Iraq's pool-table flat terrain (most everywhere but the Kurdish north, where we could expect popular support anyway) and emaciated armed forces were highly inviting to an invasion. Iran, in contrast, is far more rugged and has armed forces that weren't just crushed ten years ago. Also, the Iranian military and political command structure doesn't begin and end with one man as Iraq's did. I'm not sure that simply siezing Tehran would collapse organized defense. Qom and Isfahan come to mind as other likely centers of resistance.

An invasion would be far more costly to pull off, and guerilla resistance would have a far more rugged country to hide in. There may be less loose ordnance in Iran than there is in Iraq, but the Revolutionary Guards have been in existance for far longer, and have had far longer to plan and prepare for a guerilla campaign in Iran, than the Fedayeen did in Iraq (not that the Fedayeen have much to do with the current Iraqi insurgency, but they got it off the ground).

I'm undecided about the broader political arguments for an invasion of Iran, but I think the greater costs make it very unlikely to happen in any event.

Umbriel,

The military resistance of the Iranian Army and regime security forces are the last thing we have to worry about.

The nature of 3rd world militaries guarentees they are push overs.

I gave the template for them in my post "The Myth of Chinese Air Power"

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003628.php

All 3rd World States, including China, are a thin veneer of modernity stretched over a sea of abject poverty. This means they are literally one person deep in any given technological or organizational skill. The end result of this is that the average 3rd world regime looks something like this:

Iran, in contrast, is far more rugged and has armed forces that weren't just crushed ten years ago.

In my opinion the American people will not support an invasion of Iran. The Democrats and the Left would crucify the President and tear the country apart if he tries.

No, I am very much afraid that the American people, and the people of the world for that matter, are not be ready to look the thing in the face, see it for what it is, and pay the price.

They will wait until much later when the cost will be ever so much higher. Then they will relearn the lessons of their grandfathers.

I agree with both Tom's and Michael's assessments: an invasion in force of Iran, removing the current regime, and occupying the country is militarily doable but politically impossible.

It begins.

If we let Iran have nukes, everyone will get them. I'm not the only one who suspects Iran has some already.

"France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism

By Elizabeth Pineau

France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.

Deflecting criticism of France's costly nuclear arms program, President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."

He said there was no change in France's overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism.

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France.

"This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."

Chirac, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, said all of France's nuclear forces had been configured with the new strategy in mind and the number of nuclear warheads on French nuclear submarines had been reduced to allow targeted strikes.

It was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.

Chirac, 73, did not say whether France would be prepared to use pre-emptive strikes against a country it saw as a threat.

SECURITY TIGHT

France has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s and experts believe it has some 300 nuclear warheads.

"Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation," Chirac said in his first major speech on France's nuclear arms strategy since 2001.

"The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to exercise our response directly against its centers of power and its capacity to act."

France has tightened security since Islamist suicide bombers killed more than 50 people in attacks on London transport last July, and following the Madrid bomb blasts which killed more than 190 people in March 2004.

Despite its strong opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, France remains a target for Islamist militants because of its intelligence links with the United States and Britain.

Last July, national police service chief Michel Gaudin said a radical Algerian Islamist group, the GSPC, had been in contact with al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, about launching attacks in France.

Since the end of the Cold War, questions have been raised about the usefulness of the nuclear program, which makes up some 10 percent of the overall defense budget.

Chirac's government is under pressure to cut spending as it struggles to bring its public deficit below the European Union's deficit limit of 3 percent of gross domestic product.

"Our country's security and its independence have their price," Chirac said."

It's too late. If Bush lacks the will, he's already failed and no amount of commentary will change that now.

If he has the will -- and he's shown no sign of it so far -- then alia iacta est.

It's something of an academic argument. America doesn't have the will to fight Iran.

Iraq has shown that even after a decade of failed santions politics, proven agression, and in the context of a historic domestic attack, Americans still have little patience for wars of prevention.

Even if it was possible to rally the people into Iran, after the public affairs disaster of faling to find stockpiles makes any new argument about WMD the boy who cried wolf, our tolerance for casualties is exceptionally low. Credible members of governemnt started the call for throwing in the towel after a mere two thousand dead, less than a third of the loss of life it cost to secure the single airfield on Iwo in the pacific war. That's a lot better than the couple hundred it took to make us give up on Lebanon, or Somalia, but nevertheless denies a country that is extremely casualty adverse.

And, unlike Iraq where the vast majority of the country was at least neutral to our intervention, with an army that surrendered en masse, where we only had to really worry about a tiny minority of hardcore resistors, Iran is a country filled with nationalistic pride. There's every reason to believe they will resist us to the same degree they resisted Saddam in the 80's. They also have experience in how to fight us by watching and participating in the Iraqi insurgency. There's no way even techological advantage, even as great as it is, can overcome such a huge disparity in our reletive wills to fight, especially such a prophilactic war as you describe. If we even tried, it's our country that would suffer regeim change, the public clamoring for impeachment sometime after the death toll topped 5 thousand, and we would only end up withdrawing in shame just as the Mutha's and Sheehans would have us do today. And worse, everyone knows it.

