We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A broader Middle Eastern war within next few days? The Hezbollah missiles landing on civilians deep within Israel change everything. I would suspect that the Syrians and Iranians who have supplied Hezbollah with the weapons to effectively attack Israel’s cities will soon find Israel’s fury directed against them directly. If we start seeing chemical or even radiological warheads, which are by no means beyond possibility, the Israeli reaction scarecely bears thinking about.
Will the US and UK get dragged in? Well given that Syria and Iran are both also integral to the insurgency against the US and UK in Iraq, it may well be in the interests of the allies to strip away the fiction that these nations are not a key enabler of their woes in Iraq. A wider Middle Eastern war would open all manner of options against the manufacturers and suppliers of the weapons killing US and UK forces. The upside/downside could be considerable. Roll the dice.
Pondering putting your spare cash onto petroleum futures? You had better do it quick.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Pity the USA was so against Suez.
We might have got some of this shit sorted back in the 50’s.
There’s an article in the Washington Post today suggesting that the US government _wants_ a broader war.
That is quite possible and does make considerable military sence. That ability to attack the insurgent bases and supply terminals in Syrian and Iran may well be irresistable.
I suspect there is some midnight oil being burned in Arlington as they put together contingency plans for our guys sitting in the middle in Iraq, just in case the balloon really goes up. Could be dicey if it happens suddenly because carrier groups don’t do warp factors. We would be stuck with a fight at a time and place not of our choosing.
The Persian Gulf could get really ugly… fire enough anti-ship missiles and something will get through. (Remember that Iraq so-sorry incident?). It has been a very long time since the US has lost a ship in combat but in confined waters with the entire eastern coast as hostile territory, it is concievable.
Let us hope this does not suddenly blow up in our faces, courtesy of our friends.
Some of you want a drag out fight right now. I have thus far not heard any of our military guys in Iraq echoing that sentiment.
RAB: A pity, yes……but it was only shortly after WW2 which completely bankrupted the UK and all but destroyed the Empire. This was one of the goals of Franklin D. Roosevelt who hated everything it stood for (sorry, cousins). Prior to the US entering WW2 the major portion of arms, ships etc. the Empire needed was supplied by the US. There are those who still think that this was altruism….it was not. It bought the US time….and every last bullet we received had to be, and was, paid for….I think the last payment was not too many years ago. So, Britain penniless & its Empire disintegrating….a fulfillment of an American dream. The lid of the coffin was nailed down & America assumed the mantle of big brother……………
And then Suez. A last gasp affront to American hegemony, goddamit, the Limies are doing gunboats again. For Chrissakes hammer that last nail in!……And so it was.
Check Belmont Club for some good analysis.
I am curious if anyone is aware of any recent carrier groups moves. That would tell us if there was advance knowledge. If there really is a risk of Iran and Syria in a wider war and the Pentagon knew of it, measures would be quietly taken in preperation.
So, where are the battle groups?
That stuff is not given out in specifics. Generally, our carrier groups tend to loiter in areas where they can rather quickly get within range of any excitement, especially with the air refueling capacity we have quietly salted around the globe.
It seems from the news coverage that Nasrallah is a dead man walking and soon will be dancing with Zarky in hell. Isreal has isolated Hizbullah and the Iranian “advisors” in So. Leb. and tonight I saw a senior Isreali general stating he thought they have detroyed 25% of Hizbullah’s resources. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of guys. Better now than later….
Yallah Isreal!
Here is some good info on the Iranian order of battle:
http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html
Not terribly impressi ve, but there are a couple caveats. They have short supply lines, they could be dangerous if they struck first, and in a longer war they have a mampower pool of some 15M militarily useful warm bodies.
On the other hand, their forces are probably not very well trained; their tanks are old and they can count on their airforce lasting little more than a day or two, and that is assuming they hide.
Still, a half million troops doing a human wave number across the border could be pretty bad until the cavalry arrives.
I really would not place much credence in numbers like “25% of Hizbullah’s resources”. I am sure they have done significant damage, but I seriously doubt they have a clue of exactly how many forces and what capabilities exist in Southern Lebanon. Mossad is good, but not that good.
I still have my doubts about this operation unless someone supports the Lebanese government so that it holds together, can rebuild what has been wrecked and can afford and train a military to deal with border. It is nice words saying they “should follow such and such UN resolution”. I do not, however, hear of anyone jumping up and down waving their hands to help them gain the ability to do so.
I wonder… how well do they get on with the Turks?
I agree, Expat, and also think it was worthwhile. Two Anglo nations with superpower status would never have worked out; we would have eventually come to blows. As it was, probably the only thing that forestalled an Anglo-American war in the 20’s was the Washington Naval Conference.
Being an American, of course I’m biased towards our side assuming that superpower status and Britain shrinking, but I can see the hard feelings on the other side of the coin. I’m just glad it never came to another War of 1812.
permanent expat – this was my point about China in the Islam reformation thread. They may well play that role to a beleaguered US in a decade or so once China has honed its skills defending its “assets” abroad in Africa from a severely hacked off populace.
