Yves here. As most of you know by now, Trump continues to TACO in response to the Israeli demand that he Do Something Kinetic with respect to Iran. As John Mearsheimer lays out in a new talk on Judge Napolitano, the Israelis had believed there own PR about how invincible their Iron Dome air defense system was. They learned much to their chagrin that Iran was quickly able to deplete it, mainly using older missiles and drone, and then started firing more potent weapons. Hence the new demand that Iran get rid of long and intermediate range missiles, among the other US-Israel wish list items.
As many commentators have pointed out, there is no way Iran can accept the US and Israel requirement; they amount to a surrender of sovereignity. But despite Trump putting off action in favor of continuing talks, there is no sign that the US has any intention of relaxing its demands. However, the US is still upping its threat display by sending a second aircraft carrier with even more destroyers in the entourage than the one now stationed nearby.
In light of the continuing impasse, the post below by Paul Rogers is a zeitgeist watch of sorts. As much as Rogers addresses important topics and offers some sound observations, his pieces are often marred by an over-reliance on dubious mainstream thinking. Here he argues that Iran is more potent militarily than many assume, using its drones to illustrate his point.
Admittedly, Rogers provides only a high level treatment; Larry Johnson goes into ample detail in his new post, focusing on limits to US capabilities. For instance:
In order to fly deeper into Iran the F-35As will need to be refueled somewhere over Iraq. That creates another major threat… The Chinese reportedly have supplied Iran with a 3-D radar that has a range of 420 miles (aka 700 kms). If Russia has supplied Iran with S-400 air defense missiles, which have an effective range of 240 miles, then the Iranians will have the ability to engage the US aircraft well before one enters Iranian air space.
I close with an even bigger question… If the US military, with two aircraft carriers, four destroyers and one cruiser could not destroy the missile capability of the Houthis, why do the Generals in the Department of War think they can wipe out Iran’s missile capability with a smaller force?
Now to the main event.
By Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies in the Department of Peace Studies and International Relations at Bradford University, and an Honorary Fellow at the Joint Service Command and Staff College. He is openDemocracy’s international security correspondent. He is on Twitter at: @ProfPRogers. Originally published at openDemocracy
Are the US and Iran headed for all-out war? Binyamin Netanyahu is undoubtedly hoping so. With a general election looming this year, the Israeli prime minister certainly believes it is vital to convince Donald Trump that the US should force Iran to cease its nuclear programme entirely and stop developing and deploying ballistic missiles that can reach Israel.
Having confirmed he will seek re-election, achieving these aims would give Netanyahu a much greater chance of presenting himself as a victorious leader, regardless of the suffering inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
To that end, Netanyahu visited Washington this week to join Trump’s Board of Peace, the newly created US mechanism to settle the war in Gaza. He was not due to travel to the US until the board’s first official full meeting next week, but his trip was unexpectedly brought forward due to the US/Iranian negotiations over the latter’s nuclear weapons programme, with the next round of talks likely to take place next week.
In the event, the Israeli PM left the White House disappointed; his meeting with Trump lasted only three hours, and the outcome was inconclusive. Netanyahu was expected to push for a more forceful intervention by the US military, but seemingly failed to get his way, with Trump later saying that talks with Iran would continue.
Tensions over Iran’s plans have been rising for more than a month, while the US has been steadily increasing the size of its military forces in the Middle East. These normally involve around 30,000 military personnel, mainly units in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, but also including Syria and Iraq, as well as forces permanently based in Israel.
Last month, the Pentagon announced it was moving an aircraft carrier strike group from the Philippines to the Middle East, and it has now ordered a second to move to the region, likely from the US East Coast, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal this week.
Trump this week repeated his threat to send a second carrier strike group to the region, while other reports suggest that more US F-35 strike aircraft are being moved to bases within range of Iran, with six aircraft having flown to the Middle East from the UK’s RAF Lakenheath earlier this week.
Despite this increased US readiness and Netanyahu’s hopes, getting Iran to give up on its ballistic missile programme is frankly unlikely. While there are indications that Iran’s economic problems, together with the mass protests last month, mean the theocratic leadership would like to see an easing of sanctions and avoid war, its willingness to respond only goes so far.
A revised nuclear inspection regime with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Authority may be the best the US and Israel can hope for. Not least because Trump’s claim last summer that the US attack on Iran’s underground nuclear projects had wrecked its whole nuclear programme was a gross overstatement; it likely set the programme back months, not years.
