War with Iran?

News yesterday, the European Union has agreed to put off for six months a decision on enforcing thighter oil sanctions. So we can now look for Iran to back off, except for their rhetoric and focus on internal threats for the time being.

 

This strategy did not work in Iraq why would it work in Iran?


P.S.
The only way I see the U.S. Defeating Iran in 6 days is with the use of nuclear weapons

 

Western bungling in Iran goes back a long way, including occupation during WW2, while Iranian conventional forces are not a credible threat, once it gets to unconventional warfare all bets are off.
Some wild thoughts from an amateur student of history.

- Surprise is a huge force multiplier, if the Iranian feel cornered and decide to fire the first shot it could be bad. Think Pearl Harbor. The US will eventually win any conventional confrontation but if Iran fires the first shots we can't rely on the "casus belly" being something as harmless as the Tonkin Gulf incident.
- Any "unconventional attack" risks retaliation in kind, and we have more to loose to that sort of "warfare without rules" than they have, they already are an oppressive society while all out unconventional warfare by a nation state with oil money is going to cost us a lot of our hard won liberties, in the west the "rule of law" is already weakening under the terrorist pressures do we really want to continue along that road?
- A superpower resorting to "asymmetric warfare" makes it look weak in the eyes of the world.
- It the objective is bringing about a regime change sanctions historically never worked.
- Creating martyrs, like the scientist assassinations, is probably going to do more damage than good in the long run, and if the Iranian retaliated by blowing up a couple of Israeli politicians or military leaders who could blame them?
- In "limited warfare" there is a conflict between military and civilian objectives, the military are focused on limiting losses and it find the appeal of the surprise force multiplier almost irresistible, but the side effect of doing the unexpected is almost invariably widening the conflict.
- Unless we ultimatly aim to recognize the Iranian rights as a sovereign state, under their current political system. or whatever system they may replace it with, conflict is probably going to happen sooner or later. You cannot treat people as "B class citizens" and expect them to take it without attempting to do something about it if they can.
- It would be nice to know how much of the current "posturing" is for internal consumption, if it's significant the politicians are playing with fire, unfortunately the replacements look to be evem more likely to do so, the appeal of the "external enemy" to the politician's mind is apparently irresistible.

But in the end it all really depends on what the Chinese will do, IMO they would be perfectly happy to absorb all Iranian oil exports and would oppose any attempt to bring the oilfields under western control, what form this opposition will take is anybody's guess, if world opinion is sufficiently outraged at US actions they may pull off a "Suez Crisys" in reverse that put an end to France and Britain's superpower ambitions.

 

TOS, your post is excellent. I agree with all the points you made, very good analysis. As for the Chinese question, the west is trying to get a number of oil producing countries to up their production to replace the Iranian oil exports to China, in order to get them onboard with the sanctions. Saudi Arabia is already on board and has agreed. This has much to do with bad blood between Saudi Arabia and Iran. First you have the Shia/Sunni thing, then the Arab vs Persion thing, and most importantly Iranian intelligence continually involved in trying to undermine the Saudi Royal Family and destabilize the Saudi Government. The Saudis would be extremely glad to see Iran defanged.
I also don't think China would be too happy to see Iran become the dominant power in the region but they do make a good counter to western influence in the region. Iran's desire to establish a mid-east wide caliphate is the reason Iran has spent so much time and money on covert meddling in their neighbors business. They think it is their destiny and it is the reason that they take many actions that at first seem counter-intiative. Despite be a predominantly Shia country, they still support Sunni Al-Queda in Afghanistan. In Iraq during that war, they at the same time promoted Shia attacks on Sunnis and simultaneously provided weapons, explosives and technical expertise to Sunni insurgents fighting coalition forces. We know they're involved, and have known from day 1 but can't do anything about it but complain. If you look at the situation and use Iranian ambitions for an Iranian controlled, middle-east wide caliphate, it explains most that happens on a macro level. If you use the conditions that will be necessary for Iran to create such a state as your filter, it's explains their actions on a micro level. Do not attempt to view their actions from a western perspective of what makes sense, or seems logical or you'll miss the forrest for the trees.

