With war games underway and August 22 just two days away, attention turns to Iran (and maybe, God forbid, Jerusalem). Apropos of which, check out Casey’s excellent commentary about the possibilities that confont us (followed, of course, by a predictable bit of lunacy from Marshall in comments).
I have no idea what is going to happen with Iran, but I don’t see how this situation can possibly end well. For now, I’m just crossing my fingers that the world makes it through Tuesday unscathed.
[NOTE: This post was originally published at 5:13 PM on Aug. 20; it was bumped up to foster more discussion. -ed.]
What makes Casey’s commentary excellent? The overwrought scenarios not even remotely based in reality?
This bullshit about Iran hitting Saudi Arabia infrastructure with missiles? With what? SCUDS? They can’t fucking target anything, as we saw demonstrated by Hezbollah using their rockets.
Cutting off oil? Possibly. But you have to consider that Iran is a police state with virtually no other means of generating revenue. How long could a police state stay in power without funding? Same goes for Chavez. In six months Chavez’s corpse would be dragged through the streets of Caracas, and he knows it.
Right now, Iran is on a course to win in Iraq. They will have control of the government and resources of Iraq if things continue the way they are. Why would they fuck that up by giving Israel and the U.S. justification for hitting Tehran or putting more troops in Iraq?
Finally, what’s this bullshit about Bush’s intestinal fortitude to invade Iran? To what end? The total collapse of Iraq? The swarming of millions of Iranian fighters into the Green Zones in Iraq? Oil going over $200 a barrel? Our military on the verge of collapse while our “friends” in China and Russia jockey for leadership positions on the world stage? Besides, where are the fucking million plus troops and equipment Bush would need to do this correctly?
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but even Bush isn’t that insane or stupid.
Hmm. Your comment makes me wonder. Will the invasion of Iran be the American equivalent of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia? The one step too far that causes the superpower to ultimately fall?
I honestly don’t know what to think about this situation, except that Iran having nukes would be very very bad, and all the options that present themselves with any realistic chance of stopping Iran from getting nukes also seem very very bad.
Max, I think my article sounds crazy because the situation itself is so crazy. Just wait — if Iran says what I think it will on the 22nd, the rhetoric will escalate back to mushroom clouds and what not, just as it did pre-Iraq.
Re: Saudi infrastructure, the two biggest Saudi oil fields are within range of Iran’s hundreds of Scud C missiles. One (Safaniya) is physically in the Persian Gulf. Obviously Iran has options on how to hit that one.
I’m not saying that Iran would do this, or that they have plans to. It is something that they can do, however.
Hezbollah was using Katyushas mostly, which suck for aim. Scuds have a bad rep, but if you fire enough of them, you’ll get some hits.
“Millions of Iranian fighters” — Iran’s army is about 350,000 people, including 200,000 conscripts.
Finally, we would need serious troop numbers to occupy Iran. But to neuter it militarily, we don’t even need to set one foot on Iranian soil.
First, based on what Iraq did with Scuds during the Persian Gulf War, the odds of the Iranians doing any signficant damage to Saudi oil infrastructure with Scuds are insignificant at best. These aren’t Tomahawks we are talking about.
Second, I anticipate on August 22nd Iran’s declaration will be more of its hollow rhetoric. Iran just began enriching uranium. It does not have a massive complex like Oak Ridge to process enough for one or two bombs in the next 18 months, as we did during WWII. It will take five years at least to approach a level where they could even conceive of having one bomb. This provides time for the U.S. to stabilize the situation in Iraq or to get out altogether before taking action against Iran.
Third, the million Iranian fighters doesn’t refer to the military. It refers to the “true believers” Iran would recruit to swarm across the borders with suicide vests and AK-47s, much like the Iranians did against Iraq in the 1980s.
Finally, as Israel just demonstrated, you can’t “neuter” terrorists with an air campaign. It didn’t work in Lebanon, it hasn’t worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it won’t work in Iran. A half-hearted air attack on a few targets in Iran will only result “neutering” of any pro-Democracy, pro-Western movements trying to take hold in Iran.
