Iran: What if...

After my last column, several readers responded that war with Iran was seemingly inevitable. It's also clear that many voters and presidential candidates agree – and events this week have lent credence to that mindset. Though I hope they're all wrong, it would probably be prudent to take an objective look at what armed conflict with Iran might look like.

Going into the weekend, Monday's EU vote on sanctions against Iran was in doubt. But despite some bet-hedging caveats (existing crude contracts will be allowed to run through July and a commission will review the effects on member countries through May), the EU approved an oil embargo and central bank asset seizure that puts Iranian officials on the defensive.

Iran responded by renewing its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of the world's oil passes through. The U.S repeated its vow to keep it open – by force if necessary. The sanctions, designed to starve funding for Iran's nuclear energy expansion, because of suspicions that it is intent to use the materials to build a nuclear weapon, are also intended to bring Iran to the table where a compromise can be made.

The EU isn't crazy about sanctions that will undoubtedly raise oil prices in its very fragile economy, while putting particular pressure on a beleaguered Greece, who relies on Iran as a source of cheap oil. But while a vote against such sanctions clearly ran the risk of inciting more saber rattling from Tehran, a vote against one ran the risk of emboldening hardliners there, while alienating American and British officials hoping to use it as a tool to apply additional pressure.

China and Russia have expressed some concern over the prospect of what would likely be a much larger American operation in that theater and there are signs that a British/American/Israeli effort in Iran would further unite the two Eastern powers allowing for the prospect of them jointly entering the conflict, either directly or by proxy, on Iran's behalf. That illustrates perhaps the most frightening aspect of such a conflict – the unpredictability.

It would probably be a mistake to imagine the prospect of war with Iran as something closer to Iraq and Afghanistan then a global affair that leads to world war. While the other two U.S. wars were largely seen as financially expensive and politically divisive quagmires for the U.S. by our rivals, invading the larger nation that sits directly between the other two would be something else entirely and remember, the other two wars began during times of economic prosperity for much of the world. It was a far less uncertain time and nations grow far less likely to watch from the sidelines when stability erodes.

Nonetheless, we'll start with an examination of conflict with Iran. While U.S. military supremacy is still unrivaled in terms of blunt force, Iran would undoubtedly be the most formidable military we've faced in more than half a century. Iran's Navy is very competent and most experts feel they probably could close the Strait of Hormuz, at least for a time. The economic costs would be huge. Any sort of conflict in that region will inherently send oil prices skyrocketing, but a major disruption in global supplies would have major consequences in the Western economies, which would also make domestic support even harder to come by.

Iran's air defense technology is also much more advanced than we've seen, which means the U.S. could see its fighter jet fleet take an expensive hit. In addition to their regular military, Iran's version of the CIA, called the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (MOIS), is considered to be among the best intelligence organizations in the world. The experience they've gained studying the U.S. over the last 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan would likely give them another considerable advantage.

Another X factor is Iranian supported Hezbollah, a much more organized and dangerous militant group than Al Queda or the Taliban. All of these factors point to a considerably more involved conflict than simply ordering air strikes on suspected nuclear sites as has been suggested. It's also worth noting that the old power structure in Iran has been seen as weakening and might be motivated to respond with an all out effort to preserve itself at all costs in the face of military conflict with the west.

Before committing to such an uncertain path, the United States must have a clearly-defined objective. Beyond “preventing Iran from securing a nuclear weapon,” we haven't presented one. When it comes to no holds barred combat, we are unrivaled in our ability to defend a military attack on our homeland or eviscerate an opponent abroad. But as experiences in places like Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, we are much less adept at attempting to accomplish regime change and nation building through combat means.

War with Iran, whether or not it escalated to a global conflict, would be an expensive and dangerous proposition. The direct financial cost would be immense at a time when we are deeply indebted, while the expense to our economy suffered through record-high gasoline prices and fallout from cyber attacks and other market disruptions would be equally devastating. War in the homeland would also serve to unite competing factions of Iran's society in a common cause, likely strengthening the current leadership's grasp on power, while the chance for an internally-led revolution dwindles.

Many great empires have met their demise while overextending their military reach at a time when they were already over-leveraged with debt. At the end of the day, Iran is not a direct threat to the United States, as they do not possess the means to effectively attack our homeland – and still would, even if they developed a nuclear weapon, no different than Pakistan, India or North Korea. At most, they can be a problem-point in a strategically important region of the world, capable of disrupting our fragile economy through their role in global oil supplies. Engaging them militarily would only guarantee that become the case, while opening the door for a myriad of other scenarios to occur that truly would threatened the balance of power in the world. Whatever course we choose, we'd do best to proceed with that in mind.

Dennis Maley is a featured columnist and editor for The Bradenton Times. His column appears every Thursday and Sunday on our site and in our free Weekly Recap and Sunday Edition (click here to subscribe). An archive of Dennis' columns is available here. He can be reached at dennis.maley@thebradentontimes.com. You can also follow Dennis on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the badges below.

Dennis Maley