Simon Tisdall (The Guardian): An exercise in bravado

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Guardian Unlimited (London)
Dated Wednesday April 5

An exercise in bravado
By Simon Tisdall

Iran has been conducting a sort of grand military parade up and down the Gulf this week, displaying its defensive hardware, test-firing sophisticated-sounding new weapons systems, and proclaiming its readiness to repel all would-be aggressors. Revolutionary Guard General Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the "Great Prophet" exercises, declared that Iran was now able to "confront any extra-regional invasion".

Neighbouring Sunni Arab states locked in political and territorial disputes with Tehran's Shia leadership may feel duly intimidated - not that any of them were planning to attack. A new high-speed torpedo called Hoot (meaning whale), so-called "flying boats", and various "radar-avoiding" surface-to-sea missile launches may also have seriously frightened local marine wildlife.

But the US, the principal intended audience of Iran's martial ostentation, is unimpressed. "We know the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons systems," a Pentagon spokesman said yesterday. "The Iranians have also been known to boast and exaggerate their technical and tactical capabilities."

The US has repeatedly declined to rule out military action if coercive diplomacy fails to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities. And if the issue at hand is relative US-Iranian military might, it is really no contest. Total US defence-related spending will rise this year to around $550bn (£315bn); Iran allocated $4.4bn to defence in 2005. It cannot begin to match US weapons, technology and expertise.

Read more.

Comment by JR:

Mr. Tisdall is correct in saying that it would be easy for the US to defeat Iran (or almost any other nation, for that matter) in any flash war.

However, with so much of the US' military resources tied up in Iraq, it will not be as easy as it ought to be. Moreover. one should consider the following that would make the ensuing occupation of Iran more difficult than what we've experienced in Iraq:

• Iran is about three times larger than Iraq geographically and has about two and a half times as many people; consequently, it will take more troops which, owing to the occupation of Iraq, are not available.
• Iran's Islamic Republic, while hardly a democratic form of government, does resemble one much more than than Saddam's Iraq and is not nearly as brutal; consequently, there is even less reason to suppose foreign troops will be welcomed as "liberators" in Iran than there was to expect that in Iraq.
• The Bush regime has no credibility left after Iraq. Any pre-invasion analysis of Iran's nuclear capabilities and plans presented by the Bush regime not supported by solid evidence or corroborated by a credible, independent source will be met with skepticism and disbelief; consequently, Bush will get even less foreign help in Iran than in Iraq and even face stiffer resistance in the United Nations.

As of now, Iran is about five years away from possession of nuclear weapons. It is not an immediate threat and does not need to be dealt with militarily at this time. Given the Bush regime's of mucking up whatever it does, this is a task that one should hope Mr. Bush would leave to his successor.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Iran...... is not nearly as brutal........ as Iraq or even

as in the old days of the Shah when Savak were hunting down and killing any dissidents if necessary by hunting them to their death abroad.

Forward dear reader....... and now search Persia/Iran 1953 and Savak.

Not you Jack Rabbit - I'me sure you already know about that.

[bemildred]

2. A couple disparate comments:

1.) In the present circumstances, it would be high treason for the Persian government and military not to prepare to resist the bombing, invasion, and subjugation of their nation with all the might that they can muster, and not to attempt to make clear to their prospective conquerers that they intend to resist to the full extent of the means available to them.

2.) The Persians are not the only parties known to "boast and exaggerate their technical and tactical capabilities".

3.) The repeated assertion that one sees that it would be "easy" for the US to defeat Iran, in any engagement, echoes the mindless bluster and overconfidence that one often sees in the history of war. While I understand the reasons that opinion is prevalent in this case, I think it is at least subject to debate. The advantages of terrain, of motivation and morale, of readiness in the military sense, of being on ones own soil, of superior leadership, lie all with Iran, and the notion that such technical superiorities as we may hold will, in fact, overweight those advantages is unproven. One suspects that it is the US' possession of nuclear weapons that lies behind that too easy acceptance of invincibility, and that is a great mistake. It is true that the US can destroy or delay indefinitely the Persian nuclear program, but to do so, by whatever means, will have consequences far beyond the results of attempting it.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Comment

1. Agreed. That Saddam was not a threat and did not possess WMDs did not stop the Bush regime from asserting otherwise and invading for that "reason", which few have doubt that they knew was false. As long as the neocons are going to accuse tageted states of possessing weapons as a pretext to invade, those states may as well build them. They have nothing to lose.

2. Agreed, but I don't think anybody, even the neocon quoted, regards that as a reason to go to war with Iran.

3. I think I owe you a clarification. Invading Iran will be easy; occupying Iran will be a different story. I have no doubt that the US can send in the Marines and oust almost any regime from power as long as it doesn't stretch it military resources too thin. However, the US should not expect to do this without popular resistance.

[bemildred]

4. Likewise.

1.) True. We have pretty much screwed the NPT, for the time being anyway. That is probably no accident, there have always been factions on the national security establishment that hate arms control. Who can forget Curtis LeMay?

2.) I was just commenting on the "Pentagon spokesmans" apparent lack of any sense of irony. Of course he is a PR officer, so that isn't really surprising.

3.)I doubt even that. Had the previous three years war in Iraq not occurred, I might rethink that, but as it stands I have doubts that we could take Tehran, or seize any large portion of Iran, although we could most likely bomb the shit out of them. I would think we could manage to invade and establish some sort of salient, but it would be expensive and indecisive in its result. It is not likely that Iran will make the sort of token defense that the previous Iraqi government limited itself to, and Iran has far more formidable means to resist that Iraq did. But opinions will vary, let's hope this stays a speculative discussion.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. What about if they just occupy Iran's oil fields.

Invading Iran will be easy; occupying Iran will be a different story. I have no doubt that the US can send in the Marines and oust almost any regime from power as long as it doesn't stretch it military resources too thin. However, the US should not expect to do this without popular resistance.

Since Iran's oil fields are mostly concentrated in one small corner of the country next to the Iraq border could it be that they are thinking that they could just occupy and defend the oil fields. Maybe the thinking is that US air superiority could deal with any counterattacks by Iranian troops attempting to take back the oil fields. This is just my speculation here. I don't have any military background myself.

[TheBaldyMan]

6. the original article quotes US military sources about Iranian

bluster and sabre-rattling:

But the US, the principal intended audience of Iran's martial ostentation, is unimpressed. "We know the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons systems," a Pentagon spokesman said yesterday. "The Iranians have also been known to boast and exaggerate their technical and tactical capabilities."

Yet we are all expected to quake in fear about their imminent threat vis-a-vis their nuclear bomb. Another non-sequitur from the Bush administration and the spin-machine

[bemildred]

7. Good point.

:thumbsup: