What if?
With national attention focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, CNN describes US Naval wargames featuring Iran as the notional enemy. "The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port .... but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran." That dramatic beginning introduces a discussion of how dangerous war with Iran might be, yet how few the diplomatic prospects for reducing the tension are.
Readers might be forgiven for objecting that Iran has no east coast. It's entirely landlocked by Afghanistan and Pakistan on the east, though it does have an extensive southern coast which runs all the way from the Shatt al Arab to the Indian ocean, a route along which much of the world's tanker traffic must pass or sail near. But we get the point. Any conflict with Iraq will involve, at the minimum, naval action threatening the chief oil artery of the planet.
But the background omissions are more serious. It's not entirely true to say that "the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran" like it was something wholly new. Iran has been at war with the United States for some time now. In fact, Iranian special forces are openly described as supporting attacks against US forces in Iraq. And since America has presumably responded, even just defensively, at some level America is already at war with Iran. Nor is it useful to describe the US diplomatic relationship with Iran to consist solely or even principally of negotiations over nuclear proliferation. It also includes such issues as Iran's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. But the article successfully underscore the paradox at the heart of the problem: that while diplomacy is meant to prevent war, the threat of war is necessary for diplomacy to succeed.
"Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the president finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."
This single phrase, "the best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences" encapsulates the Catch-22. Diplomacy requires threat; but threat runs the risk of escalation at the end of which is war.
Commentary
If war actually breaks out, CNN had better hope that the USN has adequately prepared for conflict with Iran. Apart from the threat of mining the Straits of Hormuz, Iran has the capability of firing antiship missiles capable of striking even modern warships, as shown by the use of a C-802 against an Israeli corvette off the coast of Lebanon. Moreover, Iran may attempt to strike targets such as the Ras Tanura oil refinery in the Emirates which lie about 260 kilometers from the coast of Iran, not far from the US naval base at Manamah with long range missiles. Just how difficult this might be to stop was illustrated by the recent bombardment of Israel by Hezbollah. Despite the sophistication of Israeli defenses and the relative backwardness of Hezbollah, it remained a problem to the end. Here's an interesting discussion of the subject. Mine warfare isn't one of the better known suites of the USN. Here's a list of known mine countermeasures ships. FAS suggests a lot of money has recently been spent on developing mine countermeasures but very little is publicly available to describe these efforts.
17 Comments:
Do we have any stick, short of a high-impact war of decapitation, with which to back up our diplomacy?
Would we just be rewarding Iran by setting them a place at the diplomatic table?
And what has happened to the Euro-3 effort, anyway?
sammler,
As I recall the Europeans tried negotiating; they failed and it went to the Security Council. The Security Council read Iran the riot act and Iran told them to get lost. Right now, there is pressure for the US to "make a direct appeal"; or initiate direct negotiations with Iran. Some of this is motivated by a genuine desire to avert a clash at nearly all costs; others feel that any tensions are really America's fault and if enough concessions are offered Teheran can eventually be dissuaded. The argument usually involves waiting for a Democratic president because the current one is judged inept.
However that may be, the dilemma is a genuine one. And the consequences of war with Iran would be huge. Russia would certainly benefit from any oil disruption in the Gulf. If you think there was pressure on Israel to stop at all costs, just imagine what will happen when oil supplies to Japan and China are interrupted.
Certainly if war breaks out it must be absolutely clear that Iran has started it. The US might even be willing to let Iran strike first. Well, as I pointed out, it has already struck first, but a politically useful casus belli must be on such a large scale (such as sinking a tanker or a September 11) that the Europeans and Japanese positively ask the US to go to war. Hence,look for diplomacy to go on the very bitter end.
I think you mean Iran and not Iraq in your story.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Iran's leaders have a suicidal, apocalyptic worldview. How does one negotiate with such? Indeed, how does one avoid a war?
Better now than after they develop their doomsday weapons.
re: Iran's oil.
I suspect Iran can't shut down the Gulf's oil production. There are enough pipelines across SA and surrounds that the major producers can tranship to the Red and Arabian Seas (and likely have already practiced, given the decades old threat to their continued existence - i.e. no oil revenues, no food - or fancy villas in the south of France).
It'is the loss of Iran's production that will raise prices. Perhaps from below $2 a gallon to around $3 (after the election of course). Oh my, how terrible. Mr. Putin will love it, and is clearly building out to meet the need. Unfortunately, we've not been able to figure out how to make it in his interest to have a peaceful resolution after Iran in embargoed.
And what of Iraq during a US/Iran War? What happens to our joint patrols with the Iraqi Army? Are our soldiers going to have to wonder about the loyalties of Shiite soldiers that have their backs? We've all seen the Iraqi PM's lovefest with Iran's President Ahmadinejad, and we know how deeply these ties go to Shiite militia in Iraq.
