"Attacking Iran: The Potential Negatives" Silverman

Attacking Iran: The Potential Negative 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th Order Effects

Adam L. Silverman, PhD[1][1]

While I don’t think anyone is particularly in favor of Iran building nuclear weapons, those who seem the most certain about what to do to prevent it from happening seem to never mention the potential follow on effects.  There seems to be a group of experts, analysts, and politicians who are very eager to see a confrontation with Iran regardless of the 2007 NIE’s findings, and the efforts of Admiral Fallon in 2008 and Admiral Mullen in 2009 to push back against a preemptive Israeli strike. This often seems to stem from wishful thinking: if we can prevent Iran from getting a bomb, and have to use force to do so, then everything will be all right.  A contact recently sent me a column that deals with this topic and asked for my take on it.  My response was a potential 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th order effects analysis; specifically the negative effects.  And to be very honest: I’m not really sure there would be any positive ones…  This column is an extended and expanded version of my response:

 

The Potential Negative 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th Order Effects of Attacking Iran

 

The potential negative effects for a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear development capabilities, whether done by Israeli or by the US, would essentially be the same as no distinction is going to be made between Israel acting alone or the US acting rather than Israel.  In the case of the former the US will be viewed as having blessed our client’s actions and in the latter of being manipulated by the client into doing what it wants.  

 

If an attack on Iran’s nuclear capacity should be made we can expect many, if not all, of the following possibilities:

·   Iraq will go completely up in smoke.  The currently stalled and contentious political process to seat a new parliament and government with a near complete American military drawdown and handoff to the civilian agencies like State and USAID will completely unravel.  The remaining American personnel in Iraq will become hostages and targets – either stuck in their secure facilities or become the actual recipients of Iraqi wrath, which will be driven by the Shi’a (both Iraqi and Iranians coming across a porous border to seek revenge), but will also include the Sunnis.  Finally, those Iraqis perceived as being allied with the US will become targets for reprisal.

·   The Western part of Afghanistan is toast – if not the whole ISAF endeavor.  Coalition personnel operating in those areas closest to Iran will likely be hit with two different kinetic problems.  The first from the Iranians as they cross the border seeking revenge, as they will also do in Iraq, and the second from Afghan groups with ethno-religious and ethno-national ties to Iran.  As is likely to be the case in Iraq, coalition personnel will be at great risk for reprisals.  It is also quite likely that their will be a general rallying of Muslims, regardless of Sunni or Shi’a, against the American led efforts in Afghanistan.  Any attack on Iran is an Information Operations and PsyOps gift for al Qaeda and all the various Taliban and neo-Taliban groups.

·    Pakistan is likely to finally blow as well.  The internal Sunni/Shi’a tensions will be exacerbated and the most extreme Muslim elements in Pakistan will go after the Pakistani government for being allied to the US.  Here too the most extreme and reactionary Islamic offshoots, such as al Qaeda, will be handed IO and PsyOps gifts.

·   It is also likely that this will mark the end of Israel as a functional and surviving state and society.  Those Israelis that haven't left, but have been thinking of it, will go quickly making the reverse Diaspora back to Europe and the US that has been occurring a flood.  The hardliners, both religious and secular, as well as their Christian Zionist and neo-Con supporters in the US will have their Masada moment as Israel’s Arab citizenry, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and at the very least Hezbullah will react very violently.  Contrary to the Palmach battle cry, in this case, "Masada Will Fall Again".  

·   Turkey will finish its EU rejectionist propelled reorientation back towards the East – the Middle East, Asia Minor, Central and SE Asia, very, very quickly and it will likely make an oppositional choice in response to a preemptive strike that fragments NATO.  

·   As such NATO will be shown to be useless in a major interstate war crisis.

·   There will likely be a huge amount of conventional and unconventional proliferation as even many of our allies will do a double take, decide we've completely gone off the rails, that we're no longer the last backstop, but are instead the biggest threat around.  

