The frightening reality of a war with Iran

[bronxiteforever]

The Hill
BY MICHAEL MORELL AND ADM. JAMES A. “SANDY” WINNEFELD JR., USN (RET.) — 07/14/19 10:00 AM

The frightening reality of a war with Iran

President Trump has said that a U.S.-Iranian military conflict “wouldn’t last very long,” implying that the U.S. would emerge triumphant with minimal costs. While the president is correct that a fight most likely would end quickly and the U.S. would dominate it, the short- and long-term damage to U.S. interests would be devastating.

...Indeed, the conflict does not last long — only four days. Although Iran is militarily defeated, neither side achieves all of its objectives. Because of extensive damage to regional oil infrastructure, and the effort required to sweep mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the price of oil stays well above $150 a barrel. Russia increases oil output and becomes the big economic winner. More broadly, the global economy, showing signs of weakness before the war, slips into a recession....The U.S. loses a significant measure of global influence to China, which portrays itself as a source of world stability. Most of the G-20 nations begin to align around further reducing dependency on the dollar as the global economy’s reserve currency, with a goal of not allowing U.S. unilateral sanctions to define their foreign policies.

In Iran, the conflict knits the population together politically, deeply undermining any “moderate” factions. There is some debate about the way forward, but policy quickly coalesces around the views of the hardliners, who were angered by the original nuclear agreement, which is now in tatters. A decision is made to expeditiously build a nuclear weapon, leveraging several covert, dispersed enrichment sites of which the U.S. and its allies are unaware. Iran’s goal is to never allow such an attack on Iran again. In 2022, a nuclear test is detected that originates beneath the remote Dasht-e-Kavir desert in Iran.

Michael Morell, a career intelligence official, served as the deputy director of the CIA from 2010 to 2013. Adm. James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld, a career naval officer, was the ninth vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving from 2011 to 2015.

Read whole article here
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/452905-the-frightening-reality-of-a-war-with-iran

[CrispyQ]

1. I don't believe Trump gives a crap about US influence in the world.

He wants us like NK - isolated with a child dictator who controls the treasury & can execute anyone who speaks poorly of him. We are on the edge of this reality. If he thinks attacking Iran will help keep him in power, he won't think twice about how it impacts anyone else.

[bronxiteforever]

2. I agree.

[soryang]

3. I know this is a hypothetical scenario but...

...it all seems possible except for the latter contention: "A decision is made to expeditiously build a nuclear weapon, leveraging several covert, dispersed enrichment sites of which the U.S. and its allies are unaware."

In fact, this contention reminds me of a disinformation technique. A valid intelligence estimate or news report is constructed the content of which is well supported by known facts and analysis, except for one issue which is either not supported or even completely false. In this case the contention that Iran has secret uranium enrichment sites which have somehow evaded professional monitoring techniques appears to fit the bill.

A rationalization could be constructed to support the presence of this element in the scenario but that rationalization should appear in the scenario itself so it can be examined. While the location of an enrichment site can be hidden, it's another thing for the strategic materials and components to move without being noticed. How and when did this occur? Why is the basis for this contention little more than a conclusory statement?

I think the statement should be examined not because I don't agree with the thrust of the article. War with Iran is a very bad idea. However, the contention that Iran has secret uranium enrichment sites undermines the notion that the JCPOA was an effective agreement, and lends backhanded support to some of the untrue contentions that this administration has been making in support of its policies toward Iran.