Result of Possible U.S. attack on Iran

The regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran has already declared that it was determined to resume enrichment process. There is little doubt that this will eventually lead to referral of the Iranian nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for adoption of sanctions against Iran and the UNSC will encounter a cul-de-sac.

The UNSC is not at moment in a position to adopt a serious measure against the regime of Iran. A look at the countries sitting in the UNSC, especially the members with veto power, shows that nothing serious will come out of the UNSC against Iranian regime.

Russian Federation has nuclear cooperation with Iran and it will continue to do so because:

A- The Russians make money B- They get advantages from Iran (for example in the Caspian Sea and the case of Chechens) C- They get advantages from the West (like loans from the international agencies dominated by the West) D- They get jobs for their unemployed scientists E- They get to build at least 20 other nuclear reactors in Iran F- They get to build more reactors in the other countries using the experience and money gained in Iran G- They boost their regional policy H- They show their dissatisfaction from the West, especially the USA, for not helping this country enough after the collapse of the USSR.

Then you have the Chinese there. They are opposed to the referral of the Iranian case to the UNSC because:

1- They are not interested to be a part of any sanctions against Iran 2- They are establishing very important ties with Iran for purchasing oil and gas in the next years 3- They are happy to create trouble for the American and European rivals in the Persian Gulf

Then you have a group of other countries, especially the members of the Non-aligned Movement. The members of this movement:

1- do not want to see the unilateral domination of the West over the nuclear issues 2- They are concerned about their own quest for nuclear energy in the future. 3- They see no legal basis for the Western and US demand against Iran in the nuclear issue 4- They are going to suffer from the sanctions against Iran

Then you have the European countries. The members of the EU have proved in the past that they not like a solid and unified organization. The increase in the number of the EU members has weakened the possibility of taking a unified position, instead of increasing it. The European countries have so many problems with the case of Iran, such as:

1- If the sanctions rise the prices of oil (let say over 120 dollars) they will lose dearly 2- They are selling so many products to Iran without the competition of the Americans and they lose the lucrative market 3- The Europeans have nothing real to offer to Iran and for the last couple of years they have only played a form of negotiations as if they represent a certain wing in the United States. They are not even able to perform the proposals that they have tabled. They are going to lose this leverage based on nothing. 4- The Europeans are more afraid of the USA's unilateralism than Iran�s nuclear program. 5- The Europeans do not want to see the American dominance in the region. At the moment, Afghanistan and Iraq directly and many other places indirectly are under the US control and if the sanctions are approved, the US will be the main imposer of the sanctions. This gives the upper hand to the USA and the EU members are concerned about it.

Therefore, it is now clear that the nuclear case of Iran will not get an easy answer in the UNSC. However, there is an option that the US has repeated many times that it is open: a military attack by the USA, with or without the backing of the Europeans, against Iran. Such an attack will change the whole picture. However, it seems that the US will attack in a way to cripple the whole Islamic system, or not attack at all. A limited attack to the nuclear facilities or similar ones will lead to:

1- More vigorous plan of the regime for nuclear facilities 2- Increasing the policy of suppression against the people of Iran 3- Concentration of the terrorist activities of Iran's regime on the American targets 4- More opposition of Iran in the Middle East peace process and beefing up of the hardliners. More attacks against Israel and subverting the peace process. 5- Strengthening of the extremists in Iran 6- Giving many government posts to the civilian looking personnel of the Islamic revolutionary forces and Baseej (the disposable militias) (a kind of coup that has been planned, practiced and made ready for such occasions). 7- Fire missiles into Iraq, Kuwait and UAE (especially Dubai) 8- Bloc the Hormuz strait by sinking several big oil tankers there. 9- Ground attack against cities in Iraq and start of a close war with the US and UK's forces, in cooperation with the local Shiite militias, especially Moqtada Al-Sadr, Ansar, and the Sunnis. 10- Unleashing the Al-queda operatives (the members of Al-queda have been living in Iran and they are being prepared for the proper time) and activating the terrorist cells that Iran has established close ties with them since the American attack against Taleban in Afghanistan.

