Pages Menu

Categories Menu

Posted on Nov 4, 2011 in War College

Ralph Peters Exclusive: Bomb Iran’s Nukes? Then What? A War, Not Just Surgical Strikes

By Ralph Peters

An anti-aircraft gun position is seen at Iran's nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran, in this Sept. 2007 file photo.  (AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian, File)

The day may come when we are driven to attack Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities to prevent a strategic catastrophe, but only a fool would wish for it or imagine that this would be an easy matter of “surgical strikes.” Hitting Iran’s nukes would require a comprehensive air and naval campaign, and the inevitable result would be a regional war with global consequences. This doesn’t mean that it can’t or shouldn’t be done, but that decision-makers and cheerleaders for a military response need to understand the magnitude of the potential consequences ― the probable chain reaction that would begin when the first bomb fell from a U.S. warplane.


As this column is written, Israel has been publicizing the successful test of a new surface-to-surface missile and leaking news that its leaders have been discussing a unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear-weapons hubs. This means an attack is not imminent, since Israel doesn’t telegraph its military punches. Rather, the current wave of publicity is aimed at energizing the international community to take the Iranian threat more seriously. With the West’s attention diverted by the multiple revolutions in the Arab world this year, Iran’s ethnic-Persian theocrats have managed to evade the spotlight that previously had focused on their nuclear ambitions. Israel’s shouting, “Hey! Pay attention!”

Still, should the international community fail to take effective measures to halt and eliminate Iran’s weapons program, Israel may feel compelled to strike later. That would be a disaster, since Israel has the capabilities to start a war in the Persian Gulf, but not to end one. And the United States would get the blame for an Israeli strike, anyway: We’d find ourselves sucked in, but struggling to catch up, militarily and diplomatically. If, in the end, an offensive must be carried out, it would be best for the U.S. armed forces to do it. That would be the only (slight) chance of avoiding painful global consequences.

The Middle East (Central Intelligence Agency)Let’s look at what “Bomb Iran!” really means: The Iranians may appear mad, but that doesn’t mean they’re fools, and they’ve studied the errors of other rogue states that sought nuclear weapons. The results? First, the Iranians have dispersed their research, development and production facilities. Second, they’ve fortified a number of vital sites in bunkers deep underground. Third, they’ve placed other link-in-the-chain laboratories and research sites in populated areas so that any attack upon them would generate large numbers of civilian casualties ― and very ugly images in the global media. Fourth, the Tehran regime has made this program a matter of nationalist pride. An attack on Iran’s nukes would be viewed as an attack on Iran, period, by the great majority of the population (even many regime opponents would “rally ‘round the flag,” in an Iranian version of the 9/11 effect). Fifth, Iran would respond promptly and asymmetrically in the wake of such an attack ― unless its extensive capabilities to hit back were also attacked and disabled from the start.

How would Iran respond to strikes on its nuke facilities? Inevitably missiles would be launched toward Israeli cities ― some with chemical warheads ― but these tit-for-tat attacks would be the least part of Tehran’s counterattack strategy. The Iranians would “do what’s doable,” and that means hitting Arab oil-production infrastructure on the other side of the narrow Persian Gulf. Employing its mid-range missiles, aircraft and naval forces, Tehran would launch both conventional and suicide attacks on Arab oil fields, refineries, storage areas, ports and loading facilities, on tankers in transit, and on the Straits of Hormuz, the great chokepoint for the world’s core oil supplies. The price of a barrel of crude would soar geometrically on world exchanges, paralyzing economies ― exactly as Iran’s leaders intend. Ten-dollar-a-gallon gas would be a brief bargain on the way to truly prohibitive prices. And, in the way of the world, Tehran would not get the blame. We would.

Oil well fires blaze out of control outside Kuwait City during Operation Desert Storm. (Department of Defense).And we would be in one hell of a war, with the Middle East literally aflame and our Navy able to conduct only limited operations (if any) within the Persian Gulf, given that the body of water would become a shooting gallery: Even our finest surface-warfare ships can’t fight or maneuver effectively in a bathtub. The flow of oil would not resume, and we would have no idea how to end the war (not least, since we’re unwilling to inflict serious pain on our enemies anymore).

So…if we are forced to attack Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities at some point, what would it take to do it right and limit Tehran’s ability to respond with such devastating asymmetrical attacks?

