“The Easy Road to War with Iran” by Dr. Christopher Bolan

In Thursday’s Washington Post David Ignatius discusses the results of a war game simulation conducted at the Brookings Institution.  He observes that “the scariest aspect of a U.S.-Iran war game…was the way each side miscalculated the other’s responses – and moved toward war even as the players thought they were choosing restrained options.” 

In reading Jeffrey Record's “A War It Was Always Going to Lose:  Why Japan Attacked American in 1941” (2011) I was struck that the enduring historical lessons he draws in examining this case also underscore the relative ease with which the US and Iran could now easily drift toward war with dire consequences for both sides.    For those interested, a shorter version of Record’s book was published in 2009 as a U.S. Army War College publication available here. 

Allow me to briefly extend the ‘Top Five’ of Record’s historical lessons (within quotation marks below) to the situation with Iran today:

1. “Fear and honor, ‘rational’ or not, can motivate as much as interest”:   A war between the US and Iran is almost certainly not in the objective rational interest of either party.  Iran’s relatively anemic military forces could not hope to stop the inevitable onslaught from a massive, sustained, and technologically superior US air and naval campaign.  Iranian nuclear, military, and any associated facilities (both economic and political) would lay in absolute ruins. 

As a recently released report by national security experts entitled “Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran” makes clear, the U.S. will also bear substantial costs in the event of  military strikes.  These costs include: direct and indirect retaliation by Iran against US forces deployed throughout the region; strikes against Israel; a fractured international coalition concerned about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran; the “increased likelihood of Iran becoming a nuclear state"; “global political and economic instability….costing the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars yearly”; breathing new life into “anti-American extremist groups” globally; and unifying the Iranian public behind the hard line government in Tehran.   All these costs are to be weighed against the most likely outcome of such military action which is to secure a four year “delay [in] Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon.” 

Such a purely rational strategic calculus should compel policymakers in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran to take any and all necessary steps to avoid military conflict while securing essential national interests (I’d suggest for the US:  a non-nuclear armed Iran; and for Iran:  a guaranteed right to civilian nuclear enrichment under international supervision).  Yet, Iranians, Israelis, and Americans are fiercely proud and nationalistic peoples.    Record reminds us that such nationalist pride, an exaggerated or wounded sense of honor, and the fear of being dominated by the other can overcome rationalist calculations of national interests and propel nations into unnecessarily costly wars.

2.  “There is no substitute for knowledge of a potential adversary’s history and culture”:  Iranians and Americans remain largely ignorant of each other’s history and culture.  Since the 1979 Iranian revolution the historical narratives of both parties have been written in the language of distrust, confrontation, and hatred.  Iranian leaders decry America as the Great Satan.  Meanwhile, American policies have sought to overthrow Iran’s popularly elected leaders (Mossadeq in 1953) and currently aim at isolating, sanctioning, and punishing Iran rather than engaging it as an emerging regional power.  Commercial and cultural exchanges in this hostile atmosphere have been reduced to a trickle, if not eliminated all together. This is the narrative of enemies fueled by a mutual lack of understanding and empathy.

3. “Economic sanctioning can be tantamount to an act of war”:  Economic sanctions have proliferated as a tool of American foreign policy.  They are frequently billed as a relatively ‘cost-free’ alternative to military conflict as they signal seriousness of purpose short of committing the nation to war.  Of course, this ignores the obvious loss of commercial job opportunities for American companies.  Moreover, the failure of sanctions to achieve their intended purposes can provide the impetus for a subsequent military strike as decisionmakers come to feel that all other options have been tried and exhausted.  However, we often forget that the nation on the receiving end of these sanctions may well view these sanctions as a casus belli justifying their own military retaliation as did the Japanese in responding to US economic sanctions in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack.  Thus rather the compelling certain Iranian behaviors (suspending uranium enrichment), US sanctions could impel a threatened Iranian leadership to take their own aggressive actions (military or not) in retaliation and retribution (threats to close the Hormuz & strengthening military and political support for Asad’s regime in Syria, for instance).

4. “The presumption of moral or spiritual superiority can fatally discount the consequences of an enemy’s material superiority”:  Here again, leaders in Tehran and Washington are at great risk of overestimating the prospect of eventual ‘victory’ however defined.  American politicians adhere rigorously (at least in public)  to the doctrine of “American exceptionalism”  -- the belief that America serves a unique (and divinely-inspired) role in the role promoting liberty, democracy, human rights, and justice throughout the world.  Meanwhile, the Iranian doctrine of velayet-e-faqih gives religious leaders in Tehran a special role in both domestic politics and foreign affairs.  Practical compromise on any issue of significance becomes virtually impossible when the participants themselves believe their policies and actions to be morally superior and therefore certain to triumph in the end despite the visible obstacles.

5. “ ‘Inevitable’ war easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy”:  If American and Israeli leaders believe that Iran is engaged on relentless quest for nuclear weapons (despite the lack of concrete evidence and official US intelligence assessments to the contrary)….if Iranian leaders believe that Washington will never accept the legitimacy of their self-proclaimed Islamic government and will forever seek to curtail their rise as a regional power….then conflict indeed acquires the air of ‘inevitability’ that will lead both sides to conclude that armed conflict is required to forestall these ‘inevitable’ and ‘unacceptable’ outcomes.

Of course, none of this means that military conflict with Iran is a certainty.  It does, however, suggest that policymakers in Washington, Tehran, and Tel Aviv will need to take steps that consciously avoid the path of least resistance which in this case could all too easily lead to war.

The author is a professor of national security studies at the U.S. Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. government.

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

YUP! Nails the issues for me and still predicting post election warfare opening between USA and Iran in this decade.

[FB Ali]

This is a brilliant essay. It presents clearly and succinctly the slippery slope to war on which both the US and Iran are presently posturing and manoeuvring.

A US or/and Israeli strike on Iran would make certain a long period of strife between the US and the West, on the one hand, and the Muslim world, on the other.

For the US the prospect ahead would be a '1984'-like future: a security state at home and perpetual war abroad.

[Pirouz]

"for Iran: a guaranteed right to civilian nuclear enrichment under international supervision"

The Iranians have on a number of occasions advanced this condition but it has always been summarily dismissed by Washington. Nothing suffices short of zero enrichment AND regime change.

[turcopolier]

FB Al et al

Colonel (doctor) Bolan was my student when he was an undergraduate long ago.

As a related matter to the subject of his essay, I recall that Congressman Newt Gingrich sat in my map room in the Pentagon several times to discuss Desert Storm. This was in the period leading up to the war He was interested in the psychology of the Iraqis and whether or not they would rationally decide to back away from the US and withdraw from Kuwait. In the course of the discussions he brought up the matter of deliberations by the "War Council" (sic) of imperial Japan in its consideration of whether or not the emperor should be advised to avoid war with the US. This was in the context of sustained US efforts to prevent Japanese expansion in China through sanctions, restrictions on scrap metal, etc. He said that the council decided that a war with the US would be unwise, but that if Japan did not strike back at the US for its opposition, then they, the Japanese, would not be the men they should be, pl

[bth]

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Sep-22/188887-israel-war-on-iran-will-eventually-happen-guards-chief.ashx#axzz27DUOWig0
This interview of Iran's Jafari published in Beirut Daily Star is interesting. It doesn't leave too much 'fog' as to Iran's response. He states as a foregone conclusion that an attack by Israel is inevitable. In return first, he is clear they will close the Strait, second Iran will attack US bases directly regardless of US involvement in the Israeli attack, and third, it will fire ballistic missiles at Israel. He lists other things but those 3 are clear cut. No fog there. Of particular note, it would seem that all parties invariably seem to drag the US into the fight whether we initiate it or not.

[K. Hussan Zia]

Any discussion of war must include its ultimate ending. Iran can will continue to threaten vital supply routes that fuel world economy long after any military victory. To protect these, the US may end up having to occupy a vast chunk of territory along the coast and stationing troops there for a long time. It will amount to perpetual war with Iran, much worse than exists in Afghanistan. The economic and political fallout in the circumstances should pretty much rule out this particular option.

[Alba Etie]

Repeat & rinse - repeating old behavoirs expecting different results . I have never served in the military - but it would seem to me that the last folks that would want this coming Persian clusterfook would be our Senoir Military Leadership . ( Unless there are more nut jobs still serving like retired General Boykin who went and spoke at the family values conflab recently -calling basically to start a war with Iran ). I am counting on General Dempsey and other adults to keep the Excellent Persian adventure from happening -after BHO wins this national election.

[Babak Makkinejad]

All:

US Leaders have determined that the existence of independent Iranian power is against the national interests of the United States; in my opinion.

There is abosolutely nothing that any responsible government in Iran could do to alter that; no one in US is interested in what Iranian leaders have to ssay - as I understand.

I think that US is largely in driving seat for war against Iran, it is a war that US will initiate and not Iran.

But I do not expect a US initiated war.

On the other hand, General Mohammad Ali Jafari stated today that:

"Their (Israelis) threats only prove that their enmity with Islam and the R(Islamic) evolution is serious, and eventually this enmity will lead to physical conflict,".

[Fred]

Dr. Bolan has a well thought out essay. In the Ignatius column on a war game exercise he links to Mr. Ignatius states "The game controllers added some spicy details...."
followed by: "The action started on July 6 with an Iranian terror operation..."

It seems the preconceived notions start up front with framing of the war game. What direct terror actions has Iran taken against the US, ( or in the Caribbean, ever) since 2000? It is interesting the the participant playing the Iranian supreme leader would think the actual figure's opinion is or would be that America is a 'paper tiger', regardless of the truth of the immediate political circumstances described.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Iranian leaders have stated publicly and on different occasions that they will not start any wars - that all those who initiated wars over the last 100 years came to regret that.

