COLLAPSING IRAN

JR: I thought about going through the process of getting this published in traditional media, but didn't have the time to pursue it. This brief isn't about the ground up trends I typically track, although if it occurs, it will catalyze them (it also doesn't have that level of inevitability, although it sure feels like it). Enjoy it (while intoning the unforgettable words of Slim Pickens "Yeeee-haaaaa").

Collapsing Iran
by John Robb

The confrontation between the US and Iran crossed into dangerous territory when Tehran announced that it had successfully enriched uranium and that it would have 3,000 operational centrifuges by the end of the year. This tension accelerated when Ayatollah Khameni claimed Iran would readily share its nuclear secrets with unstable regimes like Sudan. These events clearly demonstrate that the American diplomatic efforts to contain the Iranian nuclear development program are not working, and the pace of the development gives new urgency to the situation. Even IF Chinese and Russian opposition to sanctions are overcome, sanctions alone would be unlikely to prevent an Iranian bomb. The loss of these “soft” options means that a military confrontation between the US and Iran is now unavoidable.

The US military attack on Iran will, most certainly, be conducted with air power. The US has neither the available ground forces necessary to invade a large country like Iran, nor the appetite (given the experience of Iraq) to manage its aftermath. In contrast, airpower assets are plentiful and its employment offers a clean, seemingly low cost alternative to a ground invasion.

There are two major problems with deploying airpower. The first is that Iran has both dispersed and hardened its nuclear related facilities. This situation means that in order to guarantee the destruction of some of these facilities, a nuclear weapon must be used. This is not a viable option. The use of nuclear weapons in any form is an anathema to the world and most people within the US government, despite the ability to modify these weapons to reduce their size and fallout. As a result, it is highly probable that some of Iran's facilities will survive conventional air attack.

The second problem is equally as difficult. Most of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program isn’t contained in the facilities but in the knowledge of its engineers. This means that any destruction of facilities would only result in a short-term delay in development and a redoubled commitment by Iran to accomplish the task.

These problems indicate that the only way to truly realize a reversal in the Iranian program is regime change. Therefore the objective would be to remove the clerical regime from power -- it’s likely that merely a political reshuffle would be insufficient to ensure any meaningful reduction in the threat. Additionally, this is a real test of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Iran has clearly supported international terrorism and will soon be in a position to supply these groups with nuclear weapons.

To accomplish this regime change under the given restraints, the US will utilize a rapidly evolving method of air warfare called the “effects-based operation” (EBO). The EBO is a process that incapacitates a nation-state’s systems (typically critical infrastructure) and organizations to achieve desired strategic outcomes. In the past this has meant a combination of precision-guided munitions, special operations, and stealth technology to precisely target critical nodes in national infrastructures and systems. The destruction of these nodes, due to the power of network dependencies, will typically cause sustained system collapse (in much the same way a downed power line can cause a regional blackout, but in this case intentionally). A good real world example was seen in the first Gulf War. During that war, a US EBO shut down Iraq’s critical infrastructures to separate Saddam’s leadership cadre in its Baghdad bunkers from its army in Kuwait. It worked nearly as desired. With Iran, the effect desired would be much more complex: regime change.

In regards to its suitability as a target for an EBO, Iran is perfect -- it is both urbanized and its population relies on national networks vulnerable to disruption and manipulation. This means U.S. forces (no other nation can do this) would have the ability to use precise applications of force to break down Iran’s critical systems, eliminating critical nodes within its electricity, communications, transportation, military, and industrial systems. A nation-state that is subjected to this type of attack ceases all governmental and economic function. In sum, Iran would be “turned off” until the regime changes.

The US administration’s hopes for a regime change in Iran will draw from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will be torn apart from within. To accomplish this, the US will conduct the EBO under the pretense of forcing Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program -- a condition that the Iranian regime will find impossible to accept. Simultaneous with the air campaign’s suppression of Iran’s minority Persian government, the US will arm and actively support ethnic guerrillas (Kurds, Balochs, Azeris, etc.) to turn sections of the country into autonomous zones. Without the ability to utilize any of the capabilities of conventional warfare (from airpower to armor to massed formations), let alone command forces in the field or marshal a nation for war, the Iranian government would eventually collapse and its successor will accede to the growing set of US demands. The final resolution of this conflict would include recognition of regional autonomous groups and shared oil revenues in addition to the primary aim: cessation of nuclear activity. In short, if this succeeds, Iran will cease to be a regional power or even what could be termed a cohesive, viable state.