Part of the reason Gulf War I Scuds did so little damage in Israel was their minimal payloads. They were limited to only a 500 pound payload to ensure they could complete the trip to targets in Israel. Iran could put 4 times that weight into a warhead, especially if they used some of their longer range missiles.
Also, refineries are somewhat more explosive targets than civilian areas. A single hit could do serious damage.
It is true that Scuds are super weak compared to Tomahawks. They have the potential to carry more explosives, but they suck for accuracy and reliability. They’re the Kia of missiles.
I agree with your assessment that Iran is still a long ways from having even one workable bomb, and that the “crisis” is not quite so urgent as it appears. I agree that it would be preferable to have Iraq pacified before doing anything against Iran. In my mind, the urgency here is purely domestic. Bush + neocons want this done now, before President Hillary gets in and wusses up the works.
I agree with your assessment of the impact of a “half-hearted” air attack. I think that is the real problem here. We could wind up taking truly severe actions, simply because anything less would be poor military strategy.
Indeed. / If memory Serves, it was his highlyadvanced superenhanced longtrajectory 2-stage (!!) taep O’Dong :> which Little Kim Ill Jong shot off a Short while back, only for to see this mighty projectile go Flopsy-Plopsy within a minute after Liftoff, so to Speak. ;> / Some analysts say this is why he may be planning to Light off a verybig Fire in the Hole sometime soon: just to show that he Can make the Earth Move, even if he Ain’t got nodongdang Delivery system for to Situate the Venue. ;]
The question is capabilities versus perception of said capabilities. If Iran _perceives_ that she can win a victory or concessions of some sort, that is just as dangerous (in the short term) as her having the capability. See Japan, ca. December 1941, for this phenomenon. If I recall, the conversation between Yamamoto and the Imperial General Staff went something like this:
“They have 20 times our industrial capacity, 10+ times our military population, and our houses are made of paper.”–Y
“BANZAI!!!”–General staff
“Ooookkkaaaaayyy.”
Now, consider that Iran doesn’t have an officer with _near_ the capability or credibility of Yamamoto. Also consider that these are guys who _genuinely_ believe in Allah’s will. Now, do either of these facts make you say, “Hmm, this is going to end well…”?
Now, I think Casey gives the Iranian missiles too much credit. In the Iran-Iraq War (specifically the “War of the Cities”-period), I don’t think that they had such a good accuracy rate. That being said, I can see a “golden BB” doing bad things. Even without that, it’s not like the oil companies ever needed a “good” reason to raise gas prices…they just need a reason.
As to how long a totalitarian state can survive without income, payments, etc., I have one question: Ever heard of Nazi Germany? You know, that regime that had the living crap out of it, ground forces coming from both sides, and was basically still in business until the Soviets hung the “Under New Management” sign from the Reichstag?
As long as the state security apparatus is kept paid and alive or the government can portray the struggle as nationalistic, Iran can survive cutting off oil a lot longer than the West can. (Especially with the Europeans whimpering in our ear.) Moreover, the mullahs realize their great revolution is tottering on the cliff’s edge anyway–it probably won’t make it another 10 years under it’s own power, especially if Iraq gets its stuff together.
I keep hearing five years until an Iranian bomb. For some crazy reason I keep thinking back to 1949–you know, 5 years before the Soviet Union was expected to have theirs. Call me crazy, but anytime I hear the words, “Country X cannot do Y” I start to worry.
Bottom line–Most of _us_ know that fighting with us is theoretical suicide for Iran, with economic warfare only slightly less so. We are looking at this from a position of logical, secular analysis. Iran’s statements and actions give the impression that they are a bit light on the logical, secular analysis and quite heavy on the illogical fanaticism. Personally, I _think_ that they’re bluffing…but I’m not going to be _surprised_ if they’re not. Crazy people do crazy sh*t–that’s why we call them _crazy_.
(On an aside, I don’t think the’re going to be using chemical warheads in Jerusalem. Last time I checked the high was non-favorable for chem deployment due to the heat.)
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 20th, 2006 at 6:40:35 pm
What makes Casey’s commentary excellent? The overwrought scenarios not even remotely based in reality?
