Reply #62: And I hope no one feels overly smug about the prospect of a painless war with Iran

[Tom Rinaldo]

It is pure fiction to think that a few fighter bombers can take out Iran's nuclear program now the way Israel once did with Iraq's one nuclear reactor decades ago. Iran's research facilities are numerous and widely disperced, many are located deep under ground in highly fortified placements. Iran's air defences are robust also. The effort to decisively set back Iran's nuclear program would likely take over a week, perhaps several weeks. It would not be a permanent set back, especialy if there were no follow up invasion of Iran. Estimates are that Iran might be set back 5 to 8 years, assuming that Iran did not then receive direct nuclear assistance from radical elements in Pakistan.

Pakistan would explode in riots if the U.S. attacked Iran. Pakistan has a large extremist element with ties to it's internal security forces. The Taliban in Afghanistan were once considered by Pakistan to be allies. Pakistan's current military government maintains an uneasy control over radical islamic elements inside Pakistan, but it is getting weaker of late. Pakistan could well fall to a radical islamic coup if enough rage is set off by another American military attack on an Islamic nation, i.e. Iran. And of course Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the knoweledge needed to spread them. Iran could receive nuclear assistance and even nuclear weapons directly from Pakistan to restore their nuclear program after a U.S. or Israel attack.

Meanwhile Iran's people have a long negative history with the United States. Our CIA overthrew their popular government in the early 50's and installed the Shah. Later when the Arab who Americans were taught to so hate, Saddam Hussein, launched an unprovoked invasion of Iran, using poison gas against the Iranian defenders, the U.S. shared classified technical intelligence information with Hussein for use against Iran. Currently the U.S. government is funding a resistance movement inside Iran to destabalize that nation as part of our rather open policy of seeking regime change in Iran. Iran's strict religous leaders are not universally loved by Iranians, most of whom are rather young and rather westernized, with an extremely high rate of literacy. But nationalist feelings run strong in Iran, and virtually all progressive leaders inside Iran have warned the U.S. to not interfere inside Iran, for that will cause all Iranians, themselves included, to unite behind their government for nationalistic reasons.

Now factor in that Iran sits directly across a narrow straight of water from the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia and Dubai, and that huge amounts of oil are regularly exported through that narrow straight that can easily be blocked by sunken ships. Factor in also that Iran is in easy missile range of all U.S. military bases inside Iraq, not to mention Israel. Iran is a much larger nation than Iraq with a much larger population. Iran, unlike Iraq after the first gulf war and the imposition of sanctions against it, has a strong industrial infra structure and a thriving economy. But it is not just the hatred of America that will take firm root inside Iran's population, not just it's religious leaders, that America will have to deal with should we attack. All of America's current Arab allies will risk destabalization and overthrow from militant islamics and nationalists enraged by yet another American military attack in the region. Recruitment of terrorists to attack American interests internationally will soar, and the risk inside our own borders will soar also. A limited strike on Iran will leave it's technological base and government virtually intact and highly vengeful.

So the aftermath of an American attack on Iran may include the destabalization of Pakistan and the loss of control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons directly to Al Qaeda sympathizers. It may include a world wide depression set off by extreme oil price shocks as a result of a combination of war fare induced shortages and oil embargoes angainst the West. It may mean the targetting of all American forces in Iraq by agents of Iran and their allies as well as by Iran's armed forces. It may reshuffle Arab states in the region with a dramatic rise of influence of extremist elements inside several of them up to and including sucessful revolutions wiping away traditional American friends in the region. It may include new concerted and coordinated terror attacks on America's domestic infra structure, directed and financed this time by a modern and sophisticated nation state rather than a loose network of several hundred stateless radicals that pulled off 9/11. Israel undoubtedly would see a sharp rise in attacks against it's citizens also, and possibly acts of war against it as well, almost certainly it would come under rocket attack from Iran.

I'm not so sure that our candidates should feel safe with the prospect of all of that either.