This professor of peace studies discusses a possible American raid on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Of course, he thinks it is a bad idea:
Perhaps the most significant element of this scenario is that if it came to a war, the Iranians would readily give up in the face of such great force. The assumption is extraordinary, yet the underlying mentality is familiar: it also produced the belief that the Taliban was finished by the end of 2001 and the Iraq war was over in three weeks flat in March-April 2003. It seems that nothing has been learned from the experience of two long and bloody wars, and that is the real cause for worry.
Really? Well, having a professor of peace studies conclude this is the first problem. Somebody educated in military history might have a better shot at drawing historical parallels, no?
Afghanistan and Iraq were wars that overthrew the regimes in question. They fought harder. And Iraq was really several wars, no? And Afghanistan is complicated by being a Taliban War where most Taliban are in Pakistan, is that not so?
So unless we plan to overthrow the Tehran regime and invade while we strike Iran's nuclear facilities, might we not want to look at cases more in line with this mission?
Like America's attempt to rescue our hostages in Tehran. No wider war.
Or like Israel's strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor. No wider war.
Or America's strikes on Sudan (suspected poison gas plant) and Afghanistan (al Qaeda). No wider war.
Or America's 4-day strike on Iraq's WMD facilities. No wider war.
Indeed, our enforcement of no-fly zones over Iraq during the 1990s didn't result in Iraq doing more than try to shoot down our planes patrolling and occasionally bombing his forces.
Or Israel's strike on Syria's nuclear reactor. No wider war.
Or even the extensive--rather than short-duration strikes noted above--US-Iranian conflict in the Tanker War during 1987 and 1988. No wider war.
So when the targets of military force are separate from the actual government and the governments are not directly threatened, in these cases the target governments did not escalate to a general war where their regimes were at stake.
I can't rule out that Iran's rulers will attempt to widen the conflict to a war rather than try to play the victim and ride out the attack and begin rebuilding. But they would be foolish to make this a war with their very lives at stake.
It seems that nothing has been learned about war from the experience of getting a PhD in peace studies. Please people, don't ask "peace studies" professors their opinions on war. He apparently has no opinion on the effects on peace of Iran having nuclear weapons.
Perhaps the good professor has some nice advice on hemp products and a good place to buy Birkenstocks in northern England.
