Friday, February 24, 2012
Interesting hypothesis for a US aggression on Iran
I just have listened to a very interesting interview of a Russian military expert named Vladilav Shurygin. For the Russian speakers I am posting it below:
Now for those of you who do not speak Russian, I want to summarize Shurygin's main hypothesis: that the US will use a "two-phase" approach to Iran very similar to the one it used on Iraq:
a) The first phase would involve a massive air and missile assault on Iran to basically "bomb it back to the stone age" to use James Baker's expression. And just like after the first Gulf War it would be followed by a decade of so of crippling sanctions destined to further push Iran into poverty and chaos.
b) The second phase would, just as was the case in Iraq, involve a land invasion of a devastated, demoralized and economically crippled Iran, with the purpose of imposing a new occupation regime.
That is an interesting hypothesis, but it is based on several highly speculative assumptions.
First, this assumes that like Iraq in 1991 Iran would not seriously fight back. Remember, Saddam did not send his armored divisions into Saudi Arabia even though he could have done so which would have left very few options to the US other than using nuclear weapons to rescue the 82nd AB and prevent Saddam from overrunning the Saudi ports. If Iran is really cornered, it could strike out at every Gulf state with absolutely devastating consequences not only for the region, but the entire world economy,
The second hypothesis is that the UNSC and the rest of the planet would support the USA. After is invasion of Kuwait Saddam was highly unpopular and both Russia and China were rather in disarray in 1991. Nowadays, I very much doubt that the international community would stand by another decade of genocidal sanctions against another Gulf state.
Third, this hypothesis assumes that Iran is just as "invadible" as Iraq, but one look at a demographic and economic report and map of Iran will tell you that Iran is a full order of magnitude tougher to crack than Iraq.
Fourth, Iraq had no allies. At the very least, Iran can count on Hezbollah and the various Shia parties in Iraq who have all unambiguously and repeatedly indicated that they would not stand by an attack on Iran and that they would do their duty.
Lastly, while at least initially the Iraqi Shia and the Iraqi Kurds were happy to see Saddam overthrown, the Iranian Kurds, Arabs, Azeris or Sunnis do not have the potential, or even desire, to turn into a 5th column for an invading US force.
And yet, Shurygin is not saying that this plan is doable or even that it makes sense. All he is saying is that the US leaders might contemplate such a two-staged "final solution" to Iran's problem. And here I must agree.
I have a very low opinion of the intelligence and education of the US leaders and I know how easily they like to delude themselves into believing that there is a simple solution to any problem. Add to this that the USA is basically run by the Zionist lobby which is very correctly referred to as composed of "Israel Firsters" i.e., folks who will sacrifice the USA without any hesitation for the presumed interests of Israel, and Shurygin's hypothesis becomes disturbingly credible, no?