Sunday, March 11, 2012

Let Israeli do it: Not So Fast…

Iranian Hovercraft
There’s been lots of talk about going to war with Iran lately. The recent state visit of Israel’s Prime Minister made headlines and the Republican presidential candidates had to make tough guy statements to avoid being labeled wimps.


But, aren’t we all a little war weary? It was outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates who last year said, “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to send a big American land army into Asia, or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as Gen. [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it”. (MacArthur’s advice was provided to JFK at the onset of the American military build-up in Vietnam.)

Maybe that’s why many American’s think the easy way to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat is let Israel take them out through an air or missile attack. If that’s the way to go, it won’t be easy. US involvement will be an essential part of the Israeli plan.

There’s been news coverage describing the number of countries whose airspace Israel would have to violate to successfully attack Iran. Less covered is the degree of US participation that would be necessary.

Aside from the permission the US would have to provide to allow the Israelis to fly over Iraq (a problem in and of itself), there is the challenge of the dealing with the Iranian Navy in the Persian Gulf. Not much of a challenge, you say? Well, you would be correct. However, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have to deal with it.

Any plan to mount an attack on Iran would have to include pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s Navy or risk disruption of oil tanker traffic.

It was with great fanfare that the US Fifth Fleet sent a carrier group through the Strait of Hormuz into the gulf the last week of December. It was done on the heels of Iran's sabre rattling over how they would use their naval base in the strait to close shipping lanes in the event of an attack by Israel or the US.

But, what would an attack by Iran’s navy look like. It wouldn’t be a traditional naval battle with large ships lobbing shells at one another or using fighter jets to take out the enemy. It’s Iran’s asymmetrical attack capability we should worry about. In military parlance, asymmetrical means they will use small boats and submarines to covertly attack our Navy ships or oil tankers. Much as a small rubber raft loaded with a bomb blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole in 2000, they would seek to use small victories for propaganda effect with a view toward shutting down the shipping lanes that carry about 30% of the world’s oil cargo to market.

So, before Israel could mount an air or missile strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the US Navy would have to take out as many of the small bases that house small craft as possible.

The US sanction regime on financial transactions with Iran is starting to take hold. Once Iran cannot get its oil to market, they have little to lose financially by shutting down the strait. However, an attack on the US Navy would give us an excuse to attack their Navy. So, I don’t think it is likely unless they are provoked. No, the most likely cause of military conflict would be the desire on the part of the Israeli’s to take out Iran’s nukes.

Vice Admiral Mark Fox
Here’s what Vice Admiral Mark Fox (USNA ’78), the man in charge of the US Navy within the Central Command (COMUSNAVCENT in military parlance), had to say about the prospect of this war. “The Iranians’ ability to impose high costs on their enemies by exploiting Iran’s imposing geography bear careful consideration today by potential opponents.” He was talking about Iran’s 1300 mile coast line on the Persian Gulf which is littered with small coves that hide small boats and cruise missiles.

Are we ready for a war with Iran? Setting aside the incredible financial and human cost of the wars winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is noteworthy that Iran is three times the size of Iraq and has five times the population.

Are we ready to take them on? Maybe we should ask Robert Gates.

WHO WILL LEAD?

32 comments:

  1. Gerald J. Henry Hey John --- I like the article but it stops short -- it is easy to point out the problems but what is the solution -- how do we keep Iran from getting the bomb -- or alternatively how do we co-exisit with Iran if they have it -- seems to me Obama is in issue-avoidance until the election and articles such as this give him cover

    ReplyDelete
  2. we have no option but to continue on the current course: economic sanctions, covert actions and diplomatic pressure. As Americans, we tend to take our power for granted. However, the impact of American sea power, American economic power and American diplomatic power should not be underestimated. It is far more advantageous for any country to be our ally than our enemy. The diplomatic course will be lead by Arab states in western Arabia, the Saudi's, Kuwaitis et al. The covert actions will continue to be led by Mossad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerald J. Henry I hope this course of action works -- I worry the Chinese and Russians will undermine it

    ReplyDelete
  4. Harold Bernaert • MAD

    It worked during the cold war between the US and the Soviet Union.
    Probably will work just as good for Israel and Iran.
    If not .....problem solved.

    Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender, becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter Murphy • Unfortunately it doesn't work that way with Iran. If the US shot nuclear missiles at the USSR, they would have shot back and that was MAD. If Iran shoots a nuclear missile at Israel, the world would crush Iran (Israel has no nuclear weapons of their own supposedly), but also MAD.

    The fear with Iran is lack of accountability. Nobody thinks Iran would actually shoot a nuclear weapon at Israel, but rather they would supply a nuclear weapon to a stateless terrorist organization, who would then detonate it in Israel, or possibly the US. In this case, how does the world respond? Iran can claim to have not been involved and nobody can retaliate against a stateless group with a nuclear counterstrike.

