AN ATTACK ON IRAN = CATALYST OF CHAOS

In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh again makes a cogent case that the US is headed towards war with Iran despite intense internal/external opposition. Of course, I concur. More war is indeed on the near term horizon (with the timing slaved to the Presidential election clock).

The only prewar uncertainty is the method we will use to attack Iran. Here again, Hersh's article is useful. It is laden with comments that indicate that the air power intensive operation I laid out in my "Collapsing Iran" brief will be selected. For example:

“The Air Force is hawking it to the other services,” the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re all excited by it...

“Rumsfeld and Cheney are the pushers on this—they don’t want to repeat the mistake of doing too little,” the government consultant with ties to Pentagon civilians told me. “The lesson they took from Iraq is that there should have been more troops on the ground”—an impossibility in Iran, because of the overextension of American forces in Iraq—“so the air war in Iran will be one of overwhelming force.”

Seeing Around Corners

Of course, beyond the method of the attack (an EBO that attempts to cause Iran's collapse), we should also look at its potential implications. This is a stretch, since it involves seeing around corners (something I enjoy, and if you are reading this weblog, so do you). One good method we can use to approach this would be to view the attack within the larger context of the emerging tightly coupled global system (a system where shocks rapidly travel through mutual network interdependencies). My earlier conclusion was that this new global system is dynamically unstable, which means that positive feedback loops started by system shocks can overwhelm dampening forces (such as political/social systems that provide negative feedback). Within this context, we can build a scenario based on three waves of effects. Each wave will be of a greater magnitude than the first, with each propagating quickly in succession. Of course, I hope this analysis is all for naught and it doesn't play out like this, but here's my take regardless:

• The military wave: local counter-attacks. Substantial disruption in Iraq due to domestic revolts by Shiite militias. Potentially, an attempt by Iranian forces still intact to invade Iraq. Attacks on Persian Gulf shipping and a shut down of Iranian oil exports. Oil prices spike. Global condemnation of the attack. The fighting is locally intense.
• The political wave: the instability spreads across the globe and America is incapacitated. Attacks on vulnerable Gulf monarchs put regional powers on the edge of failure. Terrorist attacks on American interests occur worldwide. America is forced to withdraw from Iraq (due to intense pressure from a hostile government and militias that are interdicting supplies) and must destroy much of its equipment in place to facilitate a rapid departure. Protests against American policy abound (including domestically in the US), many of these may get violent. American businesses suffer. The US is plunged into a domestic political crisis. Shortages of oil cause rationing in some countries and radical reductions in economic activity globally.
• The economic/societal wave: state failures. A gulf monarchy falls. Successful terrorist attacks on oil production systems have deepened the global energy crisis (and it appears it will continue indefinitely). The global economy goes into a severe and prolonged contraction. The worst finally happens: China's export oriented economy collapses (NOTE: when a bubble economy running at nearly 10% yearly growth falls apart, the rate of contraction will likely exceed the rate of growth). Protests, currently running at 200 a day, spike to thousands and they are increasingly violent (as protesters clash with domestic militias). The government attempts to crack down with the army but finds neither support nor a passive population during this attempt. Further, the scale of the unrest is too vast. Lacking legitimacy due to a decade of rampant corruption and an inability to deliver rapid growth anymore, the country fragments.

Although I am bearish on the future of conventional war between states, I am bullish on the potential for states (the legacy platforms in this struggle) to accelerate the dissipation of their remaining cohesion through mistakes (akin to the mistake the monarchies made during World War 1).

Comments

[Veteran]

Another series of wars brought to you by the PNAC creative-destruction gang.

What does van Creveld say?

[Linus]

The fragmentation of China is an interesting possibility.

The assumption in the West continues to be that China is a strong, cohesive, and unitary nation-state hellbent on regional if not global domination, but some academics and other commentators have been sounding the alarm for years (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/pacific2000/gladneypaper.htm) that what China's leadership may fear more than a muscular American foreign policy is internal fracturing.

