Gulf Action-Reaction Cycle Could Spin to War

Each side in the Persian Gulf sees its moves as purely defensive. It is the other guy who's the belligerent. The latest Iranian tests continue a dangerous action-reaction cycle that could lead to war.

It is no coincidence that Iran fired its salvo of 9 ballistic missiles on July 9 while the G-8 leaders in Japan were calling on Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. Its pyrotechnic display was a political statement, not a demonstration of any new military capability. All the missiles had been tested before; all but the Shahab-3 fly only 70 to 180 miles and are a threat to those on Iran's borders, but no one else. Iran claims the Shahab can now fly 1250 miles, but scientists I talked to (sometimes you really do need to be a rocket scientist) are very skeptical. "This would be a huge leap in capability," says Dr. David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "If true, it would almost double the missile's range. I'd have to see a lot more before I accepted this claim."

One could start tracing the reaction chain from any link, going back to the 1979 Iranian revolution, but the most relevant might be the Israeli military exercises reported on June 21 where Israel practiced sustained air strikes on a distant target that looked a lot like Iran. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard said June 28 that if attacked, Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz: "Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue... Oil prices will dramatically increase. This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action." He also cited Iran's missile power and the vulnerability of Israeli and U.S. forces in the region.

On July 2, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf said the U.S. Navy and its Gulf allies will not allow Iran to seal off the crucial straits, through which one-fifth of the world's oil supplies flow. On July 7, the U.S., the United Kingdom and Bahrain ran "Exercise Stake Net" to "practice the tactics and procedures of protecting maritime infrastructure," said Commodore Peter Hudson of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. On July 7, 8 and 9, the G-8 issued statements calling on Iran to end its enrichment program.

On July 9 Iran launches its missiles. It is no secret why. They tell us. "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch," said IRGC air force commander Brigadier General Hussein Salami.

We have seen this movie before. In June 2006, the U.S. and South Korea conducted a large-scale, five-day war game with 22,000 military personnel and three aircraft carriers. It was the largest war game in the Pacific since Vietnam. In response, on July 4, North Korea tested seven ballistic missiles, including the medium-range Nodong that is the basis for the Iranian Shahab.

Here is the risk. If this cycle is not broken, it escalates. With Pyongyang, the U.S. ratcheted up its rhetoric and sanctions efforts after the missile tests. Did North Korea back down? No, it detonated a nuclear weapon in October 2006. Only when the U.S. began direct talks with the Koreans did the tensions ease. Now, the North Koreans are blowing up their nuclear reactor instead of nuclear bombs.

If direct talks (open or secret) do not begin soon, if all sides continue to respond only to that latest action of the other as if it had no precipitant, than the cycle will continue and could spin into a war no side truly wants.

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[Garvagh]

There is virtually no possibility of an Iranian first-strike attack on Israel. A missile attack is unthinkable, not only because it would trigger an Israeli response a hundred times more severe, but because the deeply devout Iranian people would never destroy the sacred city of Jerusalem. (Iranian missiles are not all that accurate, it should be kept in mind.)

Let us remember that Iran did not use chemical weapons during the eight years of war with Iraq, even though it lost tens of thousands of its own soldiers to death of horrible mutilation caused by Iraqi use of such weapons.

[mediamarv]

You will need to subtract some missiles from your count. See here:

thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/-many/

[dadw5boys]

At this point in time going to war with Iran will crush several governments in the middle east and unite millioms against the USA in the middle east. If nukes are used anywhere in the middle east I fear we will be at war many many years.

[January]

The Iran missile launch was designed to put Russia down. Rice has been proved correct that ABMs in eastern Europe are not aimed at Russia...o­r something like that.

How come I have seen no commentary about the accuracy of the Iranian missiles? Oh, right. It was the US Fourth of July where the fireworks only have to go up. I didn't know the Iranians also celebrated our holiday.

All in all, I cannot think of a worse sense of timing in foreign affairs since Bush invaded Iraq. Correction. Compared to Bush, the Iranians are geniuses of diplomacy.