At the most-basic level, we would need to conceive of the operation as a war, not just a brief series of raids. In addition to the standard requirements to knock out Iran’s early-warning and air-defense systems, we would have to strike the headquarters facilities of the Revolutionary Guards, the military and the various intelligence arms. We would need to destroy Iran’s combat aircraft on the ground, and then destroy any aircraft ― including passenger jets ― that could be used as flying bombs against oil facilities. It would be essential to destroy, early on, Iran’s navy and the Revolutionary Guards’ naval arm, right down to the Zodiac-boat level. We also would need to sink any commercial vessel that attempted to leave an Iranian harbor throughout the period of hostilities, since it could be used in an attack scheme. Not only would we need to disable Iran’s government and military communications infrastructure on the first day, but we also would have to disrupt civilian communications indefinitely. Then we would have to parry years of Iranian attempts to take revenge, not just regionally, but globally. We certainly would see a resurgence of state-sponsored terrorism ― and it could be taken to a whole new level.

Technically speaking, we can meet most of the requirements listed above ― but it would require a massive and sustained offensive effort, with an extensive mobilization of our military, industrial and economic resources. Inevitably, Iranian civilians would die in significant numbers, generating graphic images of the sort that panic decision-makers in the West. Indeed, the number one requirement would be for a U.S. president of iron will who would not be swayed by international opinion or the sensation-mongering of our own media. We have not had such a man for a very long time.

Then there are the military-diplomatic issues: Where could we base sufficient concentrations of aircraft to conduct and sustain the mission? Worried about Iranian nukes themselves, the Arab leaders of the Gulf States and, above all, Saudi Arabia would initially back a U.S. attack. But what would happen when the bad publicity, the local damage, and angry populations came into play? What do we do if, in mid-war, Saudi Arabia insists that enough has been done and our planes can no longer fly from its airbases without heavy restrictions (or not fly at all)? How do you re-open the Straits of Hormuz and keep them open? How do you deal with the economic consequences, domestically and globally? For that matter, how do we cope with an Iranian ground invasion of Kuwait by way of Iraq, now that we’re leaving? Iran’s ground forces may not have much finesse, but they do have serious numbers (and allies in Iraq). In a general war, Dubai would suffer not only severe physical damage, but bankruptcy. If we get it even slightly wrong, not one Gulf state would survive unscathed. Serious planning would require gaming out the fourth- and fifth-level consequences, then preparing for extreme contingencies.

The point of all this isn’t to suggest that we do nothing, but to introduce a level of reality to “Bomb Iran!” bluster from those who have no sense of the gravity or complexity of the situation. Even in our sound-bite culture, bumper-sticker slogans still aren’t viable solutions, whether the message is “Hope and Change,” or “Drill, Baby, Drill!” An attack on Iran’s nuclear program of sufficient power to end it, not just set it back (which is all the Israelis could do), would require superb intelligence, thorough planning, a comprehensive military campaign, preparations for economic damage control, far better diplomacy than our Department of State has delivered over the past generation, adult behavior from Congress, and, above all, determined leadership from the U.S. president.

Good luck.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army intelligence officer and former enlisted man, a prize-winning, bestselling author, and a long-time member of the Armchair General team. His latest book is Lines of Fire, a collection of his most-powerful and enduring writing on strategy, security and military affairs from the past two decades.


  1. A set of strikes limited to Iran’s nuclear facilities would at best delay the Iranian nuclear program – it would not eliminate it. The program would continue, and whatever losses were incurred, the Iranians would simply replace as they start those portions of their program over. So, delay – achievable, elimination – not through a set of limited strikes, no.

    However, to take Ralph Peters’ points a step further: The Iranian regime makes mistakes as well – misjudgment is not a problem unique to the West. The Iranian regime’s greatest threats are internal. Any strikes on Iran should be designed to support a power shift in Iran. The West has already established a notorious reputation for such meddling in Iran’s affairs – but only because the West has generally been successful in it (had the West detected and actively addressed the dissatisfaction with the Shah ahead of time, perhaps Khomeni’s faction would not have seized such a lock on power from the other members of the coalition government in the wake of the Shah’s fall).

    The first successful Western coup in Iran took place during World War II, when Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced by the British to abdicate (the Brits were concerned that he would align Iran with the Axis powers), and again in 1953, when a coup was conducted to overthrow leftist leader Mohammad Mossadeq after he nationalized Western oil industry assets in Iran.