The regime still keeps a lid on the press, but civil unrest is now a daily occurence in China (the extent of which may be widely underestimated by western media and governments), and China's impressive 9-12% growth is centered almost exclusively in a narrow prosperity belt on the coast. As the nouveau riche east end begins to have more in common with its prosperous East Asian neighbors (including longtime foe Japan, and Taiwan), the poor interior faces a growing loss of arable land and direct government subsidies, increasing drought and flooding, the rise of criminal gangs (and Islamic terrorism in the west), and the revival of old tensions along linguistic, ethnic, and religious lines.

China has spent more than half its history in pieces, and in the emerging age of fragmentation and globalization a strong China may less likely than a breakup of the country, and a breakup of the country may be a more dangerous incubator of troubles for the west than a strong China.

[Cavolonero]

Maybe if you're China ; let your poor interior fracture and secede, fight a quick civil conflict ( squish 'em ) and then form a more perfect union ( against the larger threats to your interests in the world ) ???

[Ohadi Langis]

An attack on Iran from the air will like produce an uncontrolled release of radioactive materials. Forget about "temporary" suspension of oil exports. What is the world going to do with oil refineries and port facilities contaminated with transuranic residuals with half-lives of from decades to millions of years?

This gets at the real problem in Iran, which that absent a bombing attack by the U.S., the Iranians could still blow themselves up or have a criticality incident. This is one of the reasons why a diplomatic solution that puts the IAEA back in the country full time is so important. One of the intelligence problems the U.S. likely faces is how smart the Iranians are about managing nuclear safety at their facilities.

If you want to protect oil in the Mideast, you need to help, not bomb, the Iranians in terms of getting their nuclear energy facilities engaged in a safety culture that is well understoood by western engineers.

The nonproliferation problem for Iran is not only about them getting a bomb. It ought to also be about making sure Iran doesn't contaminate its own oil supplies and facilities nor anyone elses with radioactive residuals from an accident.

[John Robb]

A smart approach to this, given our relativley powerless position in the decision making process, doesn't include arguments for alternatives. It is likely to happen regardless since history appears set on this outcome (not fatalistically, but through a confluence of forces).

[arherring]

The only Global Guerilla I see in this is named Chicken Little. Do you really expect the sky to fall?

[John Robb]

No. Everything will be fine. There won't be an attack, nor if the attack occurs will it cause any consequences. ;->

Of course, I was right on with my analysis in early 2003 in both anticipating the long term guerrilla war in Iraq and the rapid Iranian nuclear development (brought on by the invasion). I was likely seen as chicken little then too.

[arherring]

No, I think there will be an attack on Iran. I think you are right there. I think there will be a backlash. Probably a lot like your first wave. But how likely do you think waves two and three really are? Ripples in a pond, Yes. Waves even. But not tsunamis.

[Marcello]

"What is the world going to do with oil refineries and port facilities contaminated with transuranic residuals with half-lives of from decades to millions of years?"

In principle (not sure if they will be able do to that in practice in the middle of the geopolitical shitstorm that this attack is going to raise) I suppose you could do the same thing that the soviets did with units 1,2 and 3 at Chernobyl:clean them up and bring them back up to operational status.A bit costly in terms of manpower (at least by western standards) but not exactly impossible.
Note that here I am thinking specifically about the Bushehr reactor and the important oil, gas and transportation facilities in the province.
Speaking of which when is it going to be fueled?
Because if it is not the point is moot.

"It ought to also be about making sure Iran doesn't contaminate its own oil supplies and facilities nor anyone elses with radioactive residuals from an accident."

Oil should be safe underground.It should also be possible to decontaminate the above ground facilities.

[Dan tdaxp]

when a bubble economy running at nearly 10% yearly growth falls apart, the rate of contraction will likely exceed the rate of growth

Is this established or an assumption?

(Not a criticism -- I am curious.)

[Marcello]

"But how likely do you think waves two and three really are?"

