According to a war game organized by The Atlantic with the help of retired air force colonel and specialist in the field Sam Gardiner, which simulated preparations for an assault on Iran by the next American administration, be it Republican or Democrat, such an assault could involve any or all of three separate strategies: (1) a punitive raid on key Revolutionary Guard units to retaliate for Iranian actions in Iraq and elsewhere, (2) a pre-emptive strike on all possible nuclear facilities or (3) the forceful removal of the Mullah regime from Tehran in a regime change operation.
The war game's panel decided that the first two could be carried out independently but that the third would require the success of the first two as preparation. In reality, the second option — a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities — is the one most often discussed.
Any military action by the U.S would likely come as a result of immense pressure from Israel mounted on the most heavily pro-Israel President for decades. Israel is likely pushing for the regime change option. The consequences of such an operation would be a catastrophic conflict liable to engulf the entire region.
The earliest retaliation would probably come in the form of missile attacks on Israel and other U.S. allies within the range of Iranian missiles (1,280 kilometers). Iran might also decide that a bloody defeat for the U.S. is more important than preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state, and begin exerting their significant influence over the majority Shia militias in Iraq to more heavily join the war against U.S. forces. Iran has so far discouraged the Shia communities from becoming involved in the insurgency.
This would mean that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq would drop considerably for the first time, as significant numbers are used in the invasion of Iran. This would coincide with the most dramatic rise of violence against U.S. forces since the Iraq invasion began.
If the Iran invasion did not go according to plan, the subsequently shrinking number of U.S. troops in Iraq could shortly find themselves unable to control the rising violence and be forced into a hasty withdrawal from the Green Zone. Such an outcome would be seen as a defeat and would empower the Jihadis for decades to come.
Article comments
1 - Ariel
No. It will be better to put GROUND FORCES in Iran for the soul purpose of dismantling, destroying, and confiscating whatever sites can't be bombed. You obviously have no fucking idea Mr. Bailey, how dangerous nuclear arms would be in the hands of these Islamic nazis. Inspections are worthless when a country has secret development going on. And, yes, in the sense that this regime calls for genocide (rarely even did Hitler do this explicity), that it is a NAZI like regime. All the fucking apologia in the world doesn't change this fact.
"Wouldn't it be better to allow Iran to continue enriching, and instead apply the current amount of pressure on them to allow IAEA inspectors to roam freely around Iran, to make sure no enriched Uranium is diverted to the covert weapons program which the U.S is so sure exists?"
2 - Alan
Opening Salvos of a greater Middle East War - A war involving the US, Israel, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda...
3 - Zedd
Liam
Perhaps I missed it in your previous entry, why can Iran NOT have nuclear capability?
4 - ProfEssays
I repeat, the only solution to this problem is regular air strikes on Iran.
5 - Daniel
Let me assure you that I will bring Iran to it's knees and lower, I will make them slaves to the world, and I will make them an example of worthlessness among all mindkind.
No one can change this, it is my choice and my choice alone, there is no reason no doubt, I do not answer any whys.
6 - Cyrus the Great
Who the hell are you Daniel? You are worse than any radical muslim. Your heros couldn't take care of 3K Lebanese militia and now you want to confront Iran. You talk like a stupid, spoiled and abused child. I bet you never ever have had a war experience. Otherwise you wouldn't advocate war so much. It seems southern Lebonon war defeat was not enough for you. Let me tell you something, if Israel hasn't attack Iran yet is because her leaders know about grave consequences. They never follow diplomacy or international law. Why the should do it this time. They say we are waiting for diplomacy to work. These are all BS. They were waiting for Arrow anti-ballistic missile system to be operational. But, what a waist. Before full deployment, Iran successfully test fired multiple war head version of S3. Read debka Daniel. Read articles from Uzi Robin. They are scared Daniel. THEY ARE SCARED. You better be scared. There is no winner in a war. Both sides will be loosers.
7 - Xerxes
All this jingoistic "bomb Iran" nonsense is just that. Iran is a defacto nuclear power so get over and move on. The world is not going to end just because Iran decided to opt for nuclear energy. There is no military solution against a 3000 year old civilization with 74 million highly nationalistic people.
8 - Liam Bailey
Hi Xeres and hi everyone:
I am the author of this article, I wrote it what seems like an age ago now (3 years'll do that to you). I have always advocated against any kind of strike on Iran and still do. Xeres put it particularly well however when he said:
The world is not going to end just because Iran decided to opt for nuclear energy. There is no military solution against a 3000 year old civilization with 74 million highly nationalistic people.
Even if Iran gets/does have nuclear weapons capability, it will simply enter the same mutual destruction reciprocity that has prevented all other nuclear powers from unleashing their power on their enemies.
I, like I am sure everyone else, hope that this continues, and say: if we know they are far too destructive to be used; why keep them at all?