·   The potential economic disruptions would be huge.  The price of petroleum will spike very quickly and very high.  This, as it did in 2008, will have a spiking effect on the cost of food[2][2]

What seems to be happening, or perhaps more accurately what is being attempted again as it has failed in for the past three years, is that the same crowd who misunderstood, miscalculated, and misreported the US into Iraq are doing the same thing again.  It is amazing to see over 100 members of the US House of Representatives produce a resolution regarding a nuclear threat to Israel that the US’s own analysis says doesn’t exist.  As was the case with Achmed Chalabi and Iraq, we now have an Iranian agent provocateur to lead us on into doing something foolish and damaging.  What we’re really seeing in the punditry and popular analysis has less to do with Iran’s developing to have a nuclear weapon, or just developing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon and much more to do with the fantastical desire to replace the Shi’a clerical government of Iran that works in the shadows and the kabuki theater/all smoke and no fire government of Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (who as I wrote about at SST in 2009 has essentially no power or authority) with a more American and Israel friendly government.  If that sounds familiar, it should, because it is simply the same neo-Conservative fantasy in support of Likud Party and Benjamin Netanyahu electoral success that was created in the mid 1990s, then repackaged and marketed to Americans beginning in 1998 by the Project for a New American Century[3][3].  As a perusal of the drafters of the IASPS policy proposal and the PNAC letter signatories will quickly confirm: NOT A SINGLE ONE of these worthies had a clue what they were talking about in regards to strategy (ie is this in America’s interest, let alone best interest), operations, or tactics!  They have no better understanding of how Iranians would react than they did of how the Iraqis would.  If you want to solidify the Iranian clerics hold on an Iranian populace that is slowly pushing back against the clerically imposed limits, then attacking Iran is the best course of action, but it will not get the desired regime change and will only confirm to the hardliners, and most likely most Iranians, that they do need a nuclear deterrent.  The fastest way to prove the Iranian conspiracy theory that the US is out to get/punish/attack Iran is to actually do so!

What is missing in what seems to be the long, slow build towards justifying, packaging, and selling a preemptive attack on Iran is a couple of critical questions: what if the 2007 NIE regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons’ development is correct?  Moreover, what if we’re just wrong about Iran’s desire to have a nuclear weapon, rather than say the Japanese option – nuclear development for energy, with the ability to quickly build a device if it is deemed necessary?  The only remaining question is whether the ideologues and demagogues, and their cats paws, will once again manipulate the US to implement bad policy, largely on behalf of a client state that thinks it’s the patron, into spending our ever dwindling supply of human and financial treasure.  We can only hope that they don’t and that someone is able to push this back the way the NIE drafters did in 2007, Admiral Fallon did in 2008, and Admiral Mullen did in 2009.

---

[1][1] Adam. L. Silverman is the Culture & Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed herein are his alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College, the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, and/or the US Army.

[2][2] Both before and during my deployment in Iraq, my team mates and I tracked food prices, disruptions, and crises both in the Middle East, Central and SE Asia, and globally.  A good chunk of it, based on the reporting, was caused by a combination of drought, the spike in petroleum caused by froth/hedging in the futures’ market, and what has now been confirmed as artificial inflation in the food market by using futures as hedges and credit default swaps similar to what was done with both petroleum and mortgages.

[3][3] I recommend that everyone click through on this link and the proceeding one and see who worked on the original policy proposal for the IASPS, which is essentially a Likud Party policy tank and who the signatories to the PNAC letter were. 

Comments

[Norbert M. Salamon]

Were the war mongers to succeed in starting a preemptive war against IRan, the fall and collapse of the USA economy is certain.
The USA is a dead duck without oil imports, and it is doubtful if China [or anyone else] would lend $ to USA to buy oil, which oil sales would cut the supply to the lender.

It is also doubtful if all major oil Persian Gulf installations would survive the blowback - putting the whole world into depression.

