Military Options with Iran

Iran has restarted its nuclear program. Sam Gardiner ran a wargame on this last fall that was chronicled by James Fallows in the Atlantic (subscription). It concluded that we don't have any military solution to the problem. Here's an overview of the options (with a little more detail on the regime change option):

The general and his staff had prepared plans for three escalating levels of involvement: a punitive raid against key Revolutionary Guard units, to retaliate for Iranian actions elsewhere, most likely in Iraq; a pre-emptive air strike on possible nuclear facilities; and a "regime change" operation, involving the forcible removal of the mullahs' government in Tehran.

Our objective is to be on the outskirts of Tehran in about two weeks. The notion is we will not have a Battle of Tehran; we don't want to do that. We want to have a battle around the city. We want to bring our combat power to the vicinity of Tehran and use Special Operations to take the targets inside the capital. We have no intention of getting bogged down in stability operations in Iran afterwards. Go in quickly, change the regime, find a replacement, and get out quickly after having destroyed—rendered inoperative—the nuclear facilities." How could the military dare suggest such a plan, after the disastrous consequences of ignoring "stability" responsibilities in Iraq? Even now, Gardiner said after the war game, the military sees post-conflict operations as peripheral to its duties. If these jobs need to be done, someone else must take responsibility for them.

Comments

[Raj Patel]

Its stuff like this that equates 'cowboy' with 'doing a half-assed-job' in most of the world.

Why even bother running a wargame - as the 'coalition' must know by now you can't just topple one regime, put in another and wander off expecting everthing to be hunky-dory (well you can but you end up generating a huge amount of hate, anger and resentment).

Why not run scenarios to work more closely with Iran rather than push away/alienate them ? Or is this outside the mental capabilities of todays strategists ?

[Dan tdaxp]

The lesson is the opposite.

The trouble in Iraq has come from early attempts to prevent the natural leadership (the Kurds, SCIRI, Dawa) from emerging. So we got a worse war because we didn't want to "go in quickly, change the regime, find a replacement, and get out quickly."

If the Bush Administration has learned its lesson (as it appears to), and is more willing to allow natural leaderships to emerge from changed regime, then good!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

"The trouble in Iraq has come from early attempts to prevent the natural leadership (the Kurds, SCIRI, Dawa) from emerging."

And this would have prevented the fracturing of Iraq and given the US what it wanted?

Among a few other things, what we've learned is that there is no "natural leadership" for 'Iraq'. There are even factions within the Kurds and southern Shia that will eventually fight it out.

[Dan tdaxp]

"And this would have prevented the fracturing of Iraq"

Adopting prevention of the "fracturing" of Iraq as a war aim of the United States makes exactly as much sense as preventing the "fracturing" of the Nazi Empire (Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft). Actually less, as more than 80% of Nazi subjects at least spoke a language from the same language family.

Perhaps it would be better to compare it to relatively more diverse multinational systems, such as the Austro-Hungarian or Soviet empires.

Regardless, why should saving such an artificial, unnatural construction be a war aim? Again, attempting to create an unnatural order enabled most of the problems we now face.

"given the US what it wanted?"

A rough approximations of US interests would have been:

1. Increased economic integration of Iraq with the her neighbors and the wider world
2. Creation of a stable, post-Saddam Iraq
3. Prevention of a violent return to minority rule
4. "Setting an example of democracy" or however you want to say that

All would have been furthered by using the local natural post-war power structure in Iraq.

"Among a few other things, what we've learned is that there is no "natural leadership" for 'Iraq'. There are even factions within the Kurds and southern Shia that will eventually fight it out."

The Kurdish parties, the Supreme Council, and The Call are all clients of Iran, with additional ties to the UK and US.

Violence at the margins should be expected in any tribal society. But to compare the jockeying of tribal parties within an agreed framework (clientism to Tehran, London, and Washington) to the al-Baath/al-Qaeda campaign is unrealistic.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

"Adopting prevention of the "fracturing" of Iraq as a war aim . . ."