This is where Netanyahu’s problems start. Trump may point to huge forces being massed in the region, and analysts will certainly point to the immense power that the US and Israeli forces would have if they decided to launch a combined assault. Iran could be pummelled by air, drone and missile attacks stretching over weeks if not months, but Iran has at least two strengths of its own.
One is obvious: if Tehran is facing such an assault, then its ‘Samson Option’ response would be sustained paramilitary and drone attacks on oil and gas production and export plants, including the closure of the crucial Strait of Hormuz shipping channel. The global impact could be massive – on a par with the 1973/4 oil price surge that did much to usher in the global neoliberal era.
That is an extreme move, but there is a political halfway house that is less widely recognised. One of Iran’s few strengths lies in its development and production of low-cost short-range armed drones, of which it has produced thousands and sold many to Russia to be used in Ukraine to devastating effect.
The key factor here is that most such drones do not have the range to reach Israel, but could certainly cross the much shorter distance of a couple of hundred kilometres over the Gulf to the many US military facilities in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and elsewhere.
Given the determination of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, it is well-nigh certain that it already has scores of stocks of appropriate munitions hidden across the country and ready to use for this purpose. It will also have established a robust capability to manufacture armed drones in time of war at numerous small factories and workshops in towns and cities throughout the country.
The US military will, of course, be ready for this and will no doubt succeed in destroying the great majority of the attacking drones, just as Ukrainian air defences are stopping many Russian attacks. But that misses the point of this being a political rather than military tactic.
If Iran is facing a bitter war of attrition, then all it has to do in return is kill just a few US soldiers. The war itself will likely cause a global economic downturn that will be damaging enough to Trump, but losing young American lives in a foreign war instigated by Trump himself would be little short of a political disaster.
What may really be at issue is whether an overconfident White House, egged on by a hubris-laden Pentagon, an insistent Netanyahu and the ever-present arms corporations, may ignore whatever wise advice there may still be found in the crevices of the Capitol and take the war option anyway. Perhaps good sense will prevail, but given Trump’s past record and his sheer unpredictable character, don’t count on it.
29 comments
Comments are closed.
It’s indeed likely that Iran has a few aces up their sleeve. In the June war, they were caught somewhat off guard, and as a result some top guys died. But often in wars, you learn more from mistakes than from successes. I think they will be well prepared. And as pointed out, perhaps with some new Russian and Chinese toys.
I also think that the riots have actually helped Iran, because some of the foreign agents (and their methods) will have been exposed.
It will be very interesting to watch. The war (if it happens) has two asymmetries: of course militarily very much in favour of US/Israel but politically very much in favour of Iran, that fights an existential war, and US that will be very averse to loss of life of their own soldiers, as the article points out. Not to mention economic damage. Trump needs to win elections. Iran will suffer too economically, but they are already in economic crisis and if US/Israel attacks, they can with justification blame them.
Politically, Trump cannot win. If he is smart, he will find an off-ramp: go back to a slightly modified (face saving) Obama deal and declare victory. But he looks like a fool now, having sent another carrier. That makes it more difficult to off ramp without major Iranian concessions, which he is unlikely to get.
It looks to me that the instigators of the riots etc were so convinced that the result would be regime change that they didn’t mind blowing the human and equipment resources.
This naval posturing is either a poor Plan B, or a very clever misdirection. USA/Israel does like assassinating key players.
The only way this favors the US/Israel militarily is if you define military action as a massive initial first strike followed up by a week, at most two weeks, of bombardment of Iran. There is no followup capacity for sustained attacks or serious ground occupation.
The 12-day is not a good comparison to what Iran can, or cannot, unleash since the Iranian response was carefully limited. Initially as a probe to actual capabilities of Israel to defend itself then to show Iran can bypass the defenses and do damage to targets they selected (which seeing the collateral damage I think was less successful then the Iranians expected).
I agree mostly with all of you guys are saying. My assessment is Iran was on a back foot during the 12 day war in June 25. So we must assess the current capabilities of Iranians from that point of view. Now that Iranians have learnt from that experience and immediately sought Russian and Chinese help. I think the help they are getting from Chinese and Russians is kind of making the field even. Secondly they also put all their military in an advanced state of alert and with a dead hand philosophy. Thirdly they already activated their allies Huthis/Hamas/Huzbollah of Lebanon and Iraq and other factions, no matter how weak but still a formidable force posing a challenge to the American and Israeli forces. They might even close the straights of Hormuz thus driving the world economy into a tail spin. This is not a very easy war for US/Israel. In the last war Israel had to request for a cease fire through US after 12 days and this time I don’t think Iran will agree to any cease fire without substantial concessions from US. President Trump will find the gas prices going through the roof and economy tanking will be left with no viable options.
