Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Iraj Masjedi warned the US against attacking
Iran in comments on Iraqi television, saying that the Iranian government
would respond to any strike.
Not only would there be a reaction, but the reaction would be against US forces in Iraq.
Iran says they prefer the US to withdraw these troops because they
don’t do anything constructive, but that Iran won’t interfere with them
so long as the US isn’t attacking.
This warning is relatively obvious, given Iraq’s proximity to Iran and
how many US troops are available there in the event a war breaks out. At
the same time, this is the worst-case scenario for Iraq, which doesn’t
want to be the host of the war.
Iraq’s desire for neutrality in such a war probably isn’t realistic,
both because they host so many US troops and because a number of Iraqi
Shi’ite militias would doubtless join such a conflict on the side of
Iran. If fighting breaks out, it’s going to be a region-wide problem.
“This warning is relatively obvious”
You would think so. But, along with the chosen people’s country, the exceptional country doesn’t expect any retaliation for their actions.
On the other side of the world, Taiwan wants to be the battleground.
The Pentagon probably sees an opportunity for escalation in this case. If Iran or the Iraqi PMUs kill thousands of US troops, then the Pentagon can unleash on Iran without compassion.
Once the war breaks out, you can expect the US to pour scores of thousands more troops into Iraq. In addition, any Shia militias targeting US troops in country will be subject to US airstrikes regardless of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the process. In effect, the US will “re-invade” Iraq – and then push into Iran.
The only other option would be pulling out 5,000 US troops, an unknown number of contractors, and all the other US personnel in country. It would be impossible, especially under war conditions, and would amount to the US abandoning Iraq completely.
Therefore, there are only two options for the US:
1) Pull everyone out in advance of starting the war – which would be a dead obvious signal that the war was about to begin, unless Trump decided to try to get a PR victory by claiming he’s “finally pulling the troops out.” Iran would probably not be fooled.
2) Or do as I said above, start pouring more troops into Iraq – which will be another dead obvious signal that the war is about to begin.
In both cases, Iran would be wise to ask the Iraqi Shia militias to start attacking US personnel immediately, and prepare to launch a preemptive strike on US assets the minute US forces start to move toward Iran.
Iran needs to hold the initiative on the war. It can’t afford to retaliate only or try to “ride out” the initial US attack.
I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that Iran should or would attack first. If they attack first, they lose the crucial status of defender in the eyes of the rest of the world. Also, the government of Iran understands that any clash with the United States will lead to Iran being invaded. Iranian society will be shattered. And any invading troops would face an insurgency that makes Afghanistan and Iraq look like playground fights. The leaders will flee to the vast mountains of Iran and direct it from there. And Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with double the population (70 million). Iranians have been invaded and conquered throughout history, but they have always expelled the foreign influence.
However, this war will be impossible to contain to just Iran. Pakistani Shia will be enraged, which will make India quite apprehensive, and, of course, they have nuclear weapons. Israel will be under a barrage of missiles and rockets from Hezbollah, which has been amassing an arsenal of 100,000 for over a decade. The Iron Dome will be worthless. As for Russia and China, I’m sure they will react by mobilizing troops to their southern and western borders. From there, I mean, catastrophe probably.
But I think any Iranian first strike will have been a false flag operation.
Most of your comment refers to the possible consequences of a war with Iran of which I am quite aware. It’s also irrelevant to the point I was making.
” If they attack first, they lose the crucial status of defender in the eyes of the rest of the world.”
This may be true. However, you need to realize the consequences of a US attack on Iran from the Iranian viewpoint. The consequences you outline are all quite terrible. But they will be worse if Iran waits for the initial US attack. When the time comes for war, the initiator has the advantage – at least at first. When the disparity in conventional military power is as great as that between the US and Iran, the defender needs to seize the initiative.
In WWII, the US pressured Japan before Pearl Harbor occurrec. Pearl Harbor occurred because the Japanese knew the US wanted to enter the war and attack Japan and Germany. So they made the quite logical decision to attack first. The result was a devastated US fleet. The fact that Japan ultimately lost the war is irrelevant. There was no way they could avoid it once the US decided Japan was the enemy.
Iran faces the same decision. It may lose the status of “defender” in the eyes of some people – but it will be the defender still in the eyes of those who understand. The important thing is to gain the military initiative.
Besides, what is likely to occur is as I’ve outlined. The US will start upping the number of troops, ships and aircraft around Iran and it will be obvious that the US is planning a war.
Wars usually start when it becomes obvious to both sides that war is inevitable. Who strikes first will often depend on good intelligence. When you see your enemy maneuvering to get the best position to attack, you frequently attack first to deny him that advantage – even if you’re not entirely ready to attack yourself.
So wars tend to start somewhat erratically, depending on circumstances. Saddam waited for the US to attack and that was a mistake – although it wouldn’t have made any difference in the outcome.
But waiting for the “moral high ground” can be very expensive for the defender.
Saddam had nothing to attack with.
He did in the first conflict in 1991.
Most of your comment refers to the possible consequences of a war with Iran of which I am quite aware. It’s also irrelevant to the point I was making.
” If they attack first, they lose the crucial status of defender in the eyes of the rest of the world.”
This may be true. However, you need to realize the consequences of a US attack on Iran from the Iranian viewpoint. The consequences you outline are all quite terrible. But they will be worse if Iran waits for the initial US attack. When the time comes for war, the initiator has the advantage – at least at first. When the disparity in conventional military power is as great as that between the US and Iran, the defender needs to seize the initiative.
