Iraq War Provides Military Options in Iran

Despite Iraq and the risk to oil markets, the US has options in dealing with Iran. First, though oil and the risk to markets is always the lynchpin for all of our dealings in the Middle East and the risk of oil reduction is real and must be considered, would the price of oil be more or less secure with a nuclear Iran? Is the risk of short term prices skyrocketing worth allowing Iranian nuclear arms controlling the sea lanes?

The US deployment in Iraq is not detrimental to American military response to the Iranian Nuclear crisis. The US has military options in Iran, and they are stronger because of our presence in Iraq. While the US is currently decisively engaged with ground troops in Iraq, our strategic and tactical ability to strike through the air is not hampered at all. We would not have to occupy Iran in order to destroy their nuclear developments.

Current analysis of the Iranian program indicates that there are 350 hardened sites that would need to be attacked to have a real impact on the nuclear program. Air power alone probably cannot do it. If it requires a ground invasion to secure and destroy the sites, we can do that from Iraq and leave: we are not required to occupy Iran anymore than we had to occupy Iraq in 1990. It is premature to use force now, but the current war does not leave us without military options, and ground forces should be available from allies if that is necessary, since Europe is at greater immediate risk. Additionally, having troops on two borders and a huge fleet in Iran's sea certainly provides the ability to strike them reasonably easily.

Ground War

While the war in Iraq currently reduces the number of potential American ground forces in a war with Iran, it also opens up the ability to get ground troops into Iran if we chose to do so, and that route would be available to allies as well as the US. Without the ability to get the troops in, all the troops in the world are an empty threat.And unless the European NATO members are completely useless, they ought to be able to kick in some of their troops if some ground force is necessary. It seems to me that if our allies collectively are not able or willing to step up and prevent Iranian nuclear armament when it is their countries that will be within range long before the US is, then what is the point of having them as allies? But even if they won't or can't, we are better off having Iraq as a launching pad.

Iran Impact on Iraq Insurgents

While the occupation in Iraq has not been stellar, it cannot be lost on the Iranian leadership that the Iraqi military that kept Iran at bay for 10 years was swatted away like a fly, Saddam and his top leadership are in prison, and that the muslim world did not rise up and defend Iraq (or Afghanistan). And since the Shiite/Sunni split is a very significant issue for muslims, I don't think there is much support for shiite control of nuclear bombs. I don't think Iran is counting on a lot of support from outside.

We would not have have real options to get troops into Iran but for Iraq. The Afghan border is very mountainous, similar to the Pakistan border, which is why it is hard for us to patrol there now, and very difficult for armored vehicles, and the Afghan infrastructure would not support a large invasion force. Turkey did not even allow us to go through them to Iraq, and would be less likely to support an attack on Iran. Putting troops into the Kurdish area before we had toppled Saddam would have put us at war with Iran and Iraq at the same time: Iraq gives us a ground war option, it does not take it away.

Iran through its proxies such as Sadr and other Shiite leaders can and has made the occupation of Iraq more dificult that it would have been without their meddling. And it is possible that a US strike on Iran would turn a larger portion of the Iraqi Shiites against the new government (and it may even be that the Shiite Iraqi government will not cooperate with the US once it has gained more control). This potential is real and dangerous, but it is not enough of a danger to simply allow the Iranians to have nuclear weapons. It would delay the outcome in Iraq, but it would not require more troops to protect American troops currently in Iraq: it would only require more troops if we decided to fight Sadr et al in the cities while we were dealing with Iran, rather than dealing with the nukes, pulling out, and then dealing with the shiite uprising. And the ten year war with Iran must have left enough bitterness among the majority of Iraqis that they are not all that enthused about having their neighbor to the East have nuclear weapons.

Iran could definitely make things harder in Iraq, but war is hard. Preventing a nuclear Iran is a necessary goal, and fear of additional meddling in Iraq is not enough of a reason to prevent military intervention if diplomacy fails. The US military is not going to defeat an insurgency, and never will. They can merely provide circumstances for the political solution. It would be harder, but not change the essential reality that the Iraqis have to deal with the insurgents and not rely on Americans killing them all.

And though the James Fallows article (recently published in the Atlantic) assumes there is no European military support to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons and therefore no good military solution, that is not my assumption. But it certainly appears from his conclusions that the route to Iran is through Iraq, which would equally mean that without being in Iraq, that route would not be there. And even assuming that there is no European support (which would be by no means a guarantee even if we were not in Iraq), we are still in a stronger position by being in Iraq then we would be if we were not and would have to fight for a foothold to get the troops in.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that it would be a difficult project, but I do not see how being in Iraq makes it harder than it would be if we were not already there in force. Using military force in Iran would likely make the Iraqi occupation even more difficult, but not impossible. I think it simply comes down to how many American lives we will risk to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. I think that number is a lot. My recollection of Army body count expectations from the first Gulf war was that we would lose 30,000 troops...but we went anyway. I suspect that preventing a nuclear Iran is worth more lives than restoring a monarchy. But it seems clear that if we are not willing to risk those lives, then Iran will have nuclear weapons before this decade is out.