I am not so sure. The Shahed/Geran type drones have an operational range of 2500km. Even the Houthi drones had enough range to reach Tel Aviv, assuming they were really launched from Yemen.
It seems to me that these ‘cruise’ drones are the understated element of the 12 day war and the newer drone tech across the middle east generally. Are any existing air defense built to withstand hundreds or thousands of these attacking bases? Are there even enough AA guns? A single wave could have more aircraft than traditional armies have pilots. Who saw this coming?
Open questions bouncing round my head:
1.Does someone have Kompromat on DJT which might affect his decision making about attaching Iran.
If so is it:
Bibi (this making him a prisoner to Bibi’s personal insane agenda)?
A different part of the Israeli/Zionist structure (making him a prisoner of general Zionist madness, but not Bibi’s stay out of jail project)?
A another party (making him a prisoner of e.g. the Thielites and their panopticon/Zionism friendly project)?
And how will that influence things?
2. Is there anyone sane in DJT’s circle that will make him see that attacking Iran will go badly?
3. Will Israel use nukes if DJT tacos?
4. Will Israel use nukes if a war happens but (as seems likely) goes badly for them?
5. Is Iran actually as well-prepared and capable as they seem?
6. Will Iran actually go full power from day 1 in a war as Johnson, Wilkerson etc believe?
7. What will China and to a lesser extent Russia do to support Iran?
In my lightly read opinion,
1. Seems likely, and likely Bibi holds the goods.
2. No. We are hoping there is sanity left at the military brass level.
3. Yes, it Israel.
4. Yes, same.
5. Hope so.
Six and seven would be pure guesses, but I wager once a nuke goes off it will be all-play.
I have questions about the state of relations between China and Russia with Israel. Always an aspect not dealt with as if it’s negligible.
And when people sign up for the military, part of the bargain is one might get killed.
More people in the US are killed by gun violence inside the country than any war.
Agree with everything Yves wrote, including caveats about the main piece. It’s crazy that the author assumes Iran’s attacks would only be political not military. Like they wouldn’t actually try to sink a carrier? Sinking a carrier or two would win a war of attrition pretty quick! And as Clausewitz said, war is only an extension of politics, so distinguishing military and political that way seems foolish.
I’m very curious what actually caused this move to negotiations. Did generals recognize US weakness and convince hegseth to convince trump? Who or what group was it that got Trump to see some reality that he wasn’t seeing before that made him switch to negotiating?
I haven’t noticed any non-sycophants around him (except maybe Rubio) so I’m curious who has pointed out the likely consequences of war. Trump has gotten extremely close to pulling the trigger against Iran at least twice in the past 1.5 months from what I can tell but somehow it seems someone got him to see what he was asking for. Whoever it is, I wish them well.
Of course we don’t really know how close he has come. And while insiders like Johnson and Crooke offer useful information they don’t really seem to know either.
It does seem though that the Israelis want the US involved with a war with Iran and don’t particularly care how successful it is. Indeed under Netanyahu they have always wanted this. It’s really their psychology we need to wonder about since they for many years they could have simply made peace with the Palestinians and had their Jewish state and the security they claim to seek.
But then Netanyahu wouldn’t be making his monthly trips to DC and this tiny country in the ME would no longer be the focus of world attention and in many ways a mainspring of a world wide military/industrial complex. As the libertarians sometime say “war is the health of the state.” Or at least war is the health of the people running the state who like Zelensky often become quite wealthy.
I think your points hit the mark. Israel doesn’t care how much damagae the US takes, and in fact it’s only to their benefit if they can get the American’s to fight a war against Israeli enemies. Israel doesn’t care about the lives of it’s proxies or those who work for them, just look at how many of their agents and allies in their Iranian networks they must have sacrificed by now in Iran alone with hardly any results to show for it. It’s the same syndrome one sees at work with Ukraine’s relationship to the West; they don’t care how many Ukrainians die fighting Russia, as long as the proxy keeps the war going because they want to hurt Russia as much as possible. They will happily send every Ukrainian male to their deaths if it pokes Russia in the eye. Similarly, if we take the view that America is in fact Israel’s proxy (and I know the Brian Berletic fans will disagree), well who cares what price America will pay for this folly? It’s just stupid goyim paying for it all, and as long as they can materially damage Iran and knock them down a few pegs, “mission accomplished” for the Israeli’s. If they drag the US into a long campaign, all the better. If it turns into a disaster, well we can just blame America.
