Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Time Fights Iran

For those of you waiting for something meaty with details from Time's cover story on "What War with Iran Would Look Like," put the steak knives down. The 3,182-word answer: we're not sure exactly, but it would be really, really hard. Here are some of the choice cuts:

missiles_iran_ali_khamanei_1.jpg

No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air. An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities... some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.

A Pentagon official says that among the known sites there are 1,500 different "aim points," which means the campaign could well require the involvement of almost every type of aircraft in the U.S. arsenal: Stealth bombers and fighters, B-1s and B-2s, as well as F-15s and F-16s operating from land and F-18s from aircraft carriers... An operation of that size would hardly be surgical. Many sites are in highly populated areas, so civilian casualties would be a certainty...

U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days, involving hundreds or even thousands of sorties, could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years... But it is also likely that the U.S. could carry out a massive attack and still leave Iran with some part of its nuclear program intact. It's possible that U.S. warplanes could destroy every known nuclear site — while Tehran's nuclear wizards, operating at other, undiscovered sites even deeper underground, continued their work. "We don't know where it all is," said a White House official, "so we can't get it all...."

No one who has spent any time thinking about an attack on Iran doubts that a U.S. operation would reap a whirlwind... Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner... has been conducting a mock U.S.-Iran war game for American policymakers for the past five years. Virtually every time he runs the game, Gardiner says, a similar nightmare scenario unfolds: the U.S. attack, no matter how successful, spawns a variety of asymmetrical retaliations by Tehran. First comes terrorism: Iran's initial reaction to air strikes might be to authorize a Hizballah attack on Israel, in order to draw Israel into the war and rally public support at home.

Next, Iran might try to foment as much mayhem as possible inside the two nations on its flanks, Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 160,000 U.S. troops hold a tenuous grip on local populations...

Next, there is oil. The Persian Gulf, a traffic jam on good days, would become a parking lot. Iran could plant mines and launch dozens of armed boats into the bottleneck, choking off the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and causing a massive disruption of oil-tanker traffic...

That kind of retaliation could quickly transform a relatively limited U.S. mission in Iran into a much more complicated one involving regime change. An Iran determined to use all its available weapons to counterattack the U.S. and its allies would present a challenge to American prestige that no Commander in Chief would be likely to tolerate for long....

UPDATE 6:59 PM: Is the Bush administration really gearing up for war? Or does the administration want "to make the Iranians think an attack is brewing in order to pressure them into a diplomatic solution?" Fred Kaplan asks.

Latest Comments

Going into war with Iranian will be disastrous for US. Unless the US is willing to take heavy casualty, US better not go into war with Iranians. US must be able to sustain loss of 10% of its aircrafts, 40% or more of its ground troops, long war, high oil prices, and the war could draw intervention of other superpowers like France, Russia, Turkey and China to seize the opportunity and capitalize on US weakness.

I am sure the Iranians do not under estimate the power of the only World Superpower. But what they will do is take the US down with them. This war will be disastrous to the US if they make any simple mistake.

First, mistake US is under estimating the Iranians Power and arm reach to make damage to World oil supply.

Second mistake US is not prepared to fight a dogged in enemy on its ground.

Third mistake Iran is a large country compared to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fourth, US better be prepared for an all open war from Afghanistan to Egypt.

Assuming US takes care of all above and overwhelms its enemies with its firepower that will be first step toward a victory. The hard part will be next step how can the US control this vast region and stabilize it when it is not able to stabilize two small nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Na. Ahm. A. at October 3, 2006 3:31 AM


War with Iran would look like one thing - a bloody *MESS*.

Posted by: Rate Me at September 18, 2006 11:36 PM


The price of oil is getting dangerously low - better ratchet up the rehtoric. If that doesn't work, there is always a fleet of B-52s, B1s, B2s, cruise missiles, etc. to fall back on. That should get the oil prices back up where they belong.

Wondering why Iran wants the bomb? Look at history: we deposed their democratically elected government in 1953 and supported a bloody 8 year war against them with our stooge Hussein. Also look at a map: Iran is surrounded, with US troops in to the west in Iraq, east in Afghanistan, south in Qatar, etc.

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at September 18, 2006 9:52 PM


hey hey! right on, BT!


when will ALL learn that you can make friends and influence people a lot easier with butter instead of bullets?

(and I'm hawk as the rest here)

but pragmatic more than most, perhaps

Posted by: campbell at September 18, 2006 3:22 PM


I think Bush's public strategy in dealing with Iran is at least half right. The mullah's realize that we have built a strong political hand for limited sanctions designed to make the Iranian government's operations more difficult at the margins. Continuing a full court press with the EU and Japan, but without the UNSC looks like it is slowly softening Iran's line on the nuclear issue.

They also know that in terms of responsive military capabilities, we still hold the upper hand. Unfortunately, every time we look at offensive options, the target profiles get larger as the underpinning intelligence looks weaker.

Ironically, the best way to deal with Iran is also the best way to handle Hugo Chavez: Ignore all the posturing and bluster, carefully maintain a responsive military posture and deal with government at the margins on issues of mutual concern. Hopefully cooler heads will eventually prevail and the mullahs will walk back on the nuclear issues. If not, we'll always be ready to make noncompliance with the NPT painful.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be soft on Iran. The hostage crisis in '79 was unforgivable and the mullahs should not be rewarded with improved relations unless they reciprocate. The Bush administration's hard nosed approach just allows them to split our negotiation partners like the Norks did two years ago.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 18, 2006 3:20 PM


» View All 16 Comments

» Post a Comment