It's probably better to start talking about what other options there are to protect Israel and our interests in Iraq and the rest of the gulf, in the context of an Iran that has a nuclear deterrent. When it comes to pre-empting that reality, at this point you might as well be arguing why the EU should invade Iran.

Seth,

The mullahs are HATED in Iran. Show us your evidence of "nationalistic pride" - cite some links. NAME ONE! Show us how this isn't something you just made up.

We heard the same bull about Iraq in 1990.

The mullahs have nothing to stop us with but our own lack of will.

Micheal said:

In my opinion the American people will not support an invasion of Iran. The Democrats and the Left would crucify the President and tear the country apart if he tries.

Any 3rd world military that takes the American military on in a stand up fight is committing suicide.

Nevermind this talk of invasion. Don't forget how effective quiet men can be and I would hope they are on the ground now starting to gather in more detail what we need to know.

In our favor, there is a larger Iranian expatriate community in the US with better contacts back in their homeland than we had with Iraq.

Some informed speculation on the political reliability of Iranian Armed Forces.

"But the price of domestic security, when foreign security fails due to a failure of leadership and will by President Bush, will be something much more precious – our freedom."

Pure rhetoric. Imagine a world where growth rates were reduced by 20-30% (because extra security involved in scanning/inspecting shipping, because of more difficulty in traveling overseas, because
of more difficulty in even engaging in international trade, etc etc). Well, you don't have to imagine it-it existed, throughout most of American history.

Our grandparents didn't enjoy the same international goods that we do. Our grandparents could neither afford to, or had the freedom to, travel overseas that we do (how many of our grandparents had been to Europe-excluding WWII vets? How many of us have?). 'Average' citizens from the 3rd world couldn't travel to the US the way they can today. But it would be inaccurate to say that they were living 'unfree.' And it would be inaccurate to say that we would live 'unfree' with the same restrictions. There is no absolute, or Constitutional, right to cheap foreign-made consumer goods. This remarkably easy/cheap/free ability to travel and trade is an historical accident-it may or may not continue, but it would be inaccurate to say that its loss is akin to the loss of precious American freedom.

I think that the possibly of responding defensively to the coming nuclear threat (via greater controls on goods and personnel travel, greater spending on security, etc etc) is being underlooked-the alternative to major war with Iran may be less, more expensive oil, fewer, more expensive trade goods, and an economic change to our way of life, rather than WAR NOW OR GLOBAL WAR LATER. Don't discount the possibility of just changing the legal environment for the movement of goods and people as a solution.

Steve

I agree with Seth about Iranian nationalism being a major factor missing from this post. Nationalism is not equated with liking ones government, as you are absolutely correct in saying that the majority or Iranians hate the mullahs. But the idea of a foreign invader is absolutely out of the question for them and they would rally around the regime temporarily in order to drive out the invaders. That's a major reason the invasion option doesn't get much play. We wouldn't just have the Iranian military to deal with, but an entire population. Iraq and Iran are very, very different places, so drawing a comparison to them is not a good idea when formulating policy.

Good points, but one clarification: We're not looking at a 25% drop in economic growth, we're looking at a 25% drop in economic output. That's comparable to the Great Depression (though in real terms we'd still be far better off due to 70 years of productivity gains). This is like the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but far far worse.

Tom, the Iranian president is a pretty good indicator of where the collective Iranian head is at. Yea, there's a lot of people who want reform, a lot that don't like the mullas, but it's nothing like Iraq, which had constant often open rebellion against Hussein. If the mullas are that hated, you post me one instance of an attempted assassination, or foiled coup. Converesly, and unlike Iraq, American flag burning parties are a national passtime over there. Yes, the people who said we'd be spit on by everyone if we went into Iraq were full of it (and still are), but saying iranians won't resist to the hilt Israel's ally, the Shah's supporter, the Great Satan America, is just inaccurate. It's an entirly differnt situation from Iraq, and we could only bearly tolerate Iraq.

As far as JDAMS, of course it should be obnserved that without land invasion that's just talking about Deasert Fox all over again. We bomb, they rebuild. With the added bonus of giving them a political excuse to retaliate.

But talking about land invasion, the Iranains aren't idiots. They aren't going to allow things to be descided in a stand up fight. That's why they're testing various kinds of guerilla tactics against us in Iraq, creating 'martyrs brigades', and the like. They know insurgency is how you beat the US, and if we invade Iran that's what we'll face. Except not a fragmented, ideologically bankrupt, rag tag comgomeration of a few criminals and cultists, it'll be a specially equiped, trained and orgainzed resistance numbering hundreds of thousands. All JDAMS are good for in that context is making headlines about civilian casualties.

To win Iran, without an Irainian civil war to come in on, without an actual attack to avenge, we're in a situation were America would have to be willing to sacrifice tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of men, over the course of years, to prevent a hypothetical worse fate and maybe make the world a better place. Iraq has telegraphed the limits of our will to do such work at such cost.

I'm not so sure a purely air attack couldn't do the trick IF it targeted the entire top echelon of the mullahs' leadership. In effect, targeted assassination en masse. Then, when the 2nd echelon steps up, annihilate them too.
We hit their WMD too, of course, but the essential target is the individuals who make up the regime. We might even seize an oil-rich enclave or two in Iranian Kurdistan or Azerbaijan and hunker down defensively in it & let the Iranian military batter itself to pieces against us.
All this without an actual ground invasion of Qom, Tehran, or any of those places.

