Iran, We Got to Do Something? by Larry C Johnson

Like a Japanese Kabuki dance Washington is in the grasp of War theater. Many pundits and members of Congress are filling the airwaves and offering up quotes demanding action. Demanding retaliation. We have to stand up to Iran. Only one little problem, the intel on the attack on the Saudi oil installations remains sketchy and hidden.

If the missiles were fired from Iranian territory then our intel collection certainly captured the launch or tracked the origin of the drones or missiles used in the attack. So where is it? I have heard from reliable sources that the info is being kept behind a highly classified wall and only those with access to this particular compartmented info can see it.

I only see four possibilities:

1. The missiles/drones were launched from Iran.
2. The missiles/drones were launched from Yemen.
3. The missiles/drones were launched from a maritime platform in the Persian Gulf
4. The missiles/drones were landed from a country that borders Saudi Arabia, such as Iraq.

Hmmm. I do not believe that if we had solid proof the attack came from Iranian territory that the United States would keep that info behind a Top Secret wall. I also doubt that we would try to hide the fact that the missiles/drones came from Yemen.

What if the missiles/drones came out of Iraq? That is something we would try to keep quiet. Having to admit that our "ally" (Iraq) was the origin of the attack brings with it a whole host of foreign policy problems. 

Meanwhile, with scant evidence before the public the drumbeat of hitting Iran remains strong. If this were not so damn dangerous I would be amused by the irony that Trump, who was portrayed by critics as deranged madman who will launch us into a war, is the one trying to exercise caution and restraint.

 

Colonel Lang's earlier piece warned the President that war with Iran will ensure he is only a one term President. He knows what he is talking about. Unless we are committed to a full war with Iran and defeating the Islamic Republic on the battlefield (set aside a trillion dollars and send 500,000 troops for that effort) we should not launch any kind of air strike--e.g., fixed wing, drones or cruise missiles. The amount of force we would deliver would not cripple Iran's capabilities.

This much is certain.   Iran has the weaponry to strike decisively against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies of the Saudis and could severely damage Saudi Arabia's ability to pump oil and purify water. Taking out the Saudi water supply would be more deadly and damaging than anything Iran could do to the Saudi oil infrastructure. 

Then what? The political pressure in the United States to really hit back at Iran would escalate. Are you ready to pay that price? A military strike on Iran also raises the specter of the war spinning out of control and dragging in other countries. It is highly likely that oil exports from the Persian Gulf would be shutdown. That would likely touch off a global economic collapse.

We need to step back and try to define what it is that we are trying to do. Regime change in Iran? Destroy their nuclear program? Weaken Iran's influence in the Middle East? I do not see how U.S.or Saudi airstrikes on a limited number of sensitive Iranian targets would advance any U.S. interest or objective. I am open to your suggestions and analysis.

I have said nothing about cyberwarfare. I have heard some pundits suggest we should hit Iran on that front. Ok. Answer me this--whose economic system is more vulnerable to a cyber attack? The U.S. or Iran? I believe the U.S. has more to lose in such an encounter. Our economic sanctions on Iran have not made them more dependent on computer networks.

And how will Russia, China, Japan, Western Europe and India react. All but Russia rely on oil coming out of the Persian Gulf. What is the worst case for oil disruption? A responsible planner must take that into account in order to ensure the President understands the potential and long lasting ramifications of any "feel" good military strike.

Ever since the Korean War the United States public has been sold the lie that we can fight foreign wars and not have to make any sacrifices or incur any costs at home. What did our 1991 war to oust Iraq from Kuwait accomplish? We got the Iraqis back across the border and then became bogged down in trying to police Iraq for the next decade. How about the 2003 invasion of Iraq? We got rid of Saddam, ignited the ISIS threat and installed Iraqi Shias, who are beholden to Iran, in positions of power. And now we wonder how Iranian influence was able to spread throughout the region. We did that, not the mullahs.

And Afghanistan? I used to wonder how the Brits and the French fought the Hundred Years War. No longer. We seem hell bent on trying to match that record of futile conflict.

Can we defeat Iran and take out the mullahs? Sure, but at what cost? The cost would be enormous and I do not believe the American public are ready to pay the price.

Comments

[prawnik]

I see the Yemenis as being like the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - if Iran arms them to better resist the fate that the Saudi have prepared, then Iran deserves congratulations for doing so.

[Eric Newhill]

Sir,
I understand what you're saying and, btw, my outlook has nothing to do with my latent antipathy towards Islam.

If Iran is providing support to Yemenis that includes creating the ability to Strike Saudi/Gulfies oil production and Iran knows that the support will be used in that manner, then the support is, quite purposefully, serving more than one end - one end being to further Iran's position with regards to US pressure against it by demonstrating the ability to retaliate against the US. In that case, Iran's friends in Yemen are, indeed, proxies.

Damaging the flow of oil from the region is a global economic problem. It negatively impacts our friends, enemies and everyone in between. Is the US supporting anyone who is causing externalities of that magnitude? I don't think so.

If Iran wants to play at being the "mouse that roared" using Yemeni proxies and their roaring is going to seriously damage economies across the globe, should they be allowed to continue?

