The Day After We Bomb Iran

There's a raging debate within the Bush administration, the punditocracy, and the blogosphere about whether or not it is time to bomb Iran. While this conversation scares small children (and other sane people), most of the focus has been on (1) whether President... oh, excuse me... Vice President Cheney truly is moonbat-crazy enough to do so, and (2) whether anyone else in America (including the military) would go along with the idea. But not enough attention is being paid to what happens after we rain death from the skies down on Iran. Which is a shame, because that's what we ignored during the ramp-up to war with Iraq. And we all know how that turned out.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the United States actually does go ahead and bomb Iran. There are a lot of different scenarios which could lead to this point, of course -- a "false flag" operation (think: Gulf of Tonkin Incident); Iranian military captives the United States swears were killing Americans in Iraq being paraded before the television cameras; provoking the Iranian Navy and swearing we were in international waters and not Iranian waters -- there are many ways to make the case for war before the eyes of the world, so it's not very productive to worry about which method it may take. But let's assume George Bush presents some sort of a casus belli to the world, which is immediately followed by the United States military dropping bombs and cruise missiles on Iran.

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

Now the actual method of the attack (as opposed to the rationale) may influence later events, so it is worth breaking down the possibilities. The old plan was to destroy both Iran's nuclear sites and enough infrastructure that rebuilding them would take the Iranians years to accomplish (while bombing all the military sites and radar installations we see along the way, of course). The new plan (according to Seymour Hersh in his explosive new article in the New Yorker) is to take out the Revolutionary Guard (and to ignore the nuke sites), merely as hot-pursuit retaliation for Iranian involvement in Iraq (while also bombing all the radar installations we see along the way, of course).

Rumors abound that Israel is also thinking seriously about taking out the Iranian nuke sites. Perhaps a combination of the two is what is envisioned? An American raid which conveniently takes down the Iranian radar net would make it awfully tempting for Israeli jets to use the opportunity of such cover to achieve their main objective, it would seem.

This is all pure speculation on my part, I must admit. Whether our justification for the bombing is "hot pursuit" or whether it is to set Iranian nuclear progress back a decade will not matter a whole lot to whoever's under the bombs as they fall. But it may matter in the response Iran makes.

 

The neo-cons thinking: "They'll greet us with flowers, II"

So far, the Iranian response has seemingly been addressed by the neo-conservative think tank "The Iraqis Will Greet Us With Flowers Institute," which is fully as dangerous and deluded as it sounds. Their basic argument is the Iranians will see the errors of their ways (after we bomb them), throw out the Mullahs in Tehran, and beg the United States' forgiveness. Or that they're just too scared of our awesome military might ("Shock And Awe II," you might call it) to retaliate in any way, because they'd be terrified of losing a war with us.

That this is divorced from both reality and the history of the United States and Iran for the past 60 years or so seems to escape the proponents of this view. But then again, they sold the Bush White House on the "we'll be greeted as liberators, with flowers" line, so there's no guarantee it won't work a second time.

Here are some chilling quotes from Hersh's article on the subject of "what happens next?" after the bombs stop falling.

"They're moving everybody to the Iran desk," one recently retired C.I.A. official said. "They're dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It's just like the fall of 2002" -- the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, "The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through."

That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House's more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years."

. . .

A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. "We know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense capabilities," he said, "and we believe they will react asymmetrically -- hitting targets in Europe and in Latin America." There is also specific intelligence suggesting that Iran will be aided in these attacks by Hezbollah. "Hezbollah is capable, and they can do it," the diplomat said.

The article does quote one unnamed "senior European official" (most likely British) who has drunk deep of the neo-con Kool-Aid:

The European official continued, "A major air strike against Iran could well lead to a rallying around the flag there, but a very careful targeting of terrorist training camps might not." His view, he said, was that "once the Iranians get a bloody nose they rethink things." For example, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Ali Larijani, two of Iran's most influential political figures, "might go to the Supreme Leader and say, 'The hard-line policies have got us into this mess. We must change our approach for the sake of the regime.' "

This is rebutted with a quote from an unnamed "former [American] senior intelligence official":

"Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, 'Uncle Sam is here! We'd better stand down'? " the former senior intelligence official said. "The reality is an attack will make things ten times warmer."

