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]

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]

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?

[tim302]

Duncan,

My understanding is that Zen, the tea ceremony etc were the pastimes of samurai during the peacetime of Edo.

Zen was also not a huge factor among the samurai (and their fighting arts) until the late Edo and early Meiji when it was hooked to kendo and karate (itself an import from Okinawa). Rather, previously the mikkyo (esoteric) tradition was heavily favored.

Donn Draeger covered some of this ground in his books. Unfortunately, many westerners entranced by exotic visions of Japan have proclaimed that Zen is key to Japanese fighting arts...Eugen Herrigel is probably most guilty of this with his book "Zen and the Art of Japanese Archery."

In a broader sense, I agree with you that the putative Global Guerrilla era might bear some resemblence to a period of Japanese history--that period would be the Warring States era where central government disappeared and the local clan/states fought among themselves.

John,

My only quibble is with your argument that "history appears set." It's a little too Hegelian for me, and it lets too many people off the hook. We shouldn't forget that it's not history, or the World Spirit, it's people making decisions who are responsible for the current debacle.

I agree with you 100 percent though about our powerlessness to influence the Bush admin in Washington, and agree eespecially with your goal of figuring out ways to mitigate the effects on ourselves and our communities.

[C-Low]

“Terrorist attacks on American interests occur worldwide. America is forced to withdraw from Iraq (and due to intense pressure must destroy most of its equipment in place).”

WTF are you smoking? were did this come from? Are you claiming that a rag tag of Sadr/Badgr will not only force a US retreat from Iraq (which in its self would be giving up on the entire region outright) but that the retreat will have to be so swift we wont even be able to pull our equipment out? The BS meter broke on that part.

Not playing a war with Iran down it will make Iraq look like a cake walk (something that in comparison to historical wars it has been in terms of cost and US lives).

Iran would strike back hard through their proxy groups True. But I don’t think it would be a showstopper like you portray it. Yes Sadr/Badr would jump in Iraq True but they would be crushed just like the last time Sadr tried to make his play and don’t forget that time he had a massive Sunni/Bathist/AQ contingent on his side in Al Anbar. The idea of Iranian armored columns rolling into southern Iraq with massive US airpower in orbit is outright laughable. Maybe some irregular terrorist squads sneaking in but that is already in play today nothing new their.

The wild card is Syria & Hezbollah. Hezbollah I think would be a shoe in for an all out attack along with Hamas on Israel resulting of course in a counter strike. Israel would rather easily beat both groups down rather but the two unknowns in my opinion would be 1) how far would Syria go in their support would they risk full scale war with Israel they know they would lose and 2) our Sunni allies in the region (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, Qatar ect..)Would they be able to contain their street by playing up the Persian angle? I think the “Arab Street” angle is way over played. I remember in the run up to Iraq many of the same arguments about the “Arab Street” rising up spontaneously everywhere they didn’t pan out then either. Those Arab governments are very very experienced and well setup to handle internal rebellion ruthless yes brutal yes evil yes but still extremely effective and that “Arab Street” knows it full well.

True there will be worldwide terror attacks by Iranian Terrorist proxies. Will that cause the collapse of the West doubtful? It will cause problems maybe damage some economy but collapse is far from reality the west has absorbed much worse see WW1 or WW2 shipping raiders. The economy will recover its WAR.

Either way worst case or best case I don’t see our forces being overwhelmed to the point were we “destroy our equipment in place” while hanging of the wheel hubs of the last C-130’s. I think a US Abrams column would not have much trouble fighting their way to the coast even if the entire ME Persian & Sunni allied against US I don’t see the US troops forced to evacuate abandoning their equipment.

I would suggest you go study up on the Korean War that was the last time an overwhelming force overran US forces and forced a retreat. (Hint we fought our way to the coast then evacted with our equipment).

Your basic problem is that you put terrorism in the category of conventional military power. It is not terrorism can cause panic, it can cause incontinence, it can damage economy compared to peacetime tranquility but compared to WAR footing standards it is not much more than nonsense to conventional forces.

Besides in the coming weeks I think we are going to see Sadr/Badr by order of the Iraqi government with US support put on the spot. Iran will have a choice sit back and allow their proxies be disarmed and neutered, sit back and watch their proxies decimated if they try to fight, or jump in and well we know the result of that one too.

The LLL fantasy of troopers hanging off helicopter wheels in a panicked retreat while terrorist dance on captured M-1Abrams is a joke. Well unless the US population makes the mistake of voting in a Democratic President or overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress. I watch Kerry with his retreat now bills and remember his promising during the election that he would not retreat from Iraq but would just change the strategy to win. It must suck to have to lie to people about your true goals to get their support.

