Thursday, January 12, 2006

The Coming War with Iran

I've so far managed to avoid making any public prognostications about what might happen in the world in 2006. But being a news and information junkie, I am beginning to notice lots of dots and they are starting to form a picture. Dots like this:

  • Guest blogger "Avenging Apostate", who resides in Dubai (right across the Gulf from Iran, of course), reports seeing 'significantly higher' numbers of Iranians (tourists, students, 'businessmen', you name it) in his locale than just a few months ago.
  • The same thing is happening here in Malaysia. Why would Iranians want to start leaving their country in large numbers at this time?
  • Even the EU diplomats are declaring diplomacy with Iran (in regards to their nuclear program) to be at a 'dead end'.
  • As far as Iran is concerned, President George W. Bush has said, “all options are on the table.” If America’s friends and foes have learned anything from the last five years, it’s that when Bush says “all options,” he means it.
  • The US Navy is now in the position (for most of this year) of being able to surge a significant amount of firepower to the Persian Gulf region--potentially up to six carrier battle groups. This number would leave two other carriers to watch China and leaves another two in reserve. Having this huge surge ability at this time, I think, is no accident.

So, what sort of picture do all these dots form? Well, here's my take on this--there's a greater than a 50% chance that there will be a shooting war between Iran and the US this year. Storm clouds are gathering once again over the Middle East. Increasingly, the Iranians are seeing it, and those with means are running to get out of the way. This should be setting off alarm bells.

Sure, there's a few more acts in this drama (if you can't remember, just look back at the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom). There'll be a lot of public posturing on both sides, veiled (and not-so-veiled) threats from Teheran, and their jihadi terrorists allies, massive protests from Muslims and the so-called 'anti-war' movement all over the world, wrangling and handwringing at the UN, noises about sanctions, and on and on.

But when have sanctions ever worked? Remember, Saddam turned 'UN sanctions' and 'Oil-for-Food' into a state-of-the-art bribery, corruption, and influence-peddling scam. And that's assuming the sanctions could get through the UN Security Council in the first place. Remember, Iran has a couple of friends on the Council (China and Russia) and they may be well and truly bought off. The US will make the pro forma noises towards the UN, but the Bush Administration likely already knows better. After all, they've been through this once before.

So, ignore the UN and EU, and the 'international community'. Diplomacy is dead, yet again. Muslims only respect one thing, and there's only one thing that is going to keep the United States safe in a dangerous world--the US military. And this increasingly looks like the only means we have to keep the nukes out of the hands of the mullahs and their terrorist brethren. For this end, the EU and NATO have no decent military assets left after their commitments to Afghanistan--decades of dependency on the American military, and EU defense cutbacks make America shoulder this burden alone. This is assuming they would even want to help us on this one, because the peace-at-any-price attitude still rules the roost in Europe. So for actual military assistance, we might have the Israelis helping us out (if we can stomach the certain political penalty that incurs), and perhaps some token British and Aussie help, but that's about it.

What can our Islamic enemies be thinking this time around? Well, we know they have convinced themselves that they are on a mission from God to bring Islam to the whole world--and what better way to do that than building nukes for Allah?

So, the Iranian thug-in-chief and his fellow fanatics think they can win. I think it's a safe surmise that they are not rational. Again, this is familiar--our past enemies (Hitler, Tojo, Saddam, etc etc) made that same miscalculation. And look where that got them.


John Sobieski said...

While we can surely destroy Iran, the harm they can cause us through terrorism in the US is grave.

I was reading an article today about visa overstayers in the US. Remember, almost all the 911 terrorists were here legal but their visa had expired. There are MILLIONS of these people in the US. MILLIONS from countries all over the world and no one knows how many are Muslims who may be sympathetic to Iran and the ummah and wish us harm.

We are very exposed and if the West must bomb Iran to stop its nuclear bomb program, we will suffer. In other words, damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Avenging Apostate said...

All iran wants to hear from these talks is 'go get your nukes boy!'. Iran never wanted to hear anything what it opposes - and it still doesnt. The war - now - is the only option. thats what the EU should consider too. Once they get their hands on the nukes - forget everything else - Israel is finished and later other countries and allies to the west. So whatever may be suffered as a result of the war is going to be alot less than what will be suffered after they get the nukes. so right now - attacking them is the right choice.

Papa Ray said...

Here is what one man says:

Our bad and worse choices about Iran.

Papa Ray
West Texas

The Colossus said...

Thanks for the link . . . some further thoughts which I haven't answered -- we can surge the carriers, but do we have the air wings for them? I'm guessing that we have air wings for 6 carriers, but probably not more. I haven't researched it, but I will.

The other thing I'm going to be researching are the LHD class of ships (The WASPs) which are mini-carriers that also support a full Marine brigade. We have 8 of them -- but do we have 8 deployable Marine brigades?

In Naval warfare, the ships take so long to build (3-5 years) that we undoubtedly have more ships than we do folks to put on them -- it takes 16 weeks to make a sailor in wartime, so it's important to have the ships first, the folks to staff them second.

Fascinating stuff, that's mostly new to me. I was an Army officer in the 1990s, and was an infantryman, so it's all new research to me. Still -- I look at the capabilities of the Navy, and I have to say, whoever was running it in the last 30 years did a damn good job anticipating what we might need.