In preparation for attacks on Iran by either Israel or the United States, or both, the United States has begun to develop a containment strategy with its Persian Gulf allies to deploy sophisticated missile defense systems to protect against anticipated Iranian retaliation. Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia already have Patriot antimissile batteries; however, the United States is encouraging other Gulf countries to deploy them in light of Iran's ballistic missile capability.
Although Bush's top military officers are strongly opposed to an attack on Iran, as their "Commander in Chief," Bush believes he can order an attack on a moment's notice, including the use of nuclear weapons, without any declaration of war or any other Congressional approval. Bush has established a special group in the Joint Chiefs of Staff that can implement a bombing campaign within 48 hours of his command. Using the justification that Iran is responsible for the violence and civil war in Iraq, Bush may rely upon Congress's September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (against the war on terrorism) to attack Iran, although a resolution is being drafted in Congress to prohibit him from doing so. Or, he may simply attack and rely upon the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which gives a president up to 90 days to commit forces to combat without the consent of Congress. What if he does?
FOR THEY SOW THE WIND, AND THEY REAP THE WHIRLWIND
No matter the severity of the naval and air attack, the U.S. will never be able to occupy Iran, and no matter Bush's wishful thinking, the people of Iran will not turn against their elected government and welcome deliverance by the United States. Not only should Bush have learned this lesson from his own invasion of Iraq, it appears that Bush is unaware of Saddam Hussein's experience in his own invasion of Iran.
Even if the United States destroys its military infrastructure, Iran with 70 million people will not surrender. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned, "U.S. policy makers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a response. Enemies of the Islamic system fabricated various rumors about death and health to demoralize the Iranian nation, but they did not know that they are not dealing with only one person in Iran. They are facing a nation."
In the fog of war it is never possible to predict what will happen from day to day or even moment to moment, and it has been said that no plan lasts longer than the first encounter with the enemy; however, it strongly behooves commanders to attempt to the greatest extent possible to envision the logical consequences of tactical and strategic decisions. Bush's top military leaders oppose an attack against Iran for good reason. Given what we know about the Iranians, what will they do if Bush orders an attack on their country by American forces? Will they be "shocked and awed" into submission?
Undoubtedly, the bombing attack will be resisted by all available means. Unlike Iraq, where anti-aircraft sites had been systematically destroyed during the Gulf War and by subsequent "No Fly" raids, Iran's defenses are intact, and attack planes will be shot down and their air crews and pilots will be killed and captured. What will we do or say as our fighters and bombers are being downed by missiles supplied by Russia?
The naval attack will be opposed by anti-ship missiles, fast missile craft and suicide bombers in small boats. Thousands and thousands of Iranian youths died a martyr's death resisting Saddam's invasion; can we expect any less of a commitment to an attack by the "Great Satan?" In a replay of the Battle of Salamis, the American Battle Groups could be sitting ducks in the narrow Persian Gulf.
American has little or no strategic reserve in combat troops and there are no plans to occupy Iran on the ground. What will Bush do when the Iranian army invades southern Iraq? Iran's army has 345,000 soldiers, a reserve of 350,000, and a Revolutionary Guard force of 120,000. Iran has a military draft, and there are almost 900,000 eligible males coming of age every year. The U.S. military does not even have the present reserve capacity to overcome the ever-strengthening insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What will Bush do when the tiny British garrison at Basra is attacked and overrun by hoards of Iranian zealots, and land access to Iraq's Persian Gulf harbors is shut off? Does Bush intend to supply U.S. troops in Baghdad, Anbar Province and Mosul by air, or will he contract the job out to Haliburton? What will he do when the Iraqi Shiites join in the fighting? One retired U.S. general said that "the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck."
How secure will the Americans be in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad when the Iraqi army and police forces, primarily composed of Shiites, turn on the occupiers? What will the Americans do when the civilian workers at their military bases become the enemy? Thus far, the majority of suicide bombers have been Sunnis from other countries, but what if the millions of Shiites are suddenly motivated to become martyrs and their targets are Americans?