-Iran's 1st priority must be to prevent an increase in western, primarily US and British presense in the region.
-Next they must weaken US/Western influence in the region.
-They must weaken pro-western countries in the region. Weaken US presense and influence and they will not be able to help friendly governments that are threatened.
-Next, weaken Sunni controlled governments and prevent unity within the different Arab dominated governments. (the centuries old Persian/Arab animosity is a factor most people ignore)
-all the while develop a nuclear capability they can use to blackmail countries they cannot easily defeat militarily.
I personally don't think that an Iranian nuclear capacity really threatens most western nations directly. It threatens Iran's neighbors and therefore the security of the west's oil supply. I think one of the Obama Administrations greatest foreign policy mistakes was to fail to negotiate a deal to keep some US troops and bases in Iraq. Any presence, even with severe restrictions would act as a counter to the Iranians. As it stands now, Iran can manipulate the Iraqi government through it's ties with Al-Sadr. In a couple of years they won't have to manipulate, they can dictate to Iraq using the threat of miltary force, conventional and when developed nuclear. A weak, ineffective government in Afghanistan would also benefit Iran. Afghanistan shares a border with both China and Iran. Up till now China is happy to let Iran (and Pakistan) support the anti-western forces in Afghanistan. Let your enemies beat each other up. The money the US and NATO countries spend fighting the war only weakens their respective governments. Tying up western troops and military assets benefits China, let the western powers become war weary, the Chinese are patient and think very long term. Once they're worn out they're less likely to oppose whatever actions China may decide to take in the future. Meanwhile, China is investing in businesses and infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and having shared financial interests gives them influence in these governments. China knows that when the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan, Iran will try to move in and exert influence. China does not want a radical Islamic government on it's border. They'll buy Iranian oil now, helping fund the weakening of your enemies is good. They will allow the west to negotiate for alternative sources of oil for China, why not? China knows the west is withdrawing from Afghanistan, Iran will try to expand their influence, China's economic ties will initially counter this. If the stakes go up and China must take more severe actions to counter Iranian influence on it's border, Iran can't use cutting off China's oil supply as a weapon because the west has already taken care of that. China is in an excellent position, strategically.

 

Clint, I really don't put a lot of stock in a Judges ruling as to Iranian involvement either. I do however think you are over-estimating the influence the Shia/Sunni split has in regards to actions against western or non-muslim groups. I also think you are taking the Sunni/Shia violence that tore through Iraq for several years and extrapolating it to represent overall Shia/Sunni relations. That's like taking the protestant/catholic violence that rocked northern Ireland for years and using that as the state of protestant/catholic relations worldwide. Most of the Sunni/Shia violence in Iraq had three sources:
1.) Al-Queda (Sunni) attacks on Iraq's Shia majority. Instigated by Al-Queda (predominately non-Iraqis) to prevent the formation of a functioning government in Iraq.
2.) Iranian influence exerted through Shia cleric Mouqtada Al-Sadr. Once again it was an effort to prevent formation of a stable Iraqi Government composed of Shia, Sunnis and Kurds.
3.) The long history of oppression, of the majority, Shiite Iraqi population by the predominately Sunni, Baathist party of Saddam Hussein.

-Iranians supported with weapons, explosives and technical expertise, both the Shia and Sunni opposition to US/Coalition Forces.

-Iran provides support to both the Sunni Al-Queda and Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan. (Afghanistan is 80-85% Sunni, and 15-20% Shia)

-In Afghanistan there has been no significant Shia on Sunni or Sunni on Shia violence.

-Pakistan is split 90%-10% Sunni/Shia and most of the time coexist peacefully.

-Syria is split 74%/13% Sunni/Shia and once again, there is very little sectarian violence.

You are correct in your description of the constitution of Iranian and Al Queda groups.

 

Thats a good statement from you, USMCPrice!Also i´m sure that both of them will have their peace with each other till the agression is over and are falling apart to make a good deal for themslef with the winner. At Iraq the situation was a bit different and some found it useful to saw dispute between both. And other things came from a mad behaviour of some folks from the Army against the culture and morals of both groups. To me the Iran is a gambler and now they are trying out how far they can go with it.

 

I just learned something this morning I didn't know. The Iranian economy is suffering even with the limited sanctions which have been put upon it in the last three weeks. Their currency has devalued by 15% in those 21 days, they rely upon gasoline IMPORT since they don't have the refinery capacity to supply themselves, and now purchase of "offshore" gasoline is costing them more.

Question, how do you divert a populace from their problems? This "rattle some sabers" and call on patriotism has mostly worked in the past. Any assassination of any Iranian by whomever is going to be counter-productive. Whether done by internal or external powers, it only feeds the "them against us" mind-set.

 

I included the money situation in my first post:

I think someone else mentioned it also but I just scanned back through the posts and can't find it. Anyway, that's one of the key indicators that makes me think the regime may be doing more than just saber rattling. Their economic situation is such, and internal dissent at such a level that the new sanctions would just about surely lead to open internal conflict. The Cleric leaders are also distancing themselves from the president, could they be looking at him as a scapegoat to throw to the masses if the situation descends into chaos? Most of their neighbors are undergoing upheaval by their young people seeking reform, "the Arab Spring", I am sure they don't think themselves immune, especially since there was so much violence after their last election.
-I did not know the refinery situation, thank you for that info.

I think you're right on target here. They have to divert their public from their problems (an easier task now that the EU has temporarily backed off the sanctions). As you said, any assassination will be counter-productive, as will any covert involvement by US intelligence agencies, in supporting dissent groups, if it is exposed and can be proven.

