It’s a provocative
question, but one that should be asked as United States President Donald
Trump’s National Security Adviser is fixated on going to war with the Islamic
Republic.
Concern is mounting among a
growing number of diplomats around the world including Australian Alison Broinowski who says that once North Korea is out of the way, the
cross hairs will shift to Teheran.
“John Bolton wants a war with Iran; I don’t think Trump
is fixed on that, but Bolton is,” she says.
His stance goes back at least 12 years when as an
adviser to then President George W. Bush Bolton threatened Iran with “tangible
and painful consequences”.
Years later and out of office during the Obama presidency
he wrote a seething editorial about the need to “bomb Iran” and this month he
took the opportunity of the 40th anniversary of the Islamic
Revolution to condemn the country for terrorising its own people and
endangering lives around the world.
Reasonable observers might consider this has become
something of an obsession, but a dangerous obsession for someone so close to levers
of power who has the ear of the President of the United States.
A further danger is Bolton’s belief in the omnipotence
of American military might and its ability to implement its will around the
world, to the point he is deeply offended when anyone questions it.
He dismisses reversals the US has suffered blaming a
failure of past Administrations to use military power to the fullest extent,
brought about by pressure from the international community (which he believes should
be ignored) and acquiescence to the rulings of international bodies such as the
United Nations (which he despises).
After squirming in the wilderness during the Obama
years and the early part of the Trump presidency, Bolton believes he now has
the opportunity to realise his dream of wiping the Islamic Republic from the
map.
Israel, Saudi Arabia and a few Gulf States are
ready to cheer him on, but there will be no multi-nation Coalition of the
Willing. Not Europe; not Brexit-plagued United Kingdom, and if he raises the
subject during his forthcoming visit to Australia he will surely be politely rebuffed.
No matter if most of the world wimps out, allies would
only be there for ornamentation, according to the Bolton philosophy. The US
would always be doing the heavy lifting.
But just how difficult would a successful invasion
and subjugation of Iran be? The Islamic Republic has a population of 81 million,
with a land area of more than 1.6 million square kilometres; it is mountainous,
with forests and deserts. It has a well-equipped navy, army and airforce with
around 900,000 under arms, and up to 11 million more who could be called on to
fight at short notice.
Added to this is the deep suspicion, even hatred of
the US that goes back far beyond the Islamic Revolution, to the 1953 overthrow
of the enormously popular and democratically-elected Mohammad Mosaddegh in a
CIA-backed coup that installed the autocratic and increasingly despotic Shah.
Finally, there is the very fact that Iran is
governed by a theocracy, and God can be a valuable ally in enlisting support of
the populace, especially when the opponent is branded as the Great Satan.
All this suggests that a conventional invasion,
even if backed with overwhelming air superiority (which cannot be guaranteed)
would probably become bogged down in an unending war of attrition long before
it reached Teheran.
Which brings us back to the original question:
Would Bolton advocate the use of nuclear weapons as the one certain way of
achieving his sacred mission?
We may know the answer sooner than we think.