[Marcello]

I find the whole accusation of being a DOD spokeperson wannabee idea funny since elsewhere I have been accused of the exact opposite.
Where can I start?

"Ian 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."

All we are reasonably sure they have are sixteen Moskits from Ukraine.AFAIK nobody knows for sure about their material conditions and supporting systems.
For the chronicle this missile has been around aboard the Sovremenny class since 1980 or so.Not exactly the secret wonder weapon that the russians unveiled the other day like many make it out to be.
The new arms deals with Russia may or may not include some additional missiles which may or may not be delivered and deployed in time.

"For the U.S. government's own bleak assessment of American defensive capabilities against anti-ship cruise missiles, you might want to read this"

The GAO report is focused on ship self defense.That is only part of the picture.
What you have to understand is that the Voenno Morskoj Flot and the USN spent the best part of the Cold War developing a string of increasingly better antiship missiles in the first case and defenses against them in the second.
To counter the massed missiles strikes the soviets planned (far better in quantitative and qualitative terms than the iranians can hope to achieve) the USN adopted a layered defense approach with fighter patrols,Aegis and point defense.The GAO report is focused primarily on point defense systems and capabilities.Admittedly there are some deficiences here but the strongest part of the system are the outer layers,by design.
A missile strike will have to go throught those first.
The sequence would have to be as follow
1)Get a fix on the position of the american ships and coordinate enough missile launchers on them,while Uncle Sam is pounding your sensors and communication networks with hundreds of JDAMs and cruise missiles.
2)Get the missiles throught AWACs assisted fighter patrols
3)Get the missiles past AWACs assisted, Aegis directed Standard missiles
4)Get past the point defense like Phanlax, ESSM and RAM, as well as decoys and ECM.
Is the above described layered defense concept unproven?
Sure.
Then again can you tell me how many ships did the Moskit and the Yakhont sink in combat?

Anyway the iranian arsenal is composed primarily of Silkworm derivatives and
C-801s.Silkworms were used against american warships during desert storm, with craptacular results.The C-801 is a bit more modern but nothing spectacular.

Bottom line,I would not lose my sleep on the possibility of a carrier being sunk.
Carriers are very hard nuts to crack anyway.

The Stark accident was the result of incompetence and a murky tactical situation (being between to fighting factions sucks).
Don't bet on it happening again.

[Marcello]

"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."

For an isolated warship,true.However the most likely scenario is that an E-2C will be around.This has made possible to fit the Aegis Mk 7 to deal with this problem.
1)The E-2C detects the incoming sea skimmer and feeds the data to the aegis system.
2)The aegis fitted ship uses the data to shoot the Standard missiles in the direction of the incoming SSMs.
3)As soon the SSMs cross the radar horizon the AN/SPG-62 illuminators lock on them and the Standards, already in the air and ready, go for the kill.

This is the sequence if I have understood correctly.Since supersonic sea skimmers have been around for quite a long time it only makes sense that counters have been developed for them.

[Marcello]

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

The iranian air force will be crushed.The various SCUD clones are too inaccurate for hitting reliably industrial targets with sufficient accuracy to cause critical damage.There is some possibility for sabotage and terrorism of course.Did I miss something?

Marcello,

"The Stark accident was the result of incompetence and a murky tactical situation...Don't bet on it happening again." Yes, of course it was a "murky tactical situation" -- I believe that phrase summarizes the very essence of war. As does the occasionally less-than-perfect competence of sailors under fire. I *would* bet on it happening again, and I think that sums up the root of our disagreement.

I won't debate the defensive capabilties of our naval forces, since I'm quite sure that neither you nor I can credibly claim any genuine expertise. My near total ignorance prods me to be cautious, while your near total ignorance inspires in you a blithe confidence that nothing very bad will happen. I guess you just have a sunnier disposition than me.

If you don't agree that the unpredictability of events, including the unforeseeable consequences of low probability high impact events, should be a strong deterrent to launching an unprovoked aerial bombardment of another nation--i.e., electing to start a war in an area that the global economy depends on being relatively peaceful--then I doubt there is anything I can do to persuade you.

[Marcello]

"Our navy has never really engaged with an enemy in modern times"

Operation Praying Mantis, 18 April 1988.
Nuff said, really.

