War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[Martin]

Thanks!

Martin

[Stu-6]

What would they expect to accomplish by attacking CONUS?

M

Preservation of legitimacy. If they are attack and don’t respond aggressively the regime would lose any legitimacy it had in the eyes of its people, after that it would only be a matter of time before there was a massive change in leadership.

[Strickland]

What would they expect to accomplish by attacking CONUS?

M

I would imagine that by demonstrating an ability to conduct attacks against US targets worldwide, regardless if in DC or Kuwait, the Iranian Regime would try to establish its power projection capabilities and operational reach. Isnt the point of terror to create asymmetric effects in relation to the predicate act? I would imagine that by hitting ANY target in the US, they would create a potential social paralysis as well as a tremendous expenditure of financial resources.

[Jones_RE]

I disagree with some of that assessment. Strikes within the territorial limits of the United States, as opposed to attacks on American interests or targets abroad, would lead to (among other things, including social paralysis and expenditure of resources) a serious backlash by the American people.

Right now, insurgency (and terrorism, if I read this correctly) is a matter of comparative stakes. Victory in its effort to maintain political and military security and indepedence means everything to Iran. Iran's dominance of the Middle East means fairly little to the average American. If the Iranians show the capability to attack the United States within its own borders they will succeed in raising the stakes for Americans. They could well raise those stakes to the point that the political will exists for the total destruction of multiple Iranian cities.

In fact, Iran's best response is to attack American interests in a way that ties our foreign policy leadership's hands, rather than handing them a provocation they can ride all the way to Tehran. In turn, the best way to do that is to cut our alliances with friendly Middle Eastern states. Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are all on friendly enough terms, but all are also threatened by Iran and see a weak US security establishment. If I were to try to reduce American influence in the Middle East, I'd start with the soft underbelly - our least reliable coalition partners.

[SWJED]

17 April issue of the New Yorker - The Iran Plans by Seymour Hersh.

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium...

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”...

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”...

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”...

[SWJED]

9 April Washington Post - U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran.

The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.

No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.

According to current and former officials, Pentagon and CIA planners have been exploring possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets.

Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has vaulted to the front of President Bush's agenda even as he struggles with a relentless war in next-door Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends, aides said, and the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.

Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation...

[Jedburgh]

The Hersh article makes several statements of doubtful validity. He's been doing that a lot lately.

But here's a good look at the available options, from CSIS (7 Apr 06):

Iranian Nuclear Weapons? The Options if Diplomacy Fails

[SWJED]

24 April edition of the Weekly Standard - Target Iran by Thomas McInerney.

A military option against Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed. The announcement of uranium enrichment last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows Iran will not bow easily to diplomatic pressure. The existence of a military option may be the only means of persuading Iran--the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--to back down from producing nuclear weapons.

A military option would be all the more credible if backed by a new coalition of the willing and if coupled with intense diplomacy during a specific time frame. The coalition could include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, and Germany. Solidarity is important and would surely contribute to potential diplomatic success. But should others decline the invitation, the United States must be prepared to act.

What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used...

This coalition air campaign would hit more than 1,500 aim points. Among the weapons would be the new 28,000-pound bunker busters, 5,000-pound bunker penetrators, 2,000-pound bunker busters, 1,000-pound general purpose bombs, and 500-pound GP bombs. A B-2 bomber, to give one example, can drop 80 of these 500-pound bombs independently targeted at 80 different aim points.

This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (the so-called JDAMS) to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.

The destruction of Iran's military force structure would create the opportunity for regime change as well, since it would eliminate some or all of Ahmadinejad's and the mullahs' ability to control the population. Simultaneously or prior to the attack, a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy. This effort would be based on the Afghan model that led to the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Not only would the overt and covert attacks weaken the ability of Iran's leaders to carry out offensive operations in retaliation, they would cripple the leaders' power to control their own people...

[SWJED]

15 April London Times - Israel Will Soon be History, Says Iran's President.

The President of Iran further fuelled the flames of confrontation with the West yesterday by saying that the “Zionist regime” in Israel would soon be annihilated.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech will alarm the US, coming days after he declared that Iran had joined the “nuclear club” by successfully enriching uranium. President Bush has stated that the US would use force to protect Israel from being, in the words of President Ahmadinejad last year, “wiped off the face of the map”.