Iran is run by evil geniuses. I applaud their cleverness, and assuming that their Hezbollah thugs didn’t pull the trigger too, soon…
Well…I’m hoping, really, really, really hoping that Israel isn’t going to bomb Iran anytime soon.
If it turns out that Iran does possess the SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missile, that would represent a real threat to the warships of its opponents.
The Hezbollah rockets are undoubtably a great concern for Israel, causing random death and injury. However, their lack of terminal guidance means that they are not such a serious threat to military installations.
It’s a quite different story in the Persian gulf, where Iran has installed Chinese-made Sunburn anti-ship Mach 2 missiles that are capable of taking out an aircraft carrier. Any direct involvement by Iran either on land (against our forces in Iraq) or in the Gulf (against supply routes and oil tankers) could give the West a most difficult time. Massive escalation would seem inevitable if ever Iran were to get directly involved; let’s hope not.
“Let us hope this does not suddenly blow up in our faces, courtesy of our friends.”
Interesting…but since the rant not really surprising. I guess any american can say the same about England and the Second World War or the Falklands.
——————————————————————-
This will not end without Iranian , Syrian leadership feeling heat. If they get a pass will make another and probably worse later.
But this situation had also a couple of positves until now.
A broad front of Arab countries against Iran.
The isolation of Syria ina Syria-Iran axis.
Israel until now refused to exchange prisioners. In the past the army/ was too vulnerable to parents(former military) pressure an 400 thugs for a 3 soldiers bodies wasnt an uncomon trade rewarding the bad guys.
Correction: Sunburn missile is Russian, not Chinese.
For my interests, the best policy is to take down the Syrian government and occupy the country as soon as possible; build up the Lebanese democracy and make sure it is militarily strong and has a prosperous private sector; isolate but do not attack Iran except perhaps pinpoint strikes on the nuclear facilities, and let nature and the anti-government youth movement take its course.
Apply strategy. Cut off the head. Pacify the lands being used for a proxy war. Defeat the enemy in detail, not in a thoughtless spasm that could go either way, national ego’s not withstanding.
James is correct. If Iran does have Sunburn ASMs then to say things could get messy in the Gulf is putting it mildly.
I thought I’d toss out a few numbers to put the Iranian missile threat into perspective.
The Gulf averages around 125-150 miles across in the area in which our carrier groups would be operating.
The straits of Hormuz are a choke point for entry or exit that is no more than 40 miles wide.
A Mach 2 missile travels about 20 miles a minute; Mach 1 about 10; a subsonic cruise missile perhaps 8.
Carrier groups need a lot of room and deep draft. I suspect they would operate closer to the Western shore to allow a bit more warning, but even so, a Mach 2 missile would cross the center line of the gulf in 3-4 minutes. At the straigts I am guessing there will be somewhat limited shipping channels so a US ship would have less than two minutes from launch to impact.
I do not know if ELINT would give a bit more warning time by detecting pre-launch checkout.
Defenses around a carrier group are impressive; I doubt a lone missile would get through, although if it caught a destroyer on the edges of the envelope, it would be seriously out on a limb.
If they fired a bunch at once, the situation could get very, very dicey with an outcome of us losing a defensive vessel or taking serious damage to a capital ship.
If I were running a carrier group in the Gulf I would be seriously nervous and on high alert right now.
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=5639
The Proxy War
15/07/2006
——————————————————–
Concerning anti-missile defense
It’s doubtfull that there are any reliable Hard-kill defense against mach2 missiles (i cannot remind if Sunburn mach 2 speed is the terminal speed or not)
——————————————————
Dale Amon has a strange stance it was all ok to attack Syria instead of the Democratic hopefull Lebanon Airport. But now is scared of some broad war, strange that.
Did you changed your opinion and forgot to tell us?
Your own words:
“If Israel had gone after Syria, I would have been cheering. Instead israel is simply going after another one of the victims.”
Bill Buckley’s July 14 article in NRO is interesting.
No change in opinion at all. My feelings have been all along that the best strategic approach, as I said above is:
“For my interests, the best policy is to take down the Syrian government and occupy the country as soon as possible; build up the Lebanese democracy and make sure it is militarily strong and has a prosperous private sector; isolate but do not attack Iran except perhaps pinpoint strikes on the nuclear facilities, and let nature and the anti-government youth movement take its course.”
I haven’t ever changed it. Lebanon is just bait. Until someone can show different, I say that Israel is being led by the nose to get rid of a potential democracy, and open the way for a Syrian and Iranian Casus Belli at a time and place of their choosing.
Given the on going situation, I am hoping we can turn the events to our advantage or at least not get our arses burned.
There is a difference between being a cheerleader for war and being a student of it.
Hank: Try & make a better job of it 😉
I’m no historian….and a cursory glance at the outlines of the 1922 conference would suggest that Britain came to it with no specifics, unlike the US & Japan, & was interested in simply protecting its assets, mainly in SE Asia. What became so serious that we could have come to blows? The Anglo-Japanese treaty was simply diplomatic prudence.
PE: I found an old newsmagazine of the era when I was cleaning up our basement when I was a teenager and was very surprised to read the ‘current events’ of that time. It really did sound like the US and UK were very much competing and wondering if it might end up in an incident. Now that might have just been ‘yellow journalism’ of the era. I really do not know.
Surely the Yanks would take out the missile sites by air before going through the Straits of Hormuz in a war with Iran?
If it was a preemptive strike on the part of Iran, they’d be inviting armageddon by taking out a US carrier. Plus, if it was a premptive strike, the missile could quite easily hit a tanker or other civilian vessel by mistake. How do these things work? Heat seeking? Can you pick out a vessel amongst a load of them (the Straits of Hormuz is pretty busy).
The consequences of a Mach-2 missile being lobbed across the Gulf doesn’t bode too well for people like me sat in Dubai. If they miss, it’ll crash straight through the restaurant of the Burj al-Arab. Or perhaps not. But the Gulf Arabs won’t be impressed by a missile being lobbed in their direction, even if it was aimed at a Yankee carrier.
And lucky, nothing would make me happier than to be totally wrong. The cost of being right is rather terrible.
A pre-emptive strike is exactly what I would expect. Iran, like Japan in WWII, knows it hasn’t a chance in hell unless it can change the correlation of forces quickly. That means sealing off the straits, weakening the Navy and knocking out port facilities in the northern gulf to disrupt the supply lines.
They would have to hit suddenly and hard or else they might as well blow up their own forces on day one. The wlid card is Syria… I do not think Assad would willingly go west unless things were going exceedingly well for Iran and he thought he could get in front of the heroic parade. Assad is a viper, not a true believer.
I doubt it would work but they just might think Allah would tip the balance in their favour and that is the danger. It could also play out to be one of the ugliest little wars the US has been in for quite some time. Not a foregone conclusion: Iran could well muck up their plans and just get their clocks cleaned.
btw: I do not know how big a fingerprint ground facilities for these missiles are. I am thinking we would have something more like the Scud hunting problem of Gulf War I.
I have laid out the worst cases because that is what the mlitary must prepare for. There is a rose-tinted glasses best case which some are hoping for and which I hope comes about. That would be:
* behind the scenes the US tells Assad ‘don’t even think it’, thus taking Syrian out of the equation.
* Iran’s leader is actually just pretending to be a religious lunatic and is actually smart enough to know he can’t win.
* Musharrif has things well in hand in Pakistan and avoids assasination.
* The Lebanese government holds together and someone gives them funds and resources to rebuild and helps train a serious sized army which can control the southern border.
* The Hizbollah *are* crazy and instead of going underground they do wage all out war on Israel and get wiped out.
If any one of those (and probably some other conditions I did not think of in the 5 minutes I gave to this) fails to be true, things could turn out very badly.
I heard a long time ago now, and have no idea whether it is true, but the reason that Pearl Harbour was such a suprise is that American military planning, war games, manouvres etc were predicated on fighting Britain, not Japan and Germany, and had been all through the 30’s
RAB: I don’t believe I’ve ever hear that claim, anywhere.
Dale,
I’ve enjoyed your analysis in this thread and find it quite difficult to argue with.
Personally I suspect Mahmoud “Armgeddon” (or whatever he’s called is a religious nutcase but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a shrewd one. I suspect he’s playing a long game. I think the strategy is this – divert attention, shunt blame around (Syria makes a useful patsy), stall the UN, spread discord etc. until he can field a couple of nukes. Then he’s got Iran secured at home to an extent that nobody in their right mind would attack them. Iran is therefore in a position where it can embark on proxy adventures with immunity. Top of the list would be an anschluss with the destablised Shia chunk of Iraq. Then who knows?
Nick: It is also important what direction events actually go. Even if they are on a waiting game, there could be decision points at which they would decide their long term plans were in jeopardy. The ‘use it or lose it’ points. I have no idea what those are for Iran. I hope some of our defense analysts have a better idea, but our track record on that front has been rather abysmal. Our guys in Iraq and the Gulf are almost certainly planning for the worst case scenario, just in case.
You never know. He might wake up with a vision and decide God has told him he will defeat the infidel and go to heaven.
No change in opinion at all. My feelings have been all along that the best strategic approach, as I said above is:
“For my interests, the best policy is to take down the Syrian government and occupy the country as soon as possible; build up the Lebanese democracy and make sure it is militarily strong and has a prosperous private sector; isolate but do not attack Iran except perhaps pinpoint strikes on the nuclear facilities, and let nature and the anti-government youth movement take its course.”
Well it happens that i agree in theory with that. Because the imbalance is the proxy war that always protects Iran and Syria of major pain.
But it just doesnt make sense that you run around blaming a Sunburn hit in a carrier to “our friends” because of Lebanon when you defend even more war.
If you say that Lebanon operation favours Hiz-b-Allah what’s the benefit for Syria or Iran to start a war with US?
Just a little more data. I’ve been perusing depth maps. The Gulf is really shallow. Deepest areas are 90 meters and those are almost on the coast of Iran; most of the area where our ships are operating ate 50-65 meters. The whole Gulf ’tilts’ from shallow on the west and in the north to deepest in the east and south towards the straits on the Iranian coast.
To put this into perspective, if the USS Lincoln sank in 50 meters of water, there would be 50 feet of it still above water! (Keel to mast height is 206 feet, 6 inches).
