The Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Jeffrey White has a long article in the National Interest examining the question, "What Would War With Iran Look Like?" He concludes, among other things, that, if it ultimately decides it must attack Iran, "the U.S. government should be prepared for a long and difficult conflict."

An attack might end quickly with few complications if Iran acts “rationally.” We may not like what that means, however: One “rational” ending for the Iranians would be to accept their losses, declare “victory” because the regime survived, lick their wounds, prepare for indirect retaliation, and resume nuclear activities on a clandestine basis. But a war might not end cleanly, and the U.S. administration could find itself in a messy and protracted conflict. This suggests the need for both an expansive approach to net assessment and deep and broad preparation not just of the military but also of the “home front” and the economy, for Iran may choose to fight on these fronts as well as within its own borders and in the region.

Note here what "ending cleanly" actually entails: Not only does the Iranian regime resume nuclear activities on a clandestine basis, but it likely does so with overwhelming domestic support, as a U.S. strike would evaporate the Green movement’s appeal for a more conciliatory approach to the West. Such a strike — which would, of course, be "preventive" and not "preemptive" — would also severely weaken, if not outright demolish, the international consensus that the Obama administration has painstakingly forged around the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian government would therefore be able to return to its nuclear work not only with its domestic critics silenced, but in an atmosphere of international anger at the U.S. (This is probably why Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi has suggested that the regime may even desire such an attack.)

Note also that this is offered as a best-case scenario.

The article is very much worth reading in its entirety, but (spoiler alert) the answer White arrives at is essentially the same one given by retired General Anthony Zinni in 2009: "If you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran."



Subscribe to Middle East Progress Alerts

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

Setting the Record Straight

Determined to Reach a Common Objective

“We knew at the outset that the task would be difficult. We acknowledged that publicly and privately. We knew this would be a road with many bumps— and there have been many bumps—and that continues to this day. But we are not deterred. We are, to the contrary, determined more than ever to proceed to realize the common objective, which we all share, of a Middle East that is at peace with security and prosperity for the people of Israel, for Palestinians, and for all the people in the region. We will continue our efforts in that regard, undeterred and undaunted by the difficulties, the complexities or the bumps in the road.”—George Mitchell, special envoy for Middle East peace, