American Generals Don’t Want to Bomb Iran
The Plans of Israeli “Hawks” Have Become a Headache for Washington
American military leaders are warning that an Israeli preventive strike on Iran would most likely lead to a full-fledged regional war and drag the U.S. into the conflict. Their statements strengthen the position of those who oppose a military solution to Iran's nuclear weapons program and instead advocate for gradually weakening Tehran through sanctions.
U.S. Central Command recently conducted military planning exercises in order to assess the possible consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. The generals agreed that the U.S. would most likely not escape involvement in the conflict and would suffer the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives.
As The New York Times writes, the two-week military planning exercises were based on a scenario of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and the Iranians responding by firing rockets at American warships, killing about 200 sailors. Then, the U.S. would enter into the war and carry out further strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The generals did not agree on the outcome of this scenario, but according to inside sources, U.S. Central Command commander James Mattis stated that an Israeli strike on Iran would have grave consequences for the region and the American troops in it.
It is worthwhile to note that the White House, the Pentagon, and the U.S. intelligence community are uniformly against war with Iran. Moreover, the U.S. Army Special Forces still have not obtained proof that Iran is continuing to build an atom bomb. As of now, the international community's main claim is that Iran is enriching uranium at a rapid pace, which could be turned towards military uses.
However, Israel has no doubts about Tehran's hostile intentions and sees its nuclear program as an existential threat. Many in Washington fear that the Israelis will decide to carry out a preventive strike within the next year. In such a case, Tel Aviv would likely not inform its American ally ahead of time.
Specialists doubt the effectiveness of a military strike. They forecast that an Israeli strike would set back the Iranian nuclear program about a year. American forces joining the attack would add an additional two years of delay, but no more.
Experts have varied opinions on what would happen after an Israeli strike. Some think that even if Israel attacked directly, Iran would not instigate an open conflict with the United States. Tehran may prefer different methods, such as supporting insurgents in Afghanistan or organizing a series of terrorist attacks.
The most common discussion point as of late has been the economic consequences of a new war in the Persian Gulf. In this vein, greater attention has been focused on sanctions against Iran. The Islamic Republic's oil sector and banking system are the main targets. As a consequence of sanctions, the country is suffering from shortages of foreign currency, and Iranian firms are finding it harder and harder to buy necessary supplies abroad. In the past week, Iranian banks lost access to SWIFT, an international commercial information sharing system. This has, for all intents and purposes, destroyed their capability to carry out basic financial transactions. The loss will be even more pronounced after Jul. 1, when a European Union embargo against Iranian oil goes into effect.
Nevertheless, Professor Paul Stevens of the Royal Institute of International Relations has serious doubts about this tactic. In his opinion, the EU oil embargo strengthens the position of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stevens thinks the Iranian population will interpret an oil embargo as an attack on Iran and rally around their president, who recently has lost popularity as a result of Iran's economic difficulties.
The British expert noted that Ahmadinejad has already suffered a serious decline within his country. Iranians are suffering from unemployment and surging inflation. A halt of government subsidies has led to price increases for many basic goods, hitting the poorest segments of society particularly hard.
Stevens also cited the fact that oil embargoes did not succeed in curbing Cuba or Iran. There always will be countries ready to assist in evading regulations. Importers of Iranian oil could switch to a barter system, or find third-party financial intermediaries. Stevens also made it clear that Tehran has the ability to take revenge. A blockade of the Straits of Hormuz is not a credible threat, as the consequences would be too serious, but Iran could engineer an escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq. This would trigger conflicts in oil-supplying regions, and spike global oil prices. Iran also could create major problems for NATO forces in Afghanistan. Lastly, Iran could apply serious pressure on the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf, whose oil wells and transport infrastructure are vulnerable targets for a missile attack.
American military leaders are warning that an Israeli preventive strike on Iran would most likely lead to a full-fledged regional war and drag the U.S. into the conflict. Their statements strengthen the position of those who oppose a military solution to Iran's nuclear weapons program and instead advocate for gradually weakening Tehran through sanctions.
U.S. Central Command recently conducted military planning exercises in order to assess the possible consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. The generals agreed that the U.S. would most likely not escape involvement in the conflict and would suffer the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives.
As The New York Times writes, the two-week military planning exercises were based on a scenario of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and the Iranians responding by firing rockets at American warships, killing about 200 sailors. Then, the U.S. would enter into the war and carry out further strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The generals did not agree on the outcome of this scenario, but according to inside sources, U.S. Central Command commander James Mattis stated that an Israeli strike on Iran would have grave consequences for the region and the American troops in it.
It is worthwhile to note that the White House, the Pentagon, and the U.S. intelligence community are uniformly against war with Iran. Moreover, the U.S. Army Special Forces still have not obtained proof that Iran is continuing to build an atom bomb. As of now, the international community's main claim is that Iran is enriching uranium at a rapid pace, which could be turned towards military uses.
However, Israel has no doubts about Tehran's hostile intentions and sees its nuclear program as an existential threat. Many in Washington fear that the Israelis will decide to carry out a preventive strike within the next year. In such a case, Tel Aviv would likely not inform its American ally ahead of time.
Specialists doubt the effectiveness of a military strike. They forecast that an Israeli strike would set back the Iranian nuclear program about a year. American forces joining the attack would add an additional two years of delay, but no more.
Experts have varied opinions on what would happen after an Israeli strike. Some think that even if Israel attacked directly, Iran would not instigate an open conflict with the United States. Tehran may prefer different methods, such as supporting insurgents in Afghanistan or organizing a series of terrorist attacks.
The most common discussion point as of late has been the economic consequences of a new war in the Persian Gulf. In this vein, greater attention has been focused on sanctions against Iran. The Islamic Republic's oil sector and banking system are the main targets. As a consequence of sanctions, the country is suffering from shortages of foreign currency, and Iranian firms are finding it harder and harder to buy necessary supplies abroad. In the past week, Iranian banks lost access to SWIFT, an international commercial information sharing system. This has, for all intents and purposes, destroyed their capability to carry out basic financial transactions. The loss will be even more pronounced after Jul. 1, when a European Union embargo against Iranian oil goes into effect.
Nevertheless, Professor Paul Stevens of the Royal Institute of International Relations has serious doubts about this tactic. In his opinion, the EU oil embargo strengthens the position of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stevens thinks the Iranian population will interpret an oil embargo as an attack on Iran and rally around their president, who recently has lost popularity as a result of Iran's economic difficulties.
The British expert noted that Ahmadinejad has already suffered a serious decline within his country. Iranians are suffering from unemployment and surging inflation. A halt of government subsidies has led to price increases for many basic goods, hitting the poorest segments of society particularly hard.
Stevens also cited the fact that oil embargoes did not succeed in curbing Cuba or Iran. There always will be countries ready to assist in evading regulations. Importers of Iranian oil could switch to a barter system, or find third-party financial intermediaries. Stevens also made it clear that Tehran has the ability to take revenge. A blockade of the Straits of Hormuz is not a credible threat, as the consequences would be too serious, but Iran could engineer an escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq. This would trigger conflicts in oil-supplying regions, and spike global oil prices. Iran also could create major problems for NATO forces in Afghanistan. Lastly, Iran could apply serious pressure on the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf, whose oil wells and transport infrastructure are vulnerable targets for a missile attack.