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran have the first, second, and third largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world, and every day 40 percent of the world production passes through the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. We saw during the "Tanker War" how vulnerable shipping is in this area. Imagine the result if Iran was attacked? Although the U.S. Navy has increased its deployment of minesweepers in the Gulf, the oil supply is vulnerable to more than floating mines. What if a couple of tankers are fortuitously sunk at the entrance?
Or, what if Shiite zealots attacked production sites in Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries, and Iran turned off its own production and quickly shut down the flow of Iraqi oil? Or, what if our own bombs accidentally destroy Iran's oil production? America's strategic oil reserves would be depleted in 60 days, the price of crude oil could quickly exceed $100 a barrel, and the U.S. could not depend upon alternative suppliers, such as Venezuela. Is America ready for $10 a gallon gasoline?
Iran could do more than organize increased attacks on Americans in Iraq. Bush's decision to reduce forces in Afghanistan has left the troops there vulnerable to an Iranian alliance with warlords in western Afghanistan, where Iranian support could empower the Taliban resistance and endanger U.S. troops.
America has been supplying and encouraging Kurdish resistance in northern and western Iran, and has allowed the Iraqi Kurds to establish their own independence in northern Iraq. What will Bush do when these Kurds increase their support of Turkish Kurds, and Turkey, which has 290,000 troops on the border, cracks down? Will the U.S. stand by and allow Turkey to occupy northern Iraq?
Through Hezbollah, Iran has the global ability to strike back, including against targets within the United States. As was just seen during the failed Israeli attempt to destroy it in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a far superior fighting force than al Qaeda. Hezbollah is more than a political organization; it has an ideological base that can motivate its martyrs to strike at Americans anywhere in the world.
William John Cox authored the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department and the Role of the Police in America for a National Advisory Commission during the Nixon administration. As a public interest, pro bono, attorney, he filed a class action lawsuit in 1979 petitioning the Supreme Court to order a National Policy Referendum; he investigated and successfully sued a group of radical right-wing organizations in 1981 that denied the Holocaust; and he arranged in 1991 for the publication of the suppressed Dead Sea Scrolls. His recent book, You're Not Stupid! Get the Truth: A Brief on the Bush Presidency is reviewed at www.yourenotstupid.com.
I found your summary of the Iranian history rather annoying. To begin with, Iranians are not to be "feared". I found your depiction of Iranian as "feared" as insulting. You seem to be totally oblivious of the Iranian Spirit that has motivated, a peaceful union amongst the Iranian people, and the various ethnic groups for thousand years. It was the very essence of the Iranian Spirit as enshrined in our Holy Book The Zend Avesta, that has keep Iran for so long. Iranian Peace was Cosmological. We were the first to unite the world along Cosmological Principles, and our Empires are a testimony to that. Pax Iranica was based on Nowrooz, but you forgot Nowrooz, and that is why folks like you need to be updated.
What do you think motivated the likes of Cyrus the Great to be the First Human Being to free the Jews. Why do you think that Alexander the Great wanted to come to Iran? Again if you read the Iranian version in the Epic of the Kings by Ferdowsi, you will see that he lay claim to the Throne of the World, because his was the son of the Persian Emperor. He was seen and recognised by the Iranian generals, who accepted the fact that he was half Iranian.
Sounds crazy, but Christians owe their identity to the Iranian Astrologers (known as Magi) who had predicted that the delineations of the Planets would bring Jesus Christ. Our science was second to none, and I am not about to give you a list a mile long to prove it to you.
As with regard to your understanding of Islam, you completely forgot the role of an Iranian High Priest Astrologer called Salman Parsi, who saw used saw the advance of Proselytizing Christians into Iran, and found that another branch of Abraham's family lived in Yemen, and helped Halabi Qureshi to win and become known as Mohammed on the day that an Eclipse turned day into night.
What Salman did to Iran, has left Iran, and the world, with nothing but ashes, as he totally obliterated all the Art and Literature of the civilized world held in the Sassanian Empire in Iran, all for just one book.