As a last resort, MAYBE an "in-and-out" land invasion to wreck their military and WMD capability. NO occupation of the population centers--which means the mullahs would likely come back to power once we'd left, but their destructive capability would have been reduced to almost nil.

We have not forgotten 1979- some democrats and leftists fools may have forgotten - but most Americans have not forgotten, there is payback. If the President and his team actually get out in front, America will follow. Bush is made of sterned stuff than most realize - Tehran sometime in the fall of 2006 - I think its strong possibility. Remember we still owe Hezbellah for Beirut - We are not done meting out punishment.

I'm glad to see someone echoing some of the arguments I've been making for the past three years: a reference to my views prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom can be found in A walk down memory lane; some discussion of the "moral" argument in favor of preemption in Preemptive war against Iran; some discussion of a FOX news special report on Iran in FOX news on the Iranian threat; Iranian missile development in Remaining Axis members develop missile technology and Iran tests new missile; game theory in Playing Chicken: how Iran might win a nuclear war; and, how the forces stack up in U.S. versus Iran: the tale of the tape.

What it all boils down to is that there is really no viable alternative to regime change in Iran and only an invasion will accomplish that. There is no alternative because either (1) Iran is not deterrable or (2) Iran will become an essentially invulnerable sanctuary for terrorism, with the possibility that it will support "proxy" WMD attacks.

Here is an assination attempt on Iran's president

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/12/18/4306.shtml

to quote:

Gunmen ambushed the motorcade of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaving his driver and one of his bodyguards dead, however the hard-line leader escaped injury because he was not in the car at the time.

Iran denied it of course....

Or one could consider the various Worker strikes in Iran:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/04/opinion/edacker.php

This&That

"At 6:50 pm on Thursday, the lead car in the presidential motorcade confronted armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway," the semi-official Jomhouri Islami reported today. "In the ensuing armed clash, the driver of the vehicle, who was an indigenous member of the security services, and one of the president's bodyguards died, while another bodyguard was wounded."

Shortly after our initial success in Iraq, a number of Iranian bloggers wondered why America didn't invade Iran.

They were willing to accept a small number of Iranian casualties (in the thousands) for regime change.

It is not clear that an invasion would provoke a nationalistic counter reaction. The Nazi invasion of Ukraine and the initial Ukrainian reaction is instructive.

Never take council with your fears.

Why would we even need to occupy Iran? We're not planning on rebuilding the Iranian army and police from the ground up, nor should we. Iran's civil society functions pretty well.

All we really need to do is decapitate the leadership, and remove the secret police and the generals loyal to the mullahs. A 12-week ground/air campaign aimed at the regime and its loyalists should accomplish that handily. After that, we step aside and let the Iranian democrats and their loyalists take care of things. Casualties could be kept under 1,000.

Additionally, a substantial number of Iranian pro-democracy exiles/dissidents could be trained in southern Iraq and accompany our forces.

We stand at a point akin to the Remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 or, even worse, to Hitler's threat to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938. Or as Thomas Holsiger puts it, we are at a turning point - whether our inaction will again engulf the world and us in a nightmare comparable to World War Two.

Starkly put, we have the choice of fighting now without being full prepared politically or militarily, or fighting later when we or Israel have been attacked. Given the domestic and international opposition, it must be overwhelmingly tempting to avoid the necessity to fight now. After all, if the Iranians do nuke someone, the political will for retaliation will be widespread, as it was after 9-11.

The Iranians know -- as most politicians and intellectuals in the West either don't know or are unwilling to admit -- that if they use nuclear weapons, even against Israel, they will have opened a Vernichtungskrieg - a war of extermination in which the Israeli's and the West's overwhelming nuclear superiority will really make most of Iran a radioactive glass parking lot.

The key question, of course, is do they care? Given the history of Iranian behavior over the past three decades, I don't think the answer can be said to be yes with sufficient certainty to be the safety of our entire civilization on the answer.

The broader questions, in a way, is do the mass of the Iranian people -- who are not by and large fond of the ruling mullahs -- understand that they are on the verge of being exterminated if the mullahs are not removed? I doubt that as well.

I suspect that if the reality of their almost complete annihilation in the event of a nuclear war truly took hold in the mind of the average Iranian, the Iranian military might well overthrow the regime.

I'm not sanguine, however, of our ability to make the point clear without a pretty overwhelming demonstration of both adequate force and will.

We should fight now, but like the British and the French between 1936 and the invasion of Poland, even hawks would rather not fight, and we are surrounded by the same leftist fifth columnists and defeatism which opposed the use of force against Hitler.

The good news is that at difficult as a war would be, the Iranian military is at least as hollow as the Germans were in 1936. Our forces are smaller than they need to be, but they have recent combat experience and are superbly equipped, trained and led at the actual fighting levels.

All things considered, we are infinitely better off fighting now than later.

There's every reason to believe they will resist us to the same degree they resisted Saddam in the 80's.
I don't think Saddam was bringing them democracy.

They know insurgency is how you beat the US
Yeah, those Iraqi insurgents are going to end their 1,000-long losing streak and finally win a battle any day now. And they've done a great job derailing the democratic process and preventing elections. And the Iraqi Security Forces get smaller and less capable every day. Oops, wait, no, exactly the opposite of all those things is true.

