154 Tomahawks) might operate in the Gulf, carrying SEALS to locate these weapons in the days before an attack. These forces might also land on small islands at the start of an attack. There they could designate for bombers any weapons that had been camouflaged too well for aerial reconnaissance to detect.

B-2's would probably bomb Natanz, Arak, and other nuclear-related sites as several hundred Tomahawks were blowing up runways, aircraft, barracks, fuel tank farms, SAM sites, ports, dockyards, radar and communications facilities, offensive missile sites, etc.

As the attack began, the U.S. might quickly fly 200-300 land-based bombers into airfields in Oman, Qatar, Dubai, Turkey, Diego Garcia, and Kuwait, as two carrier groups with 50 strike aircraft each started toward the Gulf.

Marines would also be landing on Kharg Island and other oil terminals to prevent sabotage. They might also land on several small islands near the Straits to deal with any remaining garrisons and secure them. A secondary goal of seizing these islands, which Iran itself seized, might be to further humiliate the regime in Tehran.

As the first bombs were falling, the U.S. might warn Iran not to retaliate. After two days or so, it would be disarmed and helpless. And it would be facing enormously powerful air forces in position to destroy vital military and industrial targets throughout Iran.

At the top of the list would probably be the few refineries and dozens of Revolutionary Guard HQ's and barracks. If the forces evacuated they could be tracked. They would surely be killed by the thousands. The regime's existence depends so heavily on these forces that retaliation (e.g. in Lebanon or Iraq) would be almost suicidal. It seems very unlikely that such an unpopular regime would survive all this. It's boasted too much about its invincibility, and for too long

Posted by Mike Hollins | June 24, 2008 6:17 PM