 

War-gaming the Iranian response

The Iranians have missiles. They also have a shadowy world-wide terror network that, from all accounts, is quite competent and deadly. And geography gave Iran a chokepoint that could cut off roughly 20% of the world's oil supplies.

Put all of these together, and you have quite a range of options for the Iranians to take. Let's assume that they would use these on an escalating scale, with proportionate responses by the U.S.

The very first thing the Iranians would do is bomb the MEK camps in Iraq. This would be on a "tit-for-tat" level and they could make a good case before the world for doing so. The MEK ("Mujahedeen-e-Khalq") is an Iranian dissident group who have been trying to overthrow the government of Iran for quite some time now. They used to operate out of Saddam's Iraq, in cross-border raids into Iran. When we invaded, we kind of institutionalized a stalemate with them -- we accepted their surrender, told them we would protect the safety of their camps, but we allowed them to stay. The only problem is, they're a terrorist group. Which we're protecting with the American military.

You can easily see the parallels with what we would be claiming Iran is doing -- supporting outlaw groups from within their own territory who cross the border and perform terrorist actions. Which is why they would be target number one for Iranian retaliation if we used the "hot pursuit" rationale. Iran would loudly proclaim American hypocrisy and attempt to convince the world of the justification of their actions. They might even succeed in doing so.

If America kept attacking Iran, the options get much grimmer much quicker. Iranian missiles may start targeting the Green Zone in Baghdad with a passion. They may start targeting those sprawling US bases out in the desert in Iraq. Remember the Kuwaiti war with Saddam? America kept saying "oh, we've taken care of all of Saddam's missiles" while the SCUDs kept raining down, proving us wrong. Imagine that scenario coming from Iran.

Iran may also unleash the terrorists it sponsors. Hezbollah, in particular, may begin spectacular terrorist attacks within Europe. They could even conceivably (unlike Bush's bugaboo "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia") successfully attack the United States mainland. So not only are missiles raining down on the Green Zone, but shopping malls and train stations and power plants are getting blown up all over Europe and the United States, or (failing to reach America) U.S. Embassies worldwide.

But these nightmare scenarios aren't the worst weapon. Iran's real leverage comes from sitting on top of the Straits of Hormuz (some use the singular Strait of Hormuz). Check out a map of it on Wikipedia, and notice that Iran surrounds this tight bottleneck on three sides. Twenty percent of the world's oil moves through these straits every day, on supertankers. Imagine Iranian mines, torpedoes and missiles taking out oil tankers here. They'd really just have to successfully take out one, or maybe two to prove they could do it whenever they felt like.

What would happen after the first of these successful attacks would be oil trading at astronomical highs: $150 to $200 a barrel. Or roughly two to three times what is has been trading at during the Iraq war. Six to nine dollars a gallon at your local pump.

If this went on for a short period of time, it could cause a devastating recession on the American economy. If it went on for a long period of time, it could cause a worldwide economic depression.

If the American economy crumbles, it's going to be harder and harder to find the money to continue three wars at once. Remember, we essentially outspent the Soviet Union in the arms race. It'd be awfully ironic if it happened to us, since it would be almost impossible to pour the amount of money we have been into the Middle East if our economy was on its knees.

And really, what would the eventual end to the American military escalation of an Iranian war? A military draft here at home, for one thing, since the Army just could not withstand to supply a ground invasion at its current level of soldiers. Or we could escalate bombing on a level not seen since Vietnam -- carpet bombing from B-52s, not "smart" bombs in pinprick raids. Or the Bush White House might even be tempted to test out those nuclear penetrator bombs we've been working on -- to take out "deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites," no doubt.

My point is that the consequences for an Iranian adventure would be severe. In all the arguments swirling around Iran currently inside the Beltway, not enough attention is being paid to the likely outcome of such military action. If you're a neo-con and are arguing that Iran needs to be taken out because they're the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, then fine -- make your case. But be sure to realistically address what the costs of such rash action would be for America.

