Exploring the Israel-Iran Option

Seymour Hersh has a new article out in the New Yorker called "Preparing the Battlefield," and after going through all seven pages twice, we are still left wondering what all the hype is about. Essentially the article suggests that the US is operating in Iran to collect intelligence, and appears to attempt to shame Democrats for supporting the gathering of intelligence in Iran by funding intelligence gathering. The implication is that because Bush hasn't brought the intelligence gathered back to Congress there is a problem, but speaking from experience, if Bush never brings the intelligence back to Congress, that is probably a good thing for the country. The record there hasn't been pretty, and we prefer he keeps that stuff to himself where it is unlikely to be used to make the case for war.

The rest of the Hersh analysis is of the various politics of the issue, including some interesting stuff regarding Admiral Fallon, but nothing that left us feeling empowered with new information. Essentially, other than the politics, there was nothing new there.

What the Hersh article does do though is note that his sources are the same as ours, with one new one we had previously not observed. Hersh specifically highlights articles by Andrew Cockburn written back in May, that can be found here and here. Its basically more of the political dancing in Washington. The defense related information that Hersh cites is the news in Iran, which is what we watch, so as folks disinterested in the political shuffle in Washington, we didn't see anything worth exploring other than the confirmation of special forces to gather intelligence.

And on that note, we think about what they might be watching in Iran. One gets the feeling this is on the short list.

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.

The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.

The question to ask is, are they fueled? Unlikely, and if you know anything about ballistic missiles, you know why. Putting ballistic missiles with no fuel on launchers makes this a strange move for the Iranians, one of many strange moves we are observing in fact. But of all the crazy things associated with the Iran war theory discussion, this is by far our favorite topic.

"Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Jafari told Jam-e-Jam newspaper, which is affiliated to Iran's state-run radio and television network.

"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 against the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said.

We do not believe the United States will attack Iran during the remainder of the Bush administration. We believe if one was casting odds, the odds of Barak Obama or John McCain bombing Iraq in the first 100 days of their presidency is higher than Bush bombing in his remaining days. With that said, we believe Israel will likely bomb Iran during the Bush administration, and when it happens it will change the way the world looks at 21st century warfare. SUTER will be small stuff compared to what we expect to see.

The conventional wisdom expresses concern regarding what will happen to Israel if they bombs Iran. In truth, the answer is the ballistic missiles of Iran is about the only "new" threat Israel faces, it is hard to imagine the Iranian Air Force could hit Israel, and Iran's Naval options are virtually nil. It is likely Hamas and Hezbollah go crazy on Israel in retaliation, but they did that in 2006, so that isn't really a new threat and one Israel will be in a better position to manage than they were in 2006. As we ponder the scenario's, as soon as the first bomb drops, the question isn't whether Israel will destroy itself, the question becomes will Iran destroy itself.

When one contemplates all of the reactions by Iran, one must consider the consequences. For example, if Iran attacks US forces directly, that would essentially be a declaration of war on the United States leading to the most lopsided battle the region has seen since 1991. For all of the focus on Thomas Barnett's Esquire article about "Fox" Fallon, it seems to us people seemed to miss several points Admiral Fallon made. One memorable comment for us was on page 1, in the first section, when discussing the possibility of war with Iran, Fallon said:

"These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

Regardless of all the scary scenario's that get tossed around by political pundits, there is one scary fact for Iran that stands out during the decision process: declaring war against the United States has historically been a really bad idea.

Another possible retaliation is the one discussed above, shutting down the straits. Who honestly believes Iran is going to unilaterally shut down the straits and crash the economy of the entire Pacific Ocean region? Does Iran think China will simply sit on its hands and watch their economy crash? I'm trying to figure out why crashing the energy economy of every major power in the world except Canada, Brazil, and Russia is a good idea for Iran. This isn't an option for Iran, because if they shut down the strait, they would lose the political high ground and prove Israel right: Iran is a suicide state.

The fact of the matter is, other than asymmetrical attacks in Iraq, which will only turn Iraqi's against Iran even more, or asymmetrical attacks against Israel after the limited number of ballistic missiles are fired, Iran really doesn't have much recourse without being completely destroyed in a total war scenario. If Hezbollah attacks a mall in Minnesota after Israel attacks Iran, does Iran honestly believe the entire country will not blame Iran? Even more important, do the Iranians really believe the Europeans will simply pull out of NATO to remove their obligations to support a NATO member that was attacked by Iran? The logic assumed by westerners to the suicidal nature of an Iranian regime built on survival simply doesn't make much sense to us.

In other words, Iran is incredibly threatening as long as everyone is talking, but the unfortunate reality for the Iranians is, once the talking stops Iran is left in a terrible strategic position with very few options that don't have massive potential blow back, both political and military. Unfortunately for Israel, if they attack Iran they are on their own. Unfortunately for Iran, they will be on their own too, and Iran doesn't have very many military options against a power as strong as Israel.