Does anyone want to bet that in a conflict with Iran, we can trust the Iraqi Shiite majority or the Islamist parties they've elected? Anyone?
Let's hope this thought experiment clarifies a few things.
Reocon raises a good point: how would any military action against Iran sit with Iraqi Shia? And how would this effect their cooperation and stability of the democracy project there?
I don’t know what the answer is, but the question would be: is the Iraq project worth risking in order to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years?
"Do we have any stick, short of a high-impact war of decapitation, with which to back up our diplomacy?
Ultimately, no. Most of the 'sticks' short of sanctions or war have been tried withou success."
Reverse the 'blockade' talk. We're worried that Iran is going to beat the strongest navy in world history? Why aren't they afraid of it?
If necessary we could replay the Tanker War and stop their oil exports. Turn around or capture every tanker they send.
The people we should be negiotating with are China and India, the prime consumers of Iranian oil. If these powers knew in advance that their interests in the region will be protected, they might be able to easily live with the forcible removal of the mullacracy. Russia, which seems to be nurturing dreams of reconstituting the Warsaw Pact around the oil- producing nations, wouldn't be happy. But when has she ever been?
Besides, with China and India happily feasting at the trough that we're sharing with them, Russia sulks alone.
Just one amateur's opinion on how to make the upcoming hitjob go smoothly.
I have been thinking this as a "possibility" for awhile, now its more of a "probability" in my mind.
The Tool
"War with Iran is war to the death.
If we ar not prepared to conquer, occupy, and Christianize Persia we should stay home."
War to the death does not require reviving the dead. With a 500,000 man army, we'd best be prepared to ditch the 'break it, you bought it' fable.
MNC,
"Tankers are big enough to shrug off mines that would sink a warship in seconds."
Not necessarily. It depends on the size of the mine, where it exploded, etc. A relatively small underwater explosion will create a large air bubble that will head towards the surface underneath the hull of the ship, and the act of raising the ship up can result in the keel being broken. (The same theory is used with some torpedos.) I don't know how much room there is in the channels, but I'm sure that sinking a couple of ships in the right spots (either by mines, missiles, or scuttling by the crew) would at the least make navigation drastically more difficult, and possibly impossible, until the wrecks were cleared.
As far as minesweeping capabilities, the USN also uses helicopters extensively for that mission.
Cutler, I agree with you, we're not going to do the nation rebuilding thing in the Middle East again after this struggle in Iraq. But even more than what your comment implies, the idea that we have to colonize and convert Iran is off-base, I think. When I was in Iran in '77, I found a much more modern, westernized country than I'd seen in Turkey and of course infinitely more advanced than poor old Afghanistan to my east. (Might've had something to do with the 4-ship formations of Phantoms roaring over downtown Tehran every afternoon.)
The people in Iran are not our enemies, it seems unlikely a vicious insurgency would emerge if the Iranian government fell, as has happened in Iraq. (And we sure as hell wouldn't disband their army!) A recent article appeared in the WaPo, in the Travel section, that showed the Iranian people the way I remember them to be: A different face of Iran
The mullahs are our enemy, as they are worldwide, not necessarily the Iranian people as a whole. I can't say the same about other countries, but it's worth thinking about.
"The mullahs are our enemy, as they are worldwide, not necessarily the Iranian people as a whole. I can't say the same about other countries, but it's worth thinking about."
I hope you are right, but I'm just gunshy of expecting other people to accomplish our objectives for us. The last five years haven't done much for expectations of rationality and perceived common interests.
Also, I suspect a lot has changed in that country since 1977, when the Shah was trying to push through his White Revolution. 1979, the Iran-Iraq War, etc, etc. Of course, there are dissidents, but keeping in mind that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards alone have hundreds of thousands of members, it makes you wonder if the Iranian Mullahs have a stronger base of support in Iran than Hussein had in Iraq. For every college kid, there's one brought up in the rural areas.
Cutler,
Take a breeze through that WaPo article, the guy was just there recently. In their interest in the West, specifically America, the people sound to me today like they sounded to me then.
It's like I explain to my liberal friends who are horrified that we are inflicting McDonalds Hollywood Disney on the poor pure souls all around the world. We're not imposing our empire on them, they are EMBRACING us.
If America was one-thousandth as evil as American liberals think, how could we possibly be the immigration capital of all time?
After Iraq and Afghanistan, if the choice is limited to the current style of incessant low-level war against suicidal maniacs, or the Big White Light in the Sky ... we need something new. And offering a cleaner way out of Islamo-fascist dictatorships to the oppressed populations has gotta be it.
We tried this neo-con approach a couple of times now, there must be a better way. After all, it's either that or the Big White Light, as Wretchard showed us in The Three Conjectures.
Post a Comment
<< Home