[Marcello]

Don't try to muddle the issue.Yes I think that attacking Iran is an idiocy.Yes it will not go to the plan.Yes, there will probably be hell to pay.
But you came here waving the following specific scenario:
"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?"
Since you claim to be ignorant how exactly did you come up with that?
Let's see some fact OK?
1)Iran Iraq war: Uncle Sam loses his patience and inflicts a devastating defeat on the iranian navy on 18 April 1988.
2)Gulf War: the Iraqis engage the Missouri group with Silworms, with pathetic results.
But you concentrate on a single accident and you extrapolate from that, without even realizing that there were others engagements where american naval capabilities were tested in conditions more similar to what they are going to face.
And then you have the guts to call me an ignorant.
Whatever.

[Arherring]

Finally, some common sense prevails. Now lets talk about the original post, an attack on Iran leading to the failure of states, a global energy crisis, rampant terrorism and the total collapse of the Global economy.

Come on, give me proof. Give me details. Show me a thought out scenario (not worst-case) Realistically game it out. Until you do I ain't buyin'.

1988? Is that "modern times"??

[Duncan Kinder]

"My understanding is that Zen, the tea ceremony etc were the pastimes of samurai during the peacetime of Edo. "

Now is probably not the best time to debate Japanese cultural history, but one of the classics from the Kamakura period is _Essays in Idleness_ by Yoshida Kenko.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596050624/sr=8-2/qid=1151979952/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8878805-8716969?ie=UTF8

As the Amazon.com blurb states:
"YOSHIDA KENKO (1283-1352) was a Buddhist priest, a reclusive scholar and poet who had ties to the aristocracy of medieval Japan. Despite his links to the Imperial court, Kenko spent much time in seclusion and mused on Buddhist and Taoist teachings.
His "Essays in Idleness" is a collection of his thoughts on his inner world and the world of Japanese life in the fourteenth century. He touched on topics as diverse as the benefits of the simple life ("There is indeed none but the complete hermit who leads a desirable life"), solitude ("I am happiest when I have nothing to distract me and I am completely alone"), lust ("What a weakly thing is this heart of ours"), the impermanence of this world ("Truly the beauty of life is its uncertainty"), and reading ("To sit alone in the lamplight with a book spread out before you, and hold intimate converse with men of unseen generations--such is a pleasure beyond compare"). "

Essentially the Essays is a presentation of reflections on various aspects of life. Indeed, it bears striking semblance to many blogs.

From this perhaps we may infer that John Robb's guerrillas can huff and they can puff, but blogging still has quite a future.

Cheers.

[Jerry Johnson]

There is a lot more to war than the battlefield, especially when the aggressor is the world's greatest debtor whose marginal credit raising abilities depend on China and Russia with vast interests in Iran.

What if the Chinese especially caused their Treasury holdings to not roll over as they come due weekly and use the proceeds to buy Euros and Yen in particular? The Stuff is custodially held and the word would be in the WH within an hour of the instruction to US nominees. Russia could also do some gas supply shenanigans till the US breaks off any Iranian adventure. Such a move however would almost certainly be a'priori to be most effective. It would seem that an outright security dump would send the message that guns without geldt do not mean a whole lot in the aftermath.

Of course, a rousing Iranian venture success that validates Iraq might mitigate the fortitude of Russia and China in such a move. A rousing failure of the US in Iran will kill much of the dollar based global credit system in the aftermath, so the Russians and Chinese might have little value to lose marginally. This marginally ventured fund need not be much more than $200 billion gross with a net realization of perhaps $100 billion in other currencies. They should easily be able to double this if required. It would send a message to stop now or else.

Dollar holdings with collapsing values are a very good war asset, especially if offensively used to save the rest of their dollar holdings. You militarily expend what you figure you will lose anyway if the US fails. Good god, our military leadership is publically all but in revolt against the neocons.

Ike dumped Sterling and Francs on the Brits and French in 1956 when we were the worlds largest creditor and military state. That is , we really were a superpower from all viewpoints. We had all the money and enormous ability to produce materiale. We truly had a citizen armed force base as a reserve.

While this failed Iraqi venture has been exposing our real capabilities and fortitude, the Russians and Chinese, in particular, have been winning the energy geopolitics .

A lot of nations have acquired the courage to start to oppose the US since 2003. If the Chinese and Russians wish to end this superpower charade stuff, they have the means. It is only a question of skill and fortitude and cunning.

The Chinese seem to be in a real pickle. It all falls apart if we do not soak up their dumped products. The dollar will fall a very great deal. If the US fails in Iran , they lose along with the entire global system. It really is not much different than 1914. Their geopolitical moves suggest they are playing against the middle to salvage the chance of a new replacement customer for most US trade. In short, the Chinese view the US as a loser both ways and they need to geopolitically CYA to save themselves.