Despite the seeming inevitability of this path, the outcomes ("effects") it would produce are far from inevitable. An attack of this type would be a global system shock that is rife with downside risks and uncertainties. Once the attack commences, the shock waves it produces would be far-reaching, unpredictable, and in most cases very bad. Even if the U.S. military is prepared to repel an Iranian counter-attack and armed revolts from Iraqi Shiite militia members, it’s impossible to prevent rocketing oil prices, global terrorist attacks, and severe diplomatic fall-out. Further, Iran’s government may prove to be more resourceful than anticipated and outlast the attack, only to resume production of nuclear materials with the intent of revenge. Worse yet, the US might inadvertently collapse the US-led post cold war environment as countries, distrustful of US intentions, scramble to safety amid rapidly gyrating economic and social instability.

Despite these well-founded fears, the lack of other viable options coupled with the pertinacious intent of the U.S. administration to stop Iran from building the bomb (heedless of the costs), will likely drive the Pentagon towards this method of attack. To the Bush administration, all alternatives are preferable to a nuclear-armed Iranian clerical regime with de facto control over Palestine’s Hamas, Shiite militias in Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and numerous other global terror groups. For those contemplating this attack, the Iranian regime, with Ahmadinejad as its public face, has become everything that Saddam promised to be and more.

John Robb, a former counter-terrorism operation planner and commander, now advises corporations on the future of terrorism, infrastructure, and markets. A graduate of Yale University and the Air Force Academy, his writing on war have been featured in FAST COMPANY and THE NEW YORK TIMES. His book on the future terrorism, war, and the global economy will be published by Wiley in 2007.

Comments

[Don Quijote]

Best of luck.

If I was in the Iranians shoes, the first thing I would do is close the Strait of Hormuz & get my Iraqi supporters, the Shites, to blow every Iraqi Pipeline sky-high, for good measure I'd get Hamas & Hezbollah to cause as much trouble as possible.

After Oil goes to a few hundred dollars a barrel, we'll get to see who will back down first.

[Iang]

There are two problems with this approach. 1. It has to work. To see why, consider what happens when/if the US withdraws from the bombing campaign, and leaves the mad mullahs a-hopping. Likely, a whole region will then support whatever means necessary to fight back.

2. It's never ever worked in the past. The history of air power is rife with such suggestions. None of them ever came true. Wars - including ones of regime change - are still won by the Mk 1 Grunt and his rifle.

There ain't a lot of ground inbetween. You would have to have cojones like cannonballs to try it.

[Peter]

John, the last time Iran's oil went offline (in 1979), the world price of oil only doubled. Back then, Saudi Arabia was able to take up almost all the lost production. Today, Saudi could only pick up about 1/4 of the the oil lost due.

At the very least, the consequences of an attack on Iran would result in world oil prices at least doubling. That presumes that Iranians take *zero* action in response to an attack.

Iranians are quite nationalistic. Such an EBO attack would be portrayed as an attack by outsiders (because it would be), and rather than cause internal struggle, would rally dissenting segments of the Iran.

A more likely response would be somewhat closer to what the above poster points out. That the Straits of Hormuz pass several hundred miles of mountainous Iranian shoreline. Gulf oil traffic has to pass that gauntlet. Closing the Straits of Hormuz could easily have oil hit 4 digits per barrel within days. Remember: oil went up $10/barrel within 30 days of merely threatening to attack Iran. And little rubber speedboats armed with only RPGs could disable supertankers faster than they can be built or repaired. Disable the rudder, then it becomes a matter of: can you stop the tanker before it runs aground?

In addition, the primary cause of the insurgency in Iraq are the sunnis, who make up 20% of the population there. What would the daily cost in US troops become, when the Shiite population joins in on the insurgency?