    The current regime in Iran is both factionally divided and presiding over an economic malaise entirely the result of its own horrendous policies. It is an unpopular regime given to oppression of its citizenry and forcing its own alienation from the world at large. However, some elements of the Iranian government and its citizenry have a more agreeable disposition (and Iran is not ethnically homogeneous, either). There are rifts that MIGHT be exploited.

    If strikes were conducted in support of, and in coordination with, cooler heads within Iran, then the scale of the whole thing might be smaller than Ralph Peters’ vision of the affair as expressed in the article. (But here I am wandering off from Armchair General-ing to Armchair Machiavelli-ing….wrong publication I guess.)

    The question is: Does there exist an alternative Iranian government that could be realized quickly and govern effectively following the fall of the current senior leadership?

    This would have to be a truly quick and effective transition, however. The West is in no mood to start another decade long adventure in nation building and counterinsurgency.

    If there is potential for a quick transition, then the only solution to the hybrid threat posed by Iran and its growing list of proxies is to effect that change. If there isn’t, then a larger scale war is inevitable in the future, and we should plan to fight it at the time and in the manner that is most in our favor here in the West.

    • It will take more than a series of airstrikes to settle Iran. They will try to close the Straits, they will attack America’s allies in the Gulf and they will have to be invaded.

      Is there an alternative to the current government? I don’t think so. The
      ‘opposition’ is even more fractured than the Islamicists. The MEK is popular with nobody in Iran – it’s support is almost entirely external and American. Baby Shah might be ‘biding his time’ in Washingtoin, but even of all the Royals returned to support him it would still take a few American divisions to tamp down the opposition. The natural opposition would probably rally to the nation rather than fight in support of an American/Israeli invasion. Look how they reacted to a co-religionist like Saddam Hussein.

      And it would be percieved, in the entire region, as a ‘Zionist’ action no matter what humanitarian spin the US tried to put on it.

      It has every potential of going south, faster and further, than either of the other great adventures. There will be no welcoming flowers or cakewalk in Iran.

  2. Forget about elimination, just bury the nuke facilities, communications facilities, military facilities (heavy damage to Rep-Gaurd force).

    Maybe a 15-20 day airforce exercise, drop millions of propaganda fliers telling the Iranian dissidents it is now their turn.

    Move forces into the region prior to.
    I personally think Iran is the paper tiger, syria and lebanon will soon find themselves isolated. Hamas/plo/hesbollah will never move if they know it will be their demise. If they do Isreal can take car of the light work.
    Leaders of course will have to be strong and use overwhelming force (yes over do it!) and disregard proportional nonsense.

  3. Excellent article. Thanks.

  4. Col. Peters:

    If Israel is hit with chemical weapons, this will be a VERY short war. Their retaliation will be nuclear, and tens of millions of Iranians (and probably Syrians, Lebanese, Gazans, and who knows what other groups of Islamonazis) will be vaporized.

    The oil installations of the Middle East will be leveled, the oil age will come to an end, and the world wide economic and civilizational collapse will last decades, if not become irreversible, as the world descends into starvation, chaos and anarchy, from which it may simply never recover.

    And all because the world was so obsessed with hating Jews that it cannot leave one tiny nation alone.

    • “If Israel is hit with chemical weapons, this will be a VERY short war. Their retaliation will be nuclear, and tens of millions of Iranians (and probably Syrians, Lebanese, Gazans, and who knows what other groups of Islamonazis) will be vaporized.”

      “Islamonazi”? Why does the potential death of millions of people excite you? It’s not in the interest of the Iranian regime to be destroyed and the political leadership, military leadership, and intelligence leaderships know that they will be destroyed if there is a war with the US and Israel. The mouse has enough self preservation to not provoke a cat and a lion. Regardless what anyone tells you the U.S. and Israel are the belligerents. Whatever propaganda you’re watching or reading do yourself a favor and use some common sense instead of living in fantasy land.

      “And all because the world was so obsessed with hating Jews that it cannot leave one tiny nation alone”

      The world is not so black and white. Conflict is about power versus power not good guys versus bad guys and wars are not fought for the reasons that we’re told. Why, I do not know yet but it is a must be that there is a coup d’etat in Iran because as it is the official casus belli is not convincing and I refuse to be a dupe regardless how politically correct it may or may not be.

      • Re: “Regardless what anyone tells you the U.S. and Israel are the belligerents. Whatever propaganda you’re watching or reading do yourself a favor and use some common sense instead of living in fantasy land.”

