by Nicholas Reid

Created on: January 11, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

The U.S. has very few viable options in an attack on Iran. Considering the current climate in Iraq, it's unlikely that the U.S. could take on another major ground conflict without severely endangering the mission there. A full-scale invasion of Iran would also be a much more difficult task than mission to Iraq. Iraq has less than half the population of Iran. The people of Iran are mostly Muslim, as in Iraq, but they are also, unlike Iraq, almost entirely Sunni. Iraqi internal politics allowed the U.S. to play the sides against each other. There will be no such opportunities in Iran resistance will be united from the start.

The topography of Iran also is nothing like the billiard table that is Iraq; valleys and low mountains crisscross almost the entire country. Confined spaces effect large military units in the same way as small units. In urban terrain, described by one U.S. commander as a knife fight in a phone booth, the technological advantage, enjoyed by American forces is lost. Similarly, a large invasion of Iraq would degrade in to battles for individual valleys and hilltops. Anyone remember Korea?
The final nail in the coffin of a land invasion is the state of the Iranian military. Iraq had been under U.N. sanctions for over a decade and had lost a large part of their already antiquated military in the first Gulf War. When the U.S. rolled in for Gulf War 2 they faced a force that was little more than a rolling, for the most part, museum. The men were uncommitted and the equipment in disrepair, yet they still dealt the U.S. a few blows when the terrain got tight.
Iran on the other hand is a nation that has been developing it's own equipment for years and has also had the world markets to buy from. Weapons like, advanced anti-tank missiles, high-tech subs with higher-tech torpedoes. It's armed forces number about 513,000 and they have a deep base of battle-hardened troops from the Iran-Iraq war to draw from. Which they most likely remember, along with the over throw of Mohammed Mossadeq (look him up) was helped along by the U.S.
Which leaves the classic air strike' option. While it can be argued that air strikes are a viable option it will not be a successful one. The Iranian nuclear program, which this is all supposedly' about, is a highly decentralized, ultra secret program. Locating and then actually striking targets deep in the Iranian countryside will be exceedingly difficult. Even Tora Bora, almost leveled by U.S. by air strikes needed boots on the ground to finish the job, almost.
Israel is the wild card in this equation, whether played by the U.S. or by them. Their ground option is none existent, sharing no common borders and having little by way of amphibious or airborne assets. An Israeli air strike would have the same problems as the U.S. with one decided difference. Israel has no interest in Iran developing a peaceful nuclear power system, to say nothing of a weapons program. The former would give the Iranians and eventually other mideast nations abundant power and perhaps hope after oil. Which only makes them' stronger and therefore, or so it seems to the hawks, Israel weaker.
Iran is about a decade, at present estimates, away from developing a deliverable weapon, one that could be put on a rocket of a strategic nature. There is still time for plenty of negotiation and deal making. Iran wants and needs nuclear power; 67 million Iranians want their MTV. If they constantly have to listen threats and calls for regime change from the U.S., Israel and a bullied international community, could anyone blame them for trying to get a wild card of their own, just to even up the game.

Learn more about this author, Nicholas Reid.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.