Like Saddam, Jack?

You can't be me, I'm taken

With potentially millions of combatants on the street, 10s of 1000s of American troops would be effectively captured and disarmed within hours. That would be a hostage crisis to end all hostage crises.

Such an action would effectively end the US military presence in the Middle East and would spell BIG trouble for Israel.

The overall geo-political consequences of that are impossible to calculate.

keep to the Fen Causeway

Re 1: Palau and Mikronesia would support the US. I am not sure about Britain. How long will Tony Blair still be PM?

Re 2: The Wash Post speculates about terrorism as a response.

Re 3: The US does not have the capacities for regime change. Air strikes will only delay the Iranian nuclear program.
Unfortunately nobody seems to notice that Saudi Arabia has been working on nukes since the mid nineties: Saudis, with Pakistani help, working on nuclear programme.


Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni

1. US airstrikes + missile strikes, probably with UK participation and Israel support. France's position at this point is a real mystery to me. I still expect France not to support military strikes. Violent reaction from Russia and China (in fact, the only thing that I think can prevent attacks is backchannel diplomacy of the most vigorous kind by the Chinese telling the Americans that they will dump dollars on the market if they attack).

2. Iranian reaction: (i) a call for jihad agaisnt all American intersts everywhere (ii) an oil embargo (excluding, in all likelihood, China) and (iii) some form of blockade of Hormuz Straits (or the sinking of a supertanker, possibly disguised as an accident)

3. Cataclysmic. Oil at several hundred dollars per barrel. Market meltdown. Rationing to start within a few days. And depending on how the war rhetoric plays in the US, an escalation of the war, or a constitutional crisis (an actual impeachment of Bush).

1. US with cosmetic UK support forces and covert Israeli support. Assorted air-strikes, first peeling away air and sea defence then hitting the nuclear sites, other military sites and "centres of regime power".

2. If Iran is going to mount a conventional military response it has to do so immediately: strikes against US forces in the gulf and in Iraq. If they wait any length of time their ability to strike will be degraded beyond usefulness. They either use all their toys right away or they lose them over a week or so. If they're successful the US loses a couple of ships, possibly big ships. How will the US react to hundreds or thousands of military casualties overnight? Tactical nuclear strikes? Carpet bombing?

3. This one is fun. Regionally it's hard to say: could range from Islamist revolutions in multiple places to not much. The Iranians are Shia and non-Arab on one hand, on the other they're fellow Muslims. Even the Iraqi Shia didn't like the Iranians much until recently as far as I understand it.

The US reactions range from standing behind the President in a time of war to investigation and impeachment. Who can tell? Bush and co would be betting on the former and if they have one skill it's getting elected by hook or by crook.

An interesting consequence of Iran burning down Iraq in retaliation is that Bush then gets to blame Iran for the failure in Iraq - "I'd have got away with it too if it weren't for those pesky kids".

It might be the last straw for some European governments as well: the use of Irish facilities by US forces is already an issue and if there was a reaction against another war that sort of low-level support might well be withdrawn: there's an election coming up.

How would Europe's Muslim and anti-War populations react? If the UK supports a war against general EU feeling what affect does that have?

I can think of plenty of options which vary from destructive to cataclysmic for the US and - optionally - for the other players too.

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia is playing a subtle game and trying to persuade the US to overreach. A weak US and a weak Iran is a possible win for Russia because Russia's own reserves become a lot more valuable and significant.

Meanwhile there's a point at which IranWar would be a bad thing even for Halliburton, Carlyle and the rest. Bush would likely not survive - possibly literally - beyond that point.  

Iran says it has test fired the world's fastest underwater missile during a week of war games in the Gulf, according to reports.
...On Friday, Iran's armed forces said they had successfully test fired a domestically produced missile from land which could evade radar.

The main question, according to me is, if Iran would lead guerilla warfare like Iraq, or, if it would try to oppose US invasion directly. The outcome, as most of the comments on this diary conclude, will be detrimental for the oil prices'margins, the US reputation, the interrelation between major players, and the status quo in the Middle East.

I'm not ugly,but my beauty is a total creation.Hegel

It seems to me we need to know who will actually make the decisions in the Iranian power structure. If it's Ahmadinejad on his own, there's much more chance of all hell breaking loose -- by means, for example, of missiles being used on US Navy vessels, triggering a possible nuke response from America. If it's not Ahmadinejad, or if his influence is curtailed, it might be smarter of Iran to simply block the Straits with an "accidental" tanker sinking and sit back and watch the mess. Especially if they get China onside with promises of oil supplies.