        Whoa there Mr. Kettle, but it seems you reside much closer to the the pot than you apparently realize. Perhaps the commenter to whom you reply was considering such gems as Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli settlements, or Hezbollah TV on which children’s shows feature virulently anti-semitic themes, or it could have been the hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which a U.S. Navy diver was beaten to death – but wait, maybe he thought of the attacks in 1992 and 1994 on the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community center, both in Argentina, which together killed a total of 124 people, although it’s always possible he was remembering more recent acts, such as Iranian support and direction of Hezbollah activity inside Iraq, fueling both sectarian fighting and attacks on Coalition and Iraqi troops. It’s hard to tell because Iran and its proxies kill so many people….

        Anyhow, you were mentioning something about common sense, people who live in “fantasy land,” and “the belligerents” I think?

      • Which in turn were motivated by god knows how many dead locals at the hands of the Israelis.

        “Remember the atrocity they committed against us to justify the atrocity we’re about to commit against them”. There is no good guy in this situation. They’re both belligerent, violent nations unhappy with the existence of the other.

  5. The premise behind this article, and behind the many others like it, is appalling. The notion that we simply have the right to decide whether or not to carry out military actions against another sovereign state (regardless of what we might think of that state) is in direct contradiction to our own Constitution, which everyone claims to hold in the utmost reverence. Article 6 incorporates all extant International Treaties into the Constitution, and the last I checked, we are still signatories to the UN Charter, which prohibits the use _or threat_ of force in international affairs, unless under threat of immanent attach or when authorized by the UN Security Council. Yes, I know it rankles to have such silly restrictions placed on us, but I wonder what we would think if the Iranian press was openly debating whether or not to attack Israeli nuclear facilities, whose existence we hypocritically officially deny, but which everyone knows are there in quantities which any “hostile” arab or iranian would envy.
    Iran’s nuclear program is almost undoubtedly defensive – recall that of Bush II’s “axis of evil”, the one country boat ended up getting attacked was the one which did not have a means of self-defense, whether through WMDs (North Korea) or through a large population that would be too costly (to us) to kill off. One of the principle diversionary tactics that the Mullahs use to control their own population is Israeli actions in the occupied territories and their near-genocidal campaign in the Gaza blockade, both of which are, ironically, totally criminal and illegal, at least according to the Post-WWII set of international accords which were meant to prevent Nazi activities in their occupied territories, largely against Jews, from ever occurring again. If Iran were to initiate a strike against civilian centers in Israel, they would undoubtedly kill a large number of ethnic Palestinians, thereby undermining their own claimed set of principles, and undermining their own legitimacy before their population. That’s not going to happen.
    In sum, articles like this in effect argue that our official enemies don’t even have the right to defend themselves.

  6. I Love the article as few people in Government or the public thinks things out as Col. Peters has written above.

    However I find it so interesting that the United States is “Required to fight Fair” against the various rogue countries and groups that attack us. The UN is nothing now but a sounding board for second and third world country’s to rail about the U.S. (who funds nearly everything in the UN) as well as gives a platform for these rogue country leaders to denounce the “Free World.” Saying that I think the useful years of the UN is over as there have been very few issues settled there since it’s inception.

    Rules in how the US conducts warfare are nice, however even how we managed to take out Osama Bin Laden has come across the third world media as being “unfair”; however targeting civilian population centers as was done in 9/11 and other terrorist actions by Al-Qaeda and company is in the world. Wars and Military actions are not often won by playing “by the rules” as we in the US are learning after Korea, Vietnam and other actions from Somalia, Iraq to Afghanistan.

    As Col. Peters points out when things begin to get ugly in the Middle East and Israel finds itself the target of WMD from Iran or worse yet the Arab World nuclear weapons (remember Pakistan also has the bomb and is it for sale?) start to fly there isn’t going to be much left for anyone in the Middle East. The Oil Refinery’s will be one of the first targets and thus the World Economy will be plunged into a new dark age until other power resources are more fully developed.

    There is A Lot for everything to think about and consider…

  7. I completely agree with what Erik Mar wrote. The problem isn’t just Iran but the U.S., which together with other military powers, has engaged in proxy and resource wars for decades.

    Also, Russia, China, and other countries are hardly mentioned.

    Finally, most are not aware of this, but around 40 pct of U.S. war costs are funded through foreign loans, and war costs are passed on to citizens. Only multinational corporations and the military profit from such conflicts.

    And China is one of the major trading partners and lenders of the U.S.