Attacking Iran would, at the minimum cost, cost us Iraq. We'd have to cut and run like the fall of Saigon. Maybe some of the FOBs could hold out for a couple weeks, but Iraq would be a total loss for our efforts in the mideast.

To contain Iran would take an administration that has far more competance than this administration has repeatedly shown they lack. The bush administration has managed to turn every little action into partisan bickering and corporate welfare for cronies. If Iran really has to be "taken care of" then we would require intelligent people at the top. We don't. The most likely end-gam of an attack on Iran by this administration would be the end of the US as a democracy, and as a country. That makes the bush administration a clear and present danger to the continued survival of the United States of America. Two apocalyptic governments pissing on each other doesn't bode well for the continued survival of the rest of the global economy.

[Gerard]

So we'll be welcomed as liberators? I'm not sure I buy the argument that a bombing campaign will necessarily weaken the mullahs, I believe the opposite is true. People tend to rally around their flags and the Iranians have wrapped the whole campaign to become a nuclear state in green, white and red, not just green. I see parallels to Pakistan's nuclear program, a huge source of national pride useful to a unpopular government. I don't think anyone would argue bombing Pakistan would have ended their program and brought down the government, I fail to see how the argument applies to Iran.

[John Robb]

IF it wasn't apparent from the brief, I am not advocating this attack nor this method. I am of the strong belief that this is the way it will be conducted.

[dan]

A couple of points to note:

Firstly, Iran is a signatory to the NNPT and the various nuclear facilities that would be targetted are safeguarded under the additional protocols agreement that Iran is a signatory to - ie they are subject to inspection, monitoring and verification by IAEA inspectors to ensure that no proscribed activities occur or materials are diverted. Whether there are 164 centrifuges or 3000 centrifuges installed at Natanz is immaterial as long as the current inspection regime is in place. Moreover, there is little likelihood of Iran being able to install and operate 3000 centrifuges by the end of 2006 - a more realistic timeline would be 2008. Describing Iran's "achievement" in enriching Uranium to 3.5% in a 164 centrifuge pilot cascade as an entry into dangerous territory is a tad hysterical; we enter into more dangerous territory if Iran derogates from the NNPT and ends the IAEA presence, as it may only require some 9 months to produce enough fissile material for a weapon. I'd also add that an attack on Iran without the UNSC seal of approval, based on politically-charged speculation over future Iranian capacities, without any prior attempt at direct, bilateral talks on the US's behalf effectively kills the NNPT.

The basic physics behind nuclear weapons is known to most university undergraduates - everything else is a question of engineering. It's foolish to imagine that Iran can be prevented from developing scientifically and technologically to the extent that they're beginning to master a 60-year old process. Perhaps a programme of forced lobotomization of Iranian technicians, scientists and engineers could be sold to the US public; I doubt that it would win much support elsewhere.

Secondly, the US position, such as it is, on Iran's nuclear programme is incoherent. This is largely due to the over-riding Bush administration policy objective of regime change; this precludes any meaningful diplomatic engagement, which would change the strategic environment that makes a break-out weaponisation capacity a rational policy decision.

The Iranians have made a number of diplomatic offerings to the US since 2001 and these have all been rebuffed or discounted. The Bush administration cannot contain or ameliorate Iranian technical progress without offering substantive "compensation" - the position is simply a demand to Iran to forego its NNPT guaranteed rights gratis; and the Iranians have doubtless concluded that even after cooperation on Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration will simply move on to the next demand without ever acknowledging anything constructive or moderating its desire to unseat the regime.

A side point: Iran restructured its military and security forces in the wake of operation Desert Storm to run autonomously - it's a big mistake to re-cast the vastly more distributed "power" system in Iran as another variant of the Saddam Hussein top-down command structure, whose LOC's run vertically and can easily be interdicted.

It still took 8 years of the Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm, 12 years of sanctions, inspections, no-fly zones and territorial slicing, topped off with an invasion of a chronically emasculated state to achieve regime change in Iraq. Iran is orders of magnitude more difficult, and there is no invasion option when everything else has failed. Iran's Persian Shia population makes up more than 50% of the population and can hardly be described as minoritarian; it also has the added advantage of not having gassed its own ethnic minorities in the past.