Of course I have no idea whether or not Iran is involved. I suspect they are, but they very well might not be. I don't think the possibility should be dismissed so quickly.

[Eric Newhill]

Flavius,
Damaging the oil flow, damages global business which damages US interests. America is all about business (in the minds of many). The US has the mightiest military and economy and therefore is the logical choice of actors to make sure that business continues unimpeded. That is the argument I believe.

[turcopolier]

Eric Newhill

"Is the US supporting anyone who is causing externalities of that magnitude? I don't think so." This is a joke, yes? The US now meddles and tinkers with other countries' fates with no sense of irony at the contrast between our expressed ideals and our presumption of imperial grandeur. have you not noticed that we aided and abetter the "Arab Spring" which led to so many disastrous struggles throughout the ME. Do you not think that we created "externalities" in many countries through our neocon intervention in Iraq? I do not accept your statement that your Armenian ancestry plays no role in your attitude in this. you would love to see the Muslims slam the hell out of each other with our help. BTW, it was not the Iranians who mistreated the Armenians.

[BABAK MAKKINEJAD]

"It was not the Iranians who mistreated the Armenians."

Tell him Sir - tell him how a few tens of thousands of them fled to Iran, how Muhammad Ali Jamalzadeh saw them on his way back from Europe and offered his last piece of bread to this former professor - who kept it to himself - and told Jamalzadeh: "I will keep it for myself, my son is too weak is going to die in any case."

Tell him about the Siege of Isfahan by Afghans and how the residents of Julfa had to supply the Afghans with their young boys and girls.

[BABAK MAKKINEJAD]

Do you understand Honor?

[Eric Newhill]

Sir,
I'm talking about current FP policy under Trump. Yes, Bush and Obama created all kinds of negative externalities with their meddling. I don't know that they intended to do that. Maybe they were so stupid as to believe their own BS.

IMO, The US can't self-deprecate forever over the idiocy of past administrations any more than it can over slavery. At some point we have to move on.

Believe it or not, I do not want to see Muslims slam the hell out of each other because it will impact our economy badly. Otherwise, sure; have at it. They're going to do it anyhow.

[doug]

Exactly. The Maximum Pressure policy requires that Iran be pointed to. It gets magnified by the media echo chamber and generates political pressure to "do something." The wishful thinking is that Iran will capitulate and agree to a more nuclear program more favorable to Western interests. Ideally no nuclear program at all.

After the undetected, precision attack against key oil infrastructure it should be abundantly clear that isn't going to happen. It's certainly clear to the large majority of people with more than two functioning neurons.

We, and especially Trump with neocon urging, dug this hole and it isn't clear how he can extract us from it. Perhaps he has undisclosed Houdini skills.

[Eric Newhill]

Babak,
I understand honor. Sometimes it demands that a lot of people who feel their honor has been called into question get killed - and still materially lose, but I understand it. It's the warriors' way. Is every man woman and child in Iran a warrior? Do they want to be?

[JamesT]

"Can we defeat Iran and take out the mullahs?"

Taking out the mullahs might turn out to be as much of an "own goal" as taking out Saddam Hussein has proven to be. Iran would remain a geostrategic competitor to the US and Israel - but reform could leave them that much more economically productive, just like Russia is much more economically productive with communism gone.

[JamesT]

The US is indeed preventing the flow of oil from the region - it has taken extensive steps to stop Iranian oil exports. Times have changed - it is currently China, Russia, and Iran who most want shipping lanes to remain open and trade to flow freely.

[prawnik]

Question: how secure are Oman's borders?

Could tribals sort of slip in and out, unnoticed by anyone? I honestly don't know.

[Stephanie]

Militaristic countries (and how can the United States be described as anything except militaristic) get caught up in their own propaganda. A parallel might be Hitler's invasion of Russia in which, when he failed to take Moscow, certainly his general staff and probably Hitler himself realized the war was over (https://www.globalresearch.ca/70-years-ago-december-1941-turning-point-of-world-war-ii/28059). The point being that Iran has bought a ton of time to prepare for pretty much any military attack by the U.S. including nuclear. I don't think the risk associated with *any* military attack on Iran is appreciated... enough. I don't know anything about drones and cruise missiles, but if they could hit the oil field, could they not just about anything else over there including Bahrain and Qatar less than 90 miles away?
What is happening is regime change in Saudi Arabia, and Pompeo was undoubtedly sent to tell them it could never happen. "We've got your back."

[Keith Harbaugh]

While of course we would never, ever, scream like wounded pigs
if any other power tried to meddle in our politics.
(Yes, that's obviously a joke.)

[Factotum]

Good time for a re-read of Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly - and the curious theme of "wooden headedness" that can grip those marching its peoples into unwinable wars - starting with the Trojans accepting the wooden horse from the "departing" Greeks, regardless of warnings against its acceptance.

Wooden headedness is more than being stubborn or blind - it carries a taint of defeatedness as well. A surrender to forces larger than oneself and loss of survival alternatives - a certain weariness that capitulates ones own downfall. Tuchman goes on to also assess the US engagement in Vietnam under the same lens. As well as the Renaissance excesses of the Vatican that led to the Protestant revolution forever altering the Holy Roman Empire grip on European history.

