As a graduate of the warfare college, having visited Iran before the fall of the Shah, I've a unique perspective, deep appreciation and respect for Iran. Those who underestimate Iranian determination; their willingness to absorb immense losses; ability to adapt and overcome, should sit down, extract head from ass. And sober up.
In three consecutive wars America entered the dance arrogantly with the resolve of a frat boy looking to establish 'creds', to merely upgrade his date on Prom Night, leave early. On each previous occasion, our 'dates' of choice correctly perceived our moral character was limited to ulterior motives disguised as 'principals', telling stories about 'political theories', fully lacking in national character to appreciate what we were in for... Or that our 'dates' were there to dance on their home floors.
Each enemy in those conflicts used attrition, our lack of clear defining purpose for war, reducing our nation and our military's willingness to fight: the very objective of combat: destroy the willingness of the enemy to fight!
As frat boys do, we sulked home drunk on our perceptions of war lust, blamed each other- or the junior frat boy from Illinois, and vowed to do better next prom. Here we are, still lacking moral urgency or commitment, today considering another prom date to exploit; she does what we tell her, 'or else'. Thing is, and we know it even with the stodgy, bellicose fratboys shouting otherwise, this one's got a reputation, is going to fight for her honor. And this one has dealt with us frat boys very recently and isn't looking for anything but to be left alone or dance.
And she can dance.
If you thought a war with Iraq was not such a picnic, there are 6 Things making WAR WITH IRAN, a suicidal proposition likely to kill more human beings than all of WWII.
Let that sink in.
IS WHY:
1. Winning Hand: Iran has an enormous, well trained, modern military, currently winning against the previous unstoppable Middle Eastern heavy weight, ISIS: something that Iraqi forces combined with US air power has not achieved. Think about that.
2. Home Turf: Complete familiarity with terrain and imminent presence in the region; fluent in the languages, cultures and politics of war in that region. Yea, very serious advantage.
3. Motivation: Smarting from US-Israeli interdictions on their own soil; having endured what they rightly view as National and Religious suppression by US and foreign governments pursuing interests in the middle east for over five decades, Iran possesses fierce national pride and desires restoration of their previous regional leadership. This is hugely overlooked. Iran is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, "ALL IN", to defend their homeland by any means against perceived aggression ~and~ these ongoing sanctions meet that perception of aggression.
4. Proxy: Russia. Likely to spring into support of Iran to counter US influence in the region; to neutralize/retaliate for EU and US behavior against them in the Ukraine. An action of this sort would boost Russian moral, open still another front against perceived foes and step up the pressure to back us further down in eastern Europe. SPOILER: don't be surprised they hand nuclear capability to the Iranians should the US invade Iran!
5. Nothing to Lose Israel has foolishly entered a 'cats cradle' with Iran. If diplomacy to remove sanctions at the cost of Iran forgoing developing nuclear deterrence against attack should fail, why would Iran accept continuation of those sanctions? Answer: they won't. Facing sanctions for 'what they may have been intending to do', Iran will absorb sanctions, develop nuclear deterrence then plot a course forward with other trade partners as a second recognized (or unacknowledged) nuclear power, alongside Israel.
Should Israel-U.S. forces launch preemptive attacks to destroy those capabilities, Iran's' Council will proclaim unfounded attack gaining support & standing in the Arab region and beyond. The hardened enrichment sites will be tested, will likely be found reliably tough to withstand. Either way, Iran will allow estimates of preemption success to stand and enrich towards nuclear independence. They will neither declare nor deny, and thereby win the 'battle of preemption' by being clever.
However, by its own arrogant foolishness Israel will have ensured they can never be certain their next attack directed at Iran, or another nation, will not provoke their own destruction. Either way, Israel is the real loser if diplomacy fails, because they will have foregone both the benefits of achieving diplomatic resolution AND the benefit of comprehending deterrence. Consequently, the world will only discover the truth of nuclear balance when Iran is again attacked and Israel feels the wrath of extermination. A tragic but complete Persian irony which would be well advised to heed as a Grand Scheme within A Scheme by a cunning Ayatollah.