Here is my uninformed hot take: I don’t think Trump actually likes killing people as much as Bush, Obama, Biden, and the Blob did. Unfortunately, Trump likes public threatening and bullying, so sometimes he ends up getting backed into large scale killing.
But when Trump and his advisors are in a room trying to decide whether to push the button, it is possible Trump is the one who has to talk the other guys out of it.
That is what Larry Johndon and Alexander Mercouris seem to think and if so, I agree with them. Trump is not a born “politician.”
I’m a day late but I will say this:
I doubt very much we would see a carrier attacked, at least with a large warhead. The US will keep the carriers well out to see- they will launch aircraft which will in turn launch long-range standoff weapons (cruise missiles). Iran does indeed have weapons that can take out carriers, quite easily, but the thing they do not have native capacity with is targeting. Tracking ships in real time for an attack with standoff munitions requires a fleet of RORSats. Iran has satellite capabilities, but not the kind to scan large volumes of open ocean to track ships maneuvering to make ISR difficult. Russia and China both have RORSats, but I do not see them sharing tracking data, at least not fast enough to make a difference. Russia and China are very conservative and are trying to manage the defeat/collapse of the empire without shocking said empire. Escalation is slow and methodical- they are boiling the frog. Sinking a carrier is bad juju, and I promise you that it would result in very serious and sustained calls for strategic retaliation (the nuclear kind). That is why I do not see a carrier being suck- a token attack maybe, but nothing serious will be aimed at the carriers.
Roberts’s last paragraph is worth reading and reading again, but I don’t think of it as a description of either strategy or tactics. The four factors he lists in the first paragraph are the bane of the U S of A.
Johnson is on the mark: “I close with an even bigger question… If the US military, with two aircraft carriers, four destroyers and one cruiser could not destroy the missile capability of the Houthis, why do the Generals in the Department of War think they can wipe out Iran’s missile capability with a smaller force?”
Iran has several major factors on its side:
–A long and distinguished history that goes back some four thousand years — it gives the culture a kind of cohesiveness that the US of A doesn’t have and that Hegseth and Trump may not even understand.
–Geography is in Iran’s favor — look at a topographic map. All of those mountains along the western borders. They aren’t easy.
–Geography and trade: The Persian Gulf is arranged with some perfect pinch points. How does the U.S. Budget Overrun Armada sail in, make a landing, and disembark troops for that March to Tehran?
–Further, as Yves Smith has often mentioned, Shi’i Islam is a factor — it is a source of Persian nationalism, as well as highly influential among the Houthi, Hezbulluh, and the majority of Iraqis. These countries aren’t “proxies.”
–And then there is the arrogance of the U S of A placing any number of military bases in plain sight. Iraq. Qatar. Bahrain. Perfectly sited for missiles.
Plus: The credible threat by Iran of wiping out Tel Aviv.
So: This isn’t about “TACO” or Trump’s ostensible narcissism. It’s about things that can be done and can’t be done. Just as the U S of A can’t invade Russia, Mexico, or China — and has to settle for accusations, racism, and bluster – – Iran proves to be a tough pomegranate to open up. No one in the Trump administration is a foreign-policy realist, but they do seem to understand that a punch in their faces might undo their cosmetic surgeries.
For an offense on Iran, many of the 100 or so heavy airlift missions delivered THAAD and Patriots to limit US casualties. Some offensive!
When I was in AFROTC, when they ran out of “lessons” we got to watch bomb sight film of bombing in Vietnam. Most memorable, I can see it today, was film in color of 500 pounders creating shockwaves in verdant jungle!
The nuclear carriers are advertising for profits building the rest of the USS Gerry Ford class aircraft carriers at 15 billion bucks a piece.
USS Abe Lincoln is steaming out in the Indian Ocean hoping the Houthi are not given satellite tracks! USS GHW Bush will likely be parked safe in the eastern Med!
US’ overawe is in airpower, which today is a shadow of that sent into Desert Strom, many of the same airframes still fly that flew in 1990! While the F-35 may need two ships to fly one mission one aircraft with a target radar and one with ballast where the radar should be!
From 1965 to 1973 US airpower pummeled Vietnam, in 1953 US airpower was reduced to thumping North Korean rubble, total air US supremacy over everywhere and no wins! Air Supremacy is the answer, since the Nazis fell with Russian running around Berlin.