The Iranian leader, appearing at a conference on the Palestinian issue yesterday, said that Israel was “heading towards annihilation”, questioned whether the Holocaust had ever happened, and predicted that the Middle East would “soon be liberated”.

He said that the existence of Israel was a threat to the Islamic world, but added that “the Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm”. Even if the Holocaust were true, he said, “why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed?” ...

[SWJED]

24 April edition of the Weekly Standard - To Bomb, or Not to Bomb by Reuel Marc Gerecht.

... a French diplomat explained to me why he--and many others in the French foreign ministry--thought the United States would, in the end, bomb Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities. Owing to Chinese and Russian obstreperousness, the United Nations would probably fail to agree on any sanctions, let alone a sanctions regime with sufficient bite to intimidate the mullahs. The Europeans--at least the French, Germans, and British if not the Italians--would do a bit better, primarily because the French, despite their laissez-passer cynicism and their Gaullist pride vis-à-vis the United States, have developed a strong distaste for the clerics. The mullahs did, after all, once bomb Paris and kill a slew of prominent Iranian expatriates on French soil; and the French don't particularly care for religious Third Worlders' joining the nuclear club. France might even lead the sanctions charge against Tehran--an astonishing historical moment for the Fifth Republic, which has usually aligned itself with Muslim Middle Eastern regimes or cultivated a profitable neutrality, especially when the United States was involved on the opposite side.

But this nouvelle différence française, alas, would not in all probability dissuade the Islamic Republic's nuke-loving theocrats. The Iranians would proceed, my French friend thought, with little of the dialogue-of-civilizations finesse and moderation they exhibited during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami--probably the period when the clerical regime made its greatest advances in its nuclear-weapons program. Iran's most politically savvy cleric, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, is trying hard to align most of the clerical establishment behind him, even
the reformist and dissident mullahs who hate his guts, to ensure the fire-breathing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, doesn't scare foreigners too much with his Khomeinist language and thought. Rafsanjani, the true father of the Islamic Republic's nuclear "energy" program, loathes the diehard ex-Revolutionary Guard Ahmadinejad, who threatens to ruin, among other things, Rafsanjani's hitherto successful strategy of dividing the Europeans from the American.

But Rafsanjani probably won't be able to corral Ahmadinejad. (He who triumphs at home is likely to triumph abroad, and the new president has been remarkably successful in replacing provincial governors and appears to be commencing a fresh purge of the country's universities.) In any case, the Americans will grow more anxious. Tehran will likely become even more bellicose toward the United States and Israel. Adding fuel to the fire, the clerical regime will continue to test new and improved ballistic missiles, extending range and payload.

The Iranian-American enmity will, my French friend reasoned, kick into high gear. The White House will admit that it can no longer diplomatically maintain the international processes designed to thwart the mullahs' acquisition of nuclear weaponry. George W. Bush, who has described a bomb for the terrorism-fond clerics as "unacceptable," will decide that further delay in attacking the known crucial facilities will only allow the mullahs to disburse clandestinely sufficient enriched uranium to fabricate nukes. The administration may well get a strong indication, either through its own resources or those of a foreign-intelligence service, that Iran is very near the red line in the production of weapons-grade uranium, and all the geostrategic and terrorist possibilities of a clerical nuke that now seem frightening but abstract will seem imminent. Therefore, so they reason, the Americans will let loose the U.S. Air Force and Navy even though George W. Bush, the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon really would prefer to do anything else...

[GorTex6]

Basij

"Ahmadinejad's Demons"
"Since Ahmadinejad became president, the influence of the Basiji has grown. In November, the new Iranian president opened the annual "Basiji Week," which commemorates the martyrs of the Iran-Iraq War. According to a report in Kayan, a publication loyal to Khameini, some nine million Basiji--12 percent of the Iranian population--turned out to demonstrate in favor of Ahmadinejad's anti-liberal platform. The article claimed that the demonstrators "form[ed] a human chain some 8,700 kilometers long. ... In Tehran alone, some 1,250,000 people turned out." Barely noticed by the Western media, this mobilization attests to Ahmadinejad's determination to impose his "second revolution" and to extinguish the few sparks of freedom in Iran.

[SWJED]

19 April USA Today - War Game Will Focus on Situation with Iran.

Amid rising tensions between the United States and Iran over the future of Iran's nuclear program, the Pentagon is planning a war game in July so officials can explore options for a crisis involving Iran.