6. Recruitment, Underdog, Fanaticism, Pride: The ability to place 2 to 3 million combat troops, another million in sappers attacking US targets is foreseeable.
Having said all that, here's my military assessment of what war will look like if Republicans have their way. Right below the fog of war.
The Achilles Heel of US military power.
You need to comprehend this: military leaders do not refuse nor even argue against waging war, mostly, they are not even informed of 'why?' let alone asked: 'what could possibly go wrong?'. (That's Paul Wolfowitz's job) They simply exist to say, 'Yes sir!' then advise how to obtain 'political objectives' of the Commander in Chief. Lacking the balls to stand up to a C.I.C., virtually all U.S. military 'strategists' routinely overlook 'the why' of engaging in war, instead (by natural selection*) they predictably focus on 'what' their boss, a politician, wants: 'attainable objectives'. (Think: every president since Eisenhower)
Consequently, pursuit of the 'military objective' becomes the 'only mission', always at the cost of actual military victory; accounting for the Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq outcomes, where we accepted what we could get after denial of reality for years and thousands of our dead.
Example of misguided 'military objective': destroying an entire city may eject the opposition but strengthens resistance against 'the intruder' among the people also displaced from that once hospitable place. Such employment of military assets makes 'objective achievement' possible and 'victory' strategically impossible. What you develop is this: eventual 'occupation forces' take heavy losses in insurgent attacks OR depart only reentering the city to liberate it (thereby destroying everything you built) again. And again. Each time planting new seeds of resistance. Until you grow weary of losses, retire or evacuate (Helmand Province) and the resistance again rises and takes back it's own. That is the lesson of Iraq. Afghanistan. Viet Nam.
So. Now that the concept of 'degree of difficulty' faced by our military in executing America's 'wars of choice' is understood; and accepting that 'War with Iran' is definitely in the frat boy mentality of conduct 'by choice': lets look at the enumerated points individually.
1. Fighting the 'winning hand'.
Compared to Iraq, the Iranian military is very capable of defending against U.S. airstrikes of its territory in terms of eliminating our attacking aircraft and their departure points anywhere in the region of quickly vanishing access. (Yes, Israel penetrated their airspace, with considerable U.S. assistance, but it would be foolish to think this embarrassment to Iranian security wasn't redressed immediately after those airstrikes when those commanders were beheaded) Strategic planners have long worried about the decades of hardening Iranian targets. Though some new weapons make it possible to attack those targets with varying 'confidence levels' of success, it is widely anticipated American losses of aircraft and crews would be heavy. As in: a third to one half. Unlike Iraq which hunkered down, Iranian forces are expected to counterattack immediately, vigorously.
No. Cruise missiles will not cause Iran to surrender, either. In fact, they have their own cruise missiles! Even drones. In a word: "air power" is a bust for reliance on U.S. tactical success against Iran: far less effective than it is against ISIS. But goodness knows: we will press on!
However, this isn't your grandfather's caliphate.
Any naval based assault would be interdicted by a substantial Iranian navy, replete with attack subs, surface vessels, shore stationed marine forces deployed in the Gulf with heavily protected shore-based fire power to cause staggering losses with tactics which will astound anyone but the most pragmatic strategists. (think: droves of 'disposables' too small to detect, waves of decoys amid missile platforms, bracketing vessels into mined 'kill zones')
Iran would also heavily mine the Gulf and international waters overnight at the first detection of gathering military force, to preclude necessary proximity of U.S. vessels to direct amphib & flight attack ops. Such closure of the Straits of Hormuz would not only deny U.S. naval access but thereby exact extremely heavy financial price of engaging Iran by virtue of a blockade-induced mid-eastern oil embargo. (to the delight, no doubt of Mr. Putin.) Who could support a President with gas at $35-40 per gallon for 8 to 10 years, perhaps indefinitely?