But still the Iranian Spirit managed to live again. Nowrooz has kept Iranians, just like it does today, for at least ten thousand years. We Iranians celebrate Life, and we do not respect dogma. Iran's problems today take root from the a person called Al-Hilli. Again you completely missed that part of Iranian history. When Hulagu invaded present day Iraq and Iran, he was determined to shake the myth of Islam. Why? Because the priests thought that their "Allah" was invincible. And he is depicted as the "devil" himself by all Islamic scholars for obvious reasons.
But look at the Mongul invasion as a blessing in disguise. You completely missed the most culturally important part of Iran. Like the moment when Alexander brought Iranian and Greek culture together, to bring upon a Peace that the world had not seen for thousands of years, the Monguls did the same. The exchange of minds between the Greeks and Iranians, and between the Chinese and the Iranians produced Art and Science, that surpassed all standards of the world. No Christian, Jewish, or Moslem historian will tell you this.
Going back to Al-Hilli. Iran had at that time Nestorian Christian, Bhuddist rulers. They all tolerated Iranian Art, and our greatest poets were born then. Look up Hafez for example. Is there anything in what he writes to be feared. But Al-Hilli and his fanatical doctrine impressed the Mongul King who decided to allow so called "descendants of Mohammed" called Seyyeds to live and proselytise in Iran. And they have grown since then to become a very potent force. But the Kings of Iran fought the Seyyeds all the time, and kept them at bay - even the Safavids.
As for your analysis of current affairs. Again totally wrong. Iran can claim its Righteousness from the world, if and only the world recognised, that the people of Iran have totally ignored the Seyyeds in recent elections. The Seyyeds have no respect for what it means to be Iranian.
When you spoke of Khomeini, you forgot to mention his sense of righteousness. He lays claim to be descended from Mohammed. So what? Why should we Iranians care. Every Iranian can lay claim to be the son of Zoroaster and Cyrus the Great.
Your analysis was completely wrong when you stated that the Shah sent Khomeini to France. Khomeini was not in Iran, Saddam to sent him to France. It was the French who together with the US Democrats thought that Khomeini could be like Pope John Paul a bastion against Communism. And the French have reaped good dividends in Iran. No one believed the Shahanshah when he stated quite clearly that Khomeini represented both Black and Red. Khomeini and his Seyyeds identify with Salman Parsi, so much that they want to build a dam called Salman Farsi, to flood the very ancient heritage of Iran.
Mr Cox, if you wish to help Iran, then do this. Please do not use Iran as a tool to fight the neocons. If you want to help Iran, then help Iranians in understanding what any young democracy needs to learn. What we Iranians have not learnt as a new democracy, is that the people can topple any force with non-participation.
And it must be said that the Iranian population did not wholeheartedly participate in the recent "Seyyed Elections". But was this openly and loudly publicized? Did you mention it? You even hinted that it was some sort of democracy. How can you even consider this election, when you so vehemently denounced any form of election in the time of Shahanshah?
So it is clear that if the world media wanted to, they could ask the right questions, and topple the Seyyeds. They stand on very shaky ground, and if the world press and asked Ahmadinejad, "what would you do if an Iranian did not bring you fresh bread tomorrow?" Just think of the war of words; that would ensue; if the media of the world continuously bombarded the Seyyeds with these question; that would eventually bring them down, just like the General Strikes have brought so many zeolots around the world.
This form of Non-Violent Resistance (NVR) is not new. As a Liberal you know the power of this indestructible force. But the people of Iran are a young democracy. The demographic distribution of Iran is potentially explosive. And the major international companies in the world know the huge potential a new Iran can have.