However, it needs to be stressed that the Bush administration would do, quite literally, anything it can to avoid talking to Iran - and that includes a diplomatic bargain that trades Iran's nuclear weapons potential for the normalisation of relations. Until this option is explored it is utterly impossible to validate that it is unviable ( and there is a body of evidence of opportunities already missed that suggests that it is worth pursuing ).

[dan]

Just out of curiosity - what airspace corridors are the USAF going to employ for this, and which of the countries in the region have to ok US overflight/operational basing rights (for a military assault on a neighbour that they have normalised diplomatic, political and commercial relations with )?

You can rule out Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan immediately; and if formal permission were requested it would also be denied by Afghanistan and Iraq ( and probably Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, the UK and the rest of Europe ).

[SR]

I'm a bit queasy about this sort of operation due to the idea of arming minorities and expats In Iran. Saddam tried this with the Khuzestan Arabs in 1980, and most of them ended up fighting for the Ayatollah when Iraq invaded.

[ted]

Just a ferw dispersed thoughts and observations:

Iran has over 300 Exocet anti-ship missile systems and last year bought an undisclosed amount of russian Moskit anti-ship systems (and rumor has it they also bouth the improved Moskit version - the Yakhont - which is even faster). Rumor also has it that the Iranians have modified these systems to fit on mobile launchers and speedboats. While the Aegis radar defence system on which US Navy ships rely for protection against anti-ship missiles may deal with a limited amount of Exocets, the Moskit was designed to defeat an Aegis protected vessel and even a single Moskit will be almost impossible to shoot down due to its speed and manouvarability (2.5 Mach flying 7 meters above water level). Any US ship within the Persian Gulf is within range of both types of missiles and the first thing that will happen should the US start an air attack will be a duck shoot in a closed lake. In other words the immediate and very possible result of an air attack will be the obliteration of the entire US fleet currently docked in Bahrain, the closing of the Hormuz strait, and the cutting off of the US forces in Iraq. And thats only the direct military effects without mentioning the oil price, the US alliances, the reaction in the muslim world, the position of the Saud family and so on and so on. The ripple effects of this will be gargantuan.

I dont see that discussed widely in the media but it is only logical that the Iranians would use both geaography and military capability to their advantage.

I think a lilely air attack will come first from the US carrier groups currently in the Arabian Sea south of Iran, and rumor has it that they are practicing bomb runs at the edge of Iranian air space as we speak. The other options are from Iraq and Afghanistan.

What such an air campaign will try and accomplish basically is a Milosevic. The US bombed Serbia for more than a month, shut down all kinds of infrastructure networks and bombed everything that resembled a tank or a fighter plane. This was coupled with total disinformation campaign and money for the opposition. The difference with Iran is that it is much bigger, has more advanced military capabilities, has learned from the past, is not politically fractured like Serbia was, and is a shia state with an affection for martyrdom compared to which the kamikaze were dreamy existentialists.

I fully agree with Peter that any attack on Iran will mean an end of the world as we know it.

[arash sotoodeh]

fortunately US gov. not seriously think about masskilling as a solution, a war would be still tolerable for mankind in general, but the common use of nuclear weapons, is the end of our life and morality, I am sharing the position of MAx Born on nuclear weapons, they are a danger for whol ehumanity. thanks , nice blog, arash

[Shloky]

Was this originally the FP web exclusive?

[niblettes]

I've asked this elsewhere, but isn't it possible that this sabre rattling is a big put-on? I mean look at what happens--every time either the US or Iran rattles its sabre oil spikes. When oil spikes Iran makes more money, and Bush's cronies make more money. It further strengthens fear in both countries' people that further strengthens each regime's control over thier respective freightened people.

Sure its simplistic, but could it be true?

[Duncan Kinder]

Two points:

First, if America's destruction of Iran's infrastructure would result in a pro-Western Iranian regime change, then the same logic would suggest that a global guerilla assault upon the American infrastructure would result in the mass conversion of the American public to Islam. If you doubt the likelihood of such a mass conversion of the American public, then you also should doubt the effects of such a disruption in Iran.