How about just as an aim? A weaker/non-existent Iraq leaves Iran to loom larger and more in charge in the region. And with the US tied down able to pursue a nuclear program and a bourse pricing oil in euros.

"Regardless, why should saving such an artificial, unnatural construction be a war aim? Again, attempting to create an unnatural order enabled most of the problems we now face."

No, invading enabled most of the problems we now face (or are you referring to post WWI map making? Fixing that should have been a war aim?). And Iraq being such an artificial, unnatural construction helped to make it pretty obvious things weren't going to go well for the Christian invaders.

"Violence at the margins should be expected in any tribal society. But to compare the jockeying of tribal parties within an agreed framework (clientism to Tehran, London, and Washington) to the al-Baath/al-Qaeda campaign is unrealistic."

Just about any society I would think. But, I’m not comparing them. I’m pointing out how fractured the society is and how unrealistic it was and still is to expect much more than a failed state for quite a long time now that the US has blundered in. Second, that jockeying has the very real potential to create trouble that one would be hard pressed to dismiss as jockeying.

“The trouble in Iraq has come from early attempts to prevent the natural leadership (the Kurds, SCIRI, Dawa) from emerging. So we got a worse war because we didn't want to "go in quickly, change the regime, find a replacement, and get out quickly."”

The US wanted an outcome that was good for the US and for that they need a certain regime. One the natural leadership is unlikely to ever provide and, again, this was fairly obvious before invading. Now they will be forced to accept an unfriendly Shia regime and a disintegrating Iraq which will likely destabilize the region more than it was or needed to be. The whole episode amounts to a very large self-inflicted wound for the U.S.

[Dan tdaxp]

"How about just as an aim? A weaker/non-existent Iraq leaves Iran to loom larger and more in charge in the region."

As Iran is the most stable, mature, and progressive force between Israel and India, that's a good thing.

Iranian culture is profoundly secular. Iran has a modern business community that is increasingly tied to the outside world. Iran's democracy is on par with Britain a century ago, which isn't that bad. Unlike her tyrannous (Turkmenistan), Islamoterrorist (Pakistan), or racist (Turkey) neighbors, Iran has a mostly positive record. Coupled with the fact that she is the natural hegemon in the region, fears of Iran looming large are exactly are inspired as fears of British, German, South African, Chinese, Japanese, or Australian hegemony in their spheres.

"And with the US tied down able to pursue a nuclear program"

Iran, like China, has a history of understanding what a military is for: not using. Certainly Tehran is a more peaceful state than America, Britain, or France, and infinitely saner than Pakistan. Pretty comparable to China, I'd guess.

"and a bourse pricing oil in euros."

I have no answer to conspiracy theories.

As

"Regardless, why should saving such an artificial, unnatural construction be a war aim? Again, attempting to create an unnatural order enabled most of the problems we now face."

"No, invading enabled most of the problems we now face"

I don't see how your statement contradicts mine.

"(or are you referring to post WWI map making?"

Or are you refering to some other definition of "enable" I'm unaware of?

"Fixing that should have been a war aim?)."

No, but maintaining borders designed to create internal insecurity certainly shouldn't be.

"And Iraq being such an artificial, unnatural construction helped to make it pretty obvious things weren't going to go well"

Not if they attempted to build a dream-palace of Sunni Arab hegemony there.

" for the Christian invaders."

More conspiracies?!?

" "Violence at the margins should be expected in any tribal society. But to compare the jockeying of tribal parties within an agreed framework (clientism to Tehran, London, and Washington) to the al-Baath/al-Qaeda campaign is unrealistic." "

"Just about any society I would think."

I should have said political violence. Excuse me.

"But, I’m not comparing them. I’m pointing out how fractured the society is and how unrealistic it was and still is to expect much more than a failed state for quite a long time now that the US has blundered in."

What do you mean by "failed state"?

"Second, that jockeying has the very real potential to create trouble that one would be hard pressed to dismiss as jockeying."

Yes, and the nuclear armorment of Britan and France has the "very real potential" to lead to a nuclear exchange between London and Paris.