This bullshit about Iran hitting Saudi Arabia infrastructure with missiles? With what? SCUDS? They can’t fucking target anything, as we saw demonstrated by Hezbollah using their rockets.
Cutting off oil? Possibly. But you have to consider that Iran is a police state with virtually no other means of generating revenue. How long could a police state stay in power without funding? Same goes for Chavez. In six months Chavez’s corpse would be dragged through the streets of Caracas, and he knows it.
Right now, Iran is on a course to win in Iraq. They will have control of the government and resources of Iraq if things continue the way they are. Why would they fuck that up by giving Israel and the U.S. justification for hitting Tehran or putting more troops in Iraq?
Finally, what’s this bullshit about Bush’s intestinal fortitude to invade Iran? To what end? The total collapse of Iraq? The swarming of millions of Iranian fighters into the Green Zones in Iraq? Oil going over $200 a barrel? Our military on the verge of collapse while our “friends” in China and Russia jockey for leadership positions on the world stage? Besides, where are the fucking million plus troops and equipment Bush would need to do this correctly?
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but even Bush isn’t that insane or stupid.
August 20th, 2006 at 6:44:58 pm
Hmm. Your comment makes me wonder. Will the invasion of Iran be the American equivalent of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia? The one step too far that causes the superpower to ultimately fall?
I honestly don’t know what to think about this situation, except that Iran having nukes would be very very bad, and all the options that present themselves with any realistic chance of stopping Iran from getting nukes also seem very very bad.
August 20th, 2006 at 7:09:37 pm
Max, I think my article sounds crazy because the situation itself is so crazy. Just wait — if Iran says what I think it will on the 22nd, the rhetoric will escalate back to mushroom clouds and what not, just as it did pre-Iraq.
Re: Saudi infrastructure, the two biggest Saudi oil fields are within range of Iran’s hundreds of Scud C missiles. One (Safaniya) is physically in the Persian Gulf. Obviously Iran has options on how to hit that one.
I’m not saying that Iran would do this, or that they have plans to. It is something that they can do, however.
Hezbollah was using Katyushas mostly, which suck for aim. Scuds have a bad rep, but if you fire enough of them, you’ll get some hits.
“Millions of Iranian fighters” — Iran’s army is about 350,000 people, including 200,000 conscripts.
Finally, we would need serious troop numbers to occupy Iran. But to neuter it militarily, we don’t even need to set one foot on Iranian soil.
August 20th, 2006 at 10:32:09 pm
Casey-
First, based on what Iraq did with Scuds during the Persian Gulf War, the odds of the Iranians doing any signficant damage to Saudi oil infrastructure with Scuds are insignificant at best. These aren’t Tomahawks we are talking about.
Second, I anticipate on August 22nd Iran’s declaration will be more of its hollow rhetoric. Iran just began enriching uranium. It does not have a massive complex like Oak Ridge to process enough for one or two bombs in the next 18 months, as we did during WWII. It will take five years at least to approach a level where they could even conceive of having one bomb. This provides time for the U.S. to stabilize the situation in Iraq or to get out altogether before taking action against Iran.
Third, the million Iranian fighters doesn’t refer to the military. It refers to the “true believers” Iran would recruit to swarm across the borders with suicide vests and AK-47s, much like the Iranians did against Iraq in the 1980s.
Finally, as Israel just demonstrated, you can’t “neuter” terrorists with an air campaign. It didn’t work in Lebanon, it hasn’t worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it won’t work in Iran. A half-hearted air attack on a few targets in Iran will only result “neutering” of any pro-Democracy, pro-Western movements trying to take hold in Iran.
August 20th, 2006 at 11:52:05 pm
Part of the reason Gulf War I Scuds did so little damage in Israel was their minimal payloads. They were limited to only a 500 pound payload to ensure they could complete the trip to targets in Israel. Iran could put 4 times that weight into a warhead, especially if they used some of their longer range missiles.
Also, refineries are somewhat more explosive targets than civilian areas. A single hit could do serious damage.
It is true that Scuds are super weak compared to Tomahawks. They have the potential to carry more explosives, but they suck for accuracy and reliability. They’re the Kia of missiles.