…
I just don’t see that happening no matter how many troops are put in the region. Iran has not launched a first strike in hundreds of years. I believe that last time was the later Russo-Iranian wars, and those were to retake territory lost in Russian first strikes in th previous wars. The reason I doubt this is because they faced a very similar situation at the end of Bush’s presidency. It really did look like war was going to happen. However, it was Israel that was most feared to launch a first strike. At that time, thousands and thousands of troops were in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere completely surrounded Iran, but they also know the consequences of a war, and so restrained themselves. Do you remember that time around 2006-8? Tense as shit.
In WWII, the US pressured Japan before Pearl Harbor occurrec. Pearl Harbor occurred because the Japanese knew the US wanted to enter the war and attack Japan and Germany. So they made the quite logical decision to attack first. The result was a devastated US fleet. The fact that Japan ultimately lost the war is irrelevant. There was no way they could avoid it once the US decided Japan was the enemy.
…
Japan had dependend on American oil, which was cut off, and they decided to seize oil rich areas in East Asia and the Western Pacific. This was matter of survival for the regime and the military. They had to delay the American response. Japan was not surrounded until late in the War. By contrast, Iran does not rely on Western oil, because they have their own. And they are surrounded. Iran cannot really devastate the Fifth fleet until it is in the Strait of Hormuz (in which they will destroy most of the fleet), which would be a response to its closing by Iran, which would only happen if they were attacked.
Iran faces the same decision. It may lose the status of “defender” in the eyes of some people – but it will be the defender still in the eyes of those who understand. The important thing is to gain the military initiative.
…
I doubt that would going to fly with world powers, specifically the JCPOA signatories. An Iranian first strike in any case will lessen the sympathies and GOVERNMENTAL response throughout the world. An Iranian first strike could be used to activate NATO’s collective defense clause as well. But if it is America or Israel that attacks first, Europe will likely be united in its opposition. Of course, Iran is but the spark of this war. It will spread throughout the Eastern Hemisphere.
Besides, what is likely to occur is as I’ve outlined. The US will start upping the number of troops, ships and aircraft around Iran and it will be obvious that the US is planning a war.
…
It’s been obvious since Bush foolishly referred to Iran as part of an Axis of Evil with its mortal enemy Iraq. We could not have toppled the Taliban without the aid of Iran and communication with their allies in the Northern Alliance. In one battle at the border city of Herat, the same Quds Force designated as a terrorist organization fought alongside American special forces. Then the Sudden about face during his 2002 SoTU…. Iran has always been the ultimate target. At the time, the intelligent Khatami was the President, one of the first leaders to condemn 9/11. Even after the invasion of Iraq, they sought peace, and were rebuffed (for more see PBS Frontline’s Showdown With Iran). Relative moderates have a precarious hold on power now as well.
Wars usually start when it becomes obvious to both sides that war is inevitable. Who strikes first will often depend on good intelligence. When you see your enemy maneuvering to get the best position to attack, you frequently attack first to deny him that advantage – even if you’re not entirely ready to attack yourself.
So wars tend to start somewhat erratically, depending on circumstances. Saddam waited for the US to attack and that was a mistake – although it wouldn’t have made any difference in the outcome.
But waiting for the “moral high ground” can be very expensive for the defender.
…
I mean we can talk about morality all day long. War is a crime. I’m talking geopolitics and the response of world governments. If any Iranian first strike on US forces is alleged by the US government as casus belli, I am 99.99999999321% sure that Iranian will deny it, because it was probably a false flag.
Note that I didn’t say Iran *would* strike first. I said they should.
“Iran cannot really devastate the Fifth fleet until it is in the Strait of Hormuz (in which they will destroy most of the fleet), which would be a response to its closing by Iran, which would only happen if they were attacked.”
The US may intend to impose a naval blockade on Iran without directly attacking Iran. In this case, Iran would respond by trying to close the Straits. This would result in the US Navy attacking Iran.
The US Navy would mostly use its air power against Iranian ships involved in closing the Straits or mine-laying. Iran could retaliate by using drone strikes on US Navy ships anywhere in the region. If the US Navy operated within the Persian Gulf, Iran would be able to destroy them anywhere using anti-ship missiles.
Iran could also devastate the fleet’s home base in Bahrain with its missile arsenal – and this could have serious consequences for the Fifth Fleet even without the ships being destroyed. But if Iran waits until the US Navy and Air Force have devastated many of their launch sites, the damage Iran could inflict might be mediated.
As for Europe being united against a war with Iran, dream on. NATO will pile one regardless of who strikes first. The US will invoke the Charter no matter who strikes first, and NATO will be compelled to respond. The EU knows they won’t suffer any more from attacking Iran than they will from the fact of the war in any event, so they will join in.
You are probably correct that Iran will not do a preemptive strike – but they should. And any Iranian attack in advance of a US attack probably will be a false flag. That doesn’t change my point.
US troops in Iraq would quickly be pinned down by the militias, and would likely not be available for a direct fight with Iran. Even if Iran is massively damaged, we can expect unprecedented numbers of US dead coming home from Iraq, assuming we can even get them out.
Not just US forces in Iraq, but US bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Afghanistan, and Diego Garcia are also targets…