Well like I said Ahem, I’ve no idea if it is true, but it makes a lot of sense. America has always been isolationist, that’s why they keep turning up late for World Wars.
In the inter war years the British Empire is intact, as is the Navy, still the largest in the World.
America has the second largest fleet. Who do you think they thought they needed all those boats to fight?
The Russians? Nope to busy killing each other in the 30’s. The Germans? Shipbuilding only got underway with Hitler. Japan? Not really. That’s why Pearl Harbour was such a suprise.
The mood of America in the inter war years, and indeed after, was anti Imperial. And as we were the World’s biggest Imperial power, they wished to dismantle our Empire and open it up to their commercial interests.
A lot of Americans, on the outbreak of the 2nd World War, fervently hoped that, Germany and Japan would dismantle it for them. Then they could move on in later.
Did you know that Britain was still paying for Lend/Lease until only a few years ago?
America always plays hardball and looks after it’s own interests. What kind of arm twisting caused us to lose Hawaii again? I forget.
Camouflaged mobile launchers are very hard to find. Also, ‘Sunburn’ is designed to pick out the carrier (or whatever it is told to) amidst whatever targets are available. Recent Russian missiles are not to be under-rated. Some info here.
I don’t see Iran getting too froggy. I don’t think they could committ all their forces to an assault westward.
Afghanistan is a NATO operation, which puts Iran in the position of having to prepare to fight a 2 front war, with the coalition/U.S. having a staging area that they really can’t premptively attack. If Iran did that, they would draw Turkey into the fracas. I seriously doubt they’d want that.
On Suez, years later John Foster Dulles (spelling alert) asked Eden “why did you not go on?”
As far as both he and Ike were concerned attacking Britian and France was a verbal affair (there was no desire for the mission to fail (apart from at the level of Herbert Hoover Jr and a few others).
“Super Mac” took advantage of a run on the Pound (which was only a problem because the government had not gone along with Rab Butler plan to stop trying to rig exchange rates) to undermine Eden.
This is why Harold Macmillan was know (in private) as “first in and first out”.
He was a strong supporter of the Suez attack in cabinet (far stronger than Rab Butler who had doubts) and then turned on Eden at the key time “oh the finances are under terrible strain we can not hold things together without American help………”
Macmillan viewed the whole operation as a way of getting Eden out and defeating Rab Butler for the leadership.
It was him (rather than Americans) who destroyed the operation.
Of course (as Churchill noted) it was Eden who had agreed (as F.S.) to pull British troops out of the canal zone in 1954.
As for 1956 the “senile” Churchill said “I do not know whether I would have put in troops, but I certainly would not have taken them out again”.
Once the operation was launched there was no way out without humilation (thus giving the signal to Arab nationalists all over the Middle East to attack pro Western governments – as they did in Iraq in 1958).
As for America – yes many people were anti Empire (and not all of them were leftist like F.D.R. – Sec of State Hull was anti British Empire and he was no leftist).
However, without America aid in 1940 (more than a year before Pearl) Britian would have had to make peace with Germany.
Nor was the attack on Pearl that much of a suprise.
F.D.R. knew there was going to be an attack someone (although he did not know where) – indeed that was his policy.
F.D.R. was desperate to get the United States into the war.
Germany had refused to declare war (in spite of U.S. warships destroying U. boats and Britain being supplied by the U.S.)
So the policy was to provoke Japan as much as possible (freeze assets, try and cut raw material supplies and so on) in the hopes that war with Japan would drag in Germany (it was Germany that the New Dealers really wanted to fight – even though their economic policy had a few simularities with the National Socialists, although their big spending did not have the effect of getting rid of unemployment because the United States had an independent trade union movement).
Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the United States after Japan attacked (loyalty to an ally and all that).
If he had declared war on Japan (after all Japan had not helped with Russia) he would have really upset F.D.R .
Hitler could have simply could have made a “Yellow Peril” speech and played up the nordic part of the American population. Dishonest of course – but it would have really messed up F.D.R.’s plans.
Hawaii.
President Grover Cleveland (an anti imperialist and the last Democrat President of the old school) hated what Americans had done in Hawaii.
However, public opinion (cleverly manipulated) swept him away.
In 1896 he even lost the struggle for the Democrat nomination for reelection to the office of President.
Not over Hawaii – but over his general refusal to accept the “modern world” (i.e. statism).
Oddly enough the popularist who beat Cleveland was later famous for opposing the theory of evolution in the 1920’s.
Very “modern”.
John_R,
I’m not so sure Turkey would be so keen to rush in.
With any attack on Iran or Syria it is highly likely that the Kurdish regions in both those countries would size the chance to join with their Turkish and Iraqi counterparts and attempt to realize their dream of an independant Kurdistan.
The US is already in a very awkward position vis-a-vis the Kurds since the PKK has stepped up operations in Turkey and is using the Kurdish area of Iraq as a base of operations. Because of the security situation in Iraq we are turning somewhat of a blind eye to this.
Clearly this scenario will undermine progress in Iraq as well.
