The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Iran invasion would bring fatal consequences

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Monty Rohde:

Sneaking out (May 3, 2007)
Bush gets tough (April 12, 2007)
Help me, Mommy! (March 29, 2007)
A philosophical question (March 29, 2007)
The telltale testimony (March 21, 2007)

by Monty Rohde

Friday, April 28, 2006

In the debate surrounding the use of military action against Iran, one important question is constantly overlooked: how will Iran respond to an attack?

When the media considers how the Iranians could respond, it generally only speculates on the Iranians responding passively and ceasing oil production. According to CNN, the result would be an immediate 5 percent drop in the global supply, which could cause prices to rise in excess of $60 a barrel, creating a minor pain for Americans at the gas pump. This scenario is dangerously optimistic. The hardliners controlling the Iranian government will not react timidly. While the Iranian military lacks the sheer power of the American armed forces, it does not need to match strength for strength.

After American or Israeli forces attack, the Iranians will likely retaliate using ballistic missiles, attacking Israeli cities and American bases around the Persian Gulf. Attacks against Israel should prove ineffective. Iran has a small inventory of missiles that have the necessary 1,300 km range to strike targets within Israel, according to Globalsecurity.org, and since the First Gulf War, Israel has developed an effective anti-ballistic-missile program. The Iranians do have a sizeable arsenal of shorter-range missiles that could be used to strike American targets in Iraq.

Although Patriot Missile batteries proved effective against Iraqi missiles in the second Gulf War, it may be possible to overwhelm individual batteries. Only 54 such batteries were deployed during the second Gulf War, defending staging areas in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. There are likely fewer systems in theater at the moment, and American bases are dispersed throughout Iraq, making them harder to protect. By firing enough missiles into the Green Zone in Baghdad, the Iranians could decapitate the Iraqi government and kill a large number of American military leaders.

They could also attempt to attack the American 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranians possess a significant stockpile of anti-ship missiles, consisting of hundreds of older French Exocets, Chinese C-802s, locally developed variants of the C-802 and a small number of highly lethal Russian missiles, according to Globalsecurity.org.

The Russian weapons are of particular concern because the SS-N-22 Moskit and SS-NX-26 Yakhont are designed to defeat the defenses of a carrier battle group. Traveling at more than two times the speed of sound, any vessel targeted by this warhead would optimally have 25 to 30 seconds between detection and impact, giving American warships no time to react defensively. The danger these missiles present becomes clear when the dimensions of the Persian Gulf are considered; at its widest, it is 338 km and narrows to a scant 48 km at the Strait of Hormuz, the only exit from the Persian Gulf. These missiles have a range of 120 km and 300 km respectively, making the Persian Gulf a shooting gallery. At best, the Iranians may manage to sink a few destroyers and frigates. At worst, they could destroy an aircraft carrier, killing thousands of Americans. Those who would dismiss this scenario should recall what the Argentineans managed to do in the Falklands War with only six Exocets.

The Iranians could also use their anti-ship missiles to cut off tanker traffic passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This would deny the world oil production from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and part of Saudi Arabia, driving prices far higher than normally postulated and causing severe harm to the global economy.

Their final and most dramatic option would be to launch a ground war against American forces in Iraq. American forces are not prepared for a ground war. They are scattered across the country, conducting peacekeeping operations in what could become hostile territory.

The reason Iraq has not yet turned into Vietnam is because the Shiite clerics who hold sway over the majority of the population have largely refrained from hostility against American forces. Aside from Muqtada Al-Sadr's aborted insurgency, American forces have spent most of their time fighting Sunni insurgents.

Most of the more powerful clerics have strong connections to Iran. Iran has taken care to support these clerics by providing funds, training and weapons for their militias. In the event of an attack on Iran, various militias could rise against American garrisons. One cleric, Al-Sadr, has already pledged to do so. Alone, they would not be able to defeat American forces in Iraq, but they could lock American forces in place.

The Army and the Marine Corps are both better trained and equipped than their Iranian counterparts, but once American troops run out of supplies, the battle is over. The most sophisticated weapon is useless once it runs out of ammunition. There is little question the Iranians would suffer an extreme number of casualties, but as long as they are willing to pay the price, they could succeed.

As for the U.S. Air Force, vaunted American air power would be incapable of saving the day. With an initial barrage of ballistic missiles, the Iranians will be able to destroy, or at least damage, a few vital airfields. On top of this, the USAF has only five wings of fighter and attack aircraft and two wings of heavy bombers currently in Iraq and Qatar, according to Globalsecurity.org. While the USAF is likely to move in more assets before an attack, air power can only accomplish so much. It is a powerful tool, but there are limits to its effectiveness. Weather, urban combat, poor intelligence and ineffective coordination can hamper its deployment. It should be noted during the first Gulf War that more of the Iraqi military was destroyed in three days by our ground forces than in nearly a month of aerial bombardment.

Most of what I have written in this article sounds far fetched, and for all intents and purposes, I hope that I am wrong. I do not enjoy being an alarmist, but the fact of the matter is, very few people are giving this potential conflict a proper examination. In the realm of diplomacy, a military can be an invaluable tool, and sometimes the use of force can succeed where other methods have failed. However, military force is something that should never be used lightly. Military action can have grave and irreversible consequences. As Machiavelli observed five centuries ago, once a nation chooses to start a conflict, it cannot choose how and when it will end.

Monty Rohde (mrohde@badgerherald.com) is a UW student and cartoonist for The Badger Herald.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 8:49am):

"After American or Israeli forces attack, the Iranians will likely retaliate using ballistic missiles, attacking Israeli cities and American bases around the Persian Gulf."

This just means that the attack must completely decapitate and devastate the Iranian leadership, as well as destroying the nuclear facilities and especially killing as many nuclear knowledge workers as possible. No invasion, just shock and awe.

The alternative is nuclear weapons in every crazy country in the world. Maybe getting into the fall-out shelter biz is the thing to do?

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 9:47am):

A preemptive strike against Iran would be a bad idea. I have no doubt that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Why wouldn't they? They have built new torpedoes, purchased missles from North Korea and Russia, and are building an army. Then they say Israle should be "wiped off the map." And then they have the ability to enrich uranium. It's a no brainer that they would go ahead and make some nukes.

But we should let them strike first. This would legitamize a war. If they strike Israel first, it would increase the chances of brining Russia, China, and others on our side. Also, if Iran uses a nuke on Israel (the obvious target) then the US should respond by turning Iran into a nuclear waste land. Launch every missle we have and completely destroy Iran. Leave no man, woman, or child alive. That is the only way to deal with the fundamentalist Islamic mentality.

But it may be a few years before Iran has that capability. In that time, we need to rebuild Iraq and turn it into an ally. I think a strong Iraq, allied with the West, could do a lot to influence the middle east.

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 10:14am):

Oil was trading at $75 a barrel this week and has been north of $60 a barrel for awhile. So I stopped reading the rest of your article. If you can't be bothered to figure out the going rate of oil then why would the rest of you analysis have any more weight?

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 12:19pm):

i thought islam was the religion of peace. weird.

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 1:34pm):

>>Oil was trading at $75 a barrel this week and has been north of $60 a barrel for awhile. So I stopped reading the rest of your article. If you can't be bothered to figure out the going rate of oil then why would the rest of you analysis have any more weight?<<

I don't know if it's what the author intended, but I took the oil price sentence to mean that Iran stopping supply would cause prices to raise $60 more than they already are.

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 2:10pm):

Iran controls 5% of the world's oil. It most certainly would not affect oil prices that much.

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 3:18pm):

I meant over $60 a barrel, not an ADDITIONAL $60 a barrel. This article was initially written over spring break before gas prices rose over $60 a barrel. It had been sitting on the back burner for a few weeks and hadn't been updated. Prices have risen over 25% on speculation of what might happen to 5% of the supply.

Note:
This article was initially 1,500 words, with 20 citations and dozens of other sources. I have the full unedited (and unpolished) article available for anyone who wants it.

Author
I've tried multiple times to post a comment but it hasn't let me yet.