The last thing the world is new competition from Western Asia. They know what East Asia did. The whole of the area of the world, that used to run the world for thousands of years can totally overwhelm the world, and the last thing the existing status-quo wants is to fight that trade war. So what better than to keep Iran as it is, or better still make it into a complete pariah state. But little do they know that we have close to four million very rich, very well educated Iranians outside Iran, who love Iran, and will not allow their country be plundered by aliens from within or without, because we have not forgotten the Spirit of Nowrooz.
by
Ali Mostofi (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 28 comments)
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 9:49:52 AM
alimostofi thank you for your thoughtful and interesting response. The problem I had with writing War Without Win was not that there was not enough information, but that there was far too much. As it was, the article ran to 22 single spaced pages, which is usually far too long for an Internet posting. Thanks to Rob Kall and OpEdNews for expanding the server resources to accommodate the article.
by
William John Cox (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments)
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 10:19:52 AM
Pete, right on. WJ recognizes arrogant Empire vs. multitude
Professor Pete your comment is right on target ---- and the target is empire.
Yes, WJ Cox clearly shows both a broad and accurate grasp of the arrogance and hubris of the Bush elite Empire, and also a completely human empathy for the vast majority of people everywhere in the world who would be harmed if global elite Empire continues wars to prevent the establishment of real popular democracy and freedom. Very few academics and intellectuals combine knowledge with non-elite humanity. While our president combines neither --- being uninformed and irrational along with being arrogant and elitist.
These particular and nasty presidential chacteristics are frequently expected among mere figureheads of Empire, while the ruling-elite of the global Empire, which operates through the facade of "Vichy America's" twin faux-parties, and the 'vichy' regimes of other countries represents a continuing 'existential' threat to all people ---- and will remain when Bush is gone.
Cox cogently states, " Bush and Cheney have accumulated dictatorial power. They have no sense of history or the ability to comprehend a global policy which recognizes the rights and concerns of other people. They have no empathy for the lives or well being of those they govern or threaten. They are deceiving the people of the United States into starting a war which cannot be won by the United States, or by Iran. Every conceivable result is a failure – a disaster for everyone!"
However, Cox's excellent analysis and empathy seems to focus the responsibility for this pathology of dictatorial/imperial rule only on Bush/Cheney, and the neocons. However, the pathology of today's global Empire, which is as he notes, "a disaster for everyone" is broader, deeper, and more ingrained than just the Bush administration and the current crop of neocons. More analysis needs to be done to unravel the deadly Empire behind the facade of supposedly modern liberal democratic governments.
by
Alan MacDonald (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 4:37:39 PM
This is, frankly, too lengthy a piece. One could have done without most of the historical background - people interested enough in the subject to read the piece would already know that stuff.
All the scary details about Pentagon plans for an attack are, frankly, old news. The United States, tied down in Iraq and badly overstretched worldwide, simply is not going to go to war with Iran. You can bet the farm on NO U.S. war against Iran for at least the next two years, and probably far longer. Nor are the Israelis going to attack. Much has changed since Cheney's threats of Jan. 2005.
China and Russia defending Iran? Don't make me laugh. The Chinese can't project power that far. Nor do they want to get into a confrontation with the U.S. in the region. The Russians? They haven't got the means either. What does the author think of the recently-announced Russian pullout from the Iran reactor project?
The left needs to get past it . . . there isn't going to be another U.S.-initiated war in the Middle East anytime soon. The Bush administration has failed in Iraq, and it doesn't have the stomach for a war against Iran. The left should try coming up with some constructive foreign policy proposals, instead of trying to beat up on that so-dead horse, the Bush administration.
by
Jon Harrison (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 6:47:58 PM
Your right its old news, however to see this information compiled in a form like what John Cox has wrote with such a massive amount of Bush's Administration crap through out the years was a dammed good find, for me to read. Pertaining to China not having the power to reach that region I find laughable, China does have many nation in that region that are friendly towards them. Like say North Korea and they do posses Nukes. War is never laughable in my humble opinion, and to ever began to under estimate any enemy of this country would be anal and stupid. Bush was stupid when he attacked Iraq with such arrogance and proclaiming his mission was accomplished. Bush don't have a clue as to how to estimate his enemy's, he is greed motivated, and has the ideology of a nine year old trying to please his father.
by
Fred F (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 8:28:59 PM
I noticed while reading it that you may have included material from "STATE OF WAR" by James Risen, FreePress, c.2006. Two interesting points in that work may have deserved inclusion in your white paper.