So what tactical force deployment can the US employ to bring more war to the middle east against Iran? By necessity it would be a joint land/amphib assault with a vertical element creating multiple fronts of attack. Which isn't going to be pretty. You are looking at minimum 35,000 dead American combat forces in the first three months, with three times that figure wounded. In other words: 140,000 dead in year One and around 400,000 wounded for offensive operations against Iran. Are we sober, yet?
Lets look at Point 2, 'Home Turf'.
In 1980 Iraq exploited perceived Iranian military weakness stemming from the turmoil of the Revolution where the Shah's military loyalists had fled (Iraq received such encouragement almost certainly because of U.S. meddling) and Hussein launched surprise all-out air war and ground assault. It failed miserably: after being halted within months only slightly into Iranian territory, Iraq's offensive stopped dead. In barely 2 years, the Iranians turned the tables, occupying Iraq's frontier with a dogged World War I trench conflict with bayonet charges, hand-to-hand combat, extensive mine fields, and chemical weapons (supplied to Iraq by the U.S., if anyone needs reminding, -or would like to ponder extent of Iranian combat 'motivations'). In 8 years of slugging and dying they made considerable progress towards defeating Saddam who decided his forces were too weakened, withdrew and consolidated to protect civilian centers, then executed his generals. Peace broke out thereafter.
Important to note: Iranian forces, despite ongoing civil turbulence from purges among the military/civilian leaders, were fighting quite effectively, considerable distances away from their resupply points, bases and cities. Whereas Iraq's bases and supplies lines were close, well maintained, they were better supplied. But Iraq could not recover the offensive faced with determined fierce resistance.
Iraq's Soviet-devised tactics to 'bleed' Iranian attacks into incredible losses through tactical kill-routes with feints, lures and assaults were devastatingly effective. Still, employing those effective defensive tactics, Iraq lost more ground, a third of their military force and was expending 40-60% of GDP to sustain the 'Gulf' war. Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers died in actions purely defensive in their origin (designed to deplete the opposing force which continuously replenished); 30,000 more Iraqi soldiers were captured. Iraqi air force was forced from the skies, the divisions decimated, artillery rendered inarticulate.
Such Iraqi tactics would be used by Iran against attacking U.S. ground forces with deadly modifications of new fire power to separate infantry from supporting tanks, destroying both with 'cut, blind & blast' inflicting considerably heavier losses given that greater firepower, capability, motivation and numbers of current Iranian fighters deemed to be between 400 and 500 thousand.
Which requires, a Second note: an attacking army requires a minimum 3 to 1 superiority ratio to sustain offensive capability. Because Iran can be expected to muster 2 million defensive troops in a fight for survival, the U.S. would require an order of 6 to 7 million combatants in theater to assault Iran on their own turf. That is an impossible number to accumulate without a draft and at least two years build up. A pretty strong signal to anyone looking for clues to restart enrichment.
Advancing against Iran on the ground with resupply close, ample air support in familiar terrain was a feat Iraq could not achieve in 8 years war, leading to eventual 'truce'. Unlikely even with Abrahms tanks and our newest tank killers, 'superior' air support and 'all-volunteer force', America will fare any better against a determined an outnumbering entrenched force.
'Vertical envelopment', leap-frogging behind enemy territory with air lifts is extremely limited by Iranian terrain, weather and ground conditions. They would be -at least- as challenging as U.S. airborne tactics of Afghanistan have been, where the opposing forces facing our combat troops were meagerly armed, possessed zero radar, little technical support, scarce defense against aircraft, resulting in an enemy which frequently chose to vanish rather than fight. Iranians have significantly improved air defenses, surpassed only by the Israelis. If war with the U.S. was imminent, they would bolster those defenses further, stand and fight to the man. Such is the Iranian mentality.