[cylindar]

I don't blame the Iranians. I do not agree with their rulership but they certainly have a right to do whatever nuclear activity they want to be involved in. What? You say! Yes, who the hell is the US or anybody else to tell them what to do. Would we let others tell us what to do....Huh!­!!! No, so I think old Bushy poo got his butt wiped on this one and I am glad. It's about time the Bushy's realized that they do not own the world. Although the leaders of Iran are nut cases (just like Bush) no one has the right to blow them up because they have not started a war with anyone. This Neocon imperialism crap does not sit well with the rest of the world and Bush is just making every US citizen look really really stupid and impotent. All of this Iran crap is nothing but a great PR stunt for Bush and the Israelis who do not want to face the reality that they have occupied land that was not given to them by the inhabitants but by the British who had no right to give it away in the first place. These groups have a legitimate gripe against Israel and they will have to face the music sooner or later.

[curocat]

In addition, Israel has more than 200 nuclear warheads and had a UN resolution against them.. Go to UN web site ( 13nov1995)­ga/dis/303­8;urgent steps toward Nuclear Weapons... Also A/56/99-S/2001/612 General Assembly Security Council...­.. Didn't Bush say that we can not have any Nuclear Weapons in that region ????

[Garvagh]

Most experts on the subject say that Israel has at least 300 nuclear weapons. Israel is much stronger than Iran, and has a defense budget double that of its potential enemy. I say "potential" because Iran almost certainly would accept an Israel contained within its pre-1967 borders.

[KELLI2L]

Obama talks about carrots and sticks regarding Iran. I just want to know - when Iran hates Israel so much, how many carrots and what kind of sticks apply here???? I hate that kind of empty retoric. . .

[lungfish]

Iran doesn't hate Israel. The Iranian President is neither the highest word nor the last word on the subject but even so, he has been misquoted repeatedly in the Western Press. He did call for the current Israeli government to be removed which was represented in the media as a call to "wipe Israel from the face of the Earth". Iranians like America and would prefer to see a strong move towards a more secular government. America and the CIA had a very direct hand in keeping the Shah in power and removing the only democratically elected government Iran had in 1952 and it was this interference by the staff of the US Embassy - all CIA people by the way- on behalf of British Anglo Oil that led directly to the Iranian revolution and the hostage situation in 1979. The Iranian revolutionaries were containing the US capability to interfere with their program. Further, Iran offered to help us and was rebuffed directly for it early in the Bush II regime. Then they were insulted and villianized by the "Axis of Evil" propoganda while Saudi Arabia escaped any accountability for the actions of its citizens in the 911 attacks. Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism and payment for the 911 attacks came from the Saudi military. If Obama made a reasonable attempt to engage the Iranians rather than use North Korean or Israeli (Cheney) style hyperbole and bellicose posturing he may very well find a means to normalize a relationship with Iran.

[doofmann02]

Seemed to work pretty well with Libya and North Korea, both countries who "hated" us and some of our allies. Also worked with Ukraine, Kazakhstan and South Africa regarding their nukes. I think the issue is how strong each component is, not in the idea itself.

[doofmann02]

Seemed to work with Libya and North Korea, both countries with plenty of hate toward us and some of our allies. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and South Africa gave up nuclear capabilities with incentives more than threats. The problem isn't in the approach, but how strong each component is.

[earthwealth]

