Tension in the Persian Gulf


Irreplaceable Intelligencer
A war with Iran would be the mother of all quagmires - Washington Post

During last week’s war scare with Iran — as the administration leaked discussions to deploy 120,000 troops to fight Iran, and leaked intelligence claiming that Iran was placing missiles on small boats to attack U.S. warships — it sounded to a lot of people like Iraq redux. President Trump temporarily ratcheted down tensions before raising them again with a Sunday tweet: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”

Trump’s supporters sound just as pugnacious. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) warned that “Attack= decisive response,” and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said that “if Iran struck out militarily against the United States or against our allies in the region, then I would certainly expect a devastating response against Iran.” John Bolton, the national security adviser, didn’t comment in public — he prefers to spin his plots in secret — but he hasn’t disavowed his 2015 New York Times op-ed: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

This tough-guy bluster is disconnected from reality. I’ve spent the past week studying Iranian capabilities, and I don’t see any military option that would qualify as decisive or low-cost. Instead, what I see is the mother of all quagmires: a conflict that would make the Iraq War — which I now deeply regret supporting — seem like a “cakewalk” by comparison.

The United States could, of course, bomb Iran — though it wouldn’t be as low-risk as bombing Iraq in 2003. Iran has the most advanced air-defense network that U.S. aircraft have ever faced — the Russian-made S-300. The U.S. Air Force and Navy could no doubt prevail, but it would not be easy and could result in greater loss of pilots and aircraft than we have become accustomed to.

Eventually, after Iran’s air defenses have been neutralized, the United States would be able to pound Iran’s military and economic infrastructure. But to what end? In 2012, a group of former diplomats and generals estimated that U.S. airstrikes would set back Iran’s nuclear program “for up to four years.” The nuclear deal did far better: It imposed limits on Iran’s nuclear program for 15 years and resulted in the elimination of 97 percent of Iran’s fissile material. If the U.S. goal is to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it would reenter the nuclear deal rather than bomb Iran.

But the Trump administration has laid out a more ambitious agenda. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded that Iran stop its missile development, stop threatening U.S. allies, and stop its support for proxy groups across the region. It is difficult to see how bombing alone could compel Iranian compliance. The United States bombed North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos for years, dropping three times more bombs than all countries did during World War II, and still lost the Vietnam War. Air attacks are usually decisive only when combined with ground attacks.

Unfortunately, the United States lacks a realistic ground option in Iran, which is much bigger than Iraq in both area and population. (Iran has 83 million people and 617,000 square miles; Iraq in 2003 had about 30 million people and about 170,000 square miles.) Counterinsurgency math — premised on 20 troops per 1,000 inhabitants — suggests that the United States and its allies needed some 600,000 troops in Iraq. (There were never more than 180,000.) By that math, to control Iran, you would need more than 1.6 million troops. That’s more than double the active-duty end-strength (656,403) of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps combined, and few if any U.S. allies would help. You could probably topple the Iranian government with a lot fewer troops. But if you leave immediately afterward, as Bolton favored doing in Iraq, the result could be either Libya-style chaos or the emergence of a new anti-American regime.

Even if you don’t put a single U.S. boot on the ground and stick simply to airstrikes, the war would not be an antiseptic, push-button exercise for the United States. A 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments outlined how Iran could hit back with “asymmetric” tactics.

Iran could employ a combination of antiship cruise missiles, drones, submarines, small boats and mines to “swarm” U.S. naval ships in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf. It could target U.S. bases in the region with its arsenal of some 2,000 missiles. It could cripple U.S. computer networks with cyberattacks. It could employ Hezbollah and other groups to stage terrorist attacks abroad. It could send local militias armed with missiles and car bombs to attack the 19,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. It could tell the Houthis in Yemen to unleash a missile barrage against Saudi Arabia and it could order Hezbollah to fire 150,000 rockets and missiles at Israel.

In response, the United States would do . . . what? Fire a few more cruise missiles, drop a few more bombs? It’s hard to imagine that even Trump would unleash a nuclear holocaust to literally “end” Iran.

“Tell me how this ends,” Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The George W. Bush administration had no clue. Likewise, the Iran hawks today, in and out of the Trump administration, have no idea how a war with that country would end. Better, in that case, not to risk starting one.

Hmm...Realists may think that might is right, but war is an outdated mode of solving disputes in today's changing world.
Clearly Iran needs a nuclear program in a hurry, lets be honest Trump is only rattling the sabre to massage his ego and Iran happens to be the largest country he can threaten with no threat to himself and he like most politicians couldn't care less how many Iranians or Americans he has to kill to massage that ego.

I guess the alternative is for Iran to open up the possibility of a couple of Russian or Chinese bases in Iran much like Syria and Venezuela have for all the bluster and bravado the Yanks won't go head to head with a country that can hit Washington.
Last edited:
This video made more sense to me on renewed tensions in the Middle East.


I generally agree with her, however, I am not sure I agree with her conclusion that basically Iran just needs to suck it up as that isn't the "middle-eastern" way of dealing with things.
Sure it is probably the smarter "long game" strategy but they run the risk of looking weak within the region and more importantly at home.

The problem for Iran is finding a retaliatory option that is precise enough to not annoy the world while strong enough to satisfy the home market, to my mind the best target would be Saudi Arabia, if for example they took out a crown prince I couldnt see much fall out for them, after the Khashoggi incident they may even become popular.

In the immediate term I would suggest offering the Russians and/or China a few military bases on the Persian Gulf and the contract to build and run a couple of nuclear power plants would secure its borders nicely.
Don't know if it was good to sum up with 120,000 if it can work it goes but don't want the US to double increase with Allied Canada comes with Canada's troops out of reserve and join military attack in Iran but there may be wars that the United States counted at least 120,000 troops.
Don't know if it was good to sum up with 120,000 if it can work it goes but don't want the US to double increase with Allied Canada comes with Canada's troops out of reserve and join military attack in Iran but there may be wars that the United States counted at least 120,000 troops.

After the Iraq debacle I doubt the US could find any allied of significant value to join it in Iran, at best it would be going to war with Australia, Georgia and Micronesia backing it up as I am relatively sure Britain, Canada, Europe aren't silly enough to get involved while China and Russia will be on the other side.