What can be said without any real debate is that each country in the region has not a contiguous state with a clear national identity. Iran is, ironically, the one state that actually does have a Persian identity going back a long way with the Azeri and Kurds only recently added. The rest are arbitrary lines on a map with countries assembled from parts after WW1 and WW2.
It is my considered opinion that any wider regional conflict will result in something akin to the Balkans where old identities will re-assert themselves.
In the longer term this is probably a good thing as national identity tends to act as a glue that holds a country together.
In the short term (an by short I mean a generation or two, not a year or two) it will be bloody, violent and I really don’t even want to think what will happen to the cost of oil and our economy.
Earl.
Thanks Paul, massively informative as usual.
Trouble is you didn’t answer the questions I popped up for- well a pop at.
Did America contemplate being at war with the British Empire again, in the 20’s and 30’s, Like it made nuclear contingency for in the Cold war period, or didn’t they?
If not. Why not?
Second Hawaii. They used to be called the Sandwich Islands. Had Britain hung on to them, they could now, with cheap flights, be Britain’s Benidorm (lucky break there, eh Hawaiians? just the loud shirts and the ukelelies to worry about!).
So how did America pinch it? As the Condor flies, it’s closer to Mexico.
“Did America contemplate being at war with the British Empire again, in the 20’s and 30’s, Like it ”
Yes it did it was War Plan White or Rose i am not reminding the precise name. War against Japan was War Plan Orange. There is a sim game that branched from War in Pacific game called precisely War plan Orange essentially a battleship naval war.
—————————————————
There is too many chances that a Sunburn system would be detected too late. I just dont understand why Iran would turn a war that in words of Dale Amon they are wining in Lebanon in a war for Iranian regime survival.
What is the Israeli response to use af WMD against them? Is it the same as the USA’s, i.e. nuclear, or a measured like-for-like response?
For what its worth…
http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war_nerd.html
Also for whats its worth the old computer game Harpoon 3 had a lot of Hormuz scenarios, and its supposed to be about as accurate as a naval combat simulation gets. And its bad news for any carriers in there.
Well being a so tiny country i suspect they will dont indulge in trading WMDs a piece.
“take down the Syrian government and occupy the country as soon as possible; …. isolate but do not attack Iran except perhaps pinpoint strikes on the nuclear facilities”
Dale, you beleive that this can be done without Iran going all out against everyone ? (Especially the “pinpoint strikes”) ?
And you all forget the hundresds or thousands of land-land missiles Iran and Syria posses. Those are going to be fired against all targets, Israel first, then US Iraq and Kuwait bases, and also, possibly, Saudi and Gulf oil fields.
No, you don’t mess around with Iran unless you plan and prepare carefully a massive, but really massive mortal first blow followed by very intesive high density bombing for some weeks. A major logistic effort.
No, a war with Iran won’t start in a hapazard and casual manner, not if the responsible people have an ounce of brains in their head.
Regarding Sunburn, I remember reading that in the mid 90s, the Yanks were on the brink of purchasing several Sunburn ASMs, but they inexplicably pulled the pin at the last minute. Perhaps it was Pentagon bungling. Perhaps they got the data they needed from *ahem* other sources. If not, there’s a possibility the missiles have been acquired since.
The Sunburn threat is moderately well-known, and I’m sure US military planners are more informed regarding its capacities than amateurs like myself. The Sunburn is perhaps the deadliest ASM available. Is it realistic to expect that, after all this time, the Americans haven’t developed specific countermeasures to diminish the threat it poses?
It’s a numbers game. Countermeasures on a battle field are ways of tipping the probabilities of loss of material in your favour. The Gulf is not a healthy place for carrier groups if Iran goes hostile.
The northern border of Iran is probably not that much of a worry for them. It is mountainous and along with the Pakistan border area contains some of the worst of the remaining enemy. The idea that NATO would take part in a major blow up seems… unlikely.
EIther Hizbullah is run from Iran or it is isn’t. If it is, then there is a reason for them baiting Israel at this particular time. If they are not an Iranian run client, then there could be less here than meets the eye. My assumption is that they are a proxy, and that implies reason to the madness. So what is Iran’s next move then? Are they just going to expend a valuable tool with little or nothing to show for it?
It is wondering about the answer that makes me start worrying about the downsides. What comes next. That is the question.
I must say, I’m completely at a loss to run the scenarios to produce a solution which doesn’t come out badly for Iran.
Three weeks ago, Iran had a) British soldiers effectively hostage in Basra; b) a winning position in the Baghdad war of militias; c) Israel held hostage by Hezbollah’s missiles in Lebanon and d) a nuclear programme.
Now they’re not only in the process of losing c), they’ve also lost the support of every Arab nation excluding Syria. But Syria’s presidential palace is being buzzed by Israeli fighters, so I think we can expect that after Hezbollah are dealt with, Syria’s part of the Iran/Syria axis is going to look very wobbly. And, oh yes, you’ve got a very angry (and non-hostaged) Israel reading out all those documents in Iranian they’re likely to capture; and you’ve got the US navy in the back yard. In short, you’ve got a situation where there’s plenty of incentive to take out Iran’s nuclear plans, and no neighbour in any position to squeak.