The above does not even contemplate Russian or Chinese reactions, which coulod be game changer for EUROPE [russian energy supply] or the USA - cue to Chinese loss of investment.

Best after the Iraqi and Afgani losses by the USA armed Forces and her economy that the USA concentrate on the homeland following the Colonel's advise re Armed Forces.

[Farmer Don]

Adam Silverman lists this as a response to an attack on Iran.
" The remaining American personnel in Iraq will become hostages and targets – either stuck in their secure facilities or become the actual recipients of Iraqi wrath, which will be driven by the Shi’a (both Iraqi and Iranians coming across a porous border to seek revenge), but will also include the Sunnis. Finally, those Iraqis perceived as being allied with the US will become targets for reprisal."

I worry that this may be the case in any event.
Won't the Iraqis want to take revenge when they know the US army is going for good, and it's ground fighting capability is at it's lowest as the last troops leave?

[FB Ali]

This is an excellent analysis of the likely effects of an insane attack by the US and Israel (it doesn’t matter who initiates it) on Iran. The only point on which I think he hasn’t got it right is the likely impact on the situation in Pakistan. It’s going to be much worse than what he predicates.

The first result would be that it would make it impossible for either the government or the military to act in any way in support of the US. Otherwise, it won’t be just “the most extreme Muslim elements” that would go after them, it’d be the whole population. Such an attack would also bring much closer a takeover in Pakistan by (political) Islamists, if it doesn’t actually precipitate it.

It is a fallacy to think that, faced with such an attack on a Muslim country, Sunni-Shia differences would in any way affect the general response of Muslims everywhere. The dirty politics being played by the Arab despots and sheikhs is not reflected in the feelings of their populations.

[Abu Sinan]

I also think, whereas the governments in the region are anti-Iranian, their populations are not. Remember 2006 and the support for the Shi'ite Hizb'Allah in it's fight against Israel. Arab leaders were against Hizb'Allah, yet their populations rallied around the resistance to Israel.

What about consequences for US sailers and assets in places like Bahrain and UAE, both places with significant Shi'ite populations?

Reaction to any Israeli attack would go far beyond the Shi'ite community and might threaten the stability of many pro US Arab governments in the region.

[eakens]

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=183685

"Klein was speaking by phone from Israel, where he happened to be visiting..."

Half our congress might as well register as foreign agents...

[Mike C]

One angle they'll try to knock the legs out from under the 2007 NIE appeared in the WSJ a week ago.

Title is "How the CIA Got It Wrong on Iran's Nukes". The byline is Edward Jay Epstein. I'm not sure I can get a link to work, but Google the title and you'll see it.

[JohnH]

"There will likely be a huge amount of conventional and unconventional proliferation as even many of our allies will do a double take, decide we've completely gone off the rails, that we're no longer the last backstop, but are instead the biggest threat around."

This is going to happen anyway. By withholding nuclear fuel for Iran's TRR, everyone who uses nuclear power now knows that their fuel supply and electric power generation capability are in jeopardy. They could be held hostage at any moment to the political whims of the P5+1.

If countries value their electric power industry, which they do, they will take steps to secure it. That means that they will enrich their own uranium, just like Iran.

Holding TRR hostage to Washington's political agenda will go down as Obama's biggest blunder--unless he decides to compound the folly by attacking Iran, too.

[Sidney O. Smith III]

In this column, Dr. Silverman appears to rely on a contrary set of analytical assumptions that he relied upon in the recent past. If so, his most recent analysis represents a paradigm shift, and it is one I applaud and respect.