#18 Michael Reynolds,

The Iranian center of gravity is their security services - which are in the main foreign fighters, because the locals were found to be mostly unreliable.

To make use of the Iranian people we will need warmer weather. Spring or fall. Given the rate at which diplomacy has been picking up I'd bet spring. Funny thing is that France and Germany seem to be coming around rather quickly.

Also note Chenney's recent junket to the relevant capitals to discuss Iraq. Sure. Iraq.

Did I mention that the Iranians seem to have trouble keeping planes full of military leaders in the air? An internal purge? American Special forces? ???

What it means is that the Iranian Armed Forces are weakened on the eve of battle by internal dissent or external action.

Some one is preping the battlefield.

One thing we could do is break apart Iran, or as it could be called - The Persian Empire. There are unhappy Baluchis in the east and the western fifth of the country is occupied territory with Arabs, Lurs, Azeris and Kurds actually living there. And the Arabs (as usual) live in the oil-producing area. Breaking off the Arabs alone would financially cripple the regime. They could go it alone or join Iraq. Whatever. I know this is a quick and loose suggestion, but as long as we're talking about war with Iran, let's put it all on the table.

p.s. I have an ethnographic map of Iran I'd be happy to email anybody.

I agree with the earlier comments: this dog won't hunt politically, either within the US or internationally. All that political capital got used up in Iraq (not to imply that Iraq should not have been done). There is no doubt in my mind that it will take a nuclear attack, and not just one in Israel or Europe (bad enough), but one in the US for political conditions to shift enough here. And even with that there will be many holdouts on the incorrigible left. As for international political conditions, Europe lacks the will and would just prefer to have us take care of it. I'm not sure what will wake them up. We've been nursing them along for the last 60 years.

I think Rep. Murtha is right. We will be leaving Iraq before the end of the year.

He may be part of the deception plan. In fact he voted against his own idea.

Curious.

Also it was a political test of the American people. The answer? "Not until the job is done."

Also he is discouraging recruiting. Now why would you want to do that? Take trainers and make them fighters.

Think of our recent clean up in Pakistan. Think of the attacks on the Northern Alliance pre-9/11.

Some one is shaping the battle field.

JoeP,

The recent change in attitude of the Germans and French contradicts your assertion. Note the Brits have been quiet. Curious.

As to America - do not confuse loudness with depth.

Listening to the way some of you talk about an invasion of Iran, it's as if the Iraq war never happened. I continue to support it but it's pretty clear we systematically understated the difficulties the insurgency would cause.

There's no way we could do anything but a smash-and-grab in Iran without a major scale-up in ground troop levels that would almost surely require a draft, and that alone makes it a non-starter. And if we did a smash-and-grab odds are whatever follows this pack of mullahs will make the Taliban look like your local PTA.

There's just no way we come out ahead in an invasion unless everybody (meaning China or Russia too) agree that the mullahs have gone too far, and the odds are greater that Angelina Jolie will dump Brad Pitt and marry me than that will happen.

My opinion is that we need to focus on countering the Iranian nuclear threat. What we need to do is to make the threat of massive nuclear retaliation as credible as possible. My suggestion would be to resume underground nuclear tests. Yes, this would unsettle the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese, but that's precisely the point. We need them to be saying to the Iranians, "Guys, you don't get it, these cowboys might just do it."

oy.

Yes many Iranians, possibly a majority hate the mullahs. Which is a reason, as Ledeen has said, to support them in doing so, NOT to invade. Invade and you DO arouse nationalism. After 3 years, and 2000 combat deaths, and with 138,000 troops, we're only finally winning the war against the insurgents in Iraq. Iran is over twice as large as Iraq. Estimate you will need at least 300,000 troops to win in Iran.

And as for bloggers, I have personally met people whove been to Iran who say Iranians want us to invade. Unfortunately their contacts are all in the middle classes parts of Teheran. I assume the bloggers are as well.

Simon:

Point well taken about America, but even a vocal minority can be highly disruptive. As to the Europeans, similar advice: don't confuse loudness with willingness to act. Maybe they would, but history wouldn't lead one to conclude that.

Seth, I wonder did you say the same thing about Iraq back in the day?

"Afghanistan had no real armed forces, there is no way Iraq will go under like Afghanistan. Iraq has the 3rd largest army in the world. Battle tested and will not make the same mistakes they made in 91. Saddam has complete control, taking Baghdad alone could cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of our soldiers."

I wonder because before Afghanistan, the left said, it will be another vietnam. Then with Iraq, the left said it will be another vietnam, or stalingrad, they will not be pushed over like Afghanistan.

And now you tell us the same thing, but for an effective fighting force to be effective it has to be either a unit that can adapt well(America, Israel for example), or a centrally controlled army that can keep its head from being cut off. Well as an old artillery man from the cold war, I know America is all about cutting the head off the command and control structure. Do the Mullahs trust their armed soldiers enough to allow them to practice initiative? I highly doubt it, cause then all it takes is a highly motivated General to have a coup.

Personally I think double the number of deaths from Iraq is probably about right.