Iran is a threat because:
1. In 1953 Iran set up a coup and changed our democratic elected government of Dr. Mosadegh.
2. When Iraq attacked us, Iran fully supported this war and provided Iraq with military, political and WMDs. Our 1000+ WMD victims are still in their hospital beds for the world to see.
3. In July 1998, Iranian Navy shot down our commercial plane while flying legally over OUR Persian Gulf. Only 100 out of 300 bodies were recovered from water. The executer of the mission received an honorably medal.
4. Has been involved in many covert missions in our country targeting some ethnic groups for uprising., sabotage and mercenary activities, explosions in mosques and military bases.
5. Has attacked and occupied two of our neighboring countries and spread their large navy including carriers and nuclear submarines on our shores.
6. Has been threatening us by initiating and supporting numerous economical sanctions and constantly repeating the phrase “all options are on the table”.
7. With 6000+ nuclear warheads had made threats to many countries that have no nuclear arsenals.
8. Has installed and supported many dictatorial regimes around the world.
9. In 1988 when four Iranian diplomats were kidnapped and still held in captivity by Israelis, they immediately attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
10. In 1998, when Taliban beheaded 11 Iranian diplomats sent to Afghanistan by Iranian government to initiate diplomacy, Iran immediately attacked Afghanistan with nuclear weapons.

[RedDogBear]

Excellent comment.

[Titonwan]

Those last couple there are a little far fetched. Care to elaborate and clarify? Sounds interesting though.

[ICanHasDemocracy]

Re #2 "Iraq attacked us...Our 1000 WMD victims...­"- what country do you refer to as "us"- certainly not the USA because Iraq did not attack us, we attacked Iraq and WMD's have been disproven- WMDs being chemical/biological and nuclear weapons.

[readerK]

ICanHasDemocracy: eartware was posting allegorically: tongue-in-cheek, that is. Wherever you see "Iran" in that post, simply plug in "we," "our" or "the US;" and do the reverse with "Iran." You will then capture the full meaning of the post, for we -- the U.S. -- have done to the Iranians so much that we wouldn't stomach if the shoe were on the other foot.

Also, Google for a map of Iran. Look at the countries surrounding it, and you will find that Iran IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED by countries in which we are either fighting right now, or have military bases, or military alliances, or dictatorial allies, or countries in which there are nuclear weapons, etc. Then, just pretend that you are looking at the map of the US in the space where Iran is: how would we feel being surrounded by so much militarily unfriendly countries? readerK.

[Mojane]

Surely you jest.

[Mojane]

WTF

[NewEnglishman]

Given the fact that the US lacks the military force to entertain another war - even if all of our troops left Iraq, they would be needed in Afghanistan - and the uncertain state of affairs inside Iran, talking is our only option, however much the politicians and talking heads might bloviate.

[RedDogBear]

I wish that were true. We still have nuclear missiles and bombs and while we couldn't launch a ground war with Iraq the Air force has capacity left. When you spend more than the rest of the world combined on your military you can wreak a lot of havoc before you collapse.

[deminmo]

We do have military available in the Air Force and Navy
and the carrier strike groups in the gulf. We also have
additional troops in Diego Garcia and Guam capable
of flying B-52's and other fighters into the Middle East
in a few hours. And the group scheduled to leave
Iraq could be called into duty by October, or November.

[MajorKong]

And Iran has roughly 500 ballistic missiles that can hit every base we have in that part of the world. They also have a considerable number of very good anti-ship missiles stationed along the Persian Gulf. They can make things very messy for us.

In Pentagon-speak they have "escalation dominance", ie they can take things further than we're willing to see things go. That's why the Pentagon really doesn't want to see a war with Iran right now.

[Mojane]

The powers that be have no intention of sending troops into Iran. Their plan is to simply bomb the country. First, though, the rhetoric, the bombast, the lies, the propaganda machine must get the folks stoked to "go get em, yahoo". It worked with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This time, they'll make it easy. Plus, the Pentagon can play realtime with all the fancy gazillion dollar taxpayer money air power and missiles that they've been itching to show off. "We''ve seen the enemy and it are us." Walt Kelly (Pogo)

[mgloraine]

A war no side truly wants? If only that were true, there might be a hope for humanity. But it is obvious that Cheney-Bush, the Israeli government, and BushCo's corporate cronies desperately want to get the attack of Iran underway a.s.a.p. in order to prevent the possibility of a diplomatic solution which would not enrich the major defense contractors and carbon-fuel pushers. This is not a case where a war might happen by accident through some misunderstanding; war is being deliberately provoked by Cheney-Bush. Cheney WILL attack Iran because it's been on his agenda for years and he intends to "make it so" before he leaves office, no matter what the cost. The people of the world do not want another war, but the people of the world will be overruled again by a handful of criminals, disaster capitalists who believe their personal wealth to be much more important than the continued existence of life on Earth.