Which brings us to the question. Given that they’ve overplayed a strong hand and turned it into a cast-iron loser, we’re about to discover whether Ahmadinajad really is a loony or not. Because his best bet now would be to invade S Iraq quick, and take the plaudits. And even this window of opportunity is closing fast.
PS. Notice what the markets think: Dow opened up, dollar was strong and oil futures were down. . .
Yeah, I’m curious as to why Hezbollah is making their move *now* as well. It’s possible that Hezbollah is jumping the gun…proxy militants are notoriously hard to control. It certainly seems that Iran isn’t ready to capitalize on any of its current advantages.
However, that said…if Israel does get Iran into a war, it’ll be the US (and to some extent the UK) that bears the brunt of the retaliation by Iran.
Iran can do a heck of a lot of economic damage…to the point where 3rd party pressure might get the US/UK to back down.
Furthermore, I’m sure they have CNN, there in Iran. They know how divided the US and UK are over the occupation of Iraq. Retaliation by Iran will likely be seen here as just desserts for intervening in Iraq. On top of that, when casualties start mounting, there’s no denying that they have more of a stomach for it than does the US (at least). That goes *both* ways. Americans don’t want to see the 3,000 dead suddenly climb to 5,000 or 10,000 and they also don’t want to see TV images of hundreds or thousands of Iranian babies dismembered by US airstrikes.
If they play their cards well, they could get the US/UK out of Iraq. Effectively control the SE Iraq oil resources and the shipping lanes/terminals. Destabilize the relatively pro-West Lebanese gov’t and use Lebanon to harass Israel in more severe ways….*and* get their nukes.
Again…their evil geniuses.
I think it would be an extremely brave man who goes short on oil right now.
I’ve spent a half hour on the phone with a friend who is no slouch on the area and a number of interesting points came up. He had a possible answer to my ‘Why?’ question. He thinks Iran may have expended its client against Israel to direct world attention away from its nuke program for awhile. That makes some sense. We all know that the Gulf gets really nasty with nukes on one side. This is something the Emirates and Saudi’s would not appreciate at all.
The other issue we were undecided on. He thinks we pulled all the carrier groups out into the Indian Ocean after the invasion. I thought we still had one in the gulf but as I have no spies on the shore I really could be wrong and that would be a very, very good thing to be wrong about.
Neigther of us has a good answer to the question of exactly who will pick up the tab to build up the Lebanese Army, a necessary prerequisite to making the Israeli actions successful in the long run as well as the very short run.
He thinks the Syrian government might fall; the question to both of us would be who would take over if they do.
So, perhaps we have a case where Iran had its proxy bait the Israeli’s into attacking and is using them just to misdirect attention from its nukes.
They may have badly miscalculated if that is the case.
Guys, I think it is important to realise that whilst there is considerable potential upside to expanding where this war is being fought, the potential downside is considerable as well.
1. The possibility that Iran may conclude that as war in unavoidable, it might as well strike first… leading to a salvo of Sunburn missiles sinking several US/UK warships in the Gulf. This might not change the end result (as clearly Iran cannot ‘win’ a war against the USA) but do not think Iran cannot draw significent blood.
2. The inevitable severe disruption to the world’s oil supplies.
A wider war may even prove to be (in the long run) what does end up defeating both fundimentalist Islam in Iran (and perhaps elsewhere) and end Syrian Ba’athism, but do not expect it to be another ‘videogame war’. It is going to get messy and painful.
I got out of the USN in 2000, and at that time they were transitioning to a new defense system to replace the CIWS (truly an awesome thing to watch) they had at the time. I wouldn’t be surprised if either system could handle the Sunburn.
US bought some training Kh-31 but i remain very suspicious of any efficient hard-kill system against terminal Mach2 missiles. I dont think they are a big problem in Ormuz if the attack isnt a surprise attack.
The Israeli government has already issued an ultimatum to Assad.
It should run out tomorrow …
That is something I find helpful. Take Assad down and it helps the broader situation.
“Did America contemplate being at war with the British Empire again, in the 20’s and 30’s, Like it ”
“Yes it did it was War Plan White or Rose i am not reminding the precise name.”
——————————————————————
It was War Plan Red, and included plans against the British (Red), Canadians (Crimson), and Australians (Scarlett). It was kept fairly updated through the 30’s, although the best developed plan remained Orange against the Japanese. For some reason, the US liked this “Rainbow” series of names for plans against potential enemies. When War Plan Red was declassified in the 70’s, it made a few of our friends to the North a little uneasy to know we’d drawn up invasion plans in the event of hostilities.
On another note, missile systems like the Sunburn are exactly why the Aegis-class cruisers were developed. Any carrier group transiting through Hormuz will have all of its Aegis radars fired up and pointed towards the Iranian coast. Plus F-14s in the air to lend their weight.
Not that this is any guarantee– the Sunburn has a nasty reputation.
On the subject of CIWS defences, does anyone know if the US has actually deployed the RIM-116 missile? Is that what Winzeler is referring to above?
I think a major danger in general is just how many diplomatic and military balls the US and allies now have to keep in the air at once. This will only form a vicious circle with more and more bad guys coming out of the woodwork and trying to enact their evil schemes while the eyes of the great and little Satan’s are elsewhere.
