Neocon Strategy: The Military Solution Against Iran is The Final Solution

Did anyone actually read the study, released to RawStory.com, that lends legitimacy to the idea that Bush can take out Iran's nuclear capability with massive air attacks? It was like something out of Dr. Strangelove. It also fits seamlessly into the fabric of White House rhetoric and takes neocon ideology to its inevitable conclusion.

"U.S. policy is regime change by political means and prevention of nuclear weapons acquisition by all means," write Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher, who have impressive resumes but offer superficial crackpot analysis. "By all means," is a euphemism. Translated into English, it means unilaterally launching war aimed at total destruction of Iran as a nation state (yes, nuclear weapons may be necessary). "By all means," also answers the inevitable, "Yeah, but then what?" question. After we bomb a nation of 70 million people into the stone age, we keep them permanently subjugated.

This is no exaggeration. Look at their own words:

Conventional Wisdom concerning any U.S. attack on Iran:

a) Any attack will be limited to suspect Weapons of Mass Destruction sites and associated defences.

b) Iran will then have options to retaliate ...[.]

c) This analysis is not convincing for the following reasons:

- Elementary military strategy requires the prevention of anticipated enemy counter-attacks. Iranian Air Force, Navy, Surface to Surface Missile and Air Defence systems would not be left intact. Although one option may be to leave regular Iranian armed forces intact and attack to destroy the regime including Revolutionary Guard, Basij and religious police. In this way regime change might be encouraged.

- President Bush will not again lay himself open to the charge of using too little force.

- U.S. policy is regime change by political means and prevention of nuclear weapons acquisition by all means. The only logic for restraint once war begins will be continued pressure on Iran to acquiesce to U.S. demands through intra-war deterrence.

- Long term prevention of Iranian WMD programmes may require regime change and the reduction of Iran to a weak or failed state, since all assumptions concerning attacks on WMD sites alone conclude that Iran would merely be held back a few years.

- U.S. military preparations and current operations against Iran indicate a full-spectrum approach to Iran rather than one confined to WMD sites alone.

"President Bush will not again lay himself open to the charge of using too little force," is a classic neocon perversion of history. No one ever charged Bush with using "too little force" in the invasion of Iraq or anywhere else. Rather, Bush failed to use a sufficient number of troops to impose order and control in Iraq. Four years later, our own troop strength is decimated, while Iran's remains intact.

Aside from troop strength, Pleash and Butcher acknowledge that Iran can retaliate by non-traditional means, such as "insurrection in Iraq" or "destabilization of Gulf states with large Shi'a populations."

But all the bullet points under "c)" represent the entire solution to all of Iran's retaliatory options, including local insurrections.

So if the U.S. is short on troops and domestic military intelligence in Iran, how does it fight a non-traditional war as a foreign invader? By the "full-spectrum approach" which can only mean killing enough Iranians, largely by air power, to force the entire country into submission. "The only logic for restraint once war begins will be continued pressure on Iran to acquiesce to U.S. demands through intra-war deterrence." "[A]ttack to destroy the regime including Revolutionary Guard, Basij and religious police." Which are all necessary for "reduction of Iran to a weak or failed state." That necessity is dictated by the opinion of the Iraqi people, 91 percent of whom believe it is important that Iran develops the capability to enrich its own uranium fuel.

If you stand in "the shadow of a nuclear holocaust," to use George Bush's words, then anything is justifiable.

I knew Plesch and Butcher were delusional right away, when I jumped to the section titled, "And How Could This Affect the Gulf States and Combatants." You would think after our debacle in Iraq, any military analysis would address the threshold question, "How will people react?" Plesch and Butcher don't go there.

As a result, they ignore a huge logistical problem. You need to consider the reaction of Kuwait, which hosts the Combined Forces Land Component Command and is used as the primary staging point for forces and equipment rotating in and out of Iraq. And consider Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. And consider Oman, which allows the U.S. to use four air bases. And consider Qatar, where the U.S. maintains its headquarters for all Middle East air operations. And consider the United Arab Emirates, where more U.S. Navy ships dock than at any port outside the U.S.

Each of these sovereign states has announced its staunch opposition to any military attack on Iran and none of these countries will allow an attack on Iran to originate from its soil. And only a fool would presume that we could launch attacks on Iran from elsewhere and thereafter the Gulf states would continue their same level of cooperation.