Nothing short of impeachment and removal from office for both Cheney and Bush will prevent the unilateral attack against Iran which they have been preparing for so long. But there will be no impeachment, because Congress is owned by the same crooked corporations which sponsor the Cheney-Bush Gang.

We're not balancing on the razor's edge between war and peace - we've already cleared the precipice and are plunging headlong toward our own annihilation.

[osturk]

There will bo no war with Iran. Be real.

[Titonwan]

WTF OMFG LOL

[KYZipster]

I agree, there will be no war. Not because they don't want to bomb them into the stone age with no regard for human life, but they are impotent and reality is finally sinking in. If for no other reason, oil will reach such an astronomical amount and even the rich in this country will be ruined.

[chucktrotter]

Russia and NATO stood each other off for decades. Iranian leaders would never launch a nuke from within their borders. They may hate us, but they're not suicidal. Would Iran provide a limited nuclear capability and logistical support to those who "are" suicidal? Bush and his club are pushing the entire Muslim world into a corner. The Muslim world is pushing back. It's time to bring some reasonable adults into this altercatio­n...before it's too late. Reasonable and greedy for oil are not synonynous.

[leftionthenews]

"Each side in the Persian Gulf sees its moves as purely defensive. It is the other guy who's the belligerent. The latest Iranian tests continue a dangerous action-reaction cycle that could lead to war."

No, Joe, it's not like that. There is no "equivalence" here. The U.S. and its ally Israel are *openly* threatening Israel, *openly* discussing plans to bomb Iran and leave "no option off the table," *openly* rehearsing bombing runs on Iran. Anyone even *remotely* impartial can see which side is the belligerent and which side is really acting defensively.

[RedDogBear]

"Each side in the Persian Gulf sees its moves as purely defensive" Yes but can we try to look at this rationally? Iran has not threatened anyone (in spite of propaganda you have heard they have never said they want to wipe Israel off the map) they haven't invaded anyone. The US has invaded and is currently occupying two of Iran's neighbors. The US regularly makes threats against Iran and refuses to rule out the "option" of attacking them. The US is making very similar false statements about Iran's intentions to build WMD's as they made before they invaded Iraq, even though OUR OWN intelligence agencies confirm that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Iran in the mean time merely wants to develop peaceful nuclear power -- a capability that virtually all the other industrialized countries in the world posses. Which side is really defensive?

[outnow]

The economic situation in the US is is dire. The GOP wants to distract Americans from the many problems we have at home. The GOP is facing a great loss of power and possible accountability for the misdeeds over the past seven years. With Iraq's oil within its grasp and the wealth of Iran ahead in the distance, Bush is prepared to escalate the conflict until a war breaks out. Israel is on board. I cannot help but feel that the missile capability is sufficient to carry some warhead - dirty or chemical or whatever into Israel. The degree of paranoia is palpable. The feeling is sooner or later, and many would rather have that fight now while Iran is surrounded by the Fifth Fleet.

The Iranians fought the Iraqis in the 80' armed with nothing but copies of the Koran in their hands as they marched into pillboxes with machine guns firing. Millions of young boys died in this war. I do not see the Iranians backing down yet I see no real proof of their intention to build prohibited weapons.

I have lived through the Cold War and the Cuban Missile crisis, as well as a few other close calls. I know that the Russians and Chinese are getting tired of the New World Order under Bush and Cheney. I see Iran, China and Russia lining up against the US in a new Cold War that could turn hot.

None of this was necessary.

[LeftLeanWing]

The Iraq-Iran War was started by the Iraqis with our governments prodding. We provided logistical support to Saddam and it was very very bloody and useless.