The July 18 exercise at National Defense University's National Strategic Gaming Center will include members of Congress and top officials from military and civilian agencies. It was scheduled in August, before the latest escalation in the conflict, university spokesman Dave Thomas said.

It's the latest example of how otherwise routine operations are helping the United States prepare for a possible military confrontation with Iran. On Tuesday, President Bush refused to rule out military action — even a nuclear strike — to stop Iran's nuclear program.

“All options are on the table,” Bush said in the Rose Garden.

The exercise is one of five scheduled this year, including others envisioning an avian influenza pandemic and a crisis in Pakistan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld started the exercises involving members of Congress in 2002 to help the legislative and executive branches discuss policy options.

Such exercises do not involve military members simulating combat. Instead, officials gather for a daylong conference and discuss how to react to various events presented in a fictional scenario...

[SWJED]

23 April London Times - Iran’s President Recruits Terror Master.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attended a meeting in Syria earlier this year with one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, according to intelligence experts and a former national security official in Washington.

US officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Imad Mugniyeh, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah’s overseas operations, has taken charge of plotting Iran’s retaliation against western targets should President George W Bush order a strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

Mugniyeh is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list for his role in a series of high-profile attacks against the West, including the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jet and murder of one of its passengers, a US navy diver...

[Jedburgh]

From CSIS: Judging the Iranian Threat: 20 Questions We Need to Answer

Iran’s actions in the last year have unsettled many around the world, provoking an active and rich debate as to how nations should best respond. Embedded in this debate are widely divergent assumptions, assessments, and conclusions about Iranian intentions and Iranian actions.

To add clarity and intellectual rigor to this debate, CSIS has prepared a list of issues—“20 questions”—intended to highlight these points of divergence. Few people will agree on the answers to all 20 questions. They differ sometimes on the basis of fact, and other times on the basis of judgment. Yet, it is precisely those answers that determine both the threats and opportunities contained in Iran’s actions and the world’s potential responses.

In the interest of promoting a healthy debate on these issues, CSIS has not only laid out the questions, but it has also prepared two opposing responses for each question to help illustrate the vibrancy of the debate. Although CSIS as an institution has no position on these questions, the wide range of experts at CSIS provides equally wide-ranging analysis.

[Strickland]

While consistent with US Small Wars Doctrine, is Israel justified in attacking Lebanon and Gaza in response to the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers? If yes, would the US then be justified to attack Mexico in order to retrieve the 40+ US citizens being held across the border?

How is State sponsership relevant here? If Iran and Syria are State sponsors of Hamas (a democractically elected gov't), then is US the State sponsor of Israel?

[Stu-6]

Justified? Yes, smart? That is a different question all together. The possible exception to the justified argument would be the attacking Lebanese targets since their ability to influence Hezbollah is debatable at best. Hamas and Hezbollah however would constitute legitimate targets since by attacking and taking prisoners they committed an act of war against Israel.

I think the US is viewed as a sponsor of Israel throughout the Arab world; and due to our ridiculous policy towards them I can understand why.

[Jones_RE]

The United Nations charter prohibits the use of force in the settlement of disputes between nations, with two exceptions. Force is legally permissible when the United Nations Security Council has authorized it through a mandatory resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter. Force is also legally permissible in "self defense." The UN Charter does not define self defense so international lawyers turn to customary international law, which has produced a substantial body of writing on the subject.

Self defense between nations as a legal concept arose during the 19th century (Daniel Webster was instrumental in the creation of the doctrine). The Caroline incident makes for a fascinating story in itself, but I'll skip the burning steamship going over Niagra falls and get straight to the boring legalities, which boil down to necessity and proportionality:

1) The use of force must be necessary to remove the threat. That means that lesser options like warnings, etc. must be insufficient.

2) The use of force must be proportional to the threat. If a half dozen commandos sneak across the border you can chase them down with forces of your own, but you can't nuke the opposition.

There have been refinements and accretions over the years. Many decades ago, it was determined that the use of force in reprisals is illegal. The US invasion of Afghanistan was conducted on self defense grounds, even though the government of Afghanistan itself was arguably innocent of involvement in the various September 11 attacks. The rescue of hostages held in a foreign country is generally legal, as is the evacuation of foreign noncombatants from a war zone. It's also permissible to help another country defend itself, even if the helping country hasn't been attacked (this is known as collective self defense). Finally, force is legal if a host country grants permission.

