Will Obama be forced against his will into a U.S. war against Iran in the very near future?
In a recent e-mail exchange Jim F. laid out a complicated scenario in which the U.S. among other things seizes oil assets in the Persian Gulf. Then I realized that he was not talking about some scenario in the distant future, but of something happening under Obama. I said to him that the idea of Obama leading sucn an action struck me as unreal. He replied:
I believe that President Barack Hussein Obama will not have the option to resist the Israelis.
The Israeli view is that Iran represents an existential threat to their nation, so they will make a unilateral decision to attack Iran in the not too distant future, unless there is an unexpected breakthrough in the Iranian position on nuclear weapons development.
Given that Israel makes it known that they are going ahead with an attack soon, the U.S. will have just days, perhaps a week, to assess what to do about it.
The options are few: we can try to stop the Israelis from attacking with words; we can use force to stop them, such as by blocking their air routes with our air force; or, we can join them in the attack, thus making it far more successful.
There is little that we could do to stop the Israelis with words, promises, or aid once they feel that it is a matter of their continued existence to go ahead against Iran.
It is likewise unimaginable, to me at least, that the U.S. would use the Air Force to stop the Israeli Air Force—by shooting them down, if necessary. Would we defend Iran against Israel? I say no.
On the same lines, it would be destabilizing for the U.S. to watch from the sidelines as the IAF throws itself into the Iranian airspace, only to be decimated by the Iranian air defenses. This would leave Israel with a seriously depleted air force, and with a declaration of war by Iran.
This declaration of war (or perhaps a simple statement of their intention to retaliate) would include the U.S. Every Iranian or allied terrorist would be commissioned to attack any U.S. facility worldwide. This was stated earlier by the Iranian President to be a key part of their response.
Thus, we know in advance that the U.S. would be attacked seriously as a major part of the Iranian retaliation efforts after Israel attacks Iran. The welling up of national anger would be virtually unstoppable if Americans, both in the U.S. and worldwide, found themselves under attack and taking significant casualties.
The conclusion I reach is that the President would have no viable option but to decide to join Israel in the attack on Iran. First, it would ensure a greater success because of our air power. Second, it would reduce the Iranian forces materially. Third, it would possibly reduce that damage Iran could otherwise inflict on U.S. people and facilities.
This is simply a slightly more careful statement of the main line argument [in Jim’s earlier e-mail]: Obama would be forced to join.
I reply:
Starting from the premise that Netanyahu, based on his firm campaign statements, is determined to take action against Iranian nukes, your scenario proceeds logically step by step to conclusions that seem impossible and incredible, a U.S. war against Iran, led by the Islam-friendly, appeasement-oriented President Obama, I don’t know what to think about it.
On further thought, I expect that Obama would NOT do what you predict. I think he has a way of preventing the Israelis from doing anything. I base this on something you said:
On the same lines, it would be destabilizing for the U.S. to watch from the sidelines as the IAF throws itself into the Iranian airspace, only to be decimated by the Iranian air defenses. This would leave Israel with a seriously depleted air force, and with a declaration of war by Iran.
If Israel would be that badly damaged by a unilateral attack on Iran, and apparently would even fail to carry out its objectives so that it would need U.S. help, then the unilateral Israeli attack is not viable, is it? Therefore all Obama would have to do is say to the Israelis: “If you do this, you are on your own. And if you do it on your own, the Iranians will badly damage you and you still not will succeed in your strategic objective of eliminating Iran’s ability to attack you with nukes. Your only option, then, is to do nothing.”
I add, of course, that this is not what I want to see happen. I think the U.S. must use force to stop the Iranian nuclear program. But I can’t imagine Obama doing it.
- end of initial entry -
Ken Hechtman writes:
I would not sweat the Iranian air defenses. They’re the same WWII-vintage third-world piece-of-crap our Air Force routinely brushes aside in one night. But that’s not the problem. The biggest nukes in the Israeli arsenal could kill half of metropolitan Tehran and not touch the labs 10,000 feet below. I may have told you this story before but when I was at McGill I knew a guy who knew a guy who worked as a construction engineer on the Tehran Project. He said the design spec they were given wasn’t “survive the worst the Israelis can do”. It was “survive the worst the Americans can do”.
These labs are two miles down into the bedrock, deeper than the deepest South African diamond mines, and directly underneath one of the most densely populated cities in the world.
The worst strategic mistake we could make is to assume the Iranians are just another variety of Arab because they’re both Muslim. They’re not that. They’re smarter. They think a lot further ahead. These are the people who invented chess. They think ten moves ahead for fun.
LA replies:
If what you say is true,—and surely if it is true, the Israelis know it as well as your connections—then how could the Israelis think that they can stop the Iranian nuke program? Yet Netanyahu stated forthrightly that he will do whatever is necessary to stop the nuke program. If your information about the total impregnability of the Iranian nuclear facilities is correct, then Bibi must be a liar, and he does not intend to attack Iran.
Also, over the years, various elements in Israel and the U.S. have pushed an attack or suggested it was planned and leaked what the plan of attack was. Again, surely these parties would have known about the impregnable, two-miles-below-Teheran nature of the facilities. Meaning that any successful attack (short of invading and overthrowing the regime) was out of the question. Why then did they push these projected attacks, if any such attack was doomed to failure?
