When war comes with Iran, there will be two phases: the conventional high-tech war, and the follow-on asymmetric conflict. Both phases are likely to be risky and costly to the United States. A discussion of US and Iranian strategy and likely outcomes follows.
Because the NeoCons remain in power in the White House, their discredited smash-and-grab strategy is likely to be applied to a conflict with Iran. They know that US technological superiority can smash the conventional military assets of Iran. Within 48 hours of the start of hostilities, most of Iran's air and naval assets will be destroyed by precision-guided weapons, and a grinding process of bombing will steadily erode any remaining fixed military facilities. This powerful initial strike will clear the way for the seizure of Iranian oil facilities, which are concentrated in Khuzistan province, adjacent to the gulf. The "smash" part of the operation may prove to be unexpectedly costly for the US, because the Iranians have fielded a new generation of anti-ship weapons that may prove effective in sinking or crippling many US Navy ships. These weapons may also succeed, briefly, in closing the Straights of Hormuz to tanker traffice, with the attendant disruption of world oil markets. A further threat is the effectiveness of Iran's latest medium-range ballistic missiles. The number, accuracy, and survivability of these weapons is unknown, and there is a significant risk of highly destructive missile strikes on US forces, Israel, and Arab states allied with the US.
But assuming that the "smash" component of the NeoCon warriors works as planned, the "grab" will prove very difficult. Iran has had a long time to prepare for resistance to seizure of its oil fields. It would be reasonable to assume that the oil infrastructure has been rigged with demolition charges that would render it inoperable for a long time. Although US ground forces might be able to occupy Khuzistan, they would certainly not be able to hold much of the rest of the country. Attempting to establish a "Green Zone" Government in Tehran would be foolhardy because the mountainous terrain of Iran is ideally suited to guerrilla warfare, and US occupying forces would be subject to endless attacks on their very long supply lines. It is important to understand that guerrilla fighters in Iran would be much better equipped than those in Iraq. Iran has large stocks of highly effective anti-tank weapons that can disable the best US armored vehicles. The Iranian resistance, knowing what befell the Iraqis will fight bitterly to expel US invaders.
Facing these grave risks to a military adventure in Iran, why would the NeoCons persist? I believe that there are two reasons: 1)The NeoCons operate according to a doctrine of irreversible actions. They believe that Iran, once attacked, cannot be un-invaded, and that Americans will rally to the President and give him whatever resources he needs to prevail; and 2) The NeoCons intend to use nuclear weapons to subdue any nation that persists in resisting US conquest. Should the Iranian resistance prove intractable, the NeoCons would have no qualms about destroying entire cities to "teach a lesson" to people who should know when they are conquered. This is the purpose of the increasingly ferocious cries of NeoCons like Gingrich and Victor David Hanson to unleash whatever violence is necessary to win "World War III."