  8. People, USA, Israel and UK are the BAD GUYS. They are the true Axis of Evil. Why do some people refuse to see the truth when it is in front of their eyes?

    Anyhow, an invasion of Iran will be the deathknell for America. Russia would get involved, and teach America and Israel a painful lesson they will not soon forget.

    • What is the “truth”?

      Your truth is garbage to me.

      If you are from the Islamic camp you are the enemy.

      You are not breaking sensational news that from your perspective the Western powers are the bad guys.

      Guess what, I’m from the West and I see you as the bad guy too.

  9. Col. Peters in 2001 was about the only “talking head” whom I saw that foresaw all the difficulties that would follow unless we stabilized Iraq within six months. Now in this essay he foresees the consequences of another pre-emptive attack. Those consequences are outrageously grim if anything is overlooked, even assuming everything in the attacks would go perfectly. And how often has that happened?
    I doubt if any of our presidential candidates have any idea as to the size of Iraq. It contains all sorts of terrain within an area greater than North and South Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, combined. I doubt if they even know the population is about 70 million, and it is 95% literate. Their Army, Navy, and Air Force are no longer the mess they were 30 years ago. Yet, our potential leaders talk like little bullies, typical of those who have never fought.
    Any attack on Iran would destroy our country and, as Erik Mar points out, would violate our own Constitution. Col. Peters writes: ” Indeed, the number one requirement would be for a U.S. president of iron will who would not be swayed by international opinion or the sensation-mongering of our own media. We have not had such a man for a very long time.” The USA could end up under dictatorship, ruined, all because of weapon which does not presently exist, but whose use we fear. Have we Americans lost our minds?

  10. corrections to my letter above:
    1) I should have typed “2003” rather than “2001” when I wrote “Col. Peters in 2001…)
    2) I should have typed “Iran” rather than “Iraq” when I wrote “I doubt if any of our presidential candidates have any idea as to the size of Iraq.”

  11. “Technically speaking, we can meet most of the requirements listed above ― but it would require a massive and sustained offensive effort, with an extensive mobilization of our military, industrial and economic resources.”

    This is at least very optmistic viewing from the long term lens. Its well known that the number 1 cause of the absolute failure in both afghanistan and iraq campaing is the iranian terrorism sponsorship on both grounds. Technically speaking we will would see another quick Bush’s “Mission Acomplished Propagand”, with another grueling 10 years of asymetrical consequence. That’s to say at least, without taking into account the direct effect of possible nuclear artifacts that Iran might already possess. Attacking Iran right now might just start another World War. By not attacking, that might happens as well, cause them ultra right wing religious fanatic israelis will never tolerate another country besides themselves to have nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

  12. Col. Peters’ article presupposes that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons program. This is not the case! The IAEA as well as US intelligence sources assert that Iran is engaged in no such program nor, it seems, is it contemplating one! This means that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and all nations are entitled to develop peaceful nuclear programs. What then would be the rationale for attacking Iran?
    Moreover, an attack on Iran, aside from visiting massive if not fatal devastation upon the economies of the industrial nations, would guarantee the defeat of the US and its allies in Afghanistan and Iraq and the frustration of US objectives in the Muslim world, and assure the collapse of all regimes in the region friendly to the US including Saudi Arabia. It would also disrupt NATO as Turkey – a Muslim country – in self preservation, would almost certainly not allow the US to use its air space and military bases in its territory. No Muslim people would stand by and watch the devastation of another Muslim nation and the mass killing of Muslims. An attack on Iran would unite the entire Muslim world, including Malaysia and Indonesia, against the US and its interests and “terrorist” attacks against the US and Israel would proliferate not only in the Muslim world but globally. In addition, the US dollar would almost certainly lose its status as the world’s reserve currency and that, by itself, would cripple the US’s ability to wage war (and bankroll Israel) since it would bankrupt Uncle Sam!
    What about the American and European people? Would they just watch the US get involved in yet another needless war that would bring nothing but hardship and suffering upon them and enrich the military-industrial complex and serve only Israel,s perceived interests at a huge cost in America blood and treasure? Very unlikely, especially in view of OWS!
    All in all, an attack on Iran is a disasterously bad idea that is bound to fail with dire consequences for all.

  13. Who said this was even about religion Baldeagle? What makes you think that NATO or the US would be concerned with landing in Turkey? Iran doesn’t seem to care about what the world thinks of it’s ignoring calls to open up it’s Nuclear Program – so why should anyone be concerned about what Iran thinks?