One thing I disagree with :

Everyone is so worried about Iran getting Nuclear weapons. What about Pakistan?

1) Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and long-range missiles
2) Osama bin Laden and other top Al-Qaeda leaders are already hiding in Pakistan among a sympathetic population.
3) AQ Khan was selling nuclear secrets.

Given these 3 things in combination, how can we be more worried about Iran than Pakistan? Sure, Musharaff may be cooperating, but he doesn't conrtol many elements of Pakistani society, and does only the minimum we ask of him.

I am more worried about Pakistan than Iran. The reason the media is scaring everyone about Iran is because Iran is threatening Israel, while Pakistan is not (only because it is too far away).

Seth, until you can explain why the supposedly popular mullahs have been importing foreigner mercenaries to work in their security service, your comments will lack credibility to me.

Someone in the comments above said, "Never take council with your fears." Good idea...

Another good idea is not to start with a desired outcome "we must invade Iran", and work backward to find the arguments in support of it.

The post is just too darn long to criticize point by point... but there was one sentence in here I thought would be worth a reply, because the reply to that sentence is the reply to the whole "invade Iran" meme... In fact, the reply actually only applies to an offhand side-clause. The sentence was this:
"Iran seems to be in a pre-revolutionary state such that its mullah regime will collapse from purely domestic reasons within a few years even if we do nothing, but by then it will have openly had nuclear weapons for several years, possibly used them against Israel and/or been pre-emptively nuked by Israel, and widespread nuclear proliferation will have started with all the horrors that will bring."

And my mind wandered to 1981, when Israel felt threatened by Iraqi nuclear ambitions... Know what they did? Did they pre-emptively nuke Iraq? Nope... They pre-emptively bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities.
With a conventional sortee, they put Iraq out of the nuclear business. What hope Iraq had left for nukes was crushed in 1991, as you may remember, also without the necessity for invasion.

It always pays to remember history when trying to think of ways to solve problems like the Iranian nuclear ambition.

GK, we are worried about Pakistan and have been for decades. However, there are immense differences. First, Pakistan's leaders have shown a history of responding to deterence. Pakistan is arrayed against India which provides a lot of that deterence. Second, we have access to Pakistan as a nominal and historic ally. We have a better idea of what is going on there and have direct methods of influence.

SPQR,

But everything you said only matters in terms of Pakistan's government. Remember that the majority of Pakistan's population is anti-US and sympathetic to Al-Qaeda.

Is Musharaff the only real reason to be less worried about Pakistan than Iran? He is just one man..

Is there any reason to believe AQ Khan didn't sell nuclear secrets to Ayman Al-Zawahiri and his cronies? All 3 exist in Pakistan : Nukes, Al-Qaeda leadership, and people from the Pak government who are willing to sell nuclear technology.

The existence of a semi-cooperating Musharaff is hardly going to prevent this.

Seth,

"Iran seems to be in a pre-revolutionary state state such that its mullah regime will collapse from purely domestic reasons within a few years even if we do nothing ..."

And I note that you still haven't cited any sources supporting your contention. There is a reason for that.

What's your point, smijer? Israel is not going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. It would take a sustained bombing campaign, not a raid. At least not using conventional weapons. Any such raid would need a by-your-leave from the U. S. and, if we gave it, we'd have the same domestic political repercussions as if we'd done the bombing ourselves.

Consequently, if anyone bomb's Iran's nuclear facilities, it will be us. Iran's nuclear development facilities are dispersed, some we know are in cities, suburban areas, and sensitive oil-producing areas. I know that Tom and Trent disagree with me on this but I think that any bombing campaign sufficient to take out Iran's nuclear development capability would entail enough collateral damage that there would be hell to pay on the homefront political scene.

GK:

The difference between Iran and Pakistan is that the leaders in Pakistan haven't been doing their damnedest to convince us that they're nuts. To the best of my knowledge Pakistan has never threated any other country with destruction via preemptive nuclear strike; Iran has openly mused about such an attack.

GK,

Re: Pakistan.

I think you may recall a contingent of Marines sent to that country to protect its nuclear weapons in the Afghanistan stage of the war.

I have heard nothing about their withdrawal.

Pakistan may be of small worry re:nukes because we in effect already "guard" them.

"Is there any reason to believe AQ Khan didn't sell nuclear secrets to Ayman Al-Zawahiri and his cronies? "

There are in fact some very good reasons. It is a mistake to regard Pakistan as a solid block of Islamacists. Musharaff and his clique control the army and come from a caste well educated and influenced heavily by the English of old. That is the biggest reason Pakistan having nukes is a tolerable risk, the people that run the country are reasonably progressive and western. And i'm not talking about a small group of people like the Sauds, this is an entire strata of society. In order for them to be thrown down a full scale civil war would be necessary, and Musharaff controls the army (not completely, and the intelligence service especially is said to be infiltrated with extremists).

I am surprised at the dearth of comments concerning my opinion that Iran already has nuclear weapons, and that France's President Chirac seems to share this opinion.

I am curious to know how many troops you believe will be necessary to defeat Iran's military and hold the country and where they will come from.

Also, how do you keep them supplied? Where is your logistical base?

It took 6 months to launch desert storm and I believe about as long to launch OIF. Why do you think we can be ready to launch a full scale attack into Iran in 20 days?