IIRC Iran exports two millions and half of barrels of oil per day.And if I have understood correctly there is not a whole lot of reserve production capacity left in the world.I hope we can dodge the bullet but
it does not look pretty to me.

[sglover]

But an important theme in Hersh's article is how unenthused the other services (Army, Navy, Marines) for the Air Force's latest homage to Douhet. Also, while there's no doubt that the Bush administration is completely, totally out of its depth, don't you think they've been chastened somewhat by their Iraq disaster?

There are lots of worrisome signs (e.g., Cheney's still alive and in office), but there are mitigating factors as well. A war with Iran would be such a catastrophe, on so many levels, that I gotta believe even Bush must be dimly aware of them.

[John Robb]

There is historical support for a bust in China. Historically, developing economies have gone through frequent boom and bust cycles (for example: the US 1800's and early 1900's). Only recently, in the western economies at least, growth was tightly controlled to manage the boom and bust cycle. That method is clearly not at work in China, and given the vast decentralization already at work there, unlikely to be in any time period that is relevant.

[Cavolonero]

Speaking of waves and tsunamis. In Hersh's article he talks about the problems with all the ports and hidden harbors along Iran's coast, where they'll lauch 1000's of suicide boat attacks vs. the US fleet there.

Well, that's where you'll see the atomics used for certian. A couple offshore and you have a Indonesia type tsunami that'll take out everything, 100%. ( Indonesia could even have been a test for it )

[John Robb]

From the perspective of the Administration (taking a long term view of things), Iraq and Afghanistan are a success and not a disaster. Both Saddam and the Taliban are out of power. Iraq is now free of sanctions and ("when" the guerrillas are finally under control) will eventually pump enough oil to meet growth in global demand. The current fighting is merely, in their view, an acceptable cost of this success. Within this framework, any negative consequences suffered from an attack on Iran will be more than compensated for by the benefits if the country is chastened.

I don't adhere to this, but that is likely their perspective.

[arherring]

"Well, that's where you'll see the atomics used for certian. A couple offshore and you have a Indonesia type tsunami that'll take out everything, 100%. ( Indonesia could even have been a test for it )"

What? Who is using "Atomics"? Come on. Be realistic here.

[subadei]

I have an incredibly hard time believing China will stand idle and watch US warships decimate it's current economic progress. As events unfold and a US attack seems imminent China will rattle sabres over Japan and Taiwan. We may even see an acceleration in North Korean activity (Taepodong 2 lobbed over Alaska perhaps?) as China loosens Kim Jong Il's reigns a tad. These possibilities added to vitual failure in Iraq, Afghani rumblings of violent dissent, UN condemnation, etc, etc would seem to make overt action impossible.
Additionally, have you given thought to Venezuelas actions should the US strike Iran?

[Walter Purvis]

The magnitudes of the ripples/waves/tsunamis are hard to forecast. The unpredictability of events is what makes war so interesting.

What happens if Iran bombs the Saudi oil facilities? A global depression is not at all out of the question.

Iran has a fairly decent chance of being able to sink one of America's carriers or a few of our other large ships. How will Americans respond to the news of 5,000 dead sailors? (Some Americans will probably want to drive the Bush administration out of office, while some other Americans will probably be hell-bent on exacting revenge from Iran and punishing traitors who don't "support the president in a time of war.")

What if severe gasoline shortages and economic chaos coincide with thousands of dead sailors? Americans will be looking for *someone* to blame, and if history is a guide the scapegoat will be someone other than ourselves.

Those are just two possible events. I haven't even discussed the possible short-term problems in Iraq or the long-term ramifications for Islamist terrorism, America's foreign relations, etc.

Who can know how it will all play out? The answer of course is no one. But, to put it mildly, we can be pretty sure that it won't all go according to plan and the results won't be entirely to our liking.

Frankly, I wish the other Bush--the one who cared about prudence--was still in charge, but, hey, you go to war with the commander in chief you have, not the commander in chief you wish you had...

