Serious doubts remain, however, about the effectiveness of conventional weapons against deeply buried sites. Obviously, for this and many other reasons the Israelis would much prefer that the US take the lead in mounting such an attack; and they may get their wish. In a chilling report in The New Yorker this past April Seymour Hersh described the debate then underway in the Bush administration about the use of tactical nukes against Iran's hardened nuclear sites. Evidently, US war planning has reached an advanced stage.
The Iraqi government has made it clear that it does not support an attack on its neighbor, nor will it allow such an attack to be staged from bases inside Iraq. If the US attacks anyway, in defiance of the Iraqi government, or allows Israel to fly over Iraq, it will give the lie to every statement Bush has ever made about fostering democracy. The whole world will instantly know the truth and the US will once again find itself isolated, with no allies other than Israel and, possibly, a bedraggled Tony Blair.
The latest US position, much publicized, came after an Iranian request for direct negotiations. Washington responded by agreeing to talks, but cited a precondition: Iran must first permanently cease uranium enrichment. As I write a package of goodies is being offered, and we can hope it persuades the Iranians to halt uranium enrichment, at least temporarily, allowing talks to occur. That would be an important breakthrough. Nonetheless, there's a high chance that direct talks will ultimately fail, because in my opinion the Bush administration will never grant Tehran the security pledge it seeks; and without a security pledge the Iranians have no incentive to surrender their nuclear options for the future. Nor will the UN Security Council impose sanctions, as Russia and China do not support them. The only remaining possibility is military force.
What I find shocking about all of this is the complacency in the US press. From the articles I've seen, and I read all that my strained eyes can stand, there has been almost no serious reporting or analysis about the possible consequences of US military action. Indeed, there is a bizarre incuriosity. Between the lines one may also discern the tacit assumption that an attack, if it comes, will be a replay of Yugoslavia. Everyone agrees that the US military is stretched too thin to put boots on the ground in Iran. But no matter, the US still has the means to bring a stubborn foe to terms. We control the skies, after all. Shock and awe will have their effect. This is the prevailing view.
Last year, when I investigated this question of what could happen I was appalled by what I learned. Nor have events altered my opinion that a US air offensive probably will not unfold in the expected manner. Even if the US relies on conventional weapons, such an attack carries a high risk of bringing us to the nuclear brink, within days or even hours. This is also why the peace movement must emphasize prevention. Protesting the next war after it starts will probably come too late to matter.
The Iranians have stated repeatedly that they will defend themselves. Yet, incredibly, here in the US many people don't seem to believe it. The Iranians have warned also that if they come under attack they will strike at Israel, and this too remains a possibility. However, I believe the primary target will be US forces in the Gulf. In recent years Russia and China stepped up arms sales to Tehran, obviously part of a containment strategy meant to deter further US aggression in the region. In the event of war, therefore, US forces will face an array of Russian-made weapons more advanced than anything they encountered in Iraq. The stakes have risen considerably.
What US Forces Could Face in the Gulf
Today the Russian army is a shadow of its former glory and the Russian navy rusts in port. Nonetheless, Moscow remains the leader in several key areas of military hardware, including the important field of cruise anti-ship missile technology. Although Russian anti-ship missiles have never been used in combat, they are so formidable they have already altered the balance of naval power. The Russian Sunburn missile, for example, has been called "the most lethal anti-ship weapon in the world." It flies at mach-2, can hit a squirrel in the eye, and has a range of 130+ miles. (see )
The newer Yakhonts missile is even more capable. It flies at mach-2.5, is just as accurate, and has a range of 185 miles. (see )
Assuming the Iranians have acquired these weapons, there will be no place of safety in the entire Persian Gulf in the event of war. Every part of the Persian lake will be within range of the Iranian coast. This means that every US naval vessel on patrol in the Gulf, i.e., the entire 5th fleet, will be exposed to counterattack.
The Sunburn is a sea-skimmer. It was designed to defeat the US Navy's Aegis radar defense system by cruising just above the water, i.e., below radar. In its final approach the Sunburn also makes violent end-maneuvers to defeat close-in defenses. American sailors who are unfortunate enough to be in harm's way will probably never see these weapons coming. One Sunburn missile can sink or disable any ship in the US Navy, and the Yakhonts reportedly has been optimized for use against our large carriers. If the Iranians have these weapons in sufficient numbers they can stage a massed attack and saturate US defenses. In which case the Gulf will become a shooting gallery. Thousands of US sailors will die gruesome deaths at sea.
