Many people are wondering about why the USA invaded Iran.
So am I.
A half-dozen reasons are floating around. Of them, regime change seems the most comprehensible. After all, didn't they 'obliterate' the Iranian nuclear program last year?
My issue with regime change isn't a lack of clarity.
My concerns are:
1) Regime change has never been accomplished solely through air power. Pre-1945 military theorists waxed eloquent on its efficacy and potential; Post-1945, theorists expounded endlessly on its limitations. The US firebombed German cities; it dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in the entirety of WWII, but both fought on, despite millions of deaths.
The best case for air power remains the nuking of Japan. That, however, was not conventional air power. Second, the little known Soviet invasion of Manchuria captured millions of Japanese troops and thousands of square kilometres of territory, occupied Sakhalin island, and threatened to invade Japan along with the Americans. It was a catastrophic defeat for Japan, and it is arguable this had as much, or more, impact on the Japanese surrender.
2) Mountainous regions like Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Scotland, the Southern Appalachians, and Iran tend to produce highly tribal, honour oriented warrior cultures. They are relatively isolated in mountain valleys, so defeating one has little impact on another. They are notoriously difficult to conquer.
3) Iran has one million men under arms. This is something of an occupation force, meant to keep local minorities subdued than an outward directed one. But it is massive. It knows the terrain, and has tens of thousands of drones for which the Americans have no ready defence. Defeating the Iranian army would likely take a force larger than the first and second Gulf Wars combined, cost trillions, and cause unthinkable civilian and military casualties.
4) Ensuring a friendly regime is installed and maintained would require literally millions of occupation troops. Even with that, I doubt subduing all of Iran would be possible. Chaos will engulf everything outside core, US occupied population centres. The US military struggled to subdue Afghanistan, which had far fewer resources than Iran and a small fraction of the population, and ended in disaster and defeat.
5) Loss of central control of Iran could atomize the country into dozens of competing factions. It would make the internecine fighting in post-invasion Iraq look like a picnic. State support systems and infrastructure would collapse, leading to humanitarian disaster. Iran has 90 million people. This is at least 3 times as large as Iraq, and that was mostly flat desert. This will be more like a turbo-charged Afghanistan.
6) Regions that fall into chaos and anarchy tend to produce terrorist groups and violent political movements, for obvious reasons. That will sow chaos around the world for decades to come. They also produce huge waves of desperate refugees that can destabilize other countries.
7) The Strait of Hormuz is in Iraq's backyard. They occupy one side of the strait! Securing passage for giant tanker targets is going to be all but impossible. The damage to the world economy and supply of fuel to both Europe and Asia will be devastating. The US doesn't seem to have considered this. At all. Hegseth just said they didn't have to even worry about it. Breathtaking stuff.
8) Trump's call for 'unconditional surrender' suggests he is living in a fantasy world where he can appropriate the glory of the Allied victory in WWII and make portentous declarations that shape world destiny, except this time without even an iota of wisdom. They say history repeats: first as tragedy and then as farce. We're in the farce stage now.
9) The dead Ayatollah was apparently against getting a nuke. His son, on the other hand, is a proponent. Iran is now highly incentivized to get nukes. Some pundits say they have the material to make 16 bombs already, and the US doesn't know where the material is. Peachy.
10) The American goals do not match their (inconsistent, wildly rotating) strategy. They cannot end the war without Iran's consent. Sure, Trump can declare victory and walk away, ignoring the Iranians. That doesn't help the oil tankers trying to get through the Strait of Hormuz. It leaves the Middle East a chaotic mess. Trump, of course, delights in chaos and destruction.
11) The US is not dependent on Middle East oil, but they do take a good deal of their fertilizer inputs from the region. That will impact American farmers, and drive up prices further. Former American Allies will be hit much worse.
12) Iran could hit the desalination plants of the Gulf States. Without them, the population will have to disperse or die of thirst. The US can block missiles, but not the swarms of drones.
13) The US claims it has eliminated 90% of Iran's missiles and 95% of its drones. I am very sceptical of this claim, but even if true, the Iranians can produce new drones in a local garage. It should also be noted that German aircraft production peaked in 1944, at the height of the Allied bombing campaign. A campaign that was ongoing, lasting years, and costing the lives of thousands of airmen and even more civilians. Is the US going to be pummelling Iran for years to come?
I hope I'm wrong, that I'm ill informed, that it will all work out for the best.
But right now, the US attack looks like a disaster in the making.
