Military Strikes Against Iran Could Create "Middle East Ball of Fire"

The United States has not ruled out military action against Iran over their disputed nuclear weapon plans. According to usatoday.com U.S. officials believe Israel's recent military exercises could have been meant to show-off their ability to strike Iran's nuclear sites. The same article quotes the International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed El Baradei as saying "In my opinion, a military strike (on Iran) will be the worst... it will turn the Middle East to a ball of fire."

There are conflicting reports from different agencies as to exactly what the Iranian military is up to. This all sounds like the build up to military action against Iraq. No matter what we believe the truth is about Iran, it is undeniable that military action against them is a distinct possibility. Given this, it's imperative we investigate the power of the Iranian forces and allies to determine just what an attack may bring. An msnbc.com report states the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) Commander in chief Mohammed Al Jafari said Iran would impose control on the Straight of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf where two-fifths of the world's oil originates. Does the military of Iran have the ability to do this?

According to Wikipedia the IRG has its' own ground forces, air force, navy and intelligence. Iran has another military arm called the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. They are both ultimately unified as the Iranian military. Estimates show the IRG alone with forces of around two hundred thousand in peace time. According to The International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) Iran has a number of tools available to its' Navy. These include submarines, very capable missile boats, anti-ship missiles, and the third largest helicopter fleet in the world. Iran has a coastline that spans the entire Persian Gulf. The United States will have difficulties gaining permission from other Middle East countries to use as a launching point for ships and planes. Kuwait has said it would not cooperate with a U.S. military strike based on Iran's perceived nuclear threat.

The IISS also concluded that during Iran's many years of war with Iraq they were able to establish a solid industrial base capable of supplying any needs of the Iranian military. This includes nuclear warheads. This same article says the Iranian army's strategy "is to absorb a first strike and then to initiate immediate retaliation with all means available." This is consistent with Al Jafari's recent statement that they would retaliate by seizing control of the Persian Gulf.

Iranian allies Hezbollah and Hamas would pose another problem for anyone attacking Iran. These organizations have both built military and terrorist capabilities. They have years of terrorist experience and are more organized and better funded the Al Qaeda. Hezbollah's recent military skirmish in Lebanon underscores their might. Fox.com reports that rockets with Iranian lettering and serial numbers are landing in Israel. This suggests increased cooperation between Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. A military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would certainly unite these factions even more.

It is widely known that America's military is stretched thin with an unpopular war in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan. The U.S. government would have a hard time selling its' own citizens on the validity of a pre-emptive attack on Iran based on conflicting intelligence of nuclear ambitions. A war unpopular with the public is a war that will always be difficult to fight. It makes recruiting, funding, and maintaining military morale difficult.

All of these factors make it plausible that Iran could seize control of the Persian Gulf in the event of an attack. They point to a potential widening of any conflict beyond the gulf. Hamas and Hezbollah have the organization to carry out attacks anywhere in the world. Nuclear weapons can serve as deterrents to war when there is a balance. The cold war between the U.S. and the USSR is a prime example as is the current situation between Pakistan and India. The costs of an attack on Iran need to be carefully weighed. It may be a case of causing a "ball of fire" rather than preventing one.