A Wounded, Defiant Iran, not a Dead or Prostrate Iran is the Outcome of a US Attack on Iran

Hawkish elements in the US seem to feel that they have a kind of carte-blanche to do as they will when it comes to attacking Iraq, simply because the US is a superpower wielding nuclear weapons and other such WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) whereas Iran, which no big power apparently wants to directly clash with the US over, is not. The idea being, the nuclear US cannot possibly lose attacking Iran which lacks nuclear arms.

Seems this has to do with the fact that hypothetically, the US could always retaliate against Iranian retaliation, by say destroying an Iranian city every time Iran hit the US with any kind of military force, and that hypothetically, such could go on until Iran simply ceased to be able or willing to resist the US.

Problem is such nuclear hubris fails to take into account, that in attempting to predict the results of an attack on Iran, you have to take into account the near-certainty that the US will decide to refrain from such blatantly ruthless step by step extermination of Iranians, even if it uses tactical nuclear weapons against certain Iranian targets.

In its attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US despite severe setbacks, has not been known to have resorted to WMD exterminator-style attacks on Iraqi civilians; same could be said for the Israel attacks on Lebanon in 2006.

There are various reasons one could speculate for such US and Israeli "restraint": the fear of public opinion in the US and in the world; the "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" type fears; the invisible hand of God manipulating humans unaware of such manipulation; natural instinctive impulses of self-preservation; the fear of God Himself.

The fact remains that recent history shows, and with this the predictions of all analysts unanimously concur, that if the US attacks Iran, even if the attack involves tactical nuclear weapons, the US will refrain from forcing Iranian surrender by exterminating Iranian civilians.

Those in the US afflicted with nuclear hubris take note--history and the predictions of the analysts indicate, that the US will if it attacks Iran have to suffer powerful effects of an Iranian counter-attack, just as earlier it has had to suffer and bear Iraqi counter-attacks, and Israel has had to suffer Hezbollah counter-attacks, even though theoretically the US/Israel could have forced unconditional surrender by using WMD such as nuclear weapons against civilians, a course they chose not to take.

Thus the consequence of a US attack on Iran will, despite US WMD power, be not a dead or prostrate Iran, but rather a wounded defiant Iran, just as the consequence of the US attack on Iraq was not a dead or prostrate Iraq but a defiant wounded Iraq, and the consequence of the Israel/Hezbollah 2006 conflict was not a dead or prostrate Hezbollah but a defiant wounded Hezbollah.

Those of nuclear hubris in the US take note--the wounded Hezbollah mauled Israel in the battle it was wounded in, its wounds are healing, it is a powerful force feared by Israel. The wounded Iraq inflicted tens of thousands of casualties on the US, and still today despite its wounds continues to wound and frighten the US. And a US nuclear or non-nuclear attack on Iran, which is now a much stronger power than Hezbollah or Iraq when they clashed with Israel/US, will produce not a dead Iran but a wounded fighting Iran which will damage the US in the battle in which it is wounded, and then thereafter continue to maintain at least a signicant capability to cause further damage to the the US despite its wounds.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs