Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
We should not tally up the respective lopsided military strength of the U.S. and Iran near the Straight of Hormuz and therefore automatically conclude that the blustering Iranians are either trash-talking in empty fashion or are unhinged—and for two good reasons.
One, in the fashion of Jimmy Carter by late 1979, the Iranians may have now sized Barack Obama up and decided to cash in their chips (e.g., the chronological parallels are eerie: January 2009–December 2011 = January 1977 – November 1979). The four or five serial deadlines imposed by Obama on the Iranians to cease work on the bomb all proved predictably empty. His silence during the Iranian spring of 2009, coupled with his banal talk about Mossadeq and 1953, and the loud promises during his campaign to "reset" relations with Iran may, fairly or not, have convinced the theocracy that they can embarrass Obama with impunity the way they did Carter—especially given his lead from behind strategy in Libya, his abrupt departure out of Iraq, his failed policies with Putin, the bowing and apologies, and the general impression that Obama feels the U.S. is somehow culpable or unable to do much abroad.
Second, history is replete with examples of repeated warnings of improbable aggression—followed by improbable aggression. We forget that all during the wild UN rush to the Yalu in October 1950, the Chinese warned serially that they would eventually invade North and South Korea—and were ignored. Saddam for much of late summer 1990 gave many indications that he would go into Kuwait—all dismissed as bluster. If one had taken seriously all the crazy Malvinas rhetoric coming from the dictatorship in Buenos Aires, then the 1982 Falklands War would have been no surprise.
All this is not to say that the U.S. navy would not crush the Iranians in a matter of hours. Iran would not have much leverage in Iraq given we are gone and Maliki is already an Iranian ally, and its position is weakening in Syria and to a lesser degree in Lebanon. The Arab Gulf states would only be too happy to increase pumping to replace Iranian oil during a low-demand world recession and increasing U.S. oil and gas production, while the U.S. military would consider only stand-off options involving air and sea power, with zero interest in messy invasion, nation building, etc. Our response would be entirely punitive and no doubt effective—and might well transcend ships in the strait to include their ports and bases.
But again, that reality is no reason necessarily to discount Iranian threats in general and in particular against an administration that they feel can be bullied and embarrassed (and even here they may miscalculate, since a decisive retaliation against the Iranian bully would both be popular abroad, and advantageous to Obama's reelection.)
Bottom line: I think there is some chance the Iranians may do something stupid—and a greater chance that we would react quite strongly to it.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
And, given Obama's record, and even greater chance that we will do ... nothing.
Yes, if the Iranian navy closes the Straits of Hormuz, President "lead from behind, vote present, don't disturb my golf game or vacation" Obama might very well do nothing, but dither, call for UN sanctions, deplete the waning stocks of strongly worded communiques, and blame Bush.
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Alternatively, Obama may want a war with Iran. If it were to come about in or soon after the summer of 2012, it would, I fear, virtually guarantee his re-election. We should never underestimate the cynicism and ruthlessness of the man.
Jun '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Victor Davis Hanson:
Second, history is replete with examples of repeated warnings of improbable aggression—followed by improbable aggression.
...
Bottom line: I think there is some chance the Iranians may do something stupid—and a greater chance that we would react quite strongly to it. ·
Reality is where you look for it. When the French built the Maginot Line they left a gaping hole on their frontier with Belgium because the Belg claimed that military fortifications along their border, even to protect against Germany, were a political provocation.
The Iranians, and indeed the world, see what America says and what it does and calculates to a nicety the difference. What, actually, could America do if the Iranians close the straights for a publicly announced exercise? They aren't confused by the state of their navy nor the capabilities of ours. It's warfare by politics they can win.
America's theoretical military capabilities are far from their actual capabilities, especially as congress attempts to dismantle what's left. But it's not just about military capabilities. Politics always comes first. It doesn't matter how big a gun you've got if no-one will let you shot it.
Aug '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
So Doctor Hanson !
You are saying that we just handed Iraq to Iran as a giant boobie prize !!
Brilliant, bloody brilliant. It'll kurdle their cream.
I smell a Turkey cooking for Easter already.
Edited on Dec 28, 2011 at 5:50pmJan '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Well put, but there's a huge void in the calculation - Ron Paul has provided comfort and confidence to Iran, and this from a leader of the other political party. That's a level of softness - weakness - that begs exploitation.
Ron Paul may not have actually bowed to anyone, but figuratively he dipped low toward the Iranians.
Nov '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
You really think Obama would start a shooting war with Iran to get himself reelected?
Feb '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Robert E. Lee
Reality is where you look for it. When the French built the Maginot Line they left a gaping hole on their frontier with Belgium because the Belg claimed that military fortifications along their border, even to protect against Germany, were a political provocation.
Actually, the Maginot line stopped south of Belgian because the French wanted to force the Belgians to fight.
No advantage for the Germans to overrun Belgium if it just brought them up against more extensive fortifications at the Franco-Belgian border.