    I'm not saying Iran wants to sneak a nuclear weapon into Israel and detonate it, but that is the worst case scenario. Capability often gets interpreted as intent and then planners, especially in tense situations like Israel's relationship with its surrounding region, find themselves planning for worst case scenario. This can lead to concluding the necessity of a preemptive action of some sort.

    This is heading down a dangerous path.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott Moss • There is not a consensus in Israel about the advisability of an attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities. This interview with Meir Dagan, former head of the Mossad (Israeli CIA) aired on 60 Minutes last week is quite fascinating. Worth watching:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjDZGAmxIo

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Scott. I saw the piece and quite agree.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jan Terje Botten Bakler, PMP • How about taking a look at the history of US and UK affairs with Iran since the fall of the Shah? Is there perhaps something in the past that should be mended or taken into consideration before one mongers to war? I have only books and documentaries to build my understanding of the situation on, and of course my past as an army officer, but I still do think Sun Tzu should come into consideration when appreciating the situation and choosing weapons to solve the security problem:

    "What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations."
    ...
    "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skil."
    ...
    "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

    And also think of the story of Androcles; Will you disarm the lion by striking at it, or will you seek to remove the thorn in its paw?

    If the aim towards Iran is to have your will be done, and no consideration is taken on the will and needs of Iran, then I deem this a bloody and long war. The statistics are on my side, you need not be an analytic to see this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Harold Bernaert • @Peter.

    So Iran is investing billions to build a nuclear weapon they are going to give to some terrorist organisation.

    What kind of comic book plot is that?

    If you have nuclear weapons and it is made from nuclear material you yourself have produces than it is very easy to identify where the material came from so playing “ I did not know “ is not going to work.

    The only reason the west does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon is because you have to treat countries with nuclear weapons with respect and you can bomb all the others without any problem.( Serbia , Iraq Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen.)

    And Iran does not want to get bombed by the west so that is why they want a bomb.

    That is why nobody is bombing North Korea. And Iran knows this.

    You think the US had invaded Iraq if they had nuclear weapons? I don’t think so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thomas Ruggles • Leslie Stahl; I am not really up to speed on the current field of liberal newscasters, so, to label her interview as biased, insulting and blatantly critical of Meir Dagan would be indiscreet -- so I will refrain from making such an accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kurt Studt • Thomas, so you don't know if her interview is biased, insulting and blatantly critical until you are told whether she is too liberal broadcaster or not? Why not just watch it?

    My guess is Team Red labels her "liberal" since she is on 60 Minutes. (Just as Team Blue considers someone as on the other team if they are on Fox News.) Likely you already know this and are just going for the veiled ad hominem attack?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Michael Huber • Let Israel do it implies that they need our permission. Israel is going to do what is in Israel's best interests irregardless of a thumbs up from Washington. Besides for political reasons, we might be better off as being perceived to be against an Israeli attack.... Wink, wink.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scott Moss • Mike - I don't think that is all together true. I seriously doubt that Israel would launch a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities without, at a minimum, discussion with the US first. I believe Israel understands that an Israeli strike will be perceived by most of the world as an action that had US approval, regardless of any actual consultation or agreements between the US and Israel. Perhaps, in the most extreme circumstance where Israel was thoroughly convinced that nuclear annihilation was imminent would it act completely independently. Self preservation trumps any diplomatic relationship, no matter how strong. Short of those conditions, Israel and the US are joined at the hip as far as an Iranian nuclear facilities attack is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Michael Huber • I agree with you in terms of Israel and the US being tied at the hip in many ways and that discussions are ongoing between us in regards to any and all issues that relate to instability in the Middle East....I just think that "permission" is the wrong word to use.....

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Michael. I should point out that "permission" is the word you used. No one else in this dialog has. ;->

    ReplyDelete
  16. Michael Huber • Not to split hairs and have this discussion go south but is there really much difference between "Let Israel do it" and "Give Israel permission to do it"?.....Is there?

    "I agree with you in terms of Israel and the US being tied at the hip in many ways and that discussions are ongoing between us in regards to any and all issues that relate to instability in the Middle East....I just think that "Let Israel do it"" is the wrong phrase to use"........Is that better?.....It doesn't change the point I was trying to make one iota.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scott Moss • Mike - The statement you made that I disagreed with was..."Israel is going to do what is in Israel's best interests irregardless of a thumbs up from Washington." I am suggesting that Israel understands that a thumbs up from Washington, as you call it, IS in Israel's best interest in all but the most dire of circumstances