First, by 2004, the C.I.A. had successfully infiltrated Iran's nuclear program, and the U.S. knew fairly accurately the state of Iranian progress. However, due to a grievous mistake, digital information was sent from Langley to a double agent in Iran that enabled the Iranians to roll up the agency's network. Since that time, the administration has been merely guessing.
Second, in 2000, the U.S. gained possession of actual Russian blueprints for a nuclear bomb. In a super-secret black ops, code named Merlin, the C.I.A hired a former Soviet nuclear engineer, a fully vetted defector, to deliver the blueprints to the Iranians after American engineers attempted to make unidentifiable changes in the blueprints. The Iranians would build the bomb as per the imperfect blueprints, setting off a mere fizzle, and setting back their nuclear program a number of years. Unfortunately, the Russian engineer charged with the unsupervised delivery of the blueprints feared he was being set up by rogue elements in the C.I.A.. He,therefore, studied the blueprints and noticed the errors. Feeling uncomfortable, he then attached an explanatory letter to the blueprints and dropped the entire packet into the Iranian IAEA mail slot in Vienna. Within days, an Iranian IAEA staff member conducted an emergency schedule change and booked an immediate flight back to Teheran. Operation Merlin probably accelerated Iran's nuclear program by ten years. Hence, if Teheran has the requisite quantities of radioactive materials, they probably already have a working nuke.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 439 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 4:43:13 PM
I wish you were right, and Bush hadn't already decided
I recommend you read the article "Bush's future Iran war speech." Having read hundreds of articles on possible Iran/US hostilities, I went into reading that article thinking that Bush would have to be deranged to order a preventative optional attack on Iran, because war games made it clear that it was a really really stupid idea, and the US was already stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. Then I read the above article, which makes a strong case that not only has Bush already decided to order a preventative aerial and naval attack on Iran, he has VISUALIZED it. In other words, it is most likely because Bush has already progressed past the stage of leaning toward such an order, but has already imagined himself doing it, and has seen himself giving such an order like it was the past.
I think it is clear that the Iran has military plans to escalate in case of US attack. In fact, I believe they have a battleplan for their troops to go to ground with pre-drafted orders, so as to avoid confusion in case of command and control distruptions. In other words, their escalation is pre-programmed, and can't be moderated by political leaders in response to international pressure.
Worse, if I was them, I would destroy all close oil facilities in the Persian Gulf. In my opinion, they have that capacity, especially under the docrine of "use it or lose it," when it comes to their missiles. Furthermore, unlike Saddam who chose a strategy of insurgence, Iran has every reason to go all out and attack the homeland of the US. They have the military capacity for that too.
Great article, especially the part where you see Iran will probably attack Saudi oil facilities (most articles never cite that). Too bad Bush has probably already decided to make a strategic blunder about ten times worse than the worse blunder in US history, ironically made by him too: the preventative invasion of Iraq.
By the way, did you notice that the US is using the Mek again to leak anti-Iranian propaganda? The US gave intelligence to the UN about the Iranian nuclear program, and the IAEA said it was all wrong. It is now to the point that the Mek (a terrorist organization) has more credibility than the US. The Mek is saying that Iran had training locations in Iran to teach Iraqis terrorist and anti-American insurgency techniques. Just building the case for Bush to order a preventative attack on Iran under the War Powers Act of '67.
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 6:37:52 AM
Thanks for writing an article that's so long that I'm no longer embarrassed about the long articles I've submitted. And thanks for putting together in one convenient article, which I'm printing out to read, a really interesting summary of the history of Iran.
I haven't finished your article, but I do appreciate that you are working to prevent the Bush administration from nuking us. Thanks again.
by
Rosa Schmidt Azadi (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 3:31:47 PM
12 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