Plesch and Butcher acknowledge that Iran may seek "destabilization of Gulf states with large Shi'a populations," as if it's just a matter of manipulating the sleeping masses. They never consider that local populations are capable of reacting without anyone prompting them. Gulf state leaders are not as stupid as Plesch and Butcher. They know that virtually all suicide bombers act against foreign military occupiers (the 9/11 highjackers wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia). So Bahrain, where 70 percent of the population is Shia but the rulers are Sunni, suddenly becomes a less stable place. The risk of terrorism against the Fifth Fleet becomes greater, so the government may decide, for its own self preservation, that the Fifth Fleet is no longer welcome.

Almost no Shia live in Egypt, where they are traditional objects of ridicule. But Hosni Mubarak also announced his staunch opposition to military action against Iran, because he recognizes how such an attack could destabilize his own government. A poll taken last April shows that 91 percent of Egyptians approve of attacks on U.S. troops. Not just U.S. troops in Iraq. U.S. troops anywhere in the Middle East. Similarly, 92 percent of Egyptians believe that the goal of U.S. foreign policy is to divide and weaken Islam. This is before we bomb Iran in defiance of the rest of the world. The largest Arab country in the world suddenly becomes a lot less stable.

Plesch and Butcher are just like other flunkies for the White House, mostly members of the press, who go to extraordinary lengths to ignore the most salient facts. Iran has amicable relations with all of the Gulf states. Iran has very friendly relations with all of its neighbors, which include Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq. All these countries, and most of the rest of the world, view Israel's nuclear capability as a counterbalance to Iran's nuclear aspirations. Also, Iran's construction of nuclear power plants makes sense from a strictly economic point of view, since it enables greater oil and gas exports.

And this is the really unbelievable part. This part that makes you think Plesch and Butcher had lobotomies and forgot what happened in Iraq. Remember how they wrote, "Long term prevention of Iranian WMD programmes may require regime change and the reduction of Iran to a weak or failed state." We have a weak or failed state in Iraq. Do these bozos think we can exert control over Iraq? Or that a failed or weakened Iraq makes anyone more safe?

Do they think we have troops to send to Iran? If our Army is forced to take injured and physically unfit soldiers back for third deployments back to Iraq, you know our Army is in pathetic shape.

Remember, lots of Iranians speak Arabic and lots of Iraqis speak Farsi. Local insurgents can easily blend into neighborhoods on both sides. Americans, on the other hand, never know when they are being lied to. Exactly who do they think will do the Americans' bidding after we destroy their military, in direct defiance of every country in the world with the possible exception of Israel?

"This is, in fact, World War III," argues Newt Gingrich. For necocons, total war is really the only option for imposing their will on the rest of the world -- especially now that Iraq has left U.S. military, economic and diplomatic influence largely crippled. "The Case for Bombing Iran," according to Norman Podhoretz, is the historic imperative to confront "another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of Communism." Again, they're like something out of Dr. Strangelove.

If Considering a War with Iran: A Discussion Paper on WMD in the Middle East, is an approximation of what our military leadership is thinking, then we all have a moral duty to try and stop this notion from going anywhere.

Comments

[CharliePfromHB]

If the civilized world doesn't change energy and water direction, we are destined to continue to enter conflict zones exasperated by groups trying to control the wealth and life sustaining power of energy and water. Why would Iran use nuclear power to assure retaliatory self destruction. They're fanatics and crazy enough to destroy their own country? The playing field that needs to be leveled is between the people of consuming natons and the oligopoly/government/cartel triad that is trying to preserve the status quo of wealth generation while Africans fight over control of water and energy resources in order to prevent famine or grasp for control of precious energy or other natural resources. It should be patently obvious that military tactics are being subsituted for facing the reality of necessary change. Strangely, the world's energy based political and military strategies can only lead to more death and destruction and an ultimately "unreconcilable" divorse between the energy consuming nations and the Middle East producers. Since the military and intelligence communities are paid to develop military tactics, what do we expect except military solutions. The vacuum of ideas is regarding clean water and energy strategies because the aforementioned triad in restraint of change is limiting our choices. Sorry, the "shining light on the hill" is no longer fueled by oil and gasoline. In a world of almost seven billion people and emerging economies, military strategy will never succeed to suppress the growing demand for low cost, clean, water and energy. Yes, we can choose to substitute blood for water and energy. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that, in our shrinking global village, a military plan of action in the Middle East quagmire will not follow us home. Likewise, the Middle East should not delude itself into thinking that killing its customers will not reduce sales volume!

