I already wrote that Iran would fight back if we strike them. We should not assume a passive response. The Christian Science Monitor examines this as well.
I personally think the retaliation will be mostly in the Gulf, Iraq, and Israel, using air and naval assets, terrorist bombs and rockets/missiles, and rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, respectively.
This talk is probably fanciful:
"One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.
"I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences," says Mr. Ranstorp, noting that Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by "plausible deniability" and have had global reach.
"If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region," says Ranstorp. "It's a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran."
Recall that prior to both the 1991 and 2003 wars against Saddam, that analysts predicted a global terrorism counter-attack by Iraq. Despite Iraq's ties to terrorists, nothing came of that threat.
Perhaps Iran is more capable, but this worry should not be the reason that stays our hand if we think we need to strike.