Ken Hechtman replies:
The way I understand Israeli politicians is “there is no foreign policy, there is only domestic policy.” And electioneering. There’s always electioneering. A country that never has a stable government always has an election campaign going on. So, sure, I’m willing to believe Netanyahu knows what I know. I am equally willing to believe that he knows his constituents don’t know it.
If there’s a market for an Israeli politician willing to do some bold posturing against Iran, Netanyahu will step into it. If he sends the Israeli Air Force out to make some loud noises over downtown Tehran, his constituents will eat that up with a spoon. And the best part is, he’ll get to say what it was they destroyed. It won’t be in the Iranians’ interest to confirm or deny anything.
Clark Coleman writes:
Given that the nuclear labs are deep underground, what would an Israeli attack on the labs accomplish? Consider that the following targets are located aboveground: missile launch sites, missile guidance facilities, air force bases, anti-aircraft defenses, naval forces and anti-ship missile sites that together give Iran leverage by threatening Persian Gulf shipping, radar, military command and communications, electrical power generating and transmission facilities, etc.
Iran faces a restive public that is not always happy with the nutjobs in charge. An attack that leaves them saying, “We got pulverized. We have no means to defend ourselves or retaliate. Our infrastructure is in shambles. We look impotent before the world; the infidels have struck and we can do nothing. But, our labs are still operating underground!” will be a massive defeat and loss of face and possibly destabilize the government in the long run.
If things get really desperate for Israel, army bases away from cities could get nuked. Iran could truly be close to powerless if it pushes Israel into an existential crisis.
Iran’s underground labs remind me of Saddam hiding in a hole. After we had destroyed his military, so what?
Alan Roebuck writes:
It is suggested that Iranian nuclear labs are deep underground and therefore invulnerable.
But underground labs need ground-level access points for personnel, supplies and air. Destroy enough of these, and the labs become death traps. Locating them will be difficult, but not impossible.
LA writes:
Mr Coleman’s and Mr. Roebuck’s comments give me renewed hope after the discouragement occasioned by Mr. Hechtman’s comments.
However, no one has yet replied to Jim F.’s provocative thesis.
Terry Morris writes:
Why, or, on what basis, does Jim think that Israel’s airforce will be decimated by Iran’s antiquated airforce?
Jim F. writes:
There have been many reports that Iran is buying Russian S-300 air defense missile systems to protect their key resources, and that the installation of these systems is currently in process. I simply Googled the phrase Russian air defense systems for Iran and received many replies. Obviously, I cannot attest to the number of on-line systems now, nor their effectiveness, but they will pose a significant threat to the IAF real soon now. Thus, one possible outcome is a devastating set of losses for the IAF, a not unlikely thing that has happened before to them. (Guess who resupplied the Israelis with combat aircraft and tanks that time?)
I also had some second-hand information as to the depth of Iranian nuclear development sites, and projected that any Israeli air attack would most definitely attack military surface targets of all kinds before attempting to knock out deep sites, starting, of course, with air defenses. My thought was that the air attack would take perhaps several weeks, perhaps three or four, of intensive strikes to reduce the military infrastructure to rubble, wherever it was found. That is, unless nuclear weapons are used, which I do not believe the Israelis would do at the outset of the air war. I agree with the commentor that said making the deep facilities tombs is correct.
I believe that if the IAF decides that they have not succeeded in closing access to those hardened facilities with conventional bombs, that is when nukes would be brought to bear, in order to wipe out everything at or near the surface within a 50 mile radius of the center of Tehran, and make the territory radioactive as well. Perhaps THAT would close the sites for good.
Meanwhile, there is the question of US support or not. My claim is that the US would be attacked both at home and at facilities around the world by Iran, given that they are attacked by Israel. We are thus in the line of fire from all kinds of deadly terrorist bomber hits, with a large loss of life, after the IAF does its thing.
Obama knows this now, for I am certain that the Iranian situation is high on the White House security agenda. There would be no way to cover up such hits to prevent the outrage the American public would feel, and the demand for the government to retaliate in kind would be overwhelming, much as it had been after Pearl Harbor, and 9/11. The better way would be to go with the Israelis up front.
I am also reasonably sure that he would think hard about letting the Israelis go it alone to keep us out of a full war with Iran, but the expected emotional and hardcore response from the public would be too much to deflect, I suggest.
It just might be pivotal to his decision that he should step in to prevent the nuclear holocaust in Tehran that would be carefully suggested by the Israelis beforehand, while assuring the success of the surface attacks on everything remotely military. We support the attack so long as it stays conventional. We do not want the condemnation for using nukes yet again, this time with less immediately at stake for the US.
A further possibility is that Obama hangs back until after the IAF strikes, for a week or more, to test the threat to our people and facilities at home and abroad. My contention is that we would receive such attacks in great volume, as our friend Ahmadinejad stated would happen, which then causes Obama to declare us in.
“Predicting is very hard to do, especially about the future.”—Bera
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 16, 2009 09:42 AM | Send