The financial ploys to do an Ike reprise are almost endless in specific choice.

So a move on Iran is a must win at any cost or do not try it.

[subadei]

Sometimes I'm unsure of which I enjoy more here. John Robbs intellectually provocative and pragmatic ideas or the dynamic and intelligent discussions they start.

[Z]

"Besides in the coming weeks I think we are going to see Sadr/Badr by order of the Iraqi government with US support put on the spot. Iran will have a choice sit back and allow their proxies be disarmed and neutered, sit back and watch their proxies decimated if they try to fight, or jump in and well we know the result of that one too."

Disarmed or decimated? How about none of the above. No one has the teeth to make them disarm. If it were that easy, the Sunni insurgency would have ended years ago. Iraq's security forces pretty much ARE those millitias and they aren't about to fight themselves. The U.S. could try it, but then they would have a Shiite insurgency...in case the Sunni one was growing too dull. Which is why they haven't tried it and aren't going too. As for what Iran would do, that's an easy one; kick back, buy some popcorn and enjoy the show. Iran is no kind of match in a conventional war with the U.S. so the deeper we get in Iraq, the happier they will be.

[Marcello]

"1988? Is that "modern times"??"

For all practical purposes, yes.It is not like the iranians have improved a lot since then in terms of naval capabilities.

[Marcello]

Furthermore lest anyone think that american warships are easy to sink let's give a look to some actual combat records.

1)USS Samuel B. Roberts.
OH Perry class frigate (the smallest escorts still in service):took heavy mine damage during the Iran-Iraq war.Survived and returned to service.

2)USS Stark
OH Perry class frigate (the smallest escorts still in service):took two Exocet missiles during the Gulf war.Survived and returned to service.

2)USS Princeton
Ticonderoga class cruiser (the backbone the fleet air defences): hit by multiple mines explosion during the Gulf war.Survived and returned to service.

3)USS Tripoli
A LPH:hit a mine during the Gulf war http://navysite.de/lph/lph10mine3.jpg
Survived and returned to service.

4)USS Cole
Arleigh Burke class destroyer (the most common escort these days).Hit by suicide boat
http://www.hazegray.org/features/cole/damage12.jpg
Survived and returned to service.

[Marcello]

"took two Exocet missiles during the Gulf war."

Typo: read Iran-Iraq war.

[Joe]

Warships - ANYONE'S warships - are damn hard to sink - and Iran probably wouldn't even try too hard (not to say it would't take a pot shot given half a chance). Air power wouldn't do a thing - the entire IAF probably couldn't get through a couple of AEGIS-equipped warships, but shore-based missiles aren't that easy to track down.
There may be ships damaged, perhaps even heavily, but sinking a capital ship is unlikely.

More importantly, the primary target - as mentioned earlier - would probably be Saudi/Qatari/Kuwaiti tankers. These DO sink if hit with antiship weapons, and make rather a mess when they do....(economically, politically, and of course literally)

The problem is that the gulf isn't very big. Blue-water ships are at something of a disadvantage trying to protect a third (civilian) party at close quarters.

As to locating ships, the straight of Hormuz is 25 miles across. You don't need a constant overwatch radar, and depending on the weapon you're using, you might not need any active sensors at all.

If you want to establish a defensive blockade with US/RN/Anyone else who'll come to play's warships, they will have to come within 20 miles of the coast. The real risk is that that is well within the range of Shkvall-equivalent supercavitating torpedoes, which there have been claims Iran has a homemade variant (fast and no active defence possible. Plus modern torpedoes are damned lethal). For those disinclined to believe news articles about who's got what bit of hardware it's not impossible (or even that dificult) for field artillery.

For that matter, coastal oil platforms are well within range (70-80km) of heavyweight torpedoes off torpedo boats.
Ok, it's a slow-moving attack, but it's a static target. Again, it doesn't take many shots to make a mess, and once again there's no active kill defence to underwater weapons.

[Cavolonero]

If we're going to attack Iran we have to assume they ALREADY have ' the bomb ' or several or that someone will give it to them ( Pakistan, China, anyone ) if it looks like we're really going to invade.

So you're looking at them using an atomic vs. the US in the gulf. No good. Take their coastline off and THEN move in.

It's not that ' we can't beat Iran '. We could turn Iran into a 50 foot deep pile of radioactive powder if we wanted to, it's the political conseqences that are the big tar baby here.

These guys might be ready to just say ' oh well fuck it ', we can't stop the switch to petroeuros vs. petrodollars, so we might as well jump on them now. That's what Wiston Churchill would have done right ?