Our Government also pulled a coup d'etat on the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953; because the elected president and his administration wanted his country to benefit more from the oil profits. We installed the Shah in his place; who attempted to give the country a Western identity ( ie Turkey) and was as cruel to any opposition as Saddam.

The Iranians don't trust us based on our history with them.

[deminmo]

If you believe economists not politicians, the economy
is headed toward an even worse recession, and even
depression if not stopped. Disaster Capitalists believe
destroying a social system is necessary to rebuild in favor
of true capitalism. Bush follows Milton Friedman the father
of Disaster Capitalism. War not only promotes capitalism
it rebuilds toward capitalism. Hope there is an election in
November.

[Kirby]

Wrong you are, sir, in your last statement of the article, "that no side wants." Do you not consider Israel a "side?" Israel wants a preemptive strike, maybe not a war as such, but that's what it's going to get, and we, the American People, are supposed to sit and sidle and not be idle, totally on their behalf. We are not only to pickujp the pieces, we are expected to go to war against Iran, on Israel's behalf.

[MourningDude]

This entire disagreement is over uranium enrichment. Iran says they are entitled to it, and that they must have that capability. The UN says it's unnecessary, and many countries have offered to provide enriched uranium to them to power any reactors they may build.

But closer analysis makes the Iranian claims fall flat. They can't be self-sufficient with nuclear power. Even if they could enrich the uranium themselves, they would still have to buy yellowcake from other countries to power the reactors. If the UN slapped Iran with trade sanctions and prevented importation of uranium, which would almost certainly happen, they only have sufficient know uranium reserves in the entire country to power 1 reactor for about 5 years. That's a drop in the bucket. It's no where near "energy self-sufficiency". However, that same amount of uranium could be enriched to create 4 nuclear bombs per year, which would be enough to permanently alter the balance of power in the Middle East.

Their claims also beg the question "Why NUCLEAR power?" They have limitless reserves of oil and natural gas. They can be completely energy independent on those reserves alone for hundreds and hundreds of years. So, as far as I'm concerned Iran is making an indefensible argument and should capitulate to the world's demands. They should accept the reasonable and generous offers by other countries to help them built nuclear plants, and provide them with fuel, if they are truly interested in nuclear power itself.

[leftionthenews]

Iran doesn't *say* they are entitled to uranium enrichment, they *are* entitled to it under the NPT. There's no debate about that.

As far as this "limitless reserves of oil and gas" nonsense, the WORLD doesn't not have limitless reserves for "hundreds and hundreds of years." Iran certainly doesn't, and it also needs to be able to make money from exporting the resources they do have.

[RedDogBear]

First of all the question "why nuclear power" is not a question we have any right to ask. Iran is a sovereign nation and they have a right to develop nuclear power just like anyone else. In fact unlike Israel and India, two countries we not only don't threaten but reward, Iraq has followed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in their development. But as to why they want it. For one thing perhaps their leaders unlike Bush realize that global warming is a reality and that in the future it will be more and more critical (and the world community will implement sanctions and incentives) to move away from oil. Second the statement that Iran has "limitless reserves of oil" is nonsense. Oil is a finite resource and the world is running out. Estimates vary as to WHEN we will run out but well before we DO run out we will hit something called peak oil where supply exceeds demand and oil becomes outrageously expensive. Some would argue that we are already there but even if you take a conservative estimate there is no arguing that it will eventually happen and that the rational thing for Iran to do is to preserve their oil to sell to the rest of the world.

[earthwealth]

"alter the balance of power in the Middle East"? For your information, there is no balance of power in the ME presently. If there was, the whole situation wouldn't be so dramatic. What the Middle East needs is some balance of powers that does not have now.

[rmreddicks]

Your comments as to Iranian uranium reserves seem to be in agreement with the below link which is attributed to (the not completely reputable) John R. Bolton.

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/35281.htm

A further search, say using "Iranian uranium reserves" will point you to more reputable sources who tend to disagree - though none claim that Iran is the mother lode.