[jhNY]

When the US military is stretched so thin that conventional war is impracticable, nuclear attack is the option that remains on the table. You can look it up.

When Bush starts dropping bombs all over Iran over a weekend, how many feckless professional Democrats will jump up to go against him Monday morning? Answer: fewer by far than the number who will stand smartly and salute.

The Democrats spent much of the '04 election decrying the "war" in Iraq, because Iraq was the wrong target. If he wanted to attack someplace really dangerous, they said, Bush should have gone after Iran or maybe even North Korea. What will these geniuses say if he actually takes them at their word?

By the election, anybody against the new war (and the old war) will be labeled a traitor by the Republicans and their brass-throated minions in the press. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

[hopeless277]

Sorry, but the horse has already left the barn. It's not a question of if but when. BushCheney will not be deterred from their holy mission to spread caos across the globe. I believe these two people are more of a threat to humanity than even Hitler was. They are facists, theives, liars, murderers and rapists. Sadly, no one has a chance in hell of stopping them. Get ready for the fallout.

[FlowerGirl]

America is dead. Neoamerica is a plague.
It has long been time for a NEW American Revolution. We should wipe out every trace of Neoism in our nation and begin again with the egalitarian state our founders wanted, and avoid those foreign entanglements that are not doing us any good.
Allies help each other. Our so called "ally" has never done us any material good, but has caused us needless trouble.

[gvincent]

Well...when you put it that way...
Actually I don't disagree with you...which means two of 300,000,000 support what you said.
http://www.crookedinc.com

[BigTree]

Remember, Iraq is not the only failed state in the region - after five years of war, Afghanistan's primary export is opium, it's government's authority is limited, and the Taliban is reasserting control over a population that increasingly resents the indiscriminate bombing perpetrated by the U.S. military.

Continuing east, Pakistan is walking a tightrope between despotism and anarchy - and unlike Iran, Pakistan has proven nuclear capability, capability it has proven willing or at least unable to prevent to export to other states.

Truly the neo-cons have lost their minds.

[pitman]

As a great admirer of the Jews and their brilliant contributions to American culture - one has to contemplate Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's book "The Israel Lobby & U.S. Foreign Policy". Objectively speaking, how much truth are they conveying?? Will they (Israel) have an influencing say here if we attack?? And if so, how does it truly benefit us Americans??

[CriminallySane]

It's worth noting that the Israelis, in the runup to our invasion of Iraq, were advocating for something a little different:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html

A relevant pullquote:

"Wilkerson, then a member of the US State Department's policy planning staff and later chief of staff for secretary of state Colin Powell, recalled in an interview that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, said Wilkerson, "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy.""

Go read the rest.

[Raven]

Try and stop this notion for going anywhere?

Yeah, that'll work.

This is the neocon's final solution. It has been their plan all along.

We're just getting closer to the day.

How to stop it?

There's only one way. Impeach.

With impeachment hearings in process, our military leaders will have a valid reason to resist.

Without impeachment, the Iranians are cooked.

And that can't be good for any or us.

[JustAnotherJoe]