    ReplyDelete
  18. Michael Huber • Agree with you 100%............A thumbs up from the US would be in Israel's best interest and I'm sure that they would much rather have that then a thumbs down....No argument there.My guess is that a sideways thumb however is just as good as a thumbs up if Israel is leaning in that direction anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thomas Ruggles • Kurt -- Oddly enough, I did watch the video. Several times. I guess some people just don't appreciate sarcasm when they read it. On another point: "Team Red" and "Team Blue"? What? Who is where -- as if the answer would make a difference. Is America now divided into "Teams"? Why don't we just refer to everyone as belonging to "Team America"? When I took the oath of office, I don't remember pledging allegiance to "the Red Team of America" or "the Blue Team of America". As I recall, I think I pledged allegiance to "the United States of America". Of course, the wording of the oath may have changed over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kurt Studt • Thomas, I don't think I missed your sarcasm any more than you missed mine, but as a general rule I find sarcasm is lost or misconstrued in print forums.
    As for Team Red and Team Blue, that's just my personal observation of the ridiculous political environment that has developed in this country. Two sides of the political spectrum that listen exclusively to their own media sources/spin and view the other side as the enemy with no attempt to understand the other point of view. Your sarcastic comments fit the Team Red (or right wing) spin very nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Scott Moss • Mike - I guess I haven't been clear. It's not that a thumbs up is in Israel's best interest. In fact, the US has made it clear to Israel that asking for US permission is in Israel's best interest. A sideways thumb is not an option for the US. Very few in the world would believe that an Israeli attack on Iran was launched without US approval. If Israel attack's Iran, it will result in the US being at war with Iran and perhaps other states as well. Both Israel and the US understand this reality. I seriously doubt that Israel will attack Iran without US approval unless Israel's existence is in imminent and immediate danger.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Michael. I apologize if my comment was offensive. I admit I was being a bit sarcastic which is why I included a wink and a smile. ;->

    My headline, "Let Israel Do It... etc." was intended to capture a common thread of conversation including media commentary. I believe that approach is too simplistic and doesn't consider the many complicating factors.

    The US provides Israel $3B in foreign aid (20% of our foreign aid budget) each year and provides access to military technology that it doesn't provide to all of our allies. We have plenty of leverage in any discussion about their plans with regard to Iran. I wouldn't use the word "permission"; however, I don't believe they will proceed without our participation and cooperation. As I pointed out in my blog, I also don't believe the first strike will be an aerial attack by Israel. It will be an orchestrated campaign by the US Navy to disable their asymetric attack capability in the Gulf.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Michael Huber • This piece encapsulates this discussion to a T....

    http://news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-makes-case-going-alone-against-iran-095500684.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thomas Ruggles • Kurt -- I guess you still don't get the point. Too bad. By the way, I am not on either the Red or Blue Team and I think that segregating the nation in that way is just ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kurt Studt • Thomas, I sure it is possible I don't get your point. Perhaps you can explain it more clearly.
    As for my referring to the two polarized sides of the political spectrum in our country as Team Red and Team Blue, I'm sorry you find my observation ridiculous. However, while you may not like how I am characterizing the political divide in this country, I would be astonished if anybody who is paying attention can honestly say they don't see the ever widening gap between left and right and the increase in spin, intolerance, and vitriol in the nation's political discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Layton Clay • Israel will gauge whether there is a clear and present danger to their State. If the director of the Mossad (the current one) believes that Iran has the capability and the intention to launch a nuclear strike on Jerusalem, then I am sure they will disregard anything we say and attack.If there is doubt about any of the previous assumptions, then it becomes more difficult, and as many of the posters have said, they will likely consult us and try to get any affirmation of information out of us that they can to affirm and or justify their own actions. I see very little positive coming out of an attack in any scenario. If that is our solution then the CIA has been rendered irrelevant and useless, and we should transition their budget elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jeff Naglestad • Interesting link/string. I thought the string was about leadership. The entries imply a discussion of bias or political leaning versus discussion of leadership in the current environment. Curious to know which as I have commentary for one but not the other.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kurt Studt • Jeff, the majority of the string is about leadership in the current environment. Thomas and I just got off on a little side discussion about bias.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ben Aton • Perhaps off-topic, but the Iranians have American Blood on their hands that they have never been held accountable for or paid up. That is not an opinion.

    I am perfectly fine with any misfortune that befalls the Iranian "leadership" and then some.

    If the Israelis take care of it in the interest of self-preservation ... I'm fine with that as well.


    For the most part ... I am in agreement with what Layton posted. Although before we cut the CIA's budget ... I'd recommend cutting the government in many other places first...of course, that is a whole other discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Layton Clay • Israel will gauge whether there is a clear and present danger to their State. If the director of the Mossad (the current one) believes that Iran has the capability and the intention to launch a nuclear strike on Jerusalem, then I am sure they will disregard anything we say and attack.If there is doubt about any of the previous assumptions, then it becomes more difficult, and as many of the posters have said, they will likely consult us and try to get any affirmation of information out of us that they can to affirm and or justify their own actions. I see very little positive coming out of an attack in any scenario. If that is our solution then the CIA has been rendered irrelevant and useless, and we should transition their budget elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bob Nerup • An attack on Iran and another local conflict is certainly not in our best interests.

    ReplyDelete