Thank you for clarifying these issues.
nc

GK:

Pakistan is a country of some 160 million people. An invasion of Pakistan to prevent Pakistan's already-extant nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists will do little except get a bunch of Pakistanis and Americans killed.

The only practical alternative we have is to make sure that Musharraf's government doesn't fall.

Not so an invasion of Iran to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. I think that Tom's military analysis is probably about right: it's doable. And, if we invade soon, by all accounts we can prevent them from building any nuclear weapons of their own although as Tom correctly points out they may have already bought a small number from outside.

Tom, the Iranian president is a pretty good indicator of where the collective Iranian head is at.

bq Consequently, if anyone bomb's Iran's nuclear facilities, it will be us. Iran's nuclear development facilities are dispersed, some we know are in cities, suburban areas, and sensitive oil-producing areas. I know that Tom and Trent disagree with me on this but I think that any bombing campaign sufficient to take out Iran's nuclear development capability would entail enough collateral damage that there would be hell to pay on the homefront political scene.

Agreed it would be us to do the bombing (unless the Euros decided they didn't want nukes that close)... And agreed that it might entail some collateral damage.. maybe a lot. Agreed there would be hell to pay on the homefront political scene...

Do you think there would be less collateral damage than with wholesale invasion?

Do you think there would be less hell to pay on the homefront political scene?

I'm a Democrat... I talk to a lot of Democrats... there are a lot of us that wouldn't bat an eye at a few carefully aimed bombs against the nuke facilities. Especially, but not necessarily only, if it were done with UN approval. And most especially if it done with proper ultimatums, and consistent with a defense policy of counter-proliferation. There would be some lefties screaming, but the nation as a whole would be far less inclined to scream about it than they would a ham-handed approach like full-scale invasion and occupation.

Dave Schuler,

You still don't get it.

Who cares about the upper strata of Pakistan, and if Musharaff is 'not doing his damnedest to look crazy'?

If top Al-Qaeda leadership are harbored in a country that HAS nuclear weapons, and HAS had someone like AQ Khan selling nuclear secrets (do we know who he was selling them to?), that is the biggest worry.

Seriously, if a nuclear weapon is used in an act of terrorism in a US city, which is the one country in the world where the investigation will lead to?

Whether Musharaff complies with us does not matter, AQ Khan still may have sold nuclear secrets to bin Laden/Zawahiri (who are being sheltered in Pakistan).

Grasp that Musharaff can't prevent that.

I am surprised at the dearth of comments concerning my opinion that Iran already has nuclear weapons, and that France's President Chirac seems to share this opinion.

Tom,

You are putting out too much "nuclear weapons are a real threat" reality for people to even go near that one.

The Left hand of the ideological spectrum either ignores nukes of has its emotional �EEEK a nuke!� reaction.

The Right side of the ideological spectrum is dominated by between the �Iranian nationalism = Vietnam� and �Iranian Revolution can do it� factions that oppose an invasion.

None of these factions wants to face up to the over riding imperative of massive nuclear proliferation.

#44 Tom,

I'm with you on that one. It is amazing how being in the crosshairs concentrates the mind. i.e. France.

The odds are that at this time they only have a few.

A tolerable risk if the delivery systems are not ready for mating.

BTW note Egypt, and Saudi objections to a nuke empowered Iran. Just after Chenney's visit. No doubt they came up with the Iran idea on their own.

Some one is preping the battle field.

I expect this will go fast. It will be a come as you are party. We have experienced troops. Always an advantage. And three years of logistical buildup.

I think the War Powers gives the President 30 days without need of a Congressional approval. So expect the plan to be for 20 days of action. With 10 days reserve.

NC,

It was the Democratic military experts on the Atlantic Monthly panel who felt an invasion of Iran could be ramped up in 20 days. They even think this could be done secretly. They also think our forces could push to the outskirts of Tehran in two weeks.

I think these opinions are optimistic, and said so. IMO it will take at least eight weeks for fully prepared ground forces to get to Tehran, and lack the expertise to even make a wild-assed guess as to how long the build-up would take.

The logistical base is called Kuwait. It is fully prepared. We need only move in additional forces and some additional supplies. A great deal is already in the theater. This would markedly shorten the build-up time.

My personal opinion is that our campaign should be done on a "come as you are basis", i.e., bomb first and do the build-up after the bombing starts. The USAF is quite capable of keeping the mullahs from building more nukes while we move additional forces and supplies to the Gulf.

My desire for a "come as you are" attack is to maximize the effects of our surprise bombing attack on Iran's nuclear capability. That's right, I favor a surprise attack. No UN motion, no prior request to Congress for an authorization to use force (get it after the fact if such is even deemed necessary), just go straight at them.

IMO the mullahs have nukes and we should not give them any chance whatever to use those. This means a massive surprise air attack. Only then should we even start preparing an invasion.

Those who violate international law cannot claim its protection. The mullahs violated international law when they seized our embassy.

This will be a no-quarter fight against an enemy who ignores all the rules. So should we. They've got nukes! I'd use our own on them, in a suprise nuclear attack, if the USAF thinks such is necessary to keep Iran's mullahs from using theirs on us. The USAF doesn't seem to think it necessary that we nuke Iran.