Israel's response to attacks on its territory by Hamas and Hezbollah present a difficult case study. I'll start with Gaza (and ignore questions of Palestinian sovereignty, treating Gaza as part of a bona fide nation state because that's by far the majority position).

Taken in isolation, the kidnapping and murder of a handful of soldiers is indeed sufficient to merit a forceable response in self defense. Certainly a commando raid to try to rescue their trapped soldier would be allowed. So would an attack on any identifiable Hamas units that might be poised to launch another such sneak attack. However, a large scale offensive (as has been conducted) seems quite out of proportion to the level of threat involved. But of course, Hamas hasn't limited themselves to simply that one operation - they've launched a large number of rockets at civilian targets. Given that ongoing and continuous pattern of attacks, Israel would be justified in a much higher level of force. Pretty much any sort of search and destroy operation to take down the rocket teams themselves is allowed. Likewise, trying to cut supply lines to the teams. None of this deals with the requirements of the Laws of Land Warfare to mitigate harm to civilians, of course.

Israel's seizure of high level Hamas leaders, however, does not appear to be necessary to achieve the cessation of rocket attacks or the rescue of their soldier. Likewise, attacks on power stations, water supplies and so forth have no place in national self defense of this sort.

Lebannon is a different case study. Air strikes against bridges and airports may be necessary (tactically and therefore legally) to prevent the movement of their soldiers from beyond help of rescue. However, these attacks are NOT proportional to the harm inflicted by Israel's air attacks. Israel would do better to make efforts to mitigate the civilian losses caused by these measures - for example psychological operations to convince civilians to evacuate the affected area. Attacking non-Hezbollah targets in Lebannon would be legitimate under the same rationale as attacking Taliban targets to get at al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

In a real sense, this is a completely academic discussion. You can't be put in "international jail" and no one can compel Israel to defend its actions in court. However, that doesn't mean that international law is without important consequences! Other nations shape their reactions based on the conduct of the nations that are parties to a conflict. Europe, especially, is sensitive to concerns of international law. Various middle eastern nations with a stake in seeing Israel suffer can use this "violation" as a propaganda tool and to justify sending assistance to their side. Of course, Israel may have concluded that Europe and the Middle East will view any armed response by Israel as immoral, vicious and wrong (not far from my assessment, actually), and also that Europe and the Middle East will not do a damned thing in response to violations by Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebannon, Syria or Iran (completely true).

So, to sum up:

1) State sponsors of terrorism are legitimate targets, with or without UN approval.
2) Nevertheless, military operations must be necessary (to stop the threat) and proportional (to the threat).
3) Not all of Israel's operations have met this dual standard. However, the ramifications of those violations are (in this instance) minor at best.
4) The U.S. would be justified in sending our forces to Mexico to rescue 40 hostages - or 1 hostage. However, we'd have to be quite careful in how much damage we inflicted along the way.
5) As for the U.S. as a state sponsor of Israel, no doubt it looks that way. However, Israel's actions are acts of war rather than terrorism. I can't give you a precise definition explaining why because no one has a precise definition of terrorism.
6) Nevertheless, terrorist organizations will use these latest attacks to recruit individuals to attack Americans and America based on our "sponsorship."

[Strickland]

Excellent response; however, I am biased towards answers founded in things like "the law."

Question concerning State sponsorship - the US currently extends "protected persons" status to the MEK in Iraq, a designated FTO. The Iranians in particular have grievances with the MEK, so if they attacked us for protecting them, would they in fact be committing a lawful act by attacking a State sponsor of terrorism?

[Jedburgh]

Question concerning State sponsorship - the US currently extends "protected persons" status to the MEK in Iraq, a designated FTO. The Iranians in particular have grievances with the MEK, so if they attacked us for protecting them, would they in fact be committing a lawful act by attacking a State sponsor of terrorism?

In your hypothetical situation.....If we permit / encourage / train, equip and target - the MEK to launch terrorist attacks in Iran out of Iraqi territory, and provide them protection when they come back across the border into areas under our control, then Iran would be fully justified in their counter-attack.

[tranquill]

Israeli analyst*suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-ir...inst-egypt.htm