| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| America's Strong Hand in Dealing with the Mullahs |
| 2006-09-06 |
| * Nationalities – It’s odd how often it’s pointed out that Iraq is a state created from a patchwork of nationalities while the same is never mentioned about Iran. In truth, the situation in Iran makes Iraq look like Sweden. Aside from the Shi’ite Persian majority, there exist substantial minorities of Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, Armenians, Bakhtiaris, and Turkomans, in addition to a large Sunni population comprisng 8% of Iran’s total (most of the Kurds, Baluchis, and Turkomans are Sunni). Persian arrogance, coupled with Shi’ite fanaticism, have created a pressure-cooker atmosphere. * The Sunni States – It’s clear that the bulk of the Gulf states are worried about Iran. How deep all this goes can be gauged by the fact that several of these same states gave the nod to Israel’s attack on Hezb’allah in the first days of its recent Lebanon incursion. * Gasoline – It is now widely understood that Iran possesses no capability of refining the higher petroleum fractions, including gasoline. Refineries do exist in Iran, but apparently they’re intended only to separate various grades of petroleum from crude. This lack of technology is a serious vulnerability. Cutting the country off would be a simple matter of sanctions, perhaps reinforced by a blockade directed at tankers. This is probably the most straightforward method of putting serious pressure on the ayatollahs. It’s difficult to impress the world with plans for conquest when your Mercedes limos are being pulled around by oxen. * Oil – Another open secret involves the actual locations of Iranian oilfields. A glance at a resource map reveals that most are located on or near the shoreline, with a smaller though still substantial fraction further inland. Most of Iran’s oil resources could be interdicted by naval action. But the most interesting point is that the largest fields aren’t located in Iran at all. They’re offshore, in the middle of the Gulf which, since 1988, has been completely controlled by the U.S. Navy. Not only can the U.S. cut Iran off from the bulk of its oil resources with little in the way of effort – it’s also possible, by taking over working oil platforms, that Iranian oil could continue flowing to the outside world with little interruption, negating one of the more serious objections to such a strategy. Many fields are run by foreign third parties (e.g., the Romanian installation the Iranians attacked so inexplicably), but a number of these are either allies or else states long deserving some kind of black eye. * The Forrest Effect – We shouldn’t forget that Forrest was an American (of sorts). Iran has, for past eighteen months, held the stage by its lonesome. This stuff is transparently designed to generate confusion and dismay, and to keep the diplomatic and political elites guessing. It’s about time that we started acting in turn – throwing a few curves in the direction of Tehran designed to cause the same – if not greater – unease and foreboding. One possibility is a campaign aimed directly at the Iranian peasantry consisting of leaflets condemning Ahmadinejad and alleging to originate from the 13th imam himself, backed up by radio broadcasts and so forth. Iran remains a relatively unmodernized society and is very susceptible to this kind of stimulus. (Think Orson Welles’ Martian invasion broadcast – though the U.S. was more advanced than Iran even then.) Aircraft are also useful in this effort. One method pioneered by Harry Truman against the USSR involved what might be called the suggestive reconnaissance flight. Truman several times sent RB-36 recon planes, which at that time could not be intercepted, over Moscow during tense interludes to underline just how vulnerable the Soviets were. A variation involves sonic booms. In the late 80s, SR-71 spyplanes were sent over Managua to treat the Sandinistas to a good loud bang every time they began menacing their neighbors. Tehran should receive similar treatment on a regular basis. * The Biggest Bang—Which brings us to our final possibility, which can be carried out as the last action short of open war. This would involve setting off a low-yield nuclear warhead 50,000 feet over Tehran. At that altitude, a bomb of precise power would break every window in the city, blind a few unfortunates, but kill no one. This may seem a drastic proposal, but in a climate where even gentle souls like Michael Coren are suggesting far worse, ‘drastic’ is a matter of debate. A nuclear explosion is the most foreboding sight in nature it is possible to witness and survive. Many eyewitnesses of atmospheric bomb tests speak of the almost unreasoning terror that the sight creates. During the 1960s, an Air Force officer suggested that a single exception be made to the atmospheric test ban treaty: that a single bomb be set off annually with the leaders of all major powers present. “Once they see it, they will never forget it.” Those are our cards. If I were sitting in on this kind of game, those are cards I’d like to have. If we played any of them, they would inevitably cause difficulties for an Iranian government that is unstable and enjoys little backing from its own people. We could easily carry them out in the form of a ladder of escalation, one after the other, until we get results. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #3 Bad idea. Using nukes is like pulling a gun. Don't do it unless you're ready to pull the trigger for real. Keep fighting the good fight, mojo. The "display of power" aspect of such a demonstration is quite appealing. The message it sends to the remaining world (other than Iran) is the entirely wrong one. If we use even a single nuclear weapon, it must be the vanguard of a massive nuclear attack, be it against one country or a host of them. Iran is an incredibly fragile target. Kick out even a single leg of their economy and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. It is frustrating in the extreme that Bush cannot simply come before the American people and outline a "bootless" plan for war with Iran that involves no foot soldiers. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-06 21:58 |
| #2 Bad idea. Using nukes is like pulling a gun. Don't do it unless you're ready to pull the trigger for real. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-09-06 17:38 |
| #1 * The Biggest Bang—Which brings us to our final possibility, which can be carried out as the last action short of open war. This would involve setting off a low-yield nuclear warhead 50,000 feet over Tehran Do I hear 45,ooo feet. Do I hear 35,9oo, do I hear 25,ooo. Do I hear 1200 Feet? SOLD! at 1200 feet AGL. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-06 17:00 |