Because last time around, we ignored that part of the equation with "we'll be greeted as liberators" -- and we just can't afford a second mistake of that magnitude.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[sparkandy]

It makes you wonder if the people in power have paid any attention to the history of the 20th Century. We supported the Shah of Iran,and look where it got us. We unilaterally support the terrorist nation of Israel for all the good that does. We gave arms to Iraq so they could get rid of the Ayatollahs. We gave arms to Pakistan so they could be Russia's Viet Nam. And now, courtesy of W and his minions, we're actually discussing attacking Iran. Maybe Iraq wore out as a "Wag the Dog" scenario and they figure a war in Iran would distract the peons from noticing that a)this country is going down in flames and b)Osama bin Laden is still out there.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Ride it on it, Duhbya!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/d/Q/bush_strangelove.jpg

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Er... Ride it on IN.

[WigWamWag]

The US / Iraq / Israili / Iranian power position game of dominance of the Middle East is like Russian roulette.

Eventually
1. Bang! the luck runs out OR
2. one or more parties figure out the game is ultimately and horribly fatalistic.

What we need to do is to bring them to that realization before any more people are needlessly killed.

[Adagio]

Stop this madness!

They tell us that if we leave Iraq, the whole region MAY become engulfed in the conflict.
Now they tell us we have to bomb Iran? We would be lucky if the resulting war could be CONFINED to the region.

[mrcontinental]

And they took the "War on Terror" straight out of the nazi playbook:

For a country to turn itself into an imperial kind of despotism, you need an outside enemy. This was the brilliance of Adolf Hitler and his team. In fact, Goering gave a fascinating interview at Nuremberg. He said that the only way that you can organize an intelligent and well-educated people like the Germans into going to war, a war of conquest, was to frighten them. And you frighten them with, "We have great enemies everywhere, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, all over the place, and they have their eye on us," and you go from there.

Sad that we have not learned from the mistakes of a previous generation.

[mrcontinental]

Gore Vidal called this years ago:

The American media is almost by definition a creature of corporate America, which owns it. You can"t expect them to be otherwise. After all, Rupert Murdoch is now an Americanized Australian, so he has to be included in that. Corporate America knows what it wants.

The real battle here, which nobody has brought out in the campaign and I would have thought it was obvious, is that in 2001 Cheney came to Washington as vice president and more importantly as the great power in Halliburton, the oil and gas people. Interested in making money for his firm and himself, he called in a meeting of leading geologists and people who know about oil reserves and natural gas, and he asked a question which is quite sensible, "How much longer do we, the world, have for fossil fuels?" And they did their experiments and said, "Well, it looks like it"s all over in 2020." That is when the Iraq and Afghanistan wars began. 9/11 was just a lucky trigger for somebody who had already decided to attack Iraq and get a hold of their oil fields, position himself and his buddies for a war on Iran which has, I think, even greater oil resources, or rather the Caspian Sea has, and those little republics that end in "stan." Those are the greatest oil reserves in the world, greater than Saudi Arabia.

So by taking out Iraq and making it an American base, which hasn"t worked terribly well, ditto Afghanistan, we are now on top of the world"s oil supply, which is what these people came into office to do. And when they talk about freedom and liberty and democracy, you just want to ¦ I"m not going to use any strong verbs, but it"s the hypocrisy and the viciousness and the fact that the media covered for them and never questioned them, never took anything beyond what were the parameters that they had set up.

[mrcontinental]

Come on folks the plans to conquer the middle east have been on the table since the mid seventies and has involved the same cast of maniacs (Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfy) at various points all along the way. For people to kick back and express shock and surprise at this late date is laughable.

[engineer68]

It takes guts to fly a fighter aircraft into combat if only our air force and naval pilots would show the same resolve and just say no to another war with no justification. Mr. president we are standing down and will wait for lawful orders.

[WigWamWag]

If it comes down to whether to bomb or not to bomb over some atomic bomb status, we should NOT get involved in the inner working of ANY government.

I am surprised that Saudi Arabia does not already have the atomic bomb courtesy of the US government with crony links to oil suppliers. The Arabs however may not need the atomic bombs because they do have US militrary bases on their soil. Quite probably, they have US atomic bombs at those bases. Possibly, there are US atomic bombs at the US military bases in IRAQ too. It would foolish to use them. Every NATO country has US military bases and with the bases comes the bombs of all shapes sizes and destruction power. Luckily, in the past Australia will not allowed US ships with atomic bombs on their soil or in their territorial waters.