It seems that the people of Iran are not in position to revolt against the regime in case of a limited attack. The people are facing a ruthless regime, which has practiced for 27 years for keeping power without legitimacy. The regime had never legitimacy because its leaders including and especially Khomeini lied to the people from the square one. Its ideologists (like Ali Shaiati) produced fabrications about the history and ideology of Islam and misguided the people of Iran. They created something that never existed and pushed it down the throat of the hungry people of Iran.

The idea that Iranians are going to stand by the mullahs if attacked, is as ridiculous as thinking that they will revolt after a few attacks to several points of Iran without seriously crippling the regime. Both of these ideas are outdated and worthless. The only time that the Iranians are going to be re-activated is the time that the regime is seriously crippled. Forget the experience of 8 years of idiotic war of Iran and Iraq. The conditions are not there anymore:

1- People do not believe in Islam in that way anymore. 2- The leadership of Khomeini (with all of his lies) is not there 3- No one believes in the Supreme Leader 4- Iran has been like a snake eating its own tail for the last 27 years. The resources consumed by the regime in those years are not there. 5- The international conditions, mainly resulting from the last years of the Cold War, are gone.

1- Dismantling the most important center of Islamic terrorism. The present government of Iran is the most active sponsor of terrorism in the world.

2- Cutting the role of the Iranian regime in activities against the existence of Israel. The security of Israel is an important matter for the West and the USA. The Islamic regime of Iran is the most devout enemy of Israel due to the problems that have nothing to do with Iran. Israel and Iran (without the present regime) are natural allies due to their confrontation with the Arabs.

3- Possibility of commercial activities for the American companies in Iran, just like the Europeans and Russians which are now actively present in the Iranian market and enjoy the lack of competition by the American counterparts. The biggest trade partners of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the last few years were: Germany, Japan, France, UK and Italy. Of course the Russians have been selling everything from Chernobyl brand nuclear reactors to the second hand submarines to Iran.

4- A step in the direction of the proclaimed US policies for expansion of freedom and democracy in the region.

6- Possibility of better access to the Iranian oil and gas. This gives the US a good position to deal with the Europe and the Russians.

7- Putting a good impression on the people of Iran. During the last quarter of century that the Iranian regime has tried to antagonize the Iranians with the USA and its people, a kind of strong love has emerged between the USA and the people of Iran. The USA is the most popular country in the world for the Iranians, even among those who deny this (all of the Mullahs and their lackeys sent their children to the USA for educations and travel to the USA to seek medical attention or even to deliver a speech against the West).

Some people think that the Americans do not have the capabilities to inflict a crippling strike against the Islamic regime of Iran due to the problems in Iraq. This is not true. The problem of the American capabilities is the last obstacle. When the Americans decide to do the job and convince the Europeans and Russia to get out of way, they have plenty of resources to act:

1- The huge air and sea power of the USA that are sitting in the Persian Gulf with almost nothing to do 2- The new military bases in Azerbaijan 3- The Baluchestan of Pakistan, which is not really under the control of Pakistan 4- The new huge military bases in Afghanistan 5- The troops and facilities in Iraq 6- The facilities in the Bahrain (the main center of the US naval units in the Persian Gulf), Kuwait (the bases established after liberation of Kuwait from Saddam�s regime), Qatar (the new center of the American forces after downsizing the forces in the Saudi Arabia), Oman (one of the oldest US allies in the region) and the UAE (in conflict with Iran over the three Islands of the Persian Gulf), even if we forget the Saudi Arabia 7- The bases in Turkey (especially Incerlik) 8- The facilities in Tajikistan 9- The facilities and assistance of Israelis Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean.

The Iranians have failed to topple or reform the regime, and they do have enough time to tame the Mullahs the same way that they treated Alexander, the Arabs and the moguls. The Iranian inside the country are unable to take any action. The Iranians out of Iran are not ready to do any sacrifice.

The people of Iran are looking to the outside, especially to the USA to save them, if necessity through military action. The people of Iran deserve the intervention of the USA as it happened against the German and Japanese dictatorship and Nazism and Fascism. Each time that an American leader talks about understanding the situation of Iranians and helping them out of such misery, a new light shines in the heart of the Iranians.