Thanks for the correction The Quiet American
“Thanks for the correction The Quiet American”
I live only to serve 🙂
I will now retreat back into the shadows and resume my status as a discreet and frequent lurker on Samizdata.
The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap
– Isaiah 17:1
Well, he was a prophet, wasn’t he?
You have that the wrong way around… Sunburn was designed as an Aegis-killer!
Second Old Jack Tar on that one. And also “Quiet American” – the F-14 has been retired:
http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/news/
Old Jack Tar,
Ah, quite right. Sunburn is supposed to be the answer to the Aegis, which is why the Chinese have been so keen on them. I stand by my statement that systems *like* Sunburn are the reason Aegis was developed in the first place; Sunburn is the latest version in a long line of missiles designed to sink US carriers. I am obviously biased, but I think that the Aegis has been sufficiently upgraded with Sunburn in mind. *
*I sure wouldn’t want to eat my words, so here’s to tranquility in the Straits of Hormuz and Taiwan!
Re: F-14
Gack, the outside world goes by too fast while I’m in law school! I knew that the last Tomcat class had graduated, but originally it was supposed to remain in service for a couple more years. I guess they decided to speed things up. My mistake!
What a shame, I’ll miss it.
In an open sea, I do not think the USN has much to worry about regarding Sunburn because rather than killing the missiles, the USN can usually kill the missile’s launch platform before it can get a solution, be it an aircraft, sub or surface ship.
In a pond like the Gulf however that’s a moot point because the launch platform is the back of a truck in Iran and you cannot sink Iran. Odds are (strongly) that a land based launcher will engage before it can be detected, and the number of possible attack envelopes are huge, greatly complicating things for the ship.
Also Aegis is really not an optimal system for such a fast moving and discriminating system like Moskit (Sunburn) or even worse, Yaknot. In my view until we have high energy laser point defence system deployed or maybe one of the railgun systems they have been trying to perfect, there really is no prospect for an “optimal” counter to the current first rate supersonic anti-ship missiles.
I am a few years out of “current” but from what I know the threat is very real.
Yes, the CIWS replacement is on all the newest cruisers and destroyers (as of 1998 or so). Having personally watched the Aegis system in action, I’d feel safer if shtf on a destroyer 20 miles off the coast of Iran than I would here in rural Michigan. Just to clarify though CIWS and its replacement are in place in case Aegis fails to stop a threat -one of those redundancy things that probably isn’t necessary. And another thing, 2-3 minutes it would take one of these missiles to reach a US naval ship is an eternity, especially when the crew is on high alert (at General Quarters, formerly called “battlestations,” 3 minutes would be 2 minutes and 55 seconds more than a DDG or CG would need to respond).
Thank you for confirming one of my “shit did I dream that, or is it real!” moments, Quiet American.
Feel free to come out of the shadows and shout a little!!
It’s a good thing Kofi and Tony thought about sending Blue Helmets to the border. Oh wait, they are already there!
I did a search and found a photo I remember hearing about several years ago
taken by Gen. Paul Vallely who was (and still is?) a Fox News military analyst:
http://www.ojlubke.com/pixservallelyinisrael.html
Image #5: Israel-Lebanon Border UN and Hezbollah flags.
July 2002
It’s not the best photo 🙁
I guess they are too busy having fun with the local children 😉
Winezler, right you are, Sea-RAM is in place:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-30-2000/0001230697&EDATE=
and not just in the USN, but also Germany, South Korea and Greece.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=910473&TICK=RTNB12&STORY=/www/story/08-04-2004/0002225008&EDATE=Aug+4,+2004
We are all assuming that the US would want to put a carrier group in the Gulf in a war with Iran….I’m not so sure now. There is no way out of the Gulf, and nowhere where they could anchor out of range of land based Iranian missiles. They’d be sitting ducks unable to withdraw. They’d probably be better off sitting off Iran’s southern coast out of range of the Sunburns. If there is a carrier in the Gulf now, it might be time to get it out while they still can.
I think a lot depends on whether there is a war on or not if and when the carrier group heads up the Persian Gulf. Assuming the US is at war with Iran when they decide to go through the Straits of Hormuz, the Yanks would probably put ground troops on the Iranian side backed up by air support and armour and an eff-off Korean War battleship (are any still in service?) some 150 miles away, and hold the Straits open long enough to let the carriers in. This might be achievable, as it is in a remote corner of Iran and sits nicely beside an unstable Baluchistan over which the Iranian government’s control is weak. I can’t see the Yanks just waltzing up the Gulf when at war with Iran without taking care of any shore-based threat in advance.
And I’m not so sure about a premptive strike on a US carrier. They could replace it easily enough, and it would provide the Americans with a cast-iron excuse for total war against Iran – possibly backed up by a good few allies. They’d certainly have strong political support at home, and maybe in the UN. The Iranians may appear daft, but I don’t think they are that daft.
I could be wrong about this, but I believe it has not been conclusively verified that Iran possesses Sunburn missiles.
