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 ([email protected]) is a UW student and cartoonist for The Badger Herald.