The people of Iran are not going to rise against the regime of the Islamic Republic. How much pressure and mistreatment, humiliation, violation of rights, discrimination and suppression is enough for the people to revolt? The wrong economic policies, unemployment, violation of human rights, consideration the women as second hand human beings or part of the lifeless materials, imposing the judicial regulations of the ancient Arab tribes for the people living in the 21st century, mistreatment of the political prisoners, killing them as ordinary criminals, renaming the solitary confinement as private suite, violation of the children's rights, changing the water courses according to the wishes of the influential persons, pushing the people to addiction to narcotic drugs because there is no prohibition in Islam for such drugs ( in fact most of the Mullahs are serious drug addicts. Not a single prominent Mullah has issued a Fatwa to prohibit the narcotic drugs, while they have published volumes of books about the women's period and the toilet training), the universities are dead due to lack of proper professor, accepting the students on the basis of services to the regime and graduating them without having proper credentials, bad relations with almost all countries due to misunderstanding the international relations, wasting the time and energy of people for training the illiterate Mullahs and their relatives as politicians and so on. Losing the international opportunities in all cases especially in the Caspian Sea and the newly independent states in the north of Iran. Poverty, dividing the people to the insiders and outsiders on the basis of services to the regime, suppression of the journalists, limiting the Internet, crippling the freedom of expression, using the oil resources against the national interests, intervention in the places like Palestine that the people of Iran do care what happens there (and the Arabs consider these acts as the Iranian intervention. They see Iran as Israel, an occupier of the Arab lands due to the dispute over three islands in the Persian Gulf and they do not tolerate even the historical and geographical name of the Persian Gulf), useless hostility with the USA. Eight years of meaningless war, millions of dead, maimed and chemically injured people. Forcing millions of people to leave Iran and taking out their skills to the other countries. Giving the judiciary to the foreigners, including illiterate Mullahs that do not even know the teachings of Islam (no respected Islamic clergy has been working in the Iranian judiciary since the revolution. All judges of the revolutionary courts are young and illiterate, politically ambitious and religiously poor mullahs), turning the system to the dictatorship of the so-called Supreme Leader, violating even the Constitutional Law of the regime, and making the people less religious (if you consider the Islamization as the main polity of the regime, this has failed too). I can continue the list endlessly. Aren't these enough?

As far as the people of Iran are concerned, they have always thought the US has brought the Mullahs to power in Iran (through the Green Belt Policy, Carter's Doctrine, diffusing the army of Iran to avoid a coup and negotiations with Khomeini in Paris and so), and they should push the mullahs back to their carpets. Iranians are really fed up of the Islamic government. The extent of the oppressive policies of Mullahs in Iran is not comparable to any place. The people are ready to accept just anything. The discussions of the opposition groups about being considerate not to replace this dictatorship with another one are useless. The time for such planning has passed. Unfortunately, the people are ready for anything. They do not know exactly what they want. But they know exactly what they do not want. The only thing that they do not want is a religious government of any kind. This means that the Mujahedin Khalgh Organozation (MKO), the nationalist-religious elements in Iran (under any cover such as the Freedom Movement), and similar trends are wasting their times. If the people spend a time to sacrifice themselves for a new regime or invite the foreign forces to do this for them, they want something very much different than the tenets of the Islamic regime. The people of Iran need a government to give them a period of de-Islamization and de-Arabization. If this does not happen through a peaceful process, it will lead to a period of revenge and retaliation. If left unattended it may even lead to disintegration of Iran. The Forces of disintegration are already at work, and if the central regime remains in the hand of Mullahs, many parts of Iran are ready to accept the disintegration as a response to the imposed Islamic regime.

The people of Iran are looking to the outside, especially to the USA to save them, if necessity through military action.

HOW DANGEROUS IT IS TO BELIEVE EXILES

And it does not appear to me to be foreign to this subject to discuss among other matters how dangerous a thing it is to believe those who have been driven out of their country, these being matters that are acted upon each day by those who govern States; and I am especially able to demonstrate this by a memorable example given by T. Livius in his history, even though it may be outside his subject.

When Alexander the Great crossed with his army into Asia, Alexander of Epirus, his brother-in-law and uncle, came with his forces into Italy, having been called there by the exiled Lucanians, who had given him the hope that he could through their means occupy all that province. Whence he, upon their faith and hope, having come into Italy, was killed by them, because they had been promised a return to their Country by the Citizens if they would kill him.