If the Iranian government gets the big bomb, they however may think twice before using it. They do have a semi-crazy leader, but so does the US thus the risks of a hotheaded mistake are elevated.

Israel already has the A-bomb. They probably got it from the United States military CIA with NSA"s and the State Department"s blessing.

We need not start another war over the private religious and economic interests of the Israeli government. It is no secret that the Israeli make a habit of spying on the US government. It is they and the oil hungry Neo-cons who want a new war with Iran.

Just getting Sadam out of the continually unstable Iraq may not have enough to quench the thirst for imperialist global expansion and theft of natural resources under the guise of protecting "freedom" from the evil Muslem / Islamic terrorists.

[Qbear]

I think Democrats in the Senate need to ask

WHO'S SIDE IS REID ON?

He brought up that astondingly stupid Kyl/Lieberman bill for a vote, he brought up extending abstinence funding. STOP REID before he brings so many poison pills no Democrat can win.

[RobertPaul]

Excellent post, as usual.

You know I was remembering a clip I saw of a Bush presser.

One reporter asked him why don't we go into Warziristan and get Bin Lauden?

Bush said (with a perfectly strait face) "Well, because Pakistan is a sovereign country. In other words they're a sovereign nation and we don't attack soverign nations!"

I sat there watching this and thinking to myself "Saddam had himself a sovereign country, didn't he?"

Now I'm thinking "...But Iran is a sovereign country, isn't it?"

I know I'm stupid because I don't get it.

Maybe there are different Flavors of Kool-Ade?

It looks to me that we've had this particular flavor before and got in trouble.

[Dap]

The attack on Iran... IS a done deal, it is just a matter of timing.

Make *No* mistake about that!

[OldManOnFire]

The mere fact that we are discussing the possibility, or probability of an unprovoked and preemptive attack on a sovereign nation, as if this is no more important than analyzing the most recent dumbed-down TV program, in my opinion is a sign that Americans have completely lost compassion for our fellow humans and have grown arrogant and self-serving in becoming the bully-nation...a rogue nation.

Talking today about how horrific life might become after US aggression, does nothing more than prove how stupid and pitiful we are to even consider such an action in the first place!!!

If we can't find the necessary outrage in such a topic, if we don't do everything imaginable to stop this aggression, then the US deserves the ramifications from such arrogance and ignorance...

[Taan]

The Bush administration and the Republican congress have failed to achieve their goal of dismantling social programs in the Legislature. Ergo, another way to do this is through the tsunami flow of money out of the Treasury to finance endless overseas conflicts. Enough billions wasted in such misadventures will, they believe, finally starve the public programs to death. Such convoluted thinking is what got us into Iraq and will continue its destructive ways unless the hapless congress can sidetrack Bush for good.

[ljsfolly]

I cannot fathom what exactly Bush and Cheney are getting out of going into the Middle East beyond oil as their buddies and Bushes family friends the Saudis are in the business. To go after Iran because they don't like the leader like they didn't like Iraqs seems to be the surface reason but Iran has what Iraq did not weapons and much, much more deadly intent. Saddam was a power, money hungry slime Iran doesn't have that they have religion that they use along with belief they have a right to nuke power. Iran being invaded by what soldiers is the next question. If they plan just a fly over and bomb dropping the hornet nest that will start will be world war three in our backyard. Who will stand with Bush on this war? France? That's a laugh as the rest of the world will not be protecting us and neither will our soldiers. Wholesale death of our soldiers and those blackwater guys will be first on the Iran list and the rest will be a nuke in our borders. Oil and gas for our cars will be non existent and food will be not enough for the store shelves. Remember the old pictures of the USSR with no food to buy.

[IsaacKuo]

"What would happen after the first of these successful attacks would be oil trading at astronomical highs: $150 to $200 a barrel."

That does it. BushCo will do it, even if for that reason alone.

"If this went on for a short period of time, it could cause a devastating recession on the American economy. If it went on for a long period of time, it could cause a worldwide economic depression."

The problem is that this is only what will happen in reality. But according to neo-con thinking, recessions and depressions are by definition impossible as long as you cut taxes, deregulate, and privatize everything. Cutting taxes, deregulation, and privatization create prosperity like magic.