At the start of the 1982 Falklands war Argentina had only five French-made Exocet anti-ship missiles, yet managed to sink two British warships. With enough of them the Argentines might have sunk the entire British fleet. Yet, the Exocet is primitive by comparison to the latest Russian missiles. Has Iran acquired them? According to various reports the Iranians were in Moscow as early as 2000 shopping for Sunburns and Yakhonts, among other items. Although the details of the subsequent arms deal were never disclosed, it's a safe bet the Russians did not say "Nyet." Missile exports are a cash cow for Moscow, generating much-needed hard currency; and oil-rich Iran certainly has the cash. (source -- scroll down at )
The above analysis is not just one man's opinion. In recent years a number of papers and studies have all agreed that the US Navy has only limited defenses against the latest Russian anti-ship missiles; and, according to a 2000 GAO report, which was based on the US Navy's own data, our most vulnerable vessel is the pride of the fleet, i.e., the flagship, the behemoth carriers. This is why some have described them as floating death traps and have called for their retirement. The GAO report also stressed that there will be no silver bullet. The US Navy will continue to be vulnerable for years to come. Yet, the average American remains clueless.
Last year when I posted my research about this on the web I was surprised by the lack of interest. (see ) Not even one person asked to see the documentation, some of which is available on line. At the conclusion of this article the reader will find links to two key papers. By all means, check out the documents and draw your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it.
Understand, I am not saying that the US has been eclipsed as the world's lone superpower -- far from it. In fact, the US edge in nuclear weaponry has widened since the end of the Cold War. In a recent paper in Foreign Affairs two professors argued persuasively that the former balance of nuclear forces has swung so decisively in favor of the US that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is no longer operative. They think the US has come close to, and may already have achieved, a first-strike nuclear capability against China and Russia. The prospect is frightening, and, if true, probably accounts for Bush's shift to a policy of nuclear first use. This would also explain Bush's abandonment of the ABM treaty, and his decision to develop the star wars defensive shield. Critics have observed that the inherently limited effectiveness of star wars makes it a poor defensive weapon and, in fact, one that only makes sense as part of an offensive first strike capability. The Cold War was bad enough, but at least the parity of nuclear forces fostered stability.(source: )
This is my point, exactly. We are living in an unstable historical moment, which is why the next war will be so dangerous. Cruise anti-ship missiles are simple, effective, and relatively inexpensive. A single missile costs no more than a fighter plane, yet can sink a billion dollar warship. No wonder that cruise missile technology is spreading rapidly. At last count more than 70 nations had acquired them, and at least a dozen were producing them. If the Sandinistas had possessed even a few of these weapons during the Contra war they might have deterred the US from mining Nicaragua's harbors. So we see that far more dangerous than any Iranian threat is the substantial risk that the Bush administration, in its hubris and gross incompetence, will overreach. The pentagon surely knows the score and the risks, but given the recent purging of dissent within the US military what general today will stand up to Rumsfeld? Even if one does, the White House will simply sack the brave soul and reach down the chain of command to a servile individual who will do its bidding.
Nothing More Dangerous...
The Iraqi government has made it clear that it does not support an attack on its neighbor, nor will it allow such an attack to be staged from bases inside Iraq. If the US attacks anyway, in defiance of the Iraqi government, or allows Israel to fly over Iraq, it will give the lie to every statement Bush has ever made about fostering democracy. The whole world will instantly know the truth and the US will once again find itself isolated, with no allies other than Israel and, possibly, a bedraggled Tony Blair.
The latest US position, much publicized, came after an Iranian request for direct negotiations. Washington responded by agreeing to talks, but cited a precondition: Iran must first permanently cease uranium enrichment. As I write a package of goodies is being offered, and we can hope it persuades the Iranians to halt uranium enrichment, at least temporarily, allowing talks to occur. That would be an important breakthrough. Nonetheless, there's a high chance that direct talks will ultimately fail, because in my opinion the Bush administration will never grant Tehran the security pledge it seeks; and without a security pledge the Iranians have no incentive to surrender their nuclear options for the future. Nor will the UN Security Council impose sanctions, as Russia and China do not support them. The only remaining possibility is military force.
What I find shocking about all of this is the complacency in the US press. From the articles I've seen, and I read all that my strained eyes can stand, there has been almost no serious reporting or analysis about the possible consequences of US military action. Indeed, there is a bizarre incuriosity. Between the lines one may also discern the tacit assumption that an attack, if it comes, will be a replay of Yugoslavia. Everyone agrees that the US military is stretched too thin to put boots on the ground in Iran. But no matter, the US still has the means to bring a stubborn foe to terms. We control the skies, after all. Shock and awe will have their effect. This is the prevailing view.
The Iranians have stated repeatedly that they will defend themselves. Yet, incredibly, here in the US many people don't seem to believe it. The Iranians have warned also that if they come under attack they will strike at Israel, and this too remains a possibility. However, I believe the primary target will be US forces in the Gulf. In recent years Russia and China stepped up arms sales to Tehran, obviously part of a containment strategy meant to deter further US aggression in the region. In the event of war, therefore, US forces will face an array of Russian-made weapons more advanced than anything they encountered in Iraq. The stakes have risen considerably.