A million people died in those 8 years of 'Gulf warfare' before UN Resolution 598, devised a peace based on the preexisting borders. (A sober reflection on the 'fanatical Iranians')
Iranian forces, notably the Revolutionary Guard, have trained to repel invasion ever since, making Korean peninsula vigilance seem festive as a 4th of July picnic.
3. Motivation: Religious. Fanaticism. And. Revenge.
Are we done here?
4. Proxy.
One thing for which the middle east is renowned, as much as its shifting sands, is outside fighters motivated by perceived threat, willingly sacrificing themselves to do harm to an existing power. Allegiances shift. Motivations are unclear. Infidels are to be destroyed.
Governance in the region is only possible with religious cohesion, a dictator's force, or in the case of Israel, the bullies' nuclear threat against 'the surrounding foe'. (A thing broadly hated by Arabs, dubiously ascribed to the United States, which did sell them the A-4 delivery platform and all subsequent missile systems) Also, under deep breaths, Israel's nuclear status is deeply admired by Arabs for deterrence of regional nature, yet seductively invited like a taunting embrace, provoking those endless suicidal assaults on that nation, proving how much love Arabs have for their own. And 'the cause'.
Could Iran command vast armies far greater than any the region has witnessed? Very possibly. But the mischief in the Gulf is Vlad Putin who has endless reasons for playing against the United States there. It should be a veritable briefing nightmare for the War Room.
What will Israel do when attacked? (It will be) Will their nukes hitting Iran result in the "Putin Gambit"? (Rate it as 60-40, leaning toward 'what is there for me to lose, they already think I may be crazy, WTF!'?)
As for consideration that Putin provides materials or conventional weapons to Iran despite many years mutual animosity: bank on it. Vladimir has prized unpredictability and cunning in his combat, his tactics, his back-up plans: his forte is intrigue and the unexpected.
Would Israel launch, if Vlad has armed Iran with a nuke? (Probably not, but don't bet Yahoo isn't that nuts)
Russia's economic misery aside, American power p(b)lundering in the middle east provides Putin great motivation to stride across the threshold of reviving Soviet Superpower with such a gambit. For every ruble donated to the conflict, Monsieur Putin will derive a thousand in increased oil revenues, a gleeful revenge for NATO meddling in his southern regions. Destruction of middle east oil access assures him of return to Empire. He is not the only leader likely to play both ends against the middle.
While Saudi Arabian interests are long-time enemies of Iranian influence, it will suffer severely in event of an embargo caused by mine-planting the Gulf, attacking oil routes. The very maintenance of Saudi's power relies on oil revenue. Hence bet on their neutrality as to U.S. bases, fly-overs, even anticipate its regional support against the U.S. And their immediate, unconditional support of Iran if Israel uses nukes. So about those supply lines....
With the entire region so heavily militarized, someone sooner or later is going to export conflict. ~That would be the U.S. importing the conflict.
Could a 'call to arms' by a besieged Iran rally the rise of an Arab coalition to repel yet another invader and spawn an era of true jihadi attacks against American interests and our "Homeland"? Bet on it. And there is the twist: nuclear deterrence becomes 'offensively' feasible when Israel attacks Iran. Enter the "Putin Gambit".
Parenthetical notation about Israel preemptively using nukes: they lack conventional weaponry to destroy Iranian hardened-targets unless the U.S. supplies them. Only nukes, because of their radiation fallout, would prevent the essential operator access to centrifuges and equipment for enrichment activities. Preemptive nuclear attack to 'protect' Israel from theoretical future attack will not sell to the international community which currently regards them as an aggressor. Under America's U.N. umbrella veto, Israel has acted with impunity in attacking civilians and continued violations of international laws pertaining to borders and sovereignty. Use of nukes by Israel would cross a line Arabs often vowed will remain rigid; retaliation in kind would be certain eventuality. Hence, the nuclear 'deterrent' is in fact the Sword of Damocles dangling over Israel as peril, the very reason Israel does not confirm its existence.