    Nobody involved in terrorist attacks wonders what would happen if members of the 1st World ever really responded to terrorist attacks and I suspect nobody wants to find out.

  14. This doesn’t take into account Russia and China. Do you really think they are just gonna sit idly by while we cut off one of their major oil suppliers, causing extreme economic hardships on their people? I can tell you one thing, if Israel or the US attack Iran, it will not be like Iraq, it will be WWIII.

  15. I agree with you Roscoe, it certainly won’t be like Iraq and I would hope that the powers that be and the ones who “want to be” think twice in Iran in building Nuclear Weapons and threatening people with them. Yes it could very well be WWIII, as Col. Peters so well points out in his original article we are commenting on.

    I’m not so worried about what the United States would do, however the constant threatening to Israel by Iran should give anyone and everyone living in Iran a lot to worry about. No telling what they would do and I strongly suspect they really wouldn’t care what sort of retaliation they might take. Israel is a very independent country and is not really concerned (apparently) what reaction could result if they felt threatened.

    I don’t agree with many of Israel’s policies, particularly regarding the Palestinians; however Israel hasn’t threatened anyone with it’s military or (alleged) nuclear weapons either.

    I don’t think that most of the people who are reading this can understand what a Third World War would be like for anyone today. It would rattle everyone’s society and economies to the very core, even if they weren’t involved. The US is not as dependent upon Middle Eastern Oil as it once was and the oil is more important to the Economy of China and India at this point as the US is nearly self sufficient if they kept the domestic production. The US sells much of it’s domestic oil currently on the world market rather than use it for consumer concerns. If a Third World War broke out I doubt many US consumer’s would worry about putting petrol into their Mini-Vans and trucks.

    An Off the Subject Note: If you are at all interested in the American Civil War – Read Col. Petersons outstanding work of Historical Fiction called CAIN AT GETTYSBURG.

  16. Mr. Mark,

    Hezbollah isn’t exclusively Iran’s asset and whether the Iranian regime was behind the examples you listed in debatable. When it comes to international espionage nothing is quite as it seems and the entire story is never given to the public. Although, you may be right about Iran’s role in your examples those are not justifiable casus belli else almost the entire world has cause for war on nearly every other nation. Allow me to list some gems of happenings that might explain my reluctance for support of Israel.

    It’s possible I was considering the deliberate USS Liberty attack which Israeli torpedo boats attacked the vessel attempting to get the U.S. involved in the conflict that killed 30 seamen during the unprovoked Six Day War of Israel’s aggression? Could it be that I was thinking about the King David Hotel bombings or Semiramis Hotel which Haganah and Igrun killed killed over a hundred innocent people? Or maybe I was thinking about the massacre of Deir Yassin in which Igrun raided a small Palestinian village and executed Palestinian women and children? How about more recently Operation Cast Lead that killed 1,400 innocent Palestinians or maybe the 2006 Lebanon War where Israel bombed residential areas that caused the death of nearly 1,500 civilians to kill a handful of Hezbollah? Really, though, it’s probably just that Israel is an illegitimate apartheid and genocidal state that has imprisoned an entire ethnic group of people into barbed wire concentration camps, semantic people too mind you just with a different religion.

    Using your same logic shouldn’t we be invading Israel? Israel is a bigger threat than Iran ever could be or hell while we’re at it lets just go to war with entire world because no state has a clean record. Lets talk about who is living in fantasy land here. You think the world will be a better and safer place if Iran is obliterated? Mr Mark, somebody has got you fooled and get your head on straight before your bloodlust gets the best of you. It’s civilians that suffer in war and war with Iran is wholly unnecessary.


  1. The Costs Of Attacking Iran - [...] Peters lays out a warning for the people advocating military action against Iran’s nuclear program on the theory that…
  2. The likely result of a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities « Quotulatiousness - [...] Ralph Peters paints a grim picture of the immediate results of any US or Israeli attack on the Iranian…
  3. U.S. Central Command Wargame: Israeli Strike on Iran » Armchair General - [...] Last November, Armchair General ran an exclusive article by analyst Ralph Peters that examined this same question. Click here…
  4. Countdown to Iran - Pelican Parts Technical BBS - [...] [...]
  5. The decay continues – Bayou Renaissance Man - […] Unfortunately, if Israel does strike Iran, the consequences for the United States and the rest of the world are…