Either US or Israel will initiate war against Iran; in my opinion.

[Babak Makkinejad]

The best course for the United States is to take the Hudna (Cease-fire) deal of HAMAS and thus insulates herself from the Muslim wrath against Irasel.

This act will have 2 further benefits - it removes an emotional issue from contention between the United States and Iran.

It further enables the Palestinians in Gaza & in West Bank - Muslims and whatever Christians still there - to resume and recapture a normal life.

But even this little thing evidently is beyond the power of the United States.

And yet her leaders wish to re-order and re-organize vast tracts of land occupied by alien peoples.

In eternal words of the Robot: "It does not compute Will Robinson."

[Shah Alam]

The US may not initiate a war with Iran on its own but it may well be sucked in at the behest of a proxy. Whatever, the unknown consequences of such a war to prove to the world that “they are not the men they should be” may be damaging far beyond the conclusions of the war game. Under the circumstances it may just accelerate the process to a financial demise.

[turcopolier]

Babak

I was unaware that Hamas had offered the US a Hudna. Where would it take effect, in the Detroit suburbs? pl

[turcopolier]

Babak

You say that either the US or Israel will initiate war with Iran. If you believe that, you should advise any kin that you have there to leave. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

The offer was to Israel.

Take that and get on with it; US could have induced Israel to do so.

May I remind you that Sadat was also trying to interest Israel and US to in a peace deal; they did not care.

Sadat was then forced to initiate the 1973 War to get the attention of US and to cause her to move to force a settlement with Israel.

[turcopolier]

k. hussan zia

No. You just don't understand the level of destruction the US can inflict on Iran without ever having one soldier in the country. you should not be deceived by the self restraint that the US has exercised over the last eleven years. We chose to fight a war of infantry against guerrillas. We will not do that again. pl

[turcopolier]

Babak

"US could have induced Israel to do so." Absurd. I thought you lived in the real world. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

I meant that Iranian leaders will not initiate a war.

If there is going to be a war, it will be a choice made by US and/or Israeli leaders.

Tojo and Hirohito do not live in Tehran.

As for my relatives and friends; they survived the war from 1980-1988 - this will not be the first time.

[turcopolier]

bth

"they will close the Strait, second Iran will attack US bases directly regardless of US involvement in the Israeli attack, and third, it will fire ballistic missiles at Israel."

And the US will then utterly destroy Iran. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

They did so in 1973 which led to Camp David Accords - are you suggesting that US can no longer execute any such diplomatic acts?

[turcopolier]

Babak

"This will not be the first time." Yes it will. pl

[turcopolier]

Babak

Yes. The US has virtually no power over Israel's actions. Begin wanted the treaty with Egypt. Bibi wants only to attack Iran. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

I cannot vouche for the accuracy of the last 2 paragraphs in the Daily Star link above.

The publushed Persian version does not have any references to US being complicit. In fact, the Persian original clearly designated US as the "Master" that is telling Israel not to attack Iran.

General Jafari's public statements on the inevitabilityof Israel attack on Iran is quite surprising.

Last Monday, both Mr. Jalili, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and General Dempsey were in Ankara, Turkey.

Could it be that General Dempsey met with Mr. Jalili and communicated the following message:

1- US is not seeking war with Iran
2- That US cannot control Israel's Actions
3- Nevertheless US is trying to descourage Israeli attack
4- The Israelis might still attack Iran and that US will not be complicit.

Thus Iranians have been forewarned of a possible Israeli attack by the United States.

And therefore General Jafari's comments on preparing for war and not having enough time to do so.

Ib this manner, I do not expect Iran to retaliate against the United States in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

I expect Mr. Obama to not attack Iran in comjunction with Israel either; US has never joined Israel in her wars - I doubt that she would do so now.

[steve]

@FB Ali

"A US or/and Israeli strike on Iran would make certain a long period of strife between the US and the West, on the one hand, and the Muslim world, on the other.

For the US the prospect ahead would be a '1984'-like future: a security state at home and perpetual war abroad."

Unfortunately, we are already well down that rabbit hole I think.

But, yes, an excellent clear-headed essay.

[steve]

Colonel,

Surely, the Iranians know that attacking US bases would be national suicide.

Why would they do that? Of course, as the essay states "honor and fear", rather than reason, could be the impetus.

But reason could still be present.

Perhaps if bombed by Israel alone, Iran takes a longer view, withdraws from the NPT, develops nuclear weapons, and works diplomatically to make Israel even more of an international pariah.

Could Iran successfully play the victim card after an Israeli attack? Would internal Iranian politics allow it? Would a limited Iranian retaliation against Israeli military installations cause US retaliation?

If the alternative is the total destruction of Iran, those matters should at least cross the minds of Iran's leaders.