Former SOCOM Director Of Intelligence: Avoid Half-Vast Approach To Iran

Posted Jan 25, 2012 by Howard Altman

Updated Jan 25, 2012 at 07:27 AM

Last night, President Barack Obama reiterated the U.S. position that any effort by Iran to block the Straight of Hormuz - a threat being made in response to sanctions against that nation for its presumed efforts to build nuclear weapons - would not be tolerated. Meanwhile, Israel is asking the UN to “take action against Iran” and NATO says it wants to avoid armed conflict with Iran.

In today’s installment in my series of expert analyses on how the U.S. should approach Iran, Mike Pheneger, a former director of intelligence for U.S. Special Operations Command, says give sanctions a chance to work before attacking.

Avoid Half-Vast Ideas

My first experience with Iran was as Deputy J2 at US Central Command in 1985 when the “Tanker War” threatened to disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.  I was the intelligence officer on a CENTCOM team that did bi-lateral planning with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait to counter a potential Iranian threat. Today we have a similar problem with a few new wrinkles.

Iraq was the accidental creation of colonial powers, but Iran is the successor to the Persian Empire that dominated the Middle East 2,500 years ago. It occupies a strategic position on the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz through which tankers carry 20 percent of the world’s oil. It has three times Iraq’s population and land area and is religiously, ethnically and linguistically cohesive.  Regardless of internal political disputes, Iranians have a sense of national identity. They endured extraordinary hardships during the war with Iraq.

Iran’s theocratic government seeks to become a regional power. Their controversial nuclear program is part of that effort.  It may soon produce nuclear weapons. Iran’s leaders believe the United States and Israel are the primary obstacles in their path.

President Obama is orchestrating a program of negotiations and international sanctions to compel Iran to negotiate an end to its nuclear program. Indirect negotiations have so far failed, but sanctions have inflicted significant damage on Iran’s fragile economy. The recent assassinations of four Iranian nuclear scientists, a cyber-attack on their uranium enrichment facilities and a number of mysterious “accidents” indicate there is a covert effort to delay the program. Israel is the suspected perpetrator.

There are increasing calls for the United States to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites before they can build a weapon. Several Republican presidential candidates have threatened to use military force and “covert” action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, debate moderators failed to ask the candidates how Iran might respond.

Iran’s military capabilities are limited, but they could inflict significant damage on any attacker. 

Last week, Iran reacted to harsh new sanctions and candidate rhetoric by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, an action that would have drastic economic consequences for the United States and the world.  This week, they failed to follow through on a threat to attack US aircraft carriers if they returned to the Gulf.

Iran has a significant capability to conduct asymmetrical naval warfare against the US Navy using mini-subs, over a thousand small attack boats, ship and shore-based cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and naval mines. The US Navy can re-open the straits, but war games indicate it will take time, incur significant costs, and cause major damage to the world economy.

Military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities or reopen the strait would also require that we destroy Iran’s air force, navy, air defense, and command and control to safeguard our forces.

Iran’s has other dangerous options. Launching missiles to destroy oilfields and processing facilities in the Persian Gulf states and inciting client terrorist groups to attack US targets world-wide come immediately to mind.  Iran may also respond in kind to covert attacks. Last month we foiled an Iranian attempt to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

Threats to attack Iran’s nuclear capability sound great in a stump speech, but the associated dangers should give us pause. My grandfather cautioned against starting “vast projects with half-vast ideas.” Our recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan provides cautionary lessons. Military actions often have unintended consequences. We would be well advised to tone down the rhetoric and give sanctions, negotiations and old fashioned deterrence an opportunity to succeed.

Pheneger is a retired US Army colonel.  He served as Deputy Director of Intelligence for US Central Command and Director of Intelligence for US Special Operations Command. He teaches courses on Terrorism and Global Political Issues for Learning in Retirement Programs in Tampa and Sarasota.  He is President of the ACLU of Florida.

The opinions expressed here are his own.