[enigma_foundry]

John:

Your observations continue their excellent track record, IMHO.

It is increasing depressing that we can be ruled by such idiots...

[Adam]

John,

Minor note: you miss one area of impact. There is the direct terrorist attack within the UK by "cleanskins" in a 7/7 style attack. No reason to assume that the US is immune, and lots of reasons to assume that it isn't. Since 1979 an estimated 1.5 million Iranians have moved to the states. Some of them will have had kids, and some of those kids will be politically inclined. Thats teenagers for you, and teenagers from somewhere can be awfully enthusiastic for it, compared to where-ever they live (the "anywhere but here" syndrome.

The knock on effect is interesting. In 1979 most of the Iranians were refugees of a new kind - ones with money. Often upper middle class they had strong educations, language skills and money. Things that most immigrants into a country don't have. As a result they formed businesses and became solid middle class American citizens. This makes them potentially a very strong group for internal resistance in the US, compared to the Japanese citizens in 1942 who were easily done away with as they were largely working class and therefore expendable.

It also means that the immediate US response (crackdowns, break ing a few skulls, talk about internment, random spying) will result in real political problems because the Iranian refugee community are part of the system.

If the US government cannot "smoke the Iranians out" without taking a chunk of the middle class with it, that moves things towards a Cuban or Nicaraguan resistance scenario centred around a middle class that is forced to be political by internal repression.

[Marcello]

"A couple offshore and you have a Indonesia type tsunami that'll take out everything, 100%."

Bullshit.Even if the USA hade the weapons and plans to attempt something like that, and they don't ,you could say goodby to all of the oil transportation facilities in the region.
Those fast attack crafts are probably in the order of the hundreds at the most and while a significant nuisance they can be dealt with in others ways which don't require economic suicide.And they are more of a threat to merchant ships anyway (if the iranians are smart).

"What happens if Iran bombs the Saudi oil facilities?"

With what?

"Iran has a fairly decent chance of being able to sink one of America's carriers or a few of our other large ships. How will Americans respond to the news of 5,000 dead sailors?"

Again, with what?
A sinle destroyer or frigate could get unlucky (and total loss of the crew would be unlikely) but probably no more than that.
You are massively underestimating the defenses that a carrier group can put up.
They were designed to survive far worse things than the iranians can throw at them.
All the iranians can hope for on the sea is causing some disruption, more psychological than material, to the oil tankers traffic.

[Walter Purvis]

Marcello,

Wow. You should apply for a job with the DOD civilian leadership immediately.

I probably shouldn't have used the "or" or the ambiguous "fairly decent" -- to be slightly clearer, I think Iran has a low, but not negligible, chance of hitting a carrier (sinking it would be even lower probability) OR a fairly good chance of hitting, and quite possibly sinking, a large naval ship (cruiser, destroyer, etc.).

Iran has (we believe) acquired advanced anti-ship cruise missiles from Russia (Moskits and Yakhonts), for which we have no proven defense, and has many less advanced cruise missiles, for which our defenses are probably not as good as we would hope.

I do not believe I am "massively underestimating the defenses that a carrier group can put up." For the U.S. government's own bleak assessment of American defensive capabilities against anti-ship cruise missiles, you might want to read this:
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-00-149.htm

The point is, all of our defenses against whatever attacks, missiles or suicide boats or otherwise, the Iranians might mount are purely theoretical. Our navy has never really engaged with an enemy in modern times (unless you count the one engagement of the USS Stark with an Iraqi fighter armed with Exocet missiles, an engagement that ended badly for the Stark). Even if you *think* our defenses are pretty good (and according to the GAO report, our defenses actually look pretty dicey), that's just a hope and a prayer at this point -- you can't discount the possibility of Iran penetrating those defenses at least once with devastating effect.

As for bombing Saudi oil facilities, I won't even bother to catalog the myriad options at Iran's disposal.