What US Forces Could Face in the Gulf
Today the Russian army is a shadow of its former glory and the Russian navy rusts in port. Nonetheless, Moscow remains the leader in several key areas of military hardware, including the important field of cruise anti-ship missile technology. Although Russian anti-ship missiles have never been used in combat, they are so formidable they have already altered the balance of naval power. The Russian Sunburn missile, for example, has been called "the most lethal anti-ship weapon in the world." It flies at mach-2, can hit a squirrel in the eye, and has a range of 130+ miles. (see )
The newer Yakhonts missile is even more capable. It flies at mach-2.5, is just as accurate, and has a range of 185 miles. (see )
Assuming the Iranians have acquired these weapons, there will be no place of safety in the entire Persian Gulf in the event of war. Every part of the Persian lake will be within range of the Iranian coast. This means that every US naval vessel on patrol in the Gulf, i.e., the entire 5th fleet, will be exposed to counterattack.
The Sunburn is a sea-skimmer. It was designed to defeat the US Navy's Aegis radar defense system by cruising just above the water, i.e., below radar. In its final approach the Sunburn also makes violent end-maneuvers to defeat close-in defenses. American sailors who are unfortunate enough to be in harm's way will probably never see these weapons coming. One Sunburn missile can sink or disable any ship in the US Navy, and the Yakhonts reportedly has been optimized for use against our large carriers. If the Iranians have these weapons in sufficient numbers they can stage a massed attack and saturate US defenses. In which case the Gulf will become a shooting gallery. Thousands of US sailors will die gruesome deaths at sea.
At the start of the 1982 Falklands war Argentina had only five French-made Exocet anti-ship missiles, yet managed to sink two British warships. With enough of them the Argentines might have sunk the entire British fleet. Yet, the Exocet is primitive by comparison to the latest Russian missiles. Has Iran acquired them? According to various reports the Iranians were in Moscow as early as 2000 shopping for Sunburns and Yakhonts, among other items. Although the details of the subsequent arms deal were never disclosed, it's a safe bet the Russians did not say "Nyet." Missile exports are a cash cow for Moscow, generating much-needed hard currency; and oil-rich Iran certainly has the cash. (source -- scroll down at )
The above analysis is not just one man's opinion. In recent years a number of papers and studies have all agreed that the US Navy has only limited defenses against the latest Russian anti-ship missiles; and, according to a 2000 GAO report, which was based on the US Navy's own data, our most vulnerable vessel is the pride of the fleet, i.e., the flagship, the behemoth carriers. This is why some have described them as floating death traps and have called for their retirement. The GAO report also stressed that there will be no silver bullet. The US Navy will continue to be vulnerable for years to come. Yet, the average American remains clueless.
Last year when I posted my research about this on the web I was surprised by the lack of interest. (see ) Not even one person asked to see the documentation, some of which is available on line. At the conclusion of this article the reader will find links to two key papers. By all means, check out the documents and draw your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it.
Understand, I am not saying that the US has been eclipsed as the world's lone superpower -- far from it. In fact, the US edge in nuclear weaponry has widened since the end of the Cold War. In a recent paper in Foreign Affairs two professors argued persuasively that the former balance of nuclear forces has swung so decisively in favor of the US that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is no longer operative. They think the US has come close to, and may already have achieved, a first-strike nuclear capability against China and Russia. The prospect is frightening, and, if true, probably accounts for Bush's shift to a policy of nuclear first use. This would also explain Bush's abandonment of the ABM treaty, and his decision to develop the star wars defensive shield. Critics have observed that the inherently limited effectiveness of star wars makes it a poor defensive weapon and, in fact, one that only makes sense as part of an offensive first strike capability. The Cold War was bad enough, but at least the parity of nuclear forces fostered stability.(source: )
This is my point, exactly. We are living in an unstable historical moment, which is why the next war will be so dangerous. Cruise anti-ship missiles are simple, effective, and relatively inexpensive. A single missile costs no more than a fighter plane, yet can sink a billion dollar warship. No wonder that cruise missile technology is spreading rapidly. At last count more than 70 nations had acquired them, and at least a dozen were producing them. If the Sandinistas had possessed even a few of these weapons during the Contra war they might have deterred the US from mining Nicaragua's harbors. So we see that far more dangerous than any Iranian threat is the substantial risk that the Bush administration, in its hubris and gross incompetence, will overreach. The pentagon surely knows the score and the risks, but given the recent purging of dissent within the US military what general today will stand up to Rumsfeld? Even if one does, the White House will simply sack the brave soul and reach down the chain of command to a servile individual who will do its bidding.
Nothing More Dangerous...
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