Anonymous (April 29, 2006 @ 12:20am):

"i thought islam was the religion of peace. weird."

Yer like jokin? right?

Islam is the religion of "submit or die".

Anonymous (April 29, 2006 @ 1:24pm):

When will the world's grownups stop speaking useless twaddle to these contemptuous thugs?

These are battalions of suicide bombers who will attack American and British interests if the West dares to interfere with Iran's nuclear bomb program.

Surely a country that spells "Centre" in the English fashion can be reasoned with. Granted, Abbasi has said that "Britain's demise is on our agenda," but it's a cry for respect, really. When a country announces it has 40,000 suicide bombers, and its president announces that Israel is "a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm" and pledges the destruction of America, it's a sign we have to sit down and ask: What's on your mind, really?

Fear not. Oh, we'll talk. And talk and talk. The U.N. has taken the carrot-and-stick approach. The stick: threatening a fresh round of scowls from the Security Council. The carrot: Iran has just been elected deputy for Asian nations for the U.N. commission on ... disarmament.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks041906.html

Anonymous (April 30, 2006 @ 4:40pm):

Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 9:47am) wrote:
"...we should let them strike first. This would legitamize a war."

This would work, know the threat let it happen and then we get the war we want, we can repeat 9/11, this time without having to do it our selves and without having to kill our own people because this time we can just let the Jews die. This guy should apply for work at the neo-conservative White House.

Anonymous (April 30, 2006 @ 7:11pm):

To Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 9:47am)

You say, "If they strike Israel first...then the US should respond by turning Iran into a nuclear waste land. Launch every missle we have and completely destroy Iran. Leave no man, woman, or child alive. That is the only way to deal with the fundamentalist Islamic mentality."

For some reason Israel always comes up when we talk Middle East politics. Although, born to Jewish parents in Tel Aviv, I consider my self a cultural Jew, an agnostic-theist and a citizen of the world as do my parents. Furthermore, just because one is borne in a state and indeed one of its people does not mean they must support that state. As US Republicans have no obligation to support a criminal like Bush, I have no ethical obligation to support an unethical Israeli government. Neither does anyone else. I have seen first hand much of what makes it to the US and the rest of the world only through news. Israel is no better than any state in the Middle East when it comes to breaking international law. Israel has been one of the least compliant UN nations and has illegal nuclear weapons.

The state of Israel is a stain on the Jewish people and in no way a modern democracy. One is privileged for their religion in Israel, something that is simply repugnant. Why should there be any place that gives privileges to someone because of the race or religion?

Why, because of some superstitious non-sense written by ancient desert nomads who thought that they well the only people that God loved (how racist is that) and that burning bushes could talk or that men could part seas or people lived to hundreds of years old or that women were taken from man's rib? These claims are as valid as the Jewish claim to that piece of land. Shall I be called anti-Semitic? Israelis compose less than 0.004% of the Semitic world, no certainly not anti-Semitic. I am also a Semite.

With approximately 6,352,117 people, and a land mass of only 20770 sq k's, Israel less than 0.001% of the world population and less than 0.002% of the Middle East region land mass. Israel is more trouble than it is worth. The place should be turned into a vacation destination otherwise occupied by a community of international religious and archeological universities and scholars. It should be an international demilitarized zone, loved and there for protected, by all from all. It should belong to the international community, not to Jews, or Christians of Muslims and most certainly not to Israel. So as a planet, let's stop talking about Israel, and keep Iran from blowing off the map by giving it to the people of the world. As Jews, let's stop claiming to be more loved by God than other people, thinking that we are entitled and avoid becoming the racist Zionist Nazis we so condemn.

To Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 12:19pm),
and
Anonymous (April 29, 2006 @ 12:20am):
"i thought islam was the religion of peace. weird."

Yer like jokin? right?

Islam is the religion of "submit or die".
Islam is a peaceful religion, as is Christianity and Judaism. Any and all violence is a sin, most particularly for Christians who have the most explicit scriptural condemnation of violence. Monotheism is a mind-virus and has only crippled us.