|
Ralph Peters is a regular columnist with the New
York Post.
Register here for access to the Post's Online Edition.
 Does
Iran Want War?
If so, our response must be devastating…
[Ralph
Peters] 4/12/06
The most
dangerous error we could make in our sharpening confrontation
with Iran is to convince ourselves that its leaders will act
rationally. Few wars are rooted
in dispassionate analysis. Self-delusion sparks most such catastrophes.
The power
brokers in Tehran may be on the verge of misjudging America's
will and resources as profoundly as did the Japanese on Dec.
7, 1941, or al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001.
Stalin misread
America's will when he acquiesced in the Korean Communist invasion
of the south. So did Castro, when he imagined that he could
impose a tyrannical regime on Grenada.
Contributors
Ralph Peters - Contributor
Ralph
Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of 19 books,
as well as of hundreds of essays and articles, written both
under his own name and as Owen Parry. He is a frequent columnist
for the New York Post and other publications. [go to Peters Index] |
Saddam Hussein misread America, too. Twice. First, when he convinced
himself that he could grab Kuwait with impunity, and, second,
when he did his weapons-of-mass-destruction fan dance. (Bulletin
for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: Don't play the I've-got-weapons-you'd-better-be-afraid-of
card.)
Given that historical record, what should we expect of a radical-theocrat
regime that has no serious grasp of American psychology, that
rules an embittered populace it longs to excite and unify, and
that believes it's literally on a mission from God?
In recent weeks, Tehran has anxiously publicized its tests of
surface-to-surface missiles, of air-to-ground missiles and even
of torpedoes. The intended point is that, if the shooting starts,
Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers - disrupting
the global economy - while striking any other target between
Israel and Afghanistan.
The crucial question is whether the Iranians are still playing
at brinksmanship, hoping to spook us into passivity as they build
nuclear weapons, or if they've already convinced themselves that
a conflict with the United States is inevitable.
Given the closed nature
of Iran's ruling clique, it's impossible to know. The most-probable
situation is that differing factions
within the leadership are at different stages of willingness
for war, with some ready to fight and others fearful. Cooler
heads may prevail - but "cooler heads" is a relative
term in Tehran.
Have the inner-circle Iranian leaders replicated yesteryear's
decision-making process of Osama bin Laden and his deputies in
their Afghan camps - a hothouse atmosphere in which limited evidence
was processed selectively and mutual-enablers convinced each
other that a few attacks on American landmarks would drive Washington
into a global retreat?
Have the Iranians failed to understand the real implications
of 9/11? Do they believe that sinking a few oil tankers or even
a U.S. Navy ship or two would drive us from the region? Has flawed,
impassioned faith led to faulty geo-strategic calculations?
The most worrisome possibility is that they may have convinced
themselves they can win.
From the Iranian perspective,
it may appear that we're fully committed militarily - and they've
probably wildly over-estimated
the "anti-war" constituency in the U.S. Tehran certainly
evidences no understanding of the depths of America's military
resources, of our decision-making processes - or of NASCAR America's
inevitable reaction to attacks on our Navy (or on the fuel supplies
for our SUVs).
Whether or not President Ahmadinejad is a madman, he speaks
like one. He has no past experience of global statecraft and
no grasp of the different mental and moral structures of other
civilizations. The extent to which his ability to calculate objectively
has been suppressed by a psychological addiction to religious
extremism remains an open question. But the portents look bleak.
What might the Iranians expect, if brinksmanship fails? Or from
an impulsive leap from peace to war?
The extremists in Tehran actually may believe that they could
win a military exchange, that they could stymie our Navy in the
Gulf, interrupt oil exports and make any conflict so costly to
us and to the world economy that we'd be forced to back down.
They doubtless count on support from Beijing and Moscow - much
as Saddam did.
Their calculations would be devastatingly wrong.
We can hope otherwise, but Iran's leaders may already have concluded
that war is unavoidable - and even desirable, for religious,
regional and domestic reasons. With Tehran pursuing nukes, parading
its military, disrupting Iraq and issuing statements so rabid
that they alarm even the regime's foreign backers, it's time
to prepare for the worst.
Should Tehran ignite a combat exchange, we need to ensure not
only that Iran's nuclear-weapons program is crippled, but that
its broader capabilities are shattered.
Militarily, it will be time for our Air Force to prove its worth,
with the Navy in support. Iran's recent experience of conflict
is of attrition-based land warfare. But there's no need for us
to employ conventional ground forces inside Iran (special operations
troops are another matter). We'll have to watch the Iraqi and
Afghan borders, but our fight would be waged from the air and
from the sea.
If we're pulled into war, we need to strike hard and fast -
before Iran's allies can make mischief in international forums.
We should destroy as much of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure
as possible, eliminate its air force and air defenses and wreck
its naval facilities beyond repair - no matter the collateral
damage. The madmen in Tehran must pay an unbearable price.
The results within Iran would be unpredictable. Fiercely nationalistic,
the country's core Persian population might unify behind the
regime, setting back our hopes for an eventual rapprochement
with a post-Islamist government.
Alternatively, the regime may be weaker than we think and could
topple of its own weight. Or it may continue to muddle through
miserably for years. Iran's military could remain loyal to the
mullahs or, sufficiently battered, might turn upon them. We don't
know what would happen because the Iranians themselves don't
know. The variables and dynamics are simply incalculable.
But a half-hearted military response to Iranian aggression would
only strengthen the confidence of our enemies and invite future
confrontations.
We pulled too many punches in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now
we're paying the price. If Tehran drags us into war, we should
make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies
are stunned. ONE
Ralph Peters'
latest book is New
Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy
This
piece first appeared in the New York Post
copyright 2006 - NY Post
Rush
Limbaugh
§
|