"The only rule is that there are no rules."

As for the conquest campaign, IMO we should use about five division equivalents, and feel the occupation campaign would require about 200,000 troops inside Iran. The 200,000 estimate is given in my article.

If you read my article more carefully, you might find the answers to your questions already there.

Tom, Trent -

As interesting a war-game exercize as this may be - and I don't necessarily disagree with your purely military analysis - I think you're deluding yourself if you believe the geopolitical consequences would be sustainable.

We'd lose Europe, the Russians, and the Chinese. We'd be diplomatic pariahs, and the Saudis and Venezuelans would cut off our oil. In Iran, while we might be able to maintain control of the country, it is highly unlikely that we'd be able to maintain the oil infrastructure in the face of guerilla warfare.

I won't even talk about the domestic political consequences, given the Bush Administrations poor record in maintaining the public case for the war.

Welcome to autarky, or real empire, in which we expend blood to demand resources from foreign countries.

Saddam was easy - no one liked him, even in the Arab world.

The needle that has to be threaded with Iran is far narrower, and in fact I think that Bush is doing a more than credible job so far.

Saber-rattling has a role - note the French speech yesterday - but I'd certainly think it's going to stay sheathed for the near future.

That's not a cost-free decision. But the alternative cost is far higher.

A.L.

A.L.,

I take it you have no objection to living in the ruthless tyranny necessary for security against terrorist nukes which can come from anywhere.

And that you are tired of being either American or liberal.

NC,

The troops will come from Iraq. I do believe the Iraqi forces are sufficient to hold Iraq for a month or two with American Air Support.

Sun Tzu says when near appear to be far. When strong appear to be weak.

Sun Tzu is on the American Military reading list.

It is possible that Iran like Saddam thinks they have capabilities which are fiction.

Note that the "insurgents" think the center of gravity in Iraq - militarily - are the Iraqi Armed Forces. And yet recruits keep coming.

So yeah. America is over stretched. The troops are busy. The American will is weak. Dissention on the home front. etc.

The key for a conventional attack will be air mobility and bridging trains. We know the bridging trains are in pretty good shape from their use in the River War. Plus now their crews are battle tested.

Tom wrote:

This will be a no-quarter fight against an enemy who ignores all the rules. So should we. They've got nukes! I'd use our own on them, in a suprise nuclear attack, if the USAF thinks such is necessary to keep Iran's mullahs from using theirs on us. The USAF doesn't seem to think it necessary that we nuke Iran.

It's a risk, but assessing risks is what statesmen and general are paid to do. And I'd much rather we help the enemy die for his country than wait while more of our citizens die for ours at the enemy's hand.

I think Mr. Holsinger's essay is a bit over the top. It's great as polemics, but it's not going to convince the unconvinced, because of its hysterical tone. The world is doomed!

On the other hand, I think that the essential underlying fact of the matter is that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would assuredly lead to at least one genocide , if not more, so it's a fair case to make. But the tone in which it is made is hardly useful.

If we don't take a "we broke it, we own it" position on Iran — that is, if we state our goal as destruction of the theocracy and elimination of Iran's nuclear program and the terrorists and terror training and control facilities in Iran, while assuring world oil supplies; rather than attempting to build a new government and security forces, which would require an occupation — then we have options . I fully expect that the anti's will be saying the same things they did before we attacked Iraq: why aren't we attacking N. Korea instead (except before Iraq, it was Iran that was the "better target"). Pakistan is a new one on me. Pakistan is a long-term, not a short-term, problem. Saudi Arabia is a long-term and Syria a medium-term problem, but those could likely be solved by example, as can (I believe) Pakistan, rather than by invasion.

I don't think American political will is a problem. Yes, the anti's will demagogue the issue, and it will be contentious, but Americans en masse, and I believe will support us doing the right thing once it is explained to them and they are asked to support it. You can't just expect Americans to jump into a big war without telling them what is involved. Similarly, looking at polls and political will (as measured by conventional wild guessing) prior to the debate is not very predictive of American will. After all, most Americans of my age or older very clearly remember the hostages.

I don't think Congress is a real problem either. Arguably, the President already has authority to act under the AUMF passed after 9/11 — and given what is already known about al Qaeda agents in Iran, Khobar Towers and the Beirut Marine barracks and embassy attacks, I doubt there would be much argument other than on technicalities that Iran is a major supporter of terror against the US — and I do not doubt he would use it if he felt it necessary.

Could the Europeans interfere? No. Could they help? Yes. Would they help? Not likely, at least not significantly, though I would settle for not going whole hog on the anti-American rhetoric as "helping".

Could the Russians interfere? Yes. Could they hurt us if they did? No. Would they interfere? No, at least significantly.

Could the Chinese interfere? No. Could they help? No.

All in all, attacking Iran is both doable and necessary, and I hope our political class gets it together before it becomes a crisis, because Israel would act, forcefully, to prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. As Dave noted, a conventional Israeli attack on Iran is not an option. As Dave did not note, the Israelis could launch a nuclear attack, which would not have to be sustained to be effective.

Let's try and avoid that, shall we?

A.L.,

Saudi and Egypt - the centers of mass in the Islamic world are against Iranian nukes.