But on March 20, 2010, Dr. Silverman concluded that an attack on Iran was not in the cards. To quote, “They (the Israelis) may be obstinate but they are not stupid.”

http://tinyurl.com/254y5z7

I also have a recollection that in Dr. Silverman’s prior analysis, he assumed that Israel is a “liberal democracy.” Moreover, in a parenthetical, he once categorized Neturei Katra as an extremist group without applying the same standards to the GOI: Here is a quote from Dr. Silberman:

“Much of my early work on identity based extremism, political violence, and terrorism focused on comparing and contrasting domestic American extremism (white supremacists, militia movements, anti-abortion extremists) with its Middle Eastern counterparts in Israel (the Nturei Karta, Eda Haredim, Gush Emunim and other settlers, Kach and its offshoots like Eyal)”

http://tinyurl.com/y7fzw4z

But in light of Dr. Silverman’s analysis in this most recent column, he seems to suggest that Netanyahu would also qualify as a terrorist, at least one who wants to thwart the Middle East peace process. I say this because he does not take issue with the admissions that Bibi made in the 01 video and that were incorporated as part of the VIPS letter to the prez.

If true, then, according to this new analytical paradigm, the actions of Netanyahu and the GOI trigger the rationale that gave rise to Executive Order 12947 -- an executive order that prohibits “Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process”

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12947

Again, I applaud the paradigm shift, if one indeed occurred. One can certainly argue that the analytical assumptions that underlie this most recent analysis echo the warnings given to us by Rabbi Teitelbaum many decades ago.

[Adam L Silverman]

Brigadier Ali: thanks for the kind remarks. As to Pakistan, as well as other parts of the Middle East, Central and SE Asia with majority Muslim populations (regardless of Sunni or Shia), I was, if not hedging, then trying at least to take a cautious approach to the analysis. What many of us here at SST have identified as problematic with so much of the analyses regarding Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and many other places is the almost gleeful hyperbole and the presentation of the most wishful, power of positive (without any evidence) thinking out there. I concur completely with your much better informed take on Pakistan, as well as Abu Sinan's very accurate remarks regarding Muslim reaction regardless of sect. I don't want to say I'm downplaying how bad this would be, but I've learned, and often the hard way, that presenting potential effects in a careful manner is often the best way to go.

[MRW]

Colonel, could you fix the underlining of the entire article?

[Adam L Silverman]

Mr. Smith: I'm not sure it's a paradigm shift. If anything it's being keenly aware that as new data comes in, as a better understanding of the information is developed, then it makes sense to adjust one's position. That said I'm not sure there is as much change or inconsistency as you are experiencing. I still don't think the Israelis who are pushing for this are stupid, and I'm honestly, truly at a loss for what positive payout they and they're supporters think they are going to get from this type of course of action, but I think they are most likely to try to find away to force America's hand, rather than doing this themselves. Ultimately the outcomes will be the same.

This is, as I'm sure COL Lang, Mr. Giraldi, Brigadier Ali, and several others here at SST can attest to from far more experience than I have, is one of the hardest part of doing analysis of this type: avoiding the wasteland of mirrors and the trap of viewing those with a different context than one's own as if it was the same as yours. I have a very good understanding of the difference in the context and for the life of me I honestly do not see the payoff or percentage in this play - for Likud and it's rightist allies in Israel, for the neo-Cons and their Republican allies here in the US, or for Israel or the US in general.

Now as to the terrorist label. I would argue that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians certainly qualifies as an example of state terror: the use of the mechanisms of the state and the state's power to coerce and force all or part of the population into behaving a certain way. This is different than terrorism, which is the attempt by a non-state actor to change a targeted population's behavior by creating fear through a specifically applied, and often limited in targeted and tactics, use of force, where the victims are not necessarily the intended target (the dead can't change their behavior), and the motivational drivers can be political, ethnic religious, economic, ideological, territorial, etc.

In the case of Israel there is a very strange dynamic on this stuff. For it's Jewish and non-Jewisg citizenry Israel is a liberal democracy - parliamentary style. In it's treatment of the Palestinians it is both occupier and now it seems to be actively engaging in repeated state terror. In the fact that it is supporting extremist settlers who themselves engage in acts of terrorism against the Palestinians, who the Israelis are required as an occupier to protect, we now have a case for the state sponsorship of terrorism. Finally, the off again/on again cross border violence with Hezbullah and Lebanon is a clear case of border dispute violence, which gets into interstate relations.