 

Doing nothing is often the right choice, but are our politicians wise enough to select a course that could make them look ineffective/weak in the eyes of the voters? Unfortunately saber rattling and tought guy posturing are much more likely to get them elected.
IMO Persian - Arab rivalry is strong enough to prevent the Iranians from gaining regional leadership short of actual military conquest, most Arabs do not feel they belong to the same "region" as the Persians. Problem is the only regional power with sufficient population to act as a bulkwark to Iran is Iraq, and it no longer has an effective army or enough national unity to act as a counter.

IMO Europe's first priority is avoiding an increase of oil prices, the economy is currently fragile and a fuel costs increase may well break it, any armed conflict close to the Hormutz straits is likely to do just that. This is doubly true for Italy that used to import over 25% of it's energy needs from Libia and is already facing a significant price increase from the short of funds new regime.

IIRC corrrectly Iran had built a significant oil refining capability at the time of of the Shah, don't know if it's still operational after 20 tears and one war.

 

I believe another conflict with any nation is inevitable, war is mankind's hobbie. It is uncertain the next war will involve Iran however but it's possible. I'm sure the UN has taken into concideration on how to get Iran to halt it's nuclear arms production, and it's possible that Al-Quada and or Taliban leaders could have taken refuge in Iran. Hopefully the situation won't result in war. Personaly I don't want to join the CF unless I have too. But when the call to arms is sounded..it must be answered.

 

The call to arms isn't something to trust to your or any politician alone. My life is was and ever will be not at the disposal of measly politicians and spivs who have and can sell my patriotism cheaply. Theirs of course is never questioned in some nations.

 

Poisoning is one thing but it also includes any form of destruction of food and water supplies that could cause hardship for the civilian population.

Unless it is a solely military water supply, only used by the military you can not target it deliberately. So you can target the mobile type military water supply and purification plant that is set up to provide potable water for the military but not one set up for civilian use. The same with fixed installations.

Cutting electricity was a tactic used initially during GW1, it was found to be ineffective as it had very little effect on the military and government infrastructure or operations. It did however have a major impact on water and sewage treatment for the civilian population and so was stopped.

 

Another way to stop Iran? - Fox Business Video - Fox Business

Seems like Western Leaders are lining up alternative oil supplies to take Iran out of the mix and severely pressure their economy and their totalitarian government. A better strategy than war but with repercussions that are not clear and will play out over the next few months. Some variation or synthesis of the theory presented during this interview seems like a good idea from this corner of the peanut gallery. We shall soon see.

If the pressure is ratcheted up in this way - or others - there will most likely be some confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz or in Israeli airspace or cities (via missile or Hezbollah). Good luck to our Armed Forces and those of our Allies in this case. May they endeavor to persevere - in a strongly victorious manner. Long live Stuxnet and any variation thereof!!

 

War without bombs would get really messy. In hockey, the big tough guys intimidate via a fist to the face. The way it's always been done. Fighting mano a mano. If a team is physically smaller, then that team will use the stick to spear/slash/crosscheck in order to create an even playing field because it can't compete the usual way.

 

looks like its gonna get little more messed up....like this story is no big shock...enter stage right big brother Russia.
Why Russia is planning Iran war games - CSMonitor.com

 

Aren't you are forgetting we are much more vulnerable to stuxnet and it's likes than they are, assuming the thing was real (and there is still a lingering suspicion it was just a cover up for a more common "humint" sabotage) we have just shown a group of people with lots of money, and that hate our guts, a way they can hurt us badly at the trivial cost of a few programmer man years, and that it's not a "casus belly" as long as they deny "plausibly deny" doing it !!!

 

The first effect I have are petrol prices rocketting. I'm now paying almost 1.60 for a liter of diesel (that's about 2 $). That Ormuz saga stinks.

 

Good link 693FA, just adds more evidence that the situation is at a tipping point.

 

Sometimes you can come to the thought that the Oil companies are giving such idiots money for the threat that they will block the oil routes only to press more money out of us!

 

U.S. Military Drones Infected With Mysterious Computer Virus | Fox News

True enough TOS. I never heard about the outcome of this event (Creech AFB drone infection), it will be ongoing for a while to complete the disinfection. Additional operation Buckshot Yankee information was recently released regarding an earlier incursion in 2008. By practically eliminating the use of USB memory and removable drives Military Security has been improved and will continue to evolve in the proper direction. The Pentagon is working to consolidate the Military networks from 15,000 to a more defensible 3,000 and after that step(s) has been completed; will reduce the number further. While vulnerability remains a problem of major proportion, our military anti-hackers have been moving in the right direction and will continue to do so.

Operation Buckshot Yankee | Danger Room | Wired.com

cybersecurity | Danger Room | Wired.com

Now that the Russians are meddling around in plainer sight in the region, things should get very interesting. Imagine the back room deals going on now so everybody can save face..... err almost everybody.