Re. a pre-emptive Iranian strike on a carrier group; if the Iranians pre-emptively attacked and sank a carrier, a limited nuclear strike against Tehran would not be out the question.
According to this
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
The current CVN in the Persian Gulf is Enterprise. Supposedly arrived there about 4 days ago.
Re. a pre-emptive Iranian strike on a carrier group; if the Iranians pre-emptively attacked and sank a carrier, a limited nuclear strike against Tehran would not be out the question.
IMO, the US would only go nuclear on Iran if the US believed the Iranians had working nukes.
Trying to sink a CVN is generally taken to mean the government who did it wants to be bombed, trying to sink a CVN and succeeding is like putting signs along your coast that say ‘INVADE ME’.
Tim Newman,
No the last of the Ohio class ships are being turned into museums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class
Which is a shame.
If the Iranians sank a CVN and the US nuked Tehran it would look like the biggest case of sour grapes in the history of warfare – the underdog takes out a purely military target and gets its capital city nuked in response…
I too have seen an Aegis system in action and very impressive it is. But after a few back-of-the-envelope calculations, my preference (strongly) is for rural Michigan. The current crop of misiles pose a threat an order of magnitute greater than the Exocet/Harpoon generation and Aegis is not an order of magnitute more effective than it was 10 years ago.
Of course I meant Iowa class Duh!
Nick M – I was thinking more along the lines of decapitating tactical nuclear strike.
The loss of a modern nuclear powered supercarrier would call for a particularly heavy response, especially if the strike that sunk the ship was pre-emptive.
I don’t think a nuclear strike in such circumstances is out of the question.
I do. A “decapitating tactical nuclear strike” of what, exactly? What is going to be decapitated? The military leadership is going to be both dispersed and (most importantly) redundant. Likewise the political leadership in Iran, unlike Iraq, is not centred on one man but on a theocratic class. You cannot “decapitate” a political class. The legend of the hydra comes to mind.
What possible outcome would a nuclear strike produce that a conventional strike could not? Losing a carrier is a conventional tactical matter and you cannot counter truck launched anti-ship missiles with nuclear weapons.
Using a nuclear weapon when it offers no advantage over a conventional one, and brings incalculable political loss to the user, would be the very pinnacle of irresponsibility and unsound military judgement.
I’ve been bloviating at my place about why I think this isn’t going to go regional — there’s more expertise here than I possess, by a long shot, but I think it overlooks Syria’s actual situation. The short version would be:
1. HA’s total unpreparedness for Israeli action argues to me that this was a low-to-mid-level operative who went freelance and is currently being flogged with concertina wire on the hour.
2. Israel obviously must go into the Bekaa Valley, as status quo ante would be a complete political defeat.
3. Syria will blink: the regime cannot sustain the losses it would incur against Israel, particularly in armor assets, and still maintain control of the country.
4. Likely, Israel will help Syria blink, and encourage S to sell HA down the river as soon as they’re so battered as to be no longer useful as a proxy.
Sorry Rab.
Yes there were plans (on both sides) for what would happen in the case of war between Britian and the United States in the 1920 (the British assessment was that they could do a great deal of damage to the United States in the short term, but would then lose a longer term war due to America’s greater economic strength) – however this was not serious “we are going to war” stuff, it was “what if” stuff.
More serious was U.S. insistance that Britain break with Japan (the Washington navy treaty was a caluculated insult to Japan), and the British choice not to prepare for war with Japan in the future.
The Royal Navy said they could not fight Germany and Japan at the same time in some future war, but (in spite of this) no serious effort was made to strengthen Imperial defences in the far east.
For example, Churchil was Chancellor when the choice was made not to really fortify the Singapore area (for example secure its sources of water from ground attack) – which makes his claim not to have known how weak Singapore’s defences were look rather odd.
As for Hawaii – the United States government supported the independence of the Kingdom (hence it was not in favour of British rule), but elements in the government (and more importantly private Americans on the ground) wanted U.S. rule.
Basically there was an uprising by American planter interests (against the wishes of President Cleveland).
However, in the 1950’s there was a vote on whether Hawaii wanted to be a State and the result (if memory serves) was over 90% in favour.
Interesting if one remembers that most people in Hawaii are of Japanese decent.
Thanks Paul, No need to apologise.
Perminant Expat taught me that.
The one thing you said that takes me by suprise
is the Japanese make up of the Islands.
Most? I thought they were Polenesians from Fiji way.Like the Kiwis etc.
Does anyone else remember the comedian Murray Roman? On the subject of Japanese internment after 41?
Wheres Kishiburo? fuck man I cant water !! What have they done with my gardener!!!
Basically there was an uprising by American planter interests (against the wishes of President Cleveland).
Kind of. The version of the story that I heard was that it was due to the sugar tariff that protects midwestern beet farmers from competition from carribean sugarcane growers.
The planters in hawaii realized that their product was going to be taxed out of the market, and came up with statehood as a way of dodging the tax- there are no tariffs between US states.
Interesting if one remembers that most people in Hawaii are of Japanese decent.
I seriously doubt that. People of asian descent may be the single largest ethnic group, but those of specifically japanese descent would be a subset of that- I don’t think any particular group is over 50%.