Recently President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have given stronger indications that they may launch a “bunker-busting” attack on Iran in order to destroy its nuclear program. Several Neo-Conservative commentators have been urging them to do so, but many people have been warning against such a foolish course of action. Yet other than the vague “Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse” by Chris Hedges, which was posted on October 9, 2007, I could find little detailed information on the likely scenarios that might result if the Bush regime attacked Iran. Obviously war games by the military that examine such questions are kept secret from the public, but those of us who are trying to prevent wars need to consider and inform people what the consequences of various options are likely to be.
If Bush decides to attack Iran, he will either give the Iranian regime an ultimatum, like the one he gave Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2003, or he will launch a surprise attack, like the Japanese did on December 7, 1941. If he is going to give an ultimatum, he may or may not ask for Congressional approval. The greatest danger is that he will attack without warning and then argue afterward that it was required by military necessity.
The invasion of Iraq may be the only major war in which the aggressor actually insisted on disarming the adversary before launching the invasion. Thus Iraq’s military defenses and especially its offensive capabilities were extremely weak. Not only did they not have any weapons of mass destruction or long-range missiles, the United Nations had spent several months searching for them with intrusive inspections.
Likewise the Taliban government in Afghanistan was warned in September 2001 that they must turn over Ossama bin Laden, or they would be bombed. As I recall, they asked the United States to present evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in the wrongdoing, but this request was ignored. Having been abandoned by the Soviet Union and greatly weakened by that war, Afghanistan also had little defense or offensive capabilities against US aggression.
Iran has more than three times as many people as Iraq, an army of 850,000 men, and substantial military capabilities that were not disarmed as Iraq’s were after their long war in the 1980s. As the war in Iraq has proved to be much worse than the war in Afghanistan, a war in Iran is likely to be very much worse than the war in Iraq.
The Iranian government has made it very clear that they are prepared to respond to an American attack with military force. On October 21 it was reported in the Daily Mail that the Revolutionary Guard’s top missile commander, General Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, was quoted on state television as saying, “Enemy bases and positions have been identified.... The Guards ground force will fire 11,000 rockets into identified enemy positions within the first minute of any aggression against the Iranian territory.” This threat makes it more likely that the US would use a surprise attack, and it also increases the chances that the initial barrage will target such Iranian weapons. If the US tried to isolate the nuclear targets with a “surgical” strike, they could not avoid this retaliation. The US would be open to this kind of rapid escalation that could target all US forces in the region, especially those in Iran’s closest neighbors—Iraq, the Gulf states, and Afghanistan. To avoid this the US would have to launch a massive first strike against thousands of targets in Iran. The US also has surface ships in the region that would be sitting ducks. In this age of missiles actual defense against such attacks is extremely difficult and impractical. Thus nations depend on the threat of deterrence and offensive weapons as their “defense.”
Iran could also launch Shahab-3 missiles against Israel, which could also be attacked by local Hezbollah forces at the same time. If Israel suffered major damage, would they be restrained from launching missiles against Iran? Israel is reported to have at least 200 nuclear weapons.
If Iran retaliated against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, would they follow up those attacks with invasions of those countries? Would Turkey take the opportunity to invade northern Iraq to overwhelm their Kurdish enemies. All of this would be extremely ironic because the Bush regime has been arguing that the main excuse for the US not to withdraw its forces from Iraq is to avoid a wider war with neighboring countries.
If the United States launched a catastrophic attack against Iran, this would arouse the entire Muslim world against the US even more. What would happen in Pakistan? Would the Islamic militants rise up and take over the government of the only Islamic nation that has nuclear weapons? If Israel attacked Iran with nuclear weapons, would Pakistan retaliate in kind against Israel? Bush is already talking about World War III. What is on his mind? As with Iraq will he start a war with the insane idea it will prevent a war?
What are the alternatives to this insanity and possible doomsday scenario? Are we to sit around wondering if Bush and Cheney are going to launch another pre-emptive or “preventive” war against a nation that has no weapons of mass destruction but is only feared to be developing them? The politicians who have allowed Bush and Cheney to get away with their war crimes and have refused to pursue impeachment would share some of the responsibility. The people and especially the politicians need to make it clear to Bush and Cheney now that if they attack Iran without Congressional approval, they will be impeached, removed from office, and imprisoned as war criminals for the rest of their lives. The military needs to be notified by the US Congress that they are not to obey any orders to go to war unless it has been authorized by Congress.
The United States has the most powerful arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world and is obligated by Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work toward complete nuclear disarmament. The US would be showing overweening arrogance and blatant hypocrisy to go to war to prevent nuclear proliferation. The answers to these conflicts are not military but diplomatic and political. The United States needs to lead the way toward complete nuclear disarmament. I have written BEST FOR ALL: How We Can Save the World to describe how we can bring about peace and justice in the world through disarmament and democratic processes.
Sanderson Beck was arrested three times and was imprisoned for four months in 2003 for challenging in a trial the illegal invasion of Iraq. He has written many books including the ETHICS OF CIVILIZATION (6 volumes), History of Peace (2 volumes), BEST FOR ALL: How We Can Save the World and the Nonviolent Action Handbook.