Hubris - catharsis - war - annihilation - defeat- since the beginnings of western story - these elements are always in play.

[Aristophones]

Trump left a nuclear agreement and imposed severe sanctions on Iran. This was a hostile act. There was a decent possibility Iran would retaliate. Let's agree that Iran or one of their allies successfully took out half of KSA oil production in one attack. What was the plan once Iran retaliated?

That's enough current "negative externalities" and stupidity for my plate.

[JP Billen]

The Saudis have nixed any US retribution on Iran. They may be feckless, but they ain't that stupid. They know that the House of Saud would never survive in the event of a war. They cannot discount the threat of attack from three different axis: Iran, Iraq, and Yemen.

But worse, there is still the internal threats to consider. They have two million Saudi Shia that have been oppressed for a hundred years or more. Those people of the Eastern Province may or may not start a major insurgency, but many would resort to sabotage and any other methods to support an Iranian war effort. Then there are the people on the Left Coast that bin-Salman has to account for. The Hejazi have always hated the House of Saud. Hejazis consider the Saud family to be unlearned country bumpkins and usurpers. And they have no appetite for Wahabbi fundamentalism. Speaking of Wahabbis, there are some in that sect that have come to despise the Sauds for stripping power away from the religious police and allowing women driving privileges. Furthermore there are economic woes - there would be no money to pay off the tribal sheikhs for their loyalty.

IMHO in a war with Iran the Saud Dynasty would be toast. They know it too!

[BABAK MAKKINEJAD]

Iranians understand Honor as well as dis-honor.

[Eric Newhill]

Assumes that Iran was honoring the agreement and was planning to continue doing so. If true, I agree with you.

[Eric Newhill]

That is different that general chaos that stops the whole shebang from delivering

[turcopolier]

Eric Newhill

As I have repeatedly stated, I see no evidence that Iran had a nuclear WEAPON program after 2003 when Khomeini shut their program down because he thought it evil. the JCPOA IMO was from thre Iranian POV a giant joke and a way to get some of their money back.

[Murali]

Mr.Newell, I agree with you that can't hold ourselves responsible for the slavery and should move on. But in the case of Bush and Obama their actions are in the present time say less than 20 years. When the high priests of western nations held the Nuremberg trials for Nazis how can you in good conscience accept no responsibility for the hundreds of deaths in Iraq and Libya (where if I am not wrong, the old slave market is in full swing for which you obsolved us). Just wondering if it is the American Exceptionalism that Saint Obama said feels it in every bone of his body.

[JP Billen]

Eric,

I admire your patriotism. However I believe your ill will against Islam is misplaced. It should be reserved for the Turks. Or for the Saudis whose Mutaween, the religious police, prohibit Christian worship by the million plus expatriate oilfield workers, mostly Filipino Catholics.

I don't believe there has ever been a pogrom of Armenians in Iran. Do you know differently? Many of the Armenians living in Iran fled persecution in Turkey and Azerbaijan.

[Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12)]

In some countries and at some points in time, failure on the battlefield meant execution.

It sure did, including decimation. But it does not apply to neocons because most of them.... never served a day in uniform and, as we all know, not eligible to be put in a front of a firing squad. I would, however, as a punishment, have limited their food options in D.C. to McDonald's (breakfast, lunch, dinner--life, without parole--and Applebee's (on 4th of July only) to finally see Robert Kagan turn into Baron Vladimir Harkonnen until his fat ass explodes or, otherwise, he dies from starvation.

[Eric Newhill]

Sir,
Yes, perhaps their nuclear program is all about peaceful applications, such as energy and medical, as they claim.

It all comes down to risk assessment, doesn't it?

They could the lift religious restrictions you're relying on and they could develop nuclear weapons capability fairly quickly. Khamenei is what, 80 years old? They have been working all along on ballistic missiles with increasing range. They continue to deny the right of Israel to exist. To continue to seek an expansion of their influence in the region, which includes hostility to SA. They continue to sponsor terrorism.

Whether we like it or not, The US is going to support Israel into the foreseeable future. The US is also going to support the Saudis and Gulfies for various reasons; some related to Israel, some related to global markets and some related to personal graft. These are realities that Iran has chosen to defy. How far they would go and how far we are willing to let them go depends on the assessment and level of risk aversion in the Whitehouse and in Israel and SA.

I'm sure there are factors at play, but those are the big ones that Trump has to look at - and that could be used to sell war with Iran.

I can see how an assessment would be made by a highly risk averse group that an honor bound/religiously bound Iran would seek to use its ballistic missiles and nuclear program to try to obliterate its enemies; enemies that have cozied up to the US for protection against such an event.

Why take the chance? For what? The preservation of a theocracy? Now Iran wants to show us why - they can inflict damage. Ok. That cuts both ways. Destroy them now and minimize the damage, or be forced to destroy them later when the damage they inflict would be greater and more on their terms.

Not saying that's what I think. Just saying that it seems like a reasonable position for people that are charged with making such decisions.