The Difficulties in Taking Military Action in the US-Iran Conflict
Published in Guangming Daily News
(China) on 5 January 2012
by Fang Liang (link to original)
Just as the U.S. is about to begin its general elections, the tense relations between this superpower and Iran have reached a new boiling point. The armed forces of these two nations, which are confronting each other in the Strait of Hormuz, seem to be on the verge of breaking out. However, with the global economy still awaiting its rebound and America’s soft power facing challenges at every turn, it remains unclear whether or not Washington plans to use military force against the country serving as the backbone of one of the Muslim world’s two great antagonistic forces: The Shiites.
During Iran’s Velayat-90 naval war games, Iran test-fired several anti-ship missiles, resulting in a direct confrontation with the U.S. aircraft carrier battle group that had just left the Strait of Hormuz and was cruising to the Gulf of Oman. Russia’s Ministry of National Defense declared its position on the matter in a timely fashion by stating that Iran still does not have the technology to build mid-range ICBMs. This statement from Russia carried a bit of a peacemaking tone, but the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, brought on by the exploitation of domestic public opinion by both, has yet to settle down. Then, just as the U.S. had withdrawn its aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf of Oman, Tehran warned the U.S. to never allow their aircraft carrier to return to the Persian Gulf. The U.S., in true tit-for-tat fashion, stated that America will continue to station troops in the Persian Gulf just as it has been doing for the last few decades.
From these stances and actions, it is easy to tell that the anger between the two is high. However, there are other signs pointing to a different type of development. The news on Jan. 4 showed that a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency had accepted Iran’s invitation and will be visiting Iran. The crisis surrounding Iran’s nuclear issues stems from a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran had previously attempted to research and develop nuclear weapons. This report led to serious consequences, including a new round of sanctions by Europe and the U.S. and attacks on the British Embassy by Iranian students. It culminated in the recent standoff between these two main actors in the Persian Gulf.
Iran’s reaching out to the IAEA showed a rational side behind Tehran’s showy naval exercises and also gave America an “out.” With the general election nearing, Obama definitely does not want to appear weak when facing a bombastic Iran, but this also doesn’t mean that Obama wants to have a showdown with this powerful Middle Eastern country.
Iran has no need to show off its national and military might. Instead, blocking the Strait of Hormuz is enough to give Washington a taste of Iran’s power. The military exercises by Iran this time around are mostly designed to allow Iran the chance to practice blocking off the strait. If the situation develops to the point where the strait is truly blocked off, 40 percent of international crude oil will be unable to be shipped out; America’s loss will be unfathomable. The people most pleased by such an outcome would be those who depend on oil money to maintain their rule, such as Russia’s strongman Putin as he prepares to make a return to his throne, as well as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. This result is certainly not something Washington is unclear about.
If the U.S. does take military action against Iran, one of the main driving forces for such an action will be Iran’s nuclear program. If Iran is able to possess nuclear weapons, it will be a nightmare for the U.S.
In order to not allow this nightmare to happen, the U.S. will need to take military action against Iran. But as seen in the experiences from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this will not be an easy thing to endure. In this sense, the choice facing Washington is whether or not to endure a temporary loss of national power in exchange for peace and tranquility for America and the world, as well as how to go about evaluating such a temporary loss. In the current global setting, where the entire world is confused as to how to move forward as a result of the global financial crisis, this loss cannot be lightly defined. By understanding this loss, Washington is less likely to act rashly.
During Iran’s Velayat-90 naval war games, Iran test-fired several anti-ship missiles, resulting in a direct confrontation with the U.S. aircraft carrier battle group that had just left the Strait of Hormuz and was cruising to the Gulf of Oman. Russia’s Ministry of National Defense declared its position on the matter in a timely fashion by stating that Iran still does not have the technology to build mid-range ICBMs. This statement from Russia carried a bit of a peacemaking tone, but the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, brought on by the exploitation of domestic public opinion by both, has yet to settle down. Then, just as the U.S. had withdrawn its aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf of Oman, Tehran warned the U.S. to never allow their aircraft carrier to return to the Persian Gulf. The U.S., in true tit-for-tat fashion, stated that America will continue to station troops in the Persian Gulf just as it has been doing for the last few decades.
From these stances and actions, it is easy to tell that the anger between the two is high. However, there are other signs pointing to a different type of development. The news on Jan. 4 showed that a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency had accepted Iran’s invitation and will be visiting Iran. The crisis surrounding Iran’s nuclear issues stems from a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran had previously attempted to research and develop nuclear weapons. This report led to serious consequences, including a new round of sanctions by Europe and the U.S. and attacks on the British Embassy by Iranian students. It culminated in the recent standoff between these two main actors in the Persian Gulf.
Iran’s reaching out to the IAEA showed a rational side behind Tehran’s showy naval exercises and also gave America an “out.” With the general election nearing, Obama definitely does not want to appear weak when facing a bombastic Iran, but this also doesn’t mean that Obama wants to have a showdown with this powerful Middle Eastern country.
Iran has no need to show off its national and military might. Instead, blocking the Strait of Hormuz is enough to give Washington a taste of Iran’s power. The military exercises by Iran this time around are mostly designed to allow Iran the chance to practice blocking off the strait. If the situation develops to the point where the strait is truly blocked off, 40 percent of international crude oil will be unable to be shipped out; America’s loss will be unfathomable. The people most pleased by such an outcome would be those who depend on oil money to maintain their rule, such as Russia’s strongman Putin as he prepares to make a return to his throne, as well as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. This result is certainly not something Washington is unclear about.
If the U.S. does take military action against Iran, one of the main driving forces for such an action will be Iran’s nuclear program. If Iran is able to possess nuclear weapons, it will be a nightmare for the U.S.
In order to not allow this nightmare to happen, the U.S. will need to take military action against Iran. But as seen in the experiences from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this will not be an easy thing to endure. In this sense, the choice facing Washington is whether or not to endure a temporary loss of national power in exchange for peace and tranquility for America and the world, as well as how to go about evaluating such a temporary loss. In the current global setting, where the entire world is confused as to how to move forward as a result of the global financial crisis, this loss cannot be lightly defined. By understanding this loss, Washington is less likely to act rashly.
Previous article![]( "It’s 1963 in America Again. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.")
