Attacking Iran - Pros and Cons

Remove all ads!

As an aside from my Wikileaks topic, some interesting truths were brought to light with the document dump regarding Iran and the foreign policy surrounding their situation. First, it's clear now that just about every Middle Eastern country wants Iran taken out, and it seems fairly obvious they'd like America to be the one to bring the hammer down. It's also clear that the consensus is not only that America has gone to just about every diplomatic length to get Iran come to the table (which we get credit for), but that after decades of engagement Iran will never be an honest broker with anyone. They will simply do whatever the hell they want and not honor a single agreement with anyone. And on top of that, North Korea and Iran are in direct kahoots with one another, as NK supplied Iran with long-range missiles. These revelations may or may not be shocking to most people around the world. But why they matter is, now they're out in the open. They are no longer mere speculation, but laid out for all to see.

So my question is - and this is just for the sake of discussion - why not attack Iran now? Aside from the fact that America's military is overextended at the moment and we'd almost certainly engender more of a warmongering reputation - why not? Isn't it time? It seems to me that the unexpected benefit of this dump is to give us plenty of diplomatic cover by showing that we've gone out of our way to reach a peaceful solution with Iran, and they've pissed in our faces at every turn. I'm not saying invade and take the country over like we did with Iraq. But crippling their military and weapons capability would make them vulnerable enough to their neighbors that they'd have no choice but to radically reform their government or face their doom at the hands of a neighbor.

I ask these questions to form a more informed opinion, knowing full well that A) the Obama administration's policy of engagement makes this unlikely, and B) this matter is insanely complex and impossible to reasonably break down into simple should we or shouldn't we, or expect to have a truly educated grasp on without months dedicated to studying the recent past countries involved (for which I have neither time nor interest). But it seems to me that the benefits of cutting Iran's legs out far outweigh the considerable negatives, even if it means the US suffers diplomatically and economically for a while because of it. I always - always - favor diplomacy over open war, but I've been more than satisfied with the amount of carrot we've been using with Iran. Now I'm starting to think it's time for some stick.

Anyway, discuss.

 

I only see cons. I'll link to a couple analyses later.

 

There are cons to attacking Iran?

 

Nah, I was kidding. It's a glorious idea. Lock the course! Full speed ahead!

 

Ships run aground in a land war. I've heard there's a glass shortage ... that could be remedied in a fraction of a second (and then wait fifty years or so).

 

Who Wants to Bomb Iran? - Meet the men calling on Barack Obama to launch airstrikes against the Islamic Republic

i.e. the usual suspects. Beyond the scope of that article, there are Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, who were for their sheer enthusiasm for an attack on Iran mocked by Bush 43 as "the bomber boys".

 

I largely agree with Ragusa. I don't think attacking Iran would bring only cons, but it would bring a lot of them. A lot more than the pros. Now, backing the various middle eastern entities in an attack (i.e. something like providing air support), maybe, though I'd still be worried about China's response. Apparently China facilitated the missile trade between NK and Iran, and I doubt that's all they've done. Even there, though, there are a lot of risks.

 

I suppose that a series of surgical strikes could limit Iran's ability to mess around with its neighbours, but a full scale invasion, coupled with an occupation a la Iraq? Possible, yes. Feasible? No. Wise? Definitely not. Nightmare formula, IMHO. The possible fallout, both literal and figurative, would be disastrous. Only if they started making actual aggressive moves toward Israel or another nation should such attacks be considered.

 

'Surgical strikes'? Don't think of a day long stunt like Israel's strike on Osirak. We are talking about an air campaign that will last longer than a month and will involve tens of thousands of sorties, and thousands of targets, and follow up strikes. And it would go beyond the nuclear program and target the full spectrum of Iranian economic and government targets. What would be an air war to the US would be all out war for Iran.

Iran would 'do things in response' and it is not clear that they stop 'doing things' when the US would stop bombing. That of course is of immediate interest to US naval and ground troops in the immediate vicinity who would have to ride out the backlash. The logistics of US troops both in AfPak and Iraq are vulnerable. That would be primary Iranian targets. I also have a hunch that Afghan and Iraqi groups, courtesy of a generous donor, would get their hands on more advanced anti-air and anti-armour weapons.

From a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) study Israeli and US Strikes on Iran: A Speculative Analysis [PDF]:

Notably the CSIS suggests to:

The only branch of the US armed forces enthusiastic about hitting Iraq is the Air Force who apparently didn't get enough glory in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Attacking Iran would again make the case for air power. It is probably no accident that the only military man among the aforementioned "bomber boys", Thomas McInerney, is a retied Air Force general.

 

I'm all in favor of regime change in Iraq, er, sorry...Iran. I have come to respect the Iranian people despite the bullying bastards that run the place. However, the notion of "regime change" in itself carries a great deal of risk. For instance, would the rest of the world attack the US if we elected...Sarah Palin?

 

Faster than we already are?

 

Well, yes, MUCH faster.