Second, according to the L.A. Times, sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shi'ites is spreading to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Shi'ites, who occupy the part of Saudi Arabia covered by oilfields, are already growing restless. Any strike against Iran would further inflame this strife.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-shiites26apr26,1,160131.story?coll=la-headlines-world

[Adam]

Bit of a rush so this might be a bit scattered; plus I've been reintroduced to the wonderful products of St Peters Brewery, Suffolk. Beautiful stuff.

Johns laid out what seem to be reasonable plans towards an insane objective. Clauswitz's dictum about war being a continuation of politics being completely forgotten at this stage.

No matter what the US does Iran has a lot of options. Their allies run Iraq, they have loads of military toys from their Chinese, North Korean and Russian friends, they have oilwells at a time when oil is expensive, and they have the straits of Hormuz. Marine insurers consider the poxy dozen pirate attacks a year near Singapore to make the place a war-zone. In any shooting war the insurers'll be demanding individual Naval escorts from proper navies for every tanker in or out, or no insurance cover. Even then I'd hope that the repair yards in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are ready for a sudden influx of business; I'm not sure what an Exocet will do to a tanker, but I remember that Sir Galahad went straight up and they never decided if the warhead worked or not. This does not bode well for the ships no-claims bonus.

In Iran, like Iraq, most of the young men have reasonably solid military training - at least 18 months worth. For that matter quite a lot of women have military training to - I have some old photos in one of my books of Iranian special operations policewomen all carrying submachineguns in the approved "hard as nails" poses. One image has a platoon of Iranian women troops in Burkhas; all of them armed with RPG-16s (apparently they were an urban anti-tank militia).

Strangely the US has a lot fewer options as everything the US does has the twin millstones of Iraq and Afghanistan hanging around it. The US will have to have troops, aircraft and so forth in both places sufficient to handle the outraged locals. Not sure that they have enough.

That means that Irans got lots of troops to play with, whilst the US simply doesn't anymore. Why am I suddenly reminded of the Linebacker or Menu bombings in Vietnam?

As for the nationalism the Iraqi invasion of 1980 did a lot to stablise the fundamentalist regime; like the US today no-one wants to be considered unpatriotic. The Iranians invented patriotism; in the 2nd Century their leader Shapur was in charge of "Iran and non-Iran". There was Iran, and then there was everywhere else. That said, I remember seeing a woman speak who'd been a nice middle class secular kid and she remembered dancing with joy on hearing of a successful Iranian airstrike in the 1980s - within a few years her male classmates were the ones launching bicycle-mounted assaults with grenades stored in their blazer pockets. And that was in the time before actual Suicide Attacks became popular. In the 1980s children as young as 9 enlisted in the Iranian army, I doubt if US soldiers can handle the idea that 9 year olds could have suicide belts.

Materially Iran is a whole different ball game to Iraq. It has 40 huge runways, compared to Iraqs 20. It has a population 3 times as great. It has cartloads of missiles and the active support of China (and effectively Japan, Taiwan and South Korea) all of whom rely on Iranian oil.

This isn't going to be easy. But even if the US was, somehow, to succeed (in what? Does anyone know what the objective is? Does anyone know what the objective in Iraq was?) what on Earth is it going to do with a piss-off Iran? Fun fact: It was the German loss in 1918 that saw Hitler rise in 1933; just because you win a war doesn't mean that a bigger one isn't coming down the way.

[Johan van Rooyen]

Well done John. Your, no doubt deliberately provocative (referencing Dr. Strangelove being the giveaway), piece has stirred some of the most insightful comment on Iran I've read in a long time. What intelligent readers you have - I sure hope the hawks are paying attention!

[Tim Fong]

Threads like this are what keep me coming back to GG.

A few months back I remember a thread about how to get into the oil futures market for those of us who are not big players.

There's an Oil exchange traded fund, symbol USO that just rolled out in early April, seems to be tracking against the futures market pretty well (to my admitedly untrained eye). Most of you have probably seen it already, but I thought I'd post this anyway in case folks haven't.