France and Germany have turned so quickly on the issue it is enough to give you whiplash.

It is '36 either we take them out when it is difficult but possible or we wait until the final issue is in doubt i.e. a much bigger war.

The way this is going to be played is going to be quite surprising to all of us.

Israel has been publicly threatened to be wiped off the map. The Europeans are scrambling because they have no argument to stop Israel from a pre-emptive strike to protect itself. The strike will be nuclear to ensure that the target is destroyed and if carried off properly it may be seen as an accident of Iran’s in the production of their own weapon. A less populated area with a smaller size bomb should hold down human loss of life while waking up Iran's population to take action.

This will be the tipping point for the populace to overthrow the mullahs. Israel could never occupy Iran and we lack the will. We have no need fear Pakistan for it is clear by their actions over these past several years that they understand the horrible consequences that would have befallen them if they had thrown themselves in with al qeada.

Folks a mad man is about to get weapons that he fully intends to use. It won’t be allowed to happen and the Europeans know it, that’s the only reason they are finally stirring their stumps. The Iranians know it, and that is why they are enlisting Syria’s help (How pathetic is that.)

Oh by the way -- Watch out Gaza you're starting to look like a bombing range to me.

Jeff:

Israel is not going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. It would take a sustained bombing campaign, not a raid. At least not using conventional weapons.

I generally agree with AL's assessment about the domestic political impossibility of such an invasion. I think he's underestimating the ability of most of the world to overlook their principles when there's a dollar at stake. We'd be able to buy what oil we needed somewhere.

Let me offer another alternative that's not mentioned very often: blockade.

Dave wrote:

Let me offer another alternative that's not mentioned very often: blockade.

That's just another word for sanctions, albeit with military teeth. A blockade is only as good as its enforcement. With a significant border with the old Soviet Union, no blockade can be remotely effective without enthusiastic Russian support.

The time for a blockade was several years ago. And, even then it would have been seen as a provocation, much as the US embargo on iron and steel exports to Japan moved the Japanese to action against us in 1941.

No, unfortunately, we do know the nature of our enemies, and that they at least are in deadly earnest.

I wish we had the luxury of a "do-over" with Iran going back to the Cartoon administration, but we don't. We have to deal with the reality on the ground.

The time has come to put paid to Islamic dreams of a reconquista.

After every terrible human-caused calamity people always remark how much the warning signs were telegraphed by those responsible. Rwanda, the Nazi's etc. etc. They then wonder how stupid the people at the time must have been to ignore the blatently obvious signs!

Iran has been telegraphing their intentions for years - they have been telling us what they want to do but we just don't want to believe them.

They want to remove the "cancerous tumor" of Israel. They want to go to paradise at the highest level as a martyr. "DEATH TO ISRAEL!" - "DEATH TO AMERICA!" "DEATH TO THOSE WHO REJECT THE JUDESPRUDENCE!" (of Islamic law). How plain can you get? And yet people are more upset when the president denies that the holocaust happened! It's as if we just don't take them seriously because we can't comprehend that they might actually mean what they are saying! They have only had the power over one of these three death threats - those who reject the judesprudece inside Iran - and to these people Iran makes good it's threats - For example, since the revelution Iran has executed over 9000 people for suspected homosexuality.

Martyrdom is glorified at the highest levels in Iran. Are the government leaders, the mullahs, simply manipulating the "word of Allah" for political gain? Can you use God in this way and still believe in him? I don't think so - Their leaders are not born out of the same political process that ours are. They are not cynics but passionate and brave just like Hitler was - They really believe in their twisted logic.

Iran will develop nuclear weapons and then use them against Israel in a "glorious martyrdom operation". And their leaders believe paradise will be their reward. They simply need to delay the west until they are ready.

Now you may not be convinced as I am that this is what the Iranian government intends. So maybe I could show you the quotes or video of these threats being made - how many would convince you - one, two a hundred, a thousand! Or maybe you would point out that to do anything the case beyond all resonable doubt has to be made be action is taken.

Well I don't think "all reasonable doubt" is appropiate here. Would you be satisfied to fly on a plane if you knew it would only be stopped for safety reasons if there was evidence beyond all resonable doubt that the plane was going to crash? What percentage of risk are you willing to put up with on a flight? 90% probability that it will crash (10% of resonable doubt) - 50%, 10% or even 1% - I think even one percent would be far to high to contemplate. Just image an airline that lost one out of every hundred passengers!

If I'm right and we do nothing - millions upon millons of people will die - It will make WWII look like a joke let alone the Iraqi "war". And that's not counting any retaliation from Israel - would it nuke Iran in retaliation for it's destruction or maybe all of the hostile countries that refuse to scknowledge it's existence - The estimate is that Israel has over 200 warheads - that accounts for most of the population in the middle east easily.

If I'm wrong and we stand up firm to Iran now - two things can happen - Iran can back down and not produce nuclear power (maybe a 'right' it looses by threatening "DEATH" to all these people) or it can choose to try and fight an invasion with maybe several thousand casualties.
Now I'm sure that all of these casualties would be souly blamed on the invader but sometimes thats the price you pay for doing the right thing. It's a nasty decision to make but I think the only wrong thing would be to ignore it and not speak out plainly and bluntly now. "DEATH" chants and all the other vio