Gambling that Iran will be powerless to strike back is just plain foolish. Failing to account for the effects of successful counterattacks in deciding whether to start a war is criminally negligent. (This might be a good place for Cheney to employ a revised 1% doctrine -- i.e., if there's a 1% chance that Iran could succeed in doing X in response to our air assault, then maybe we should think twice before launching the assault.)

Again, you'd be a shoo-in for getting hired at DOD, so I'd say send in your application right away (although you'd probably be fired along with everyone else a couple of years from now, so maybe it's not a good move for long-term job security).

[Duncan Kinder]

Hopefully sanity will prevail, and the Bush administration will either choose not to or be prevented from launching the attack John Robb describes.

Nevertheless we live in a dicey world, in which Peak Oil or a Shi'ite uprising in Saudi Arabia, for example, could generate similar results.

So, let's take John Robb's thesis and work with it.

The question I would like to ask is what sort of silk purse, if any, could be made out of this apparent sow's ear?

I would submit that Robb's thesis suggests that the world, generally, is about to undergo a transition similar to that Japan underwent about 950 years ago when the Kamakura period replaced the Heian period.

Here are the Wikipedia references:
Heian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heian_Period
Kamakura: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamakura_period

The Heian period, unfamiliar to most Westerners, was a courtly period featuring a highly refined culture based in Kyoto. The Kamakura period began the more famous samurai era.

The samurai, I would submit, are broadly analogous to the Global Guerillas. While warlike, there was a serious sense in which they also were civil - Zen, the tea ceremony, haiku, and so forth.

The culture of the Global Guerilla era, I would predict, would have a similar tenor.

[arherring]

Lets back up for a second and do a recap.

This discussion has progressed from an effects based attack on Iran that leads to assuredly eventual collapse of the strongest nations on the planet, including meltdowns in the Chinese and American economies. Then to radioactive contamination of Iranian oilfields and oil facilities. Onward to 'Atomic' warfare in the Persian Gulf (or maybe it was suicide speedboats). Then North Korea lobbing ballistic missles over Alaska. After that Iranian airstrikes against Saudi Arabia (through US controlled airspace?) and the likely sinking of a US carrier group in the Persian Gulf (by speedboats?). Don't forget the possibility of terror attacks in the US by Iranian immigrants unless they can be "smoked out", and back to sinking ships in the Gulf. There were a few words of common sense in there (thanks Marcello) but for the most part a constant string of worst-case scenarios.

How much of that sounds really, really, truly likely?

[Tangurena]

>>"What happens if Iran bombs the Saudi oil facilities?"
>With what?
I'm going to recommend you revisit one of John's posts from last month:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/06/the_melted_map.html
and the before/after maps link from that post on:
http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

A lot of the Gulf coast in Saudi is predominantly shiite. And if you've lived in KSA, you'll notice that the shiites get treated about as bad as infidels, and aren't able to get into the better jobs in the kingdom. Some of the ripples could involve KSA collapsing in an internal civil war with most of the port facilities ending up in shiite-friendly, and western-hostile, hands. We depend quite heavily on the port facilities in Qatar, which will probably end up kicking us out as they collapse into a civil war as well.

It is quite possible that the Iranians will launch what they do have at oil platforms and pumping locations in a "use it or lose it" motto. Oil platforms don't need to be hit with missiles to catch on fire and tip over into the sea, they're a bit more fragile than I'd like. Some of my father's friends and co-workers ended up at the bottom of the North Sea.

The Russians have sold the Iranians missiles that were designed to take out US carriers. As well as torpedos that travel over 200mph underwater. Putzy little missiles like exocets and silkworms are subsonic, and easy to chase and shoot down. The newer generation skim along at 20 feet above sea level at mach 3. The reaction time to spot (as they come over the horizon) and shoot them down is in the ballpark of 10 seconds. Fire a wave of them, and they *will* overwhelm phalanx point defense systems.

I got a bike a couple weeks ago, and am building up enough endurance to commute to work without a car. Can you?