It ought to be considered, therefore, how vain are the faith and promises of those who find themselves deprived of their country. For, as to their faith, it has to be borne in mind that anytime they can return to their country by other means than yours, they will leave you and look to the other, notwithstanding whatever promises they had made you. As to their vain hopes and promises, such is the extreme desire in them to return home, that they naturally believe many things that are false and add many others by art, so that between those they believe and those they say they believe, they fill you with hope, so that relying on them you will incur expenses in vain, or you undertake an enterprise in which you ruin yourself.

The previously mentioned example of Alexander is enough for me, but in addition, that of Themistocles, the Athenian, who, having been declared a rebel, fled to Darius in Asia, where he promised him so much if he should want to assault Greece, that Darius turned to that enterprise. Themistocles, not being able to observe these promises, he poisoned himself, either from shame or from fear of punishment. And if this error was made by Themistocles, a most excellent man, it ought to be considered how much more those men err who, because of less virtu, allow themselves to be drawn by their desires and passions.

A Prince, therefore, ought to go slowly in undertaking an enterprise upon the representations of an exile, for most of the times he will be left either with shame or very grave injury. And as the taking of towns rarely succeeds by deceit or by intelligence others within may have, it does not appear outside the subject to discuss it in the following chapter, adding some account of how many ways the Romans acquired them.

(Machiavelli's Discourses, book two, chapter XXXI)

I can tell you that Machiavelli was right but that doesn’t necessarily make you right in your application of his work. I don’t know how familiar you are with military texts but I advise that none, on their own should be used as a cookbook to formulate policy. First off, who are the exiles you’re talking about? Have they demonstrated their commitment to the cause and or force “Alexander of Epirus” represents in the contemporary? Are they willing to risk life and limb for their own “Alexander the Great”? Is the goal to conquer? The U.S. is not an empire and never will be therefore we are not conquers but that was Alexander’s intent and in Machiavelli’s day the objective was to amass an empire. Although Machiavelli is “must read” material, much more relevant to our cause today is our own history. In our revolution, colonists broke from their motherland to become Americans. They were not guided by the likes of a cookbook! They held fast to their ideological convictions that liberty was life.

ISBN 0-375-70524-4: FOUNDING BROTHERS: The Generation

Despite the confident and providential statements of leaders like Paine, Jefferson, and Adams, the conclusions that look so foregone to us had yet to congeal for them. The old adage applies: Men make history, and the leading members of the revolutionary generation realized they were doing so, but they can never know the history they are making. We can look back and make the era of the American Revolution a center point, then scan the terrain upstream and downstream, but they can only know what is downstream. An anecdote that Benjamin Rush, the Philadelphia physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, liked to tell in his old age makes the point memorably. On July 4, 1776, just after the Continental Congress had finished making its revisions of the Declaration and sent it off to the printer for publication, Rush overheard a conversation between Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry," said Harrison, "when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead." Rush recalled that the comment "procured a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was conducted."

They would have been hung as traitors if they failed, but national icons if they succeeded. They succeeded spectacularly but not without help. The American Revolution received the exact help that your passage explicitly argues against. We found a partner in France - Treaty of Alliance Between The United States and France; February 6, 1778 – So as to keep my comment manageable it is summed up here in Article two and three… ART. 2. The essential and direct End of the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty, Sovereignty, and independance absolute and unlimited of the said united States, as well in Matters of Gouvernement as of commerce. ART. 3. The two contracting Parties shall each on its own Part, and in the manner it may judge most proper, make all the efforts in its Power, against their common Ennemy, in order to attain the end proposed.

Was France stupid for breaking Machivellian logic by forming an alliance with petty colonists? Remember, back then we were just Britain’s exiles? No, I’d say they found more relevant texts and experience to measure and formulate effective policy. For good open source context I recommend you consider reading the Marine Corp Small Wars Manual of 1942, and then add to those ideas all that you know about globalization… and then formulate an effective “end to end” campaign to achieve your goals. I’ll be very surprised if you still find the passage you chose, HOW DANGEROUS IT IS TO BELIEVE EXILES, to be the most relevant Machiavellian passage you can find.

Regardless... thanks for bringing depth to the discussion. Your point of view cannot be easily dissmissed when backed up with Machiavelli.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.