Reports today, crew on USS Gerry Ford told they are pulling out of Caribbean where one of their destroyers hit a supply ship and headed to the CentCom AOR.
The battle group will probably get another DDG enroute.
The CVN will be fairly safe in the Mediterranean.
Wrt #4, I’d say that “God” is on their side. Whether there really is a God, who knows, but that’s not the point. But a people joined together by genuine religious faith can do astonishing things, especially when their adversaries do not. (For all the talk, I have trouble seeing US or Israeli forces “fighting for God” as a collective: individuals may do so, but they are militaries of secular, individualistic societies: they are not joined together by faith.) Of course, Iranians are not merely religious as a group, but are also technologically savvy and won’t be charging blind. That’s a very dangerous combination.
I see T is showing up at Ft Bragg today. Along with his entourage. Is this to congratulate (and gloat) on the Maduro snatch job in SA as stated by the press? Or a sendoff to a ‘glorious war’?
Swagger around with a brass band and get away from recent embarrassments, retreats, and the Epstein files. Maybe tell a few more lies about the Save Act and the economy?
This aside caught my eye: “The global impact [of closing Straits of Hormuz] could be massive – on a par with the 1973/4 oil price surge that did much to usher in the global neoliberal era.”
I’d never made the connection between 73/74 oil price surge and the birth of neoliberalism. Will need to dig into this.
There is a direct line from the oil price surge to Jimmy Carter’s sweater, and from there to Reagan’s victory in 1980, which led to Democrats giving up on economic issues across the board.
Thanks for making the connection. It all seems so clear now. Carter, Clinton, and Obama all did their part to usher in the neoliberal world order. At least Sr. Monica prevented Slick Willie from “fixing” Social Security.
Yeah I thought that was weird, kind of implies some possible transformation…crisis is opportunity after all
But that misses the point of this being a political rather than military tactic. This doesn’t ease my mind much, US politics currently being a rapidly changing thing. As for carrier groups, from the bottom of my coffee cup, “Remember Chekov’s gun”.
I think that something overlooked is motivation. For Trump, he would like a quick win like he had in Venezuela but he may be finding out that a war like this could last till the Midterms so his motivation is wobbling. For the Neocons and Iranian exiles, it is something that they want to happen so that they personally can profit from it, especially the Iranian exiles with their dream of putting a new Shah on the Peacock Throne. For Israel, breaking up Iran will remove the last major obstacle to an Israeli Hegemony in the region so is important for them that way.
But for Iran? It is an existential fight for their existence. They do not want to be broken up like happened in Libya or Syria and having to live with constant bloodshed and immiseration by the west. They will fight and will have all the motivation in the world to take the fight to Israel and the west. They experienced enormous casualties in the Iran-Iraq war and nothing the west can launch at them can repeat that experience for them. If trump is idiot enough to attack Iran, all I can say is fill up your gas tanks and lay in some supplies. They will not quit.
Given the US meddling in the South Caucasus, Iran is analogous to Russia to Ukraine – near existential if it falls.
Everyone notes that Russia is building up its military in case post-Ukraine, Russia is attacked by NATO directly (following a historical pattern). And NATO is the US. Therefore, Russia aiding Iran to attack NATO (aka the US) is part of its attrition war against NATO – the point of its military buildup!
Just seems to me that in sending more stuff/carriers to ME T is putting more pressure on himself to act, while at the same time he’s doing worse at home. Losing votes on tariffs in both house and senate, even if he would be able to veto a binding legislature, is a blow. Leaving MINN, is too.
So maybe it’s just a delay until more boats are in place… wonder if that happens before russ/Chinese boats arrive, tho I assume they’d just be observers if war broke out.
If I were Iran, I would use a unilateral US attack to make trouble elsewhere.
One option is develop some gullible proxies of my own. Secretly sponsoring Baluchi and Kurdish separatists in neighbours (Pakistan for the former, Caucasus and Mesopotamia for the latter) could be interesting.
And, if I were impatient, I would just invade Azerbaijan (with Russia’s tacit approval) and put paid to the US, Israeli and Turkish games on my border trying to cut off the land route to Russia. It was once an Iranian province….
The US is not going to commit to a sudden ground war in West Asia. Israel would not dare airlift troops there. Only Turkey has men and matériel nearby – but if I were Iran and promised Armenia great things for staying neutral, how would Turkey get there? The US won’t let it invade Armenia….
Of course, Russia might feel the need to send a special military operation to defend her citizens in both Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Has anybody checked Russian dispositions to the north of Armenia and Azerbaijan lately…?