mick silver
21st August 2010, 09:57 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/iran-262010-states-military.html ...When Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked recently on NBC's "Meet The Press" whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: "We do."
General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, for example, the United States maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada. But what the planning process will have revealed, in this case, is that there is no way for the U.S. to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.
Article Tab : iran-cbs-photo-military
In this Sunday Aug. 1, 2010, photo released by CBS, Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talks on CBS's "Face The Nation" in Washington. Mullen said the U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran, although he thinks it's a bad idea and has often warned that a military strike on Iran would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects around the Middle East. At the same time, he said the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
Associated Press photo / CBS
ADVERTISEMENT
More from National Columnists
*
Charles Krauthammer: Mosque a provocative act
*
Michael Gerson: Obama's hope hangover
*
George Will: Israelis don't need lectures
*
Debra Saunders: Building mosque won't build bridges
*
Steve Chapman: Giving birth to immigration fears
The U.S. could "win" by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran's military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial center (i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. So says Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.
In the early 1990s, Clarke revealed in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton administration had seriously considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.
"After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States," he said. The Pentagon's planners have war-gamed Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just can't make it come out as a U.S. victory.
There are some 80 million people in Iran, and although many of them don't like the present regime they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion. Iran is a mountainous country, and very big: four times the size of Iraq. The Iranian army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the U.S. Army – but, unlike the U.S. Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.
If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran's south coast, senior U.S. generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs – but if they aren't nuclear, then they aren't very persuasive.
Just stopping Iran's own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around 7 percent of internationally traded oil. But it could also block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.
Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran's Hezbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The U.S. would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure stop the war would mount by the day as the world's industries and transport ground to a halt.
The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States, and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region.
General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, for example, the United States maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada. But what the planning process will have revealed, in this case, is that there is no way for the U.S. to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.
Article Tab : iran-cbs-photo-military
In this Sunday Aug. 1, 2010, photo released by CBS, Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talks on CBS's "Face The Nation" in Washington. Mullen said the U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran, although he thinks it's a bad idea and has often warned that a military strike on Iran would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects around the Middle East. At the same time, he said the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
Associated Press photo / CBS
ADVERTISEMENT
More from National Columnists
*
Charles Krauthammer: Mosque a provocative act
*
Michael Gerson: Obama's hope hangover
*
George Will: Israelis don't need lectures
*
Debra Saunders: Building mosque won't build bridges
*
Steve Chapman: Giving birth to immigration fears
The U.S. could "win" by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran's military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial center (i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. So says Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.
In the early 1990s, Clarke revealed in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton administration had seriously considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.
"After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States," he said. The Pentagon's planners have war-gamed Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just can't make it come out as a U.S. victory.
There are some 80 million people in Iran, and although many of them don't like the present regime they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion. Iran is a mountainous country, and very big: four times the size of Iraq. The Iranian army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the U.S. Army – but, unlike the U.S. Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.
If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran's south coast, senior U.S. generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs – but if they aren't nuclear, then they aren't very persuasive.
Just stopping Iran's own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around 7 percent of internationally traded oil. But it could also block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.
Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran's Hezbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The U.S. would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure stop the war would mount by the day as the world's industries and transport ground to a halt.
The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States, and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region.