May '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Fred Cole
You really think Obama would start a shooting war with Iran to get himself reelected? · Dec 28 at 6:11pm
I do
Apr '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Wars begin, most commonly, when one party telegraphs irresolution – which has been the consistent message Obama has presented to Iran since 2009. Our complete withdrawal from Iraq might well have been read by Iran as the final signal that Obama hasn’t the nerve to defend American interests in the Persian Gulf or the broader Middle East
It is doubtful if the Iranian leadership appreciates how much a successful "Defense of the Persian Gulf War" would enhance Obama’s reelection chances. Combining these two misjudgments, Professor Hanson is correct in raising the potential for an irrational Iranian attempt to attack oil tankers in an attempt to close the Gulf. If it produces a strong American response, (as clearly required by our national interest, but with this President, who knows?) it may prove to be the last misjudgment this regime ever makes.
Jul '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Obama needs no war to get re-elected. He merely needs to not have any scandals. He is not above starting a war though but his sympathies lie with Islam and pacifism. Iran will provoke an action only to tighten their grip on their population at least some of which have been complicit in recent bombings and deaths of nuclear scientists. I believe the world has measured Obama and found him to be a lazy procrastinating narcissist who cannot be bothered by such issues. Obama will invoke the UN.
Feb '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
The French expected the Germans to attack through Belgium, and their military plan was to advance forces into Belgium to meet this attack. The Germans did attack on this route, but it was a diversion--the REAL main German effort was through the Ardennes, which had been viewed as impassible for large forces, and hence had been only lightly fortified and was manned by troops not of the first class.
Jun '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Obama can't declare war. Its not in his DNA. He doesn't declare anything and especially not aggression.
The problem Victor describes that may get us killed is: Our president is not one to take a stand.
The world has learned that the US president is as weak as water.
Jun '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Steven Zoraster
Actually, the Maginot line stopped south of Belgian because the French wanted to force the Belgians to fight.
No advantage for the Germans to overrun Belgium if it just brought them up against more extensive fortifications at the Franco-Belgian border. · Dec 28 at 6:13pm
From a military point of view the Maginot line should have extended to the channel. From the political point of view, the gap was necessary to achieve a political goal. We know how that worked out.
We keep analyzing Iran's intentions as if we and our politicians were the sole focus of their attention (I admit that's an exaggeration), but seriously, aside from being a political target, an important one, we aren't nearly the be all of their politics. Especially since they get their political and economic support elsewhere. And I've no doubt they consider our "revered" political "leaders" just as cartoonishly oblivious and out of touch with reality as we consider theirs.
I think they can, and will, close the strait for a short period with no more than additional weeping and wailing and impotent sabre-rattling from capitol hill.
Jul '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
David Foster, the French have always been one war behind.
May '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
A short and decisive war with Iran that keeps the straight open with minimum loss of life, would enhance Obama's image and re-election prospects. $10 - $12 per gallon gas caused by inaction while 40% of the world's oil is taken off the market would kill his chances of election.
I have not a shred of doubt that his reaction would be swift and violent - regardless of where his sympathies lie.
Dec '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
So if the U.S. Navy crushes the Iranians in the Strait of Hormuz, will this not humiliate and weaken the Iranian government and make it more likely to be overthrown? This would seem less risky than a surgical strike to destroy their nuclear facilities--which could strengthen support for the Iranian government.
Obama cannot afford to appear weak in the face of a direct attack on the world's oil supply and he believes he is brilliant at calculating. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad is not totally insane.
Of course, in war, nothing is predictable. What's the worst that could happen?
May '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Nick Stuart
Fred Cole
You really think Obama would start a shooting war with Iran to get himself reelected? · Dec 28 at 6:11pm
I do · Dec 28 at 6:23pm
So do I. If Obama calculates that the Navy can quickly turn aside an Iranian blockade, he may go for it to try for another I-killed-bin-Ladin-type bump in public opinion just before the election. Dr. Rahe's got it pegged: Obama is cynical and ruthless if he is anything.
Aug '11
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz is a good casus belli for the US and its usual allies - Britain, Australia, and in this case even France et al, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf States. It would give them the perfect opportunity to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. Even Obama couldn't ignore this. For this reason I think that Iran is just bluffing.
Dec '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
The insanity isn't the threat to close the Strait. The insanity is clinging to their nuclear program.
The nuclear program draws Israel's real threat to strike it preemptively. To head off Israel, Panetta says the US will do it instead -- but it stretches belief to think Obama will back up Panetta's words with action.
So Iran threatens to close the Strait to show the West the price of any attack on its nuclear program. But for Israel, that price pales with the existential threat from a nuclear Iran, so unless Iran abandons its nuclear program, there will be an attack on it from Israel or the US.
Once there's an attack, Iran no longer has anything to lose from closing the Strait. Assuming it's not capable of making the truly rational choice to end its nuclear program, it will make the situationally rational choice of closing the Strait, presenting Obama with a choice:
Which do you think Obama is more likely to do?
Sep '10
Re: Iranian Insanity is Not Necessarily Improbable
Isn't it more likely that Iran is following the North Korean playbook? It's hard to believe that both parts of the leadership think the U.S. is indecisive and/or unwilling to act with a war with two adjacent countries this decade.