Israel's reality has become so complex, that even when I attempt to clearly delineate the various issues and define the terms so that each problem set can be properly examined, I get a headache. I wish I had a better answer for you Mr. Smith, but I've quickly reached Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon's (Maimonides) starting point in what is his greatest work: "I am perplexed"!

[Patrick Lang]

NS Salomon

I need to have you write me off the blog

[email protected]

pl

[Castellio]

Ah, but Mr. Silverman, Maimonides major work is entitled A Guide for the Perplexed.

[walrus]

At a lunch I attended yesterday, the participants expressed serious concern at the direction Israel is heading in and blamed it on what they term "Russians", meaning Russian Jews, whose recent behavior in Israel and Australia suggests to them that they have little or no experience of democracy and humanism, let alone any use for such concepts, and they find their acts both here and in Israel to be repugnant.

This is the first time in my life I have heard educated Australian Gentiles expressing such concerns. They are prepared to risk allegations of antisemitism. My oldest friend told me "just because someones great grandfather was a holocaust victim does not excuse their current behaver. The holocaust defense is wearing very thin".

The Liberal Jewish establishment in Australia is going to be asked to address this matter. Either the Liberal Jewish establishment both in Israel and elsewhere "take their country back" from the Likudniks, or there is going to need to be a split, unless of course they wish to be "frozen out", something that has not happened since before the Second World war.

Australians have a long tradition of supporting underdogs, and Israel isn't one. We also don't like people forging our passports.

[Lysander]

Abu Sinan,

"I also think, whereas the governments in the region are anti-Iranian, their populations are not. Remember 2006 and the support for the Shi'ite Hizb'Allah in it's fight against Israel. Arab leaders were against Hizb'Allah, yet their populations rallied around the resistance to Israel."

I think you are absolutely correct.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_100804_arab_public_opinion_poll.html

"On Iran's potential nuclear weapons status, results show another dramatic shift in public opinion.
While the results vary from country to country, the weighted average across the six countries is
telling: in 2009, only 29% of those polled said that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be
"positive" for the Middle East; in 2010, 57% of those polled indicate that such an outcome would be
"positive" for the Middle East."

In fact, I have a hard time believing it was only 29% a year ago. I doubt that it is only 57% now. I would guess 60% a year ago and maybe 80% now.

[Recondo]

Dr. Silverman,

Great analysis, I agree completely. As an aside, if I remember correctly, the majority of Saudi's oil fields and processing capability is in the E/SE portion of the country, which is also the location of the predominantly Shia Saudis who work in the oil industry and are routinely treated as second-class citizens by the Saudi Sunnis. Obviously a tempting target as evidenced by the article below from 2006.

"Saudis 'foil oil facility attack'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4747488.stm

[JohnH]

Walrus--we should not scapegoat the recent Russian emigrants to Israel, despite the problems they pose. IMHO the real problem comes from the founders of Likud, including Begin and Shamir, who were born in Russia.

As you point out, their values, and those of their followers, are more autocratic than democratic. And, disregarding the claims of hasbara, they have little understanding or experience with what we consider Western values.

[FB Ali]

Adam Silverman,

In your reply to Sidney O. Smith III you expressed your bewilderment at being unable to discern any conceivable benefit that the US or Israel could gain from attacking Iran. May I suggest an answer?

In my posts on this site I have been putting forward the thesis that a group that seems to be able to sway US policies desires to involve the country in perpetual war. In my recent piece The Afghan Tunnel I said:

The powerful interests and organizations that make up this group learnt from the Cold War that embroiling the US in such a long war was of immense gain to them personally, and to the causes some of them espoused.

One of the causes that they support is the state of Israel, which appears to believe that its interests are served by embroiling the US in an unending war with the Muslim world. (The fact that this makes no earthly sense whatsoever doesn’t seem to faze anyone).

Iran would be merely the latest front in this Long War. Neither Israel nor the Perpetual War faction cares whether such a war, or any particular battle, would harm the real interests of the US and its people.