It's when everyone agress that war would just be maddess ... that's when someone pulls the trigger.

[Marcello]

"More importantly, the primary target - as mentioned earlier - would probably be Saudi/Qatari/Kuwaiti tankers. These DO sink if hit with antiship weapons, and make rather a mess when they do"

Indeed.If I was them I would concentrate my assets against merchant ships.

"If you want to establish a defensive blockade with US/RN/Anyone else who'll come to play's warships, they will have to come within 20 miles of the coast."

The escorts, yes.The carriers probably could still stay beyond visual range.

"The real risk is that that is well within the range of Shkvall-equivalent supercavitating torpedoes"

Range for the standard ShKval is 7000 meters or so.

"For that matter, coastal oil platforms are well within range (70-80km) of heavyweight torpedoes off torpedo boats."

The type 65-76 may have that range.But it is a bit tad heavy for a torpedo boat and besides it's a wake homer.Not sure how that would work against a fixed target.
They would have to modify a 533mm torpedo to trade speed for range.70-80km is a rather extreme range for a torpedo.

[Joe]

No. He probably wouldn't....

He advocated re-arming because Germany was becoming a threat. He didn't advocate an invasion of Germany. For that matter, a lot of the rearming was recovering from the "ten-year rule" that he himself had put in place, which the UK government wanted to make self-renewing.

No-one's claiming that the US can't beat Iran. What is being argued is potential consequences - how badly they could wreck the oil market and/or local national governments.

And creating the Iranian Oil Bourse using euros has to be one of the worst reasons for a bombing campaign ever.....

Lastly, I doubt anyone would externally supply a nuclear weapon - most nuclear club nations that would enjoy seeing US soldiers get hit with a nuke (North Korea - anyone think of anyone else?) are run by people who wouldn't let their weapons out of their sight....one reason why the claim Saddam would have let Al Qaeda have WMDs is highly dubious......

I doubt they would have the bomb if it occurs in the next couple of years (after that I agree). Radioisotope based weapons, on the other hand, they could build already if they felt like it.

[Arherring]

Are you -still- talking about an "Atomic" exchange in the Gulf? "Shkvall-equivalent supercavitating torpedoes"? What?

Analysis Paralysis

Forget it. Lost cause. I'll go find something worth reading somewhere else.

[Joe]

No.
I'm giving reasons why an atomic exchange is not an issue.

Going back to the key question of what happens if...

Likeley outcomes:
1) Iran's regular military takes a pasting. Whatever they may achieve, they cannot take on a US/UK/Other NATO-level army in a stand-up fight.
2) Insurgency activities start with a higher frequency and better co-ordination and equipment than the Iraqi equivalent (If I was in charge, I'd have started creating hidden stockpiles of RPG-7s etc, already)
3) The major counterattack by Iranian forces is aimed at merchant shipping transiting the striaght of hormuz using small suicide boats, and shoot-and-scoot field artillery and surface-to-surface missiles. The response is limited to:

a) let tankers take their chances (politically unacceptible)
b) Provide a destroyer screen between the tanker routes and the coast
(this is not going to be 100% effective, and also puts allied escorts ~15km or less from the coast, resulting in damage to one or more USN ships from the same type of attack)
Insurers costs will pretty quickly grind merchant shipping to a halt anyway.
c) Enforce a moratorium on shipping through the straits untill the coastal regions are deemed secure from risk.
(How long do you think that will take?)
Choking of oil production, and no shipping of other goods into the gulf.
Severe risk of material shortages to Iraqi forces.

Any attack will probably be one time, as launchers will be located swiftly after firing and (hopefully) destroyed, but it becomes very difficult to ensure certainty.

4) A large scale effort is made by Iran to equip any and all terrorist groups with equipment. Issuing mines, and machine tool patterns to fabricate mines to Yemeni groups allows occasional attacks on the straights to continue long after the US occupies the opposite, Iranian coast.

[John Robb]

I've updated the brief to smooth it out some and explain my approach better. Comments for improvement are always welcome.

[Eamonn Fitzgerald]

Hersh has been peddling this war-with-Iran theory for so long now that he's got a vested interest in keeping in running. He'd look like a proper twat if he dropped it. But it's getting tired so he keeps on burnishing it; adding more anonymous sources; pasting in a few new quotes; dropping a handful of new names. How can anyone take him seriously anymore? He's crossing the conspiracy-theory border, which is very, very sad when you consider how good he once was. But maybe that's what fate has in store for all of us if we dwell too long in the limelight.