"Considering a War With Iran" SOAS

One of our readers asked me to look at this paper.  Having done so my opinion is that the authors  need to develop a healthy sense of skepticism when confronted with bureaucratic statements of intent with regard to desired capability.

The premise of the paper is that the US possesses the ability to attack 10,000 Iranian targets from a great distance on a nearly simultaneous basis.  The authors believe this because the US Strategic Command (old SAC) has as its goal to achieve such a capability and a clutch of think tanks are holding meetings about it.

Just after the first Gulf War a senior civilian colleague approached me to express outrage that the "smart" weapons in use had Pk (probability of kill) rates lower in fact than those promised by the manufacturers.  She was surprised when I told her that highly complex equipment (gadgets) never performed as advertised and that they usually broke down just when needed. 

The point is that these two academic authors actually believe the "air power" baloney.  They think that a renewed attempt to apply the principle of "shock and awe" will result in complete devastation of Iran, Iranian inability to respond and a very short war.

Douhet, Trenchard and Mitchell would be pleased with their gullibility.

In fact such a strike would be merely the opening battle in yet another long war fought against a major piece of the Islamic World.

The current IO campaign against Iran makes it seem more and more plausible that such an onslaught will be attempted.  pl

http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf

Comments

[Cold War Zoomie]

"I don't know how to assess how effective a swarm of the latest generation of missiles would be against the American navy, but I can't imagine the Gulf will be a fun place to captain an oil tanker if worst comes to worst."

We've already tangled with the Iranians while escorting oil tankers:

Operation Earnest Will

I can't attest to the accuracy of the wikipedia entry. My memory is that we lost two helicopters to Iranian fire but wikpedia only mentions one with no explanation.

We were monitoring the action from here:

RAF Chicksands

(If you're wondering how we were monitoring firefights in the Persian Gulf from a small village in the UK, select the satellite view and look for the big circle on the left. That used to be an antenna that was dismantled in 1996.)

Maybe there are some lessons to learn from back then for you folks who are much better at research and analysis than I am.

[Binh]

When Brzezinski said this back in Feb in testimony before Congress, I didn't pay it much mind. Now it sounds prophetic:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan...

[cebm]

Normally, I lurk and learn, but this has really scared me. In this insanity will come an attack of some sort on the US, followed by martial law. Let the good times roll. Fall of the Roman Empire. Damn.

[Arun]

This one with a pinch of salt.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

I asked her why she is telling me this.

Her answer was really amazing.

[Clifford Kiracofe]

Pat Buchanan's take:

"What gives Bush his new cockiness? The total collapse of the antiwar coalition on Capitol Hill and the breaking of the Congress...."
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11538

The Times (London) reports:

"Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said...."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

Rev Guards:

"Guards commander-in-chief Yahya Rahim Safavi was replaced by Mohammad Ali Jafari, who has been a commander in the Guards, Khamenei said in an order reported by state television. No reason was given for the move."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070901/wl_nm/iran_guards_dc

[Charles I]

Hmmm back from the cottage, great to be ignorant for weeks on end, but I see another Charles in here, so henceforth, I shall be posting as Charles I, that is, Charles the First.

[Charles I]

And jonst, no-one is going to "stand up to" Bush.

[Leila]

Maybe I'm just a starry-eyed American true believer in the Constitution, but listen to this:

Barbara Lee has sponsored HR 770, now in committee at House Foreign Affairs, which removes funding from any covert or military action against Iran to effect regime change barring "imminent danger." 17 other reps. are co-sponsors.

You could call your congressperson and two senators to ask what they are doing to stop this Iran project. You could urge them to support HR 770.

John in comments above claims that only Kucinich (i.e. the nutcase) is doing anything against this war in Congress. John is wrong, and if he'd done some research he would have known it.

I found out about this bill by calling Lee's office this morning (she's my rep.)

If you really care about our political system and you believe this Iran plan is imminent and foolish, why don't you make the phone calls? Write a letter?

The people do have the power to force Congress to act. Congress does have the power to stop the President. It simply takes the political will.

That means you. That means your telephone. That means your letter and 41 cent stamp.

[William R. Cumming]

This is a most interesting blog discourse. Filled with emotionalism, patriotism, knowledge, concern and almost no sense of what the next decade holds in store for the US. The preconditions are all in alignment for major energy shortages even with out political disruption. The problem is that very few in the US government know exactly what the energy picture is. There is substantial evidence that reserves even in the majors have been overstated but it does seem that a conscensus (sic) is forming that by the time of the presidential election in 2016 the US energy picture will be desparate. It all is about resources and picking that date as an arbitrary deadline, the US will either have done almost nothing (the probability) or will have tried to dominate energy resources militaryly. The options are limited since most of the financial resources of the US have been wasted on military adventures from Viet Nam to Iraq. The real argument for withdrawal is that perhaps Iraq energy resources will come fully back on stream. The oil sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War cost the US a great deal in money for just basic enforcement. What needs to be enforced is any physical threats from religions to other politics ot energy resources, if we can assume energy resources are fungible, which I doubt. Sorry but a simple federal law allowing exploration anywhere in the US is the only immediate step and without a major restruturing of US society to deal with the 2016 energy bankruptcy we are up the creek without a paddle. How does this fit Iran? Be thankful they are selling oil on the world market. The real national security now is all about energy not democracy expansion. Both Dems and Republicans can't seem to get it. The Presidential candidate that first announces Iraq is about oil not democracy will win in 2008. You heard it here first.

[Borsejem]

But he was calming his respective time.