jsteele wrote:Israel can only attack Iran from the air and with, perhaps, a few very small commando-style ground operations. There is no way in hell that the IDF is capable of occupying Iran. Therefore, if Israel strikes first, it has to deliver a knock-out blow because past experience shows that it cannot defend itself against an Iranian attack. Israel needs the help of the U.S. to do that. Trump has clearly warned Israel not to attack while U.S.-Iran talks are going on. It is therefore possible that Trump will not come to Israel's aid if Israel strikes first.
I can't see Trump showing any interest in an Iraq-style occupation of Iran. Therefore, if the U.S. gets involved, I think our attacks will be limited to stand-off weapons. The result of those attacks will likely be to turn Iran into a failed state, joining the failed states of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and, partially, Lebanon. That is a lot of territory and a lot of people to put into states of anarchy and is a recipe for future problems.
Jeff, it would be much worse than Iraq. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is deeply entrenched and more complex than Iraq’s Osirak reactor, making complete dismantlement through airstrikes unlikely. The army is very strong and Israel would not be able to have a decisive victory. They will pull us into the war. It will be a disaster for American troops.
One of my favorite people to follow on the subject is DC’s very own Vali Nasr, former dean of SAIS at JHU.