We most certainly have a moral duty to stop another neocon attempt of using the end to justify the means. I"m curious as to how Mr. Fiderer thinks the US population would react in the aftermath of an attack on Iran. Although you wouldn't know it from the MSM at the time, about half of the country opposed the Iraqi invasion, even in the face of all of the propaganda spewing from the administration. There were many demonstrations. In the next election, the Dems (spineless as some of them are not voting to require the admin to gain Congressional approval prior to an Iranian strike) gained a majority in both houses of Congress. I"m not so cynical yet to believe that a majority of us would do nothing. With this in mind, would the neocons even bother trying to sell another attack, or just do it? If the attack occurs it will happen immediately in response to some kind of Bay of Tonkin scenario. Most certainly the neocons in the Congress and White House would institute the draft, not right away of course, but only after the Iranian counterattack options Mr. Fiderer mentioned are carried out and the world spirals toward a wider war. Forget the Middle East countries for a moment, how would the rest of the world react to the US bombing a country back into the stone age? What would Russia do? China? What would extremists in the Pakistani military do? Rally around fellow Muslims, overthrow the US friendly General, and gain control of an operational nuclear arsenal, most likely. Gingrich would get his WW3.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Iran, with or without "the bomb", still only has oil, and would need to conquer places with everything else for its people to continue to live the lifestyle they currently choose. While Iranians clearly have the ability to make a mess out of their own neighborhood, they can"t do even that without enduring far more disruption than they are likely to have any appetite for. True, there are some Muslims who seem inexplicably prone to suicide attacks, but to date they haven"t even been willing to mount the kind of "human wave attacks" that we faced in Korea, let alone some lemming like rush to death. One suspects that the average Muslim, like the rest of us, is far more interested in raising a family and making a living than in dieing in a futile attempt to force the majority to pray the way they do.

The truth is that the Middle East needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs the Middle East. Sure, they have their hands on the oil faucet, but what are they going to do with the stuff, drink it? Our invasion of Iraq proves that invasion of an oil exporting country cuts production, rather than ensuring it, and there"s no sign anywhere that that"s a mistake that we are likely to repeat.

We may not be able to stop buying oil, but Iran can"t stop selling it either. Therein lies the sort of stalemate that seems like it might be fertile ground for some constructive communication, but that seems to be the sort of approach that the Bush Administration is adamantly opposed to.

[loslobo]

May I refer you to Greg Palast, he contends that the object of invading Iraq was to appease the Saudis and sit on the oil, thus keeping the prices high.

[Dunnage]

Where are the Democrats on this?

[CriminallySane]

Once the Strait of Hormuz closes, the world economy's oil flow drops precipitously.

From this, many bad things follow. All because Bush is, in essence, saying to the rest of the world, "Hold my beer and watch this!"

[hbr17]

When did America become so fearful of competing idealogically and economically with the rest of the world. Even a nuclear Iran is not a direct threat to the US (or no more of a threat than the Soviets were and can be handled in similar manner). If we attack we create enemies who really will be a threat. The wild card in this siutation is the very real threat to Israel. While an Iranian attack on the US would be suicide; an Iranian attack on Israel would be martyrdom. Still we could probably use good old back-channel diplomacy to defuse this threat and protect our ally Israel (make it 100% clear to Iran that their first use of Nuclear weapons would result in a pre-planned massive retaliation -- they used to call it MAD)

[BigTuna]

> When did America become so fearful of competing idealogically and
> economically with the rest of the world

January 20, 2001

[WorkingClass]

Reading the threads here on the Huff Po I get the impression that many of my fellow readers think that world war three will not affect them personally. Discussion of the possibility of economic depression or hyper-inflation likewise indicates that many feel immune to any real adversity.

Unfortunately, as matters stand, If president Clown Shoes wants to spark a global conflict there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. Americans will be very angry I think when they finally learn the hard way that politics is not an abstraction.

[Rowland]

Those who avoided Vietnam also avoided the truth of what happened here at home. They did not see how close we came to tearing apart the social and political fabric, of upending the social contract. When that war ended there was considerable healing and the scars are hardly visible today. For this reason, the administration has probably failed to take into consideration that the American people might, in their anger, rise up and cause irreparable tears in the social fabric.

If the administration miscalculates and there is a rent in the fabric of the political and social fabric, a heavy handed attempt to put it down could result in a front being opened up on American soil in a way never seen before in our history.

For this reason, the Congress should act immediately to present pro forma articles of impeachment that include invasion of a foreign nation under false pretenses and name it as a war crime.

To have such an article of impeachment on the table and the Judiciary committee actively investigating it, will telegraph to military personal that should they participate in such a venture at the behest of the administration the United States will consider it a war crime for which officers of the military could be turned over to an international tribunal for prosecution.

Anything less than articles of impeachment will be the same as locking the barn after the horse has left if they, the Congress, thinks that it can wait until the shooting starts to do something about it.

This is not something the political parties can decide based upon their respective interests, and timing is everything.