The Iranians could start an economic crisis while painting themselves pure victim colour. (Which, in this case, would be green).

I'm not sure about who would be involved.  I don't see Blair getting involved without Chirac and Merkel.

Iraq and Afghanistan would seem the logical bases.

What would the responses be?

Iran is probably much more capable of fighting a war than Iraq was under Hussein.  We would be talking about a much more serious conflict, at least in the initial war.  I have no doubt about the US's ability to defeat Iran, but, as with Iraq, it's the aftermath that would be catastrophic.  Our soldiers are not trained to rebuild countries and political systems.  They're trained to win wars.  I think that has been a major issue in Iraq, from the beginning of the invasion in 2003.

What would the wider geo-political consequences be? How far would they spread?

The biggest consequence would be the end of any hope for the US in the cause of winning support from "moderates" -- who they are, I don't know.  That hope is already bordering on the nonexistent, though.  The consequences would be spread worldwide.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

1. (As I have predicted) the military action will involve a pre-emptive nuclear strike (possibly sea-launched or air-launched cruise missiles) against selected nuclear facilities. The effect of the strike will effectively eliminate any research/production capability of Iran, while leaving population centers intact. US will go alone. Israel will never join (they are not stupid).

2. Iran will angrily talk about the jihad, but their options are limited. The world will be outraged, but their reaction will be surprisingly timid. Increasingly right-leaning Japan will even welcome the attack as demonstration of deterrent against China and DPRK. The Security Council deeply deplores the incident, and calls on all sides to engage in a constructive dialogue toward a peaceful settlement of the matter. Tony and Kofi Anan jointly announce their willingness to get over the past and work together to address the challenge of nuclear proliferation, and call for a new international conference. Condi Rice expresses the sorrow that America was forced to take a military action but is delighted to accept the invitation. After the initial shock, CNN soon begins talking about its positive impact on the ME peace and the oil price now that Iran has been deprived of potential nuclear capabilities.

3. Somewhere in Pakistan, AQ is debating what should be the target of their nuclear-armed missiles, just purchased from Pakistani army officials....

I feel humbled.

In an effort to regain my title as European Tribune's #1 Cassandra, I have only two thoughts to add:

One, there is the possibility that the US might be goaded into some kind of genocidal retaliation, no matter how illogical and counter-productive. Logic and common sense militates against it but then since when has that applied to madmen?

Two: the elephant in the room that no one seems eager to discuss is retaliation. As I often wrote on Kos' and Gilliard's blogs: you shouldn't think this is over just because WE (or rather the US) say so.

Mark my words: there will be more blood in US streets to come -- this crisis will unfold not unlike the Israel/Palestine conflict, now transplanted in the days of the global village. I trust Osama's promises in this matter far more than I trust Bush's. Give it, I think, another two or three years...

I've been trying to tell people this for few weeks, but I still sound like a nutcase . . . maybe I am.  But . . .

I absolutely guarentee to you that Bush is going to attack Iran.  If you're asking the question, "Why would Bush attack Iran?"  THEN YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION.  

The correct question is, why would Bush NOT attack Iran?  And the answer is: no reason at all.

Of course, when I say "Bush" I mean "Bushco".  Bush himself is a cut-out for whoever is really doing the work.  Cheney, I guess.  The whole PNAC thing.

I know, I know, this sounds silly.  Just watch.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: "The President doesn't take his options off the table. We are committed to a diplomatic course because we very much believe that a diplomatic course can work."

"I think we have to recognise that this Iranian issue does represent a real threat to the United States," Senator Chuck Hagel said.

Senator Evan Bayh warned Iran would also retaliate against an attack by cutting the oil flow from the Persian Gulf.

"There are all sorts of practical and adverse consequences to using military force," he said.

"But the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world, are just as, if not more, grave."

It was the second provocative test in three days in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Iran claimed its new torpedo, dubbed the "whale" or "hoot," can travel at 360km/h, evade radar and destroy large ships and submarines.

"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines," Iranian General Ali Fadavi said. "Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed."

Iran released a video of the missile a day after successfully testing a radar-ducking missile that carries multiple warheads and can easily reach Israel.

The military display comes a week after Iran refused a UN demand that it cease enriching uranium, a key step in building a nuclear bomb.

Iran's actions raised new alarm in the US after a news report claiming Iran would respond to any pre-emptive strike with global attacks on Americans by terror squads.

It will be interesting to see how the world community under the auspices of the UN Security Council can handle a real problem.