So, how is the war going Mr. McCain? Is it getting you more world peace? Stability for American interests and future generations? Should L.A. be made into an 'Arizona desert' because you could not foresee this? "40 years of fallout for Phoenix?"
5. NOTHING TO LOSE 6. Recruitment, Underdog, Fanaticism, Pride:
Here is the real truth: the 'classical' view of engaging war is to compel diplomacy. Except that with religious views involved, it isn't. You compel vengeance at all costs
So what would an invasion against Iran accomplish: except placing their leaders into desperation of choosing between complete capitulation or embracing the rapture of the 'Times of Mohammed'? What do the fanatics
here in the U.S. seek to gain (Armageddon?) other than scaring the shit out of naive voters to gain political capital to take the White House?
And here is where 'classical' views of war meet Republican fantasy: one of those idiots (advised by the crack team of the 'Iraq Conundrum')
does become President and without comprehending the above REALITY, which no American general is going to esplain to his Lucy, determines:
Iran must be 'punished'.
Given this occurs, feeling severe need for retaliation, Iran would immediately seek to acquire nuclear deterrence capability at all costs --including facing Israeli nukes. In their hardened facilities, this could be commenced the day the current US Senate refutes the diplomatic solution at hand. Since Iranian known 'State of Acquisition' is only 1 year from that date, we can rely on historical Iranian sacrifice; that Israel shall do what a Republican lacks the backbone to begin. And escalation into the unknown final conflict has commenced.
Again: Iran seeks nuclear deterrence according to our experts. To world experts,,, what do they know?
Was Iran blocked acquiring a homemade nuke by another stealth nuke attack as sought by Netanyahoo, Iran will doubtlessly seek acquiring one via purchase from another nuclear state: North Korea, Pakistan, et al. Based on Iranian nationalism and religious viewpoint, it would be expected: mutual destruction is preferable to humiliation for a proud and independent people. Resulting in the arrogant force versus the immutable object.
America, in order to win an invasion against Iran, we need to commit 8 million troops for 20 years at 65% GDP, taking losses in the range of 1 and-a-half MILLION to 3 MILLION dead in combat... and 5 times that number wounded. Or use nukes and take 12-14 million dead and 30 million incapacitated in retaliative attacks later.
Would a Republican president
not nuke Iran to revenge Israel? Would anything be left of the middle east after Israel released its own 134 warheads on its 'enemies'? (I was worried about climate disruption)
So there we have it: an un-win-able ground war. An indeterminate air war. A thoroughly pissed off Iran in a region of explosive conflict and interplay of complex dynamics able to transform into much worse far faster than most people can conceive. Or think about that pun...
Have we learned anything about WAR against Iran?
Perhaps this guy, Obama, has this one figured out and comprehends what's at risk if he doesn't play hardball with American idiots on the right.
Expect the President to play hardball.
Expect the right to act like idiots.
War, my friends IS hell.
*Referring to military planners I sagaciously punned they rise in rank by 'natural selection', referring to the evolutionary aspect of 'survival of fittest', as in "fitness reports". In actuality officers ascend via 'promotional selection process' primarily based on their rated effectiveness of carrying out directives of their superior officers, as rated by those superiors in those "fitness reports"-thus my pun.
This selection basis, rather than one founded on necessary skills or expertise in military knowledge derives unending cadres of 'yes men' never questioning superior's. Among civilian analysts the same is also true: you question: you are gone. As a 'military planning' practice, it assures the primacy of those planners who agree with and never dispute directives, regardless how irrational or unsound they may be. (Carpet bombing jungles comes to mind) It also is the root of mistrust of any President who carefully considers options to military actions because of an awareness of 'unintended consequences'. This explains the inability of Iraq-Invasion creators to comprehend how and why de-Bathification created ISIS.