Talking about war with Iran is not necessarily bad

"All uses of military force involve risks, but so does inaction", reminds Anthony Cordesman at the conclusion of his new paper: "Covering U.S. Military Options for Dealing with Iran". He continues: "The law of unintended consequences applies to both [action and inaction]. What is important, however, is to understand both why the US needs to preserve the military option against Iran, and the risks in actually executing it."

1.

The blog today will be an easy cut and paste from this study. Cordesman is a well known scholar, working at The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Before we dive into this study he just published, I would like to remind you of something that was brought up in the dialogue with Shoshana Bryen of JINSA two weeks ago:

The US and Israel are engaged, to some extent, in an "Alphonse and Gaston" routine. Approaching a door neither wishes to enter, each says to the other, "After you." "No, after you." And neither goes through. Both countries find a nuclear Iran unacceptable, each has reason to believe the other is better suited to taking out some part of Iran's presumed nuclear capability, and both have good reasons not to want to engage Iran militarily.

Yesterday, according to some reports, Israel's military Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, was pointedly responding to a remark dealing with the reluctance of the US to destroy the gas chambers in World War Two. They knew about the Holocaust, remarked someone. "And today, don't they know about the Iranian bomb?"

2.

CBS News reported Tuesday that the Pentagon has ordered new options to be drawn up for attacking Iran ("I'm not aware of any ramping up or revision of war plans for Iran," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell responded). Here is what Cordesman has to say about the constant threat of escalation in the Persian Gulf: "there have been cases where a complex drum beat of war scares and denials has had useful diplomatic impact as well as negative effects."

This is one way with which to understand how come the same Defense Secretary who warned a couple of days ago that "Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need" is the Secretary who now sends warning signals (and aircraft carriers) to Iran.

3.

Iran is the world's "most active" state sponsor of terrorism, a new official US report says. "Iran and Syria routinely provided safe haven, substantial resources, and guidance to terrorist organizations."

That is one reason - out of three - for a possible military action against Iran. "One is the nuclear contingency"; "Dealing with Iranian support of the extremist insurgent elements like those in the Sadr militia is a very different kind of struggle"; "Iranian Escalation in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf, Lebanon, and with Non-State Actors." Each scenario is different, but in all three the Iranians will not sit idly by and watch American action without responding.

Threats, writes Cordesman, have to be credible. "Iran has shown that it is not reckless, but it also has shown a willingness to call US bluffs and ignore such threats." Hence, it is compulsory that "military actions against Iranian targets are seen to be potentially successful, and the US to demonstrate that it can "out-escalate" Iran."