[batondor]

Adam et al...

First and foremost, thanks for your commentary with which I sadly must concur entirely... and I want to reiterate my appreciation for Pat's efforts to engender a meaningful discussion that allows for a degree of contradiction and debate without accepting the depths of distraction and hyperbole to which some will attempt on both sides of the arguments (and while I am uncomfortable with some insinuations that do appear, I have feeling they are mild compared with those that you simply reject, Pat).

Secondly, I wanted to add the recent reflections by Uri Avnery that depict a heightening of the polemic from a different angle:

All Quiet on the Eastern Front
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1280589635

I can only conclude the following:

(1) I must admit that I still find it hard to believe - and much, much harder than in 2003 when I allowed such considerations to alleviate my doubts that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. could and would so obviously exaggerate the risks of WMD in Iraqi hands - that the Obama WH is underestimating the implications of a "limited" attack on Iranian nuclear facilities a la Osirak (not to mention a full bore and preemptive disarming assault a la 1967 against Egypt). I also find it hard to believe that the principals in Israel itself, not to mention the citizenry en masse, are indifferent to the uncertainties and implications of preemptive military action against Iran at this juncture in the history of the region and the world...

(2) I am convinced that the Government of Israel is still essentially relying on the specter of the Iranian bomb as a thick smokescreen for the consolidation of its incremental expansionism in Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank and the continued marginalization of Gaza.

(3) As for what one can do under the current circumstances, I would humbly suggest that those with a public voice have an obligation to speak out... but the rest of us with little more than personal relations face an equally important imperative to discuss these matters with family and friends to dissuade the complacency or oversimplification that can arise when such unpleasant but important matters are compounded by proximity and moral obligations of respect and compassion.

I could be wrong on points (1) and (2), but I dearly hope that I'm not...

For what it's worth, Adam, I sense your profound personal frustration and discomfort... and I share in it from afar...

[JohnH]

The most recent Arab Opinion Poll confirms Abu Sinan's point that "Reaction to any Israeli attack would go far beyond the Shi'ite community and might threaten the stability of many pro US Arab governments in the region."

When asked to identify the most admired world leader, Arabs named Erdogan (20%), Chavez (13%), Ahmadinejad (12%), Obama (1%).

Only 12% of respondents said they had a favorable view of the United States.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LH07Ak02.html

[DH]

batondor,

"(2) I am convinced that the Government of Israel is still essentially relying on the specter of the Iranian bomb as a thick smokescreen for the consolidation of its incremental expansionism in Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank and the continued marginalization of Gaza."

Cagey bastards...heh.

I still hearken back to the Colonel's insistence that it was never about oil, but world view. Would true believers consider the forsaking of our forces, global depression, and oil/food shortages a fair exchange of human misery for the beginning of the wide swing history may take around that brand of Islam that begets despots and fanatics (which presumably they realize was created by the West).

I think Israel would most fear a human wave attack from all sides; it's difficult to believe they would risk it.

As far as Obama, is he the neocon's Wilsonian dream come true, or did his attempted hard-line approach against Israel presage the end of any Iranian bombing campaign. I wonder how much he took away from Rev. Wright on the Judaism issue. Finally, if the Pentagon is against it, that would be the ticket to him being free to say 'no.'

[Adam L Silverman]

Brigadier Ali: I'm completely following your line of reasoning and argument in both your past columns and in the comments. I completely get the individual enrichment, even if I'm not wired for it, and I get playing on others fears and gullibility. What I'm amazed by is the ability to so completely capture the process.

[Adam L Silverman]

Batondor: I think that your point #2 is correct, though I've recently begun to wonder if those pushing hardest for this aren't drinking their own kool-aide. And I think that ties into the last part of your first point about being unaware of the implications. This brings this into the point Brigadier Ali is has been making, though in the case of the Israelis where the actual gain is for them when it all goes wrong is beyond me.