[Matt]

John,

First off, you have an awesome website with some excellent senarios and work. I like the options that you present on Iran. There's been alot of talk concerning the Straits of Hormuz. What would be great was if you made a scenario about the military and economic effects if Iran was to shut it down. You could name it, Target: Straits of Hormuz. Once again you have great work and I can't wait for your book.

[Joseph]

Wow, this was good. Finally a piece on Iran that thinks beyond nuke or nothing, keep going with this.

[John Robb]

Thanks all for the great comments and ideas on this thread. The idea that the administration will opt to hollow out Iran. A hollow state will find it difficult to marshall the resources to proceed with nuclear development. It will be also much easier to access (for disruption of any effort).

Also, again, I am not saying this is a good idea. I am saying that I believe that this is what is going to be done and why.

[Z]

Just curious if Iran has any air defenses to speak of. Would the USAF/USN lose many aircraft or would it be a turkey shoot? Should Iranian air defense proove more capable-as in perhaps the 1973 Mid East war- an airwar would become very complicated. I doubt Iran has that capabilty though.

Also, wouldn't the U.S. need a nearby airbase is a *stable* location? Otherwise how would they be able to launce several hundred sorties/day as in Kosovo or Iraq-91?

Finally, a word about the nuclear "option." Supposing this attack starts and it all goes to hell in a handbasket, would the U.S. simply say "Oh well. Goodbye to all that" or would it escalate to nukes? The USAF and USN are so powerful, I doubt it would come to that, but if it did, I can't see the U.S. simply accepting defeat by Iran. Nukes will fall at that point.

Thanx,
Z

[Veteran]

Perhaps the Bush goal is to break up the Iranian state into a balkanized cluster?

[SpongeBob]

wow. This is one of the best sites as far as comments have gone that I have seen on Iran. You people seem very knowledgeble and rational, and I thank you for your input. I have a question, maybe more of just a reflection I guess. It has been really great to read some actual substance presented in this thread, such as actual numbers of ships, and strategies that may be implemented. One glaring problem I see, is the issue of civilians. Please, take this seriously as I am not flaming or Baiting. Just say for arguments sake that things get crazy and we are totally off the Middle East teat of oil in 10 years...as prices continue to spike. Of course, by then Iran and probably several more have "da bomb". Do we care? Do we intervene if they want Saudi for oil to sell to China? It almost seems like we are destined for a Middle East arms race..and you know how sequels go...they usually don't go nearly as well as the original. Do we just retreat back into a happy bliss? Can we ever go back to pre-9/11 if we become self-reliant on energy? I know it is more of a philosophical, dreamy hypothetical. But we are talking in terms of real people here. What is our duty to the Middle East long term?

[Steve Kimbrough]

The analysis may be accurate in the sense of describing what will unfold, but...

1) Why isn't anyone talking about the much more attractive options the US has, even if it is determined to deny Iran the bomb? The country can be destabilized quietly, without bombing, etc.

2) Pakistan is none too stable. Is it possible that Iran has infiltated, or made a deal, and could pull the trigger on a coup, thereby gaining access to a bomb NOW? Not impoosible, I would think.

[arash]

dear Mr. Robb, as I understand you, you believe that the politicians are overasked with this problem, to the public they have to show the opinion, they are not hurting human rights, not breaking a whole country, but on the real side, they see no other solution, the rise of Ahmadinedschad seems to be the greatest evil for mankind during the last 10-20 years. No doubt Iran lives in a dictatur, and that lessens the chance of a sane solution. One cannot even just destroy the nuclear reactors, that would lead to a huge pollution, seems everything really looks like a 2. Iraq or sth. even worse. thanks, arash

[NuSapiens]

This is a check-mate. The U.S. must either learn to deal with Iran respectfully, or exacerbate a dangerous conflict. Emphasis on dangerous.

I remember when people thought the US would roll into Iraq to be welcomed by a broad coalition of Saddam haters. Instead, regime change turned Iraq into the new world terrorist training headquarters.

I really, really hope our leaders don't decide to play with (more) fire by upsetting Iran. The more Western involvement in the Middle East progresses, the more it looks like a death trap. And yet, we can't resist.