Of course, once you move from "potential" (something that might happen) to "probability" (somethat that is likely to happen), you get a different answer...

"The US wanted an outcome that was good for the US"

Obviously. The outcome should be favorable to US interests.

"and for that they need a certain regime."

//A certain// regime?

What war is fought with the goal of creating a specific correlation of forces at the end? A war is a victory if the net positive change of the correlation of forces is worth the price to fight the war - in other words, if the profit margin is above the discount rate.

It is wrong, very wrong, to believe that there is "a certain" goal that the fighter must achieve, except possibly in a grand-strategic sense

"One the natural leadership is unlikely to ever provide and, again, this was fairly obvious before invading. Now they will be forced to accept an unfriendly Shia regime and a disintegrating Iraq"

You know my thoughts on this.

"which will likely destabilize the region more than it was or needed to be."

Destabilization is a purpose of American action in the Middle East. This has been explicitly stated again and again.

You should not conflate criticism of strategy with criticism of tactics. In your comment you do exactly that.

"The whole episode amounts to a very large self-inflicted wound for the U.S."

Any fight creates wounds.

[Jeremiah]

I agree. But on the other hand, I don't think an Islamic state with nuclear capability could be seen as a good thing by anybody.

Considering that the whole Islamic world has a delivery system now-- infiltration by Al Qaeda-- I think a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable.

[Dan tdaxp]

Jeremiah,

Certainly there is danger whenever any new country acquires the ability to make nuclear bombs. However, Pakistan is a far easier target for al Qaeda infiltration than Iran. And, given how the Chechen terrorists boast of how their attacks are made possible through corrupt Russians, even Moscow might be more vulnerable to al Qaeda subversion than Tehran.

And if you're worried about what fraction of a population is agitated Sunni Mosel, even Paris is a greater risk...

[Dan tdaxp]

s/Mosel/Muslim/;

[Jeremiah]

Dan, maybe I wasn't clear.

I don't think that Iran is in much danger of infiltration by Al Qaeda.

By "infiltration" I'm referring to physical border penetration of Western nations to deliver and emplace nuclear warheads in our cities.

Al Qaeda subverting Teheran is kind of like the tail wagging the dog.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

""and a bourse pricing oil in euros."

I have no answer to conspiracy theories."

Not a conspiracy. They plan on it and have announced it. It's a matter of self interest on their part. I don't equate that with conspiracy.

"//A certain// regime?"

An obedient regime and all that would flow from that.

It is wrong, very wrong, to believe that there is "a certain" goal that the fighter must achieve, except possibly in a grand-strategic sense

Exactly. In a grand-strategic sense.

"for the Christian invaders."

More conspiracies?!?

Perception of the invaded. Perception of a sizeable percentage of the world’s Muslims.

Yes, and the nuclear armament of Britain and France has the "very real potential" . . .

I should have said probability. Excuse me.

"Any fight creates wounds."

Yes, but not necessarily self-inflicted.

[oskar]

Go in quickly, change the regime, find a replacement,

NOT SO. The real steps are:
1) Go in quickly
2) overthrow the elected government
3) install an unelected puppet regime

[Dan tdaxp]

Jeremiah,

Understood. However, Iran is a rational regime, so possible use of Iran by al Qaeda is no more a danger to the west than Iran smuggling it some other way.

[Dan tdaxp]

Oskar,

I don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.

[oskar]

What I meant to emphasize is that Iran is a democratic country. Both the executive and legislative were elected in 2004/2005. Why do people ignore that?

That means that regime change as a remedy to the "nuclear program problem" is technically possible but not feasible. Since they are operating on their own territory it is not a casus belli under international law.

You would have to overthrow a democratically elected government because you don't like it's defense policies. I suppose other democratic nations would not be amused.

Factor in rage and anger of the former voters in Iran (all 70 milion of them). A "find a replacement, and get out quickly" operation means you are installing some unelected pawn.

How long will he survive once you pull out?

How long would it take until the next government simply buys their nukes somewhere?