The Coming Conflagration

[zenpundit]

A scenario post by John Robb.

The Coming Conflagration

[SSG Rock]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment one way or another on Robb's blog, but it certainly seemed simplistic. Maybe thats why it seems plausible, if a bit of a reach.

[Bowman]

I see nothing "likely inevitable" about a U.S. war with Iran . Rock is right ,
tis a "bit of a reach."

[slapout9]

Zen, what is your take on all this? Seymor Hersh was on CNN last night saying the US worked with Israel in their recent campaign as a test for a possible airpower campaign against Iran.

[zenpundit]

Hi everyone,

Since Slapout9 asked, here's my observations.

The scenario as written by Robb is not implausible but it is too linear. Wars often could occur at other times than when they actually happen to break out. WWI could have happened in 1912 over Morocco, the Civil War could have broken out in 1850 and so on. The tension with Iran could linger for years as did the case of Iraq from 1991-2003.

I think readers/viewers are best taking reporters like Sy Hersh or Yossef Bodansky as prolific aggregators of interesting raw data and then go on to form their own opinions as to the reliability.

An American EBO campaign against Iran would go better and worse for the U.S. than did Israel's against Hezbollah/Lebanon:

Better, in the sense that the Iranian mullahs run a state and not a militia and there are lots of really valuable infrastructure for the USAF targeteers to make merry marking for destruction. Khameini and Ahmadinejad can't avoid the disadvantages of running a targetable shop - our pressure, unlike Israel's, would be direct.

Worse because without a suitable - that is to say " legitimate" pretext - to hit Iran so severely, the blowback is going to be substantial. Much worse than with Iraq; taking down Saddam, while unpopular in the international community, can be rationalized in foreign capitals to an extent as an anomaly, unfinished business, a serious error or the like. Taking down Iran makes this behavior of ours a pattern - an alarming trend to middle rank powers and a worrisome one to other great powers who for the most part will also be unhappy about $ 150-225 / barrel oil. If sufficiently irritated, they will take countervailing measures to prevent themselves from being rendered irrelevant in world affairs and express their unhappiness with our policies. And I'm talking about our friends here, not just the Russians or Chinese.

Now, if Iran provides us with a pretext by an aggressive act of sufficient lunacy - always a possibility with Ahmadinejad - or if we are clearly acting to stop imminent weaponization of nuclear devices, we will receive a pass to some extent, at least from our allies. If the Iranians were particularly provocative, even the Russians or Chinese will have a muted response.

On an attack of this magnitude we need to have our ducks in a row or not do it at all.

[Strickland]

Now, if Iran provides us with a pretext by an aggressive act of sufficient lunacy - always a possibility with Ahmadinejad - or if we are clearly acting to stop imminent weaponization of nuclear devices, we will receive a pass to some extent, at least from our allies. If the Iranians were particularly provocative, even the Russians or Chinese will have a muted response.

Why are you assuming that Ahmadinejad is an irrational actor? Is this not a poor planning assumption? Is he simply a populist, who says what many of his constituents want to hear?

I do not believe that war with Iran is either imminent, or in any way in our best interests. One thing is certain, if we treat Iran as an enemy, they will surely be so. The same is true for China. If we treat them as a threat, they we surely become one.