I agree with your assessment that Iran is still a long ways from having even one workable bomb, and that the “crisis” is not quite so urgent as it appears. I agree that it would be preferable to have Iraq pacified before doing anything against Iran. In my mind, the urgency here is purely domestic. Bush + neocons want this done now, before President Hillary gets in and wusses up the works.
I agree with your assessment of the impact of a “half-hearted” air attack. I think that is the real problem here. We could wind up taking truly severe actions, simply because anything less would be poor military strategy.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:04:46 am
Oh, I forgot — Iran does have better missiles than Scuds. That is, various longer range “Nodong” type missiles. Nobody knows how accurate they are.
I doubt their powers. I’m not intimidated by a missile named “No dong”.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:52:31 am
Indeed. / If memory Serves, it was his highlyadvanced superenhanced longtrajectory 2-stage (!!) taep O’Dong :> which Little Kim Ill Jong shot off a Short while back, only for to see this mighty projectile go Flopsy-Plopsy within a minute after Liftoff, so to Speak. ;> / Some analysts say this is why he may be planning to Light off a verybig Fire in the Hole sometime soon: just to show that he Can make the Earth Move, even if he Ain’t got nodongdang Delivery system for to Situate the Venue. ;]
August 21st, 2006 at 12:56:23 am
Imagine if, on Tuesday, Kim Jong Il does a nuke test AND Iran does something fishy.
That’d be something, huh?
August 21st, 2006 at 12:57:07 am
Words of Wisdom, Leanna …
(grin)
August 21st, 2006 at 10:06:05 am
The question is capabilities versus perception of said capabilities. If Iran _perceives_ that she can win a victory or concessions of some sort, that is just as dangerous (in the short term) as her having the capability. See Japan, ca. December 1941, for this phenomenon. If I recall, the conversation between Yamamoto and the Imperial General Staff went something like this:
“They have 20 times our industrial capacity, 10+ times our military population, and our houses are made of paper.”–Y
“BANZAI!!!”–General staff
“Ooookkkaaaaayyy.”
Now, consider that Iran doesn’t have an officer with _near_ the capability or credibility of Yamamoto. Also consider that these are guys who _genuinely_ believe in Allah’s will. Now, do either of these facts make you say, “Hmm, this is going to end well…”?
Now, I think Casey gives the Iranian missiles too much credit. In the Iran-Iraq War (specifically the “War of the Cities”-period), I don’t think that they had such a good accuracy rate. That being said, I can see a “golden BB” doing bad things. Even without that, it’s not like the oil companies ever needed a “good” reason to raise gas prices…they just need a reason.
As to how long a totalitarian state can survive without income, payments, etc., I have one question: Ever heard of Nazi Germany? You know, that regime that had the living crap out of it, ground forces coming from both sides, and was basically still in business until the Soviets hung the “Under New Management” sign from the Reichstag?
As long as the state security apparatus is kept paid and alive or the government can portray the struggle as nationalistic, Iran can survive cutting off oil a lot longer than the West can. (Especially with the Europeans whimpering in our ear.) Moreover, the mullahs realize their great revolution is tottering on the cliff’s edge anyway–it probably won’t make it another 10 years under it’s own power, especially if Iraq gets its stuff together.
I keep hearing five years until an Iranian bomb. For some crazy reason I keep thinking back to 1949–you know, 5 years before the Soviet Union was expected to have theirs. Call me crazy, but anytime I hear the words, “Country X cannot do Y” I start to worry.
Bottom line–Most of _us_ know that fighting with us is theoretical suicide for Iran, with economic warfare only slightly less so. We are looking at this from a position of logical, secular analysis. Iran’s statements and actions give the impression that they are a bit light on the logical, secular analysis and quite heavy on the illogical fanaticism. Personally, I _think_ that they’re bluffing…but I’m not going to be _surprised_ if they’re not. Crazy people do crazy sh*t–that’s why we call them _crazy_.
(On an aside, I don’t think the’re going to be using chemical warheads in Jerusalem. Last time I checked the high was non-favorable for chem deployment due to the heat.)