Thanks Iran, for refusing the bomb…Jawed Naqvi
COL Lawrence Wilkerson was the chief of staff of the US secretary of state Gen Colin Powell. He is today among the most vocal American critics of the US-sponsored war in Ukraine, the genocide of Palestinians by Israel and the US-Israeli plans to wage war on Iran.
Wilkerson is certain, however, as are his former military associates, that if a war does break out against Iran, it is Iran that would win. And it would win not by acquiring the nuclear bomb, or by other means that would destroy the region and its neighbourhood, but by conventional and asymmetric methods to foil American superiority.
“I recently met the man who did the war-gaming between Iran and the US years ago. He still believes the outcome he found then remains valid — that Iran would win a conventional war against the US.”
Iran’s vast experience of fighting wars, which it is never known to have started, goes back to the 1980s when it thwarted an Iraqi assault for eight years. US-backed Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons but could not prise away an inch of Iranian territory. I walked the barely two feet-wide uneven road snaking through the totally flattened erstwhile city of Khorramshahr. A wrong step on either side of the landmine-infested zone would be fatal, as it was sadly for Reuters colleague Najmul Hasan.
The war eventually came to an end when a US warship in the Gulf apparently mistakenly shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing hundreds of civilians in 1988. Iran has since spawned a bevy of fighting groups among Arab partners, training them to defend the quest for a free Palestine. Though the Houthi government and its fighters in Yemen no longer seek help from Iran, they have been readied to confront the might of powerful coalitions as they did against the Saudi-led war machinery. Like Iran, they remain sworn to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza come what may.
So how is Iran prepared to counter Donald Trump’s threats?
Trump says he would bomb Iran as never before if Tehran doesn’t strip itself of all its missiles, not just forsake nuclear weapons forever. Iran says the threat won’t work, but level-headed diplomacy could. The first round of indirect talks between Iran and the US ended on a positive note in Oman on Saturday. And there is distinct relief after many tense days that war may not be an option for Trump. Which implies that Benjamin Netanyahu would be left to fend for himself against the rising chorus of protests targeting him in Israel.
This reminds one of the four slogans Iranian worshippers raised during Friday prayers at Tehran University in the 1980s. As parliament speaker Hashemi Rafsanjani, Kalashnikov in left hand, signalled in between his religio-political sermon, the crowd chanted death to America, Israel, USSR and Saddam Hussein, probably in that order. Two of those wishes have been fulfilled. And the two remaining quarries are struggling to keep their democratic façade intact, and their restive people in check against heavy odds.
What made Col Wilkerson exude trust in Iran’s victory in a war with the US? He did so without the usual references to Vietnam and Afghanistan, where the US military suffered humiliating defeats. Wilkerson was talking about the outcome of US war games, which simulated conflict with Iran, particularly the Millennium Challenge 2002. The computerised outcome of MC02 revealed significant vulnerabilities in American military strategy and highlighted the effectiveness of asymmetric tactics. Iran was made the Red Team and the US was assigned the Blue Team.
ran’s Red Team was led by retired Marine Lt-Gen Paul Van Riper. He employed unconventional tactics to devastating effect. Using motorcycle messengers, coded signals via mosque loudspeakers, and swarms of small boats armed with missiles, Red launched a surprise attack that overwhelmed the Blue Team.
A massive cruise missile salvo sank 16 US warships, including an aircraft carrier, and decimated amphibious forces, theoretically killing over 20,000 personnel. The simulated attack exploited gaps in Blue’s reliance on advanced technology and rigid command structures.
Interestingly, following the Red Team’s apparent success, the Pentagon suspended the exercise, ‘re-floated’ destroyed Blue forces, and imposed restrictions on Red’s tactics. Red was ordered to reveal anti-aircraft radar positions, avoid targeting paratroopers, and adhere to a script ensuring Blue’s eventual victory.
Van Riper criticised this as a betrayal of the exercise’s purpose. He resigned in protest. Critics say the $250 million mock war was turned into a scripted validation of existing US doctrines rather than a genuine test of the strengths of both sides.
Nowhere in the war games was the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran factored in. The unsung credit for this goes to Iran’s relentlessly demonised leadership, which staunchly opposes the making of a nuclear bomb. Ayatollah Khamenei would probably not accept any temporal award, let alone the Nobel Peace Prize should it be offered. This was not only because too many questionable people have been given the prize, belittling its importance, not least its Zionist racist recipients.
Seen objectively, one of the greatest and least acknowledged acts for global peace has come from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has the capacity to build the nuclear bomb, but its revered leader will not allow that crucial half-screwdriver-turn even if the decision brings devastation to his people.
The moral spine of Iran and its supreme leaders, in particular, actually deserves a resounding applause. Khamenei’s 2003 fatwa against assembling a weapon of mass destruction has played an unsung role in keeping the world from untold harm.
There is enormous pressure on Khamenei from his countrymen to let Iran make the bomb. It was the only way to rein in Israel and thwart frequent challenges from US presidents, it’s been argued. But Khamenei has remained loyal to his innate wisdom that the bomb is an immoral device. For that he deserves our gratitude.
COURTESY DAWN