No Options in Iran?

 "General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely contingencies. But what the planning process will have revealed is that there is no way for the United States to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.

The U.S. could "win" by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran's military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centers (i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. On this, we have the word of Richard Clarke, counterterrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations."  Gwynne Dyer

----------------------------------------------------------------

Definitely worth a read.  pl 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/08/05/any-attack-on-iran-would-not-end-well.html?sid=101

Comments

[Norbert M. Salamon]

Colonel:
It is unfortunqate that somewhat similar options were discussed with respect to Israel.

Any use of Nuclear weapons might start WWIII, as both the USA and Israel Governments would be totally discredited, and others might repay the kindness of ruining their economies by sending PRESENTS to the USA Mainland and Israel.

In all cases Israel will be eliminated either by "allies" or by neutreal powers or Pakistan, as self defence.

The USA supplied anti missilie shield is worthless in case of concentrated attack from unknown and unknowable sources.

[WP]

Looks like WOPR was right.

[Ken Hoop]

Nation reports Jeff Goldberg has a feature in Atlantic coming predicting Israeli hit on Iran. If this has been already noted, sorry.

[The beaver]

Col

Don't know whether you have seen this article wrt Israel:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/Iran%20Report%202010_0.pdf

[The Twisted Genius]

It seems most of the political class in the U.S. and Israel are gleefully losing their grip on sanity and maturity. Why anyone would think an attack on Iran would be just another "splendid little war" is beyond me. Saber rattling and playing chicken may be time honored tools of international diplomacy, but I find it a totally irresponsible course of action in this case. I doubt Gynne Dyer's sober column will get a lot of notice

[Mad Dogs]

More worthwhile posts to read on Goldberg's piece:

Stephen M. Walt over at Foreignpolicy.com – Mainstreaming war with Iran

If you are worried that the United States might be foolish enough to attack Iran, then you might take comfort in Jeffrey Goldberg’s lengthy and alarmist Atlantic article on the subject...

...Given his track record as a Middle East analyst — particularly when it comes to the wisdom of using force — you might be justified in viewing that prediction as a sign that war was in fact quite unlikely...

Flynn Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett over at Foreignpolicy.com – The Weak Case for War with Iran

Jeffrey Goldberg’s new article in the Atlantic is deeply reported — and deeply wrong about the Middle East. But it’s his misunderstanding of America that is most dangerous of all.

Eli Clifton over at Lobelog:

Is Jeffrey Goldberg Trying to Rationalize Another Preemptive War In the Middle East?

...After reading through the Haaretz summary of Goldberg’s article, it appears more likely that he is part of a campaign to push the Obama administration into authorizing a U.S. military strike rather than having any particularly believable scoops about an impending Israeli attack...

Paul Woodward over at War In Context:

You must do what we can’t, because if you don’t, we will

...Worried about an Israeli attack on Iran? That’s the idea.

You must do what we can’t, because if you don’t, we will.

This is how some Israelis are trying to twist Washington’s arm to get the US to attack Iran...

[Stormcrow]

I'm pretty sure this next will be more than familiar to Pat Lang. But in case someone here hasn't run across it yet, here's a copy of George Friedman's Stratfor piece from 2007: The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress.

Same basic conclusion as Dyer's: the idea of invading Iran is completely insane. Ditto for conventional bombing.

[somebody]

of course. Lebanon was the test run and it did not turn out well. if anybody, the Bush administration would have done it and even they came to the conclusion they better not.
this is just politics: a lot of people live of conflict and a cold war is preferable to no war.
there also is an elephant in the room called China.
in the end hegemony always has to rely on geography, economy, advanced know how and cultural coherence.
where do the US rank, do you think?

[William R. Cumming]

I quick examination of WIKIPEDIA entries for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan is quite revealing on their demographics and society.

[Patrick Lang]

Stormcrow

Larry Johnson and I wrote a couple of articles on this in the "National Interest" a couple of years back. pl

[Al Spafford]

"Super patriots" such as Sen McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb....Iran" would better serve our nation by singing "Fools rush in where Wise Men fear to go..." But, I fear, perhaps they are tone deaf!

[Eric Dönges]

Perhaps a few well-aimed bombs on the government and military infrastructure with the promise of more where that came from would shut them up.

And when has that ever worked ? When faced with an external threat, human nature is to suspend internal conflict and band together against the threat. History is full of examples. All a limited strike on Iran will accomplish is to rally the Iranian population around the hardliners.

Remember the culture of the Iranian leadership - an arrogant, medieval backwater that thinks it's the Soviet Union; Afghanistan with rockets.

I see you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Unlike Afghanistan, the Iranians have a shared national identity. Iran may be backwards in our eyes, but it is not medieval. And to think that conservative Shiite clerics would believe themselves to be godless materialists is absurd beyond belief.

[John Walters]

The U.S. could "win" by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran's military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centers (i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works.

I'm sure the price of oil would react to that. For that matter, the nuclear fallout released into the air above Asia would be noticed by more than a few countries.

It seems most of the political class in the U.S. and Israel are gleefully losing their grip on sanity and maturity.

I think the political class is dominated by sociopaths. Further, the lobbyists who perform the legalized bribery that drives the system are definitely sociopaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle

Perhaps a few well-aimed bombs on the government and military infrastructure with the promise of more where that came from would shut them up.

I think bombs would only make the vast majority of the Iranian populace more loyal to the country, which would tend to encourage fanatical leaders.

But suppose that "a few bombs" were enough to make Iran back down. Would it become a center for "global guerrillas"? Would it become a center for organized crime in the Islamic world? Would it accept a USA base, and become another Okinawa?

I think the USA is perilously close to overstretch - but perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the USA could colonize Iran without overstretch. Then what? A planet-wide empire, paid for by borrowed Chinese money? Is China really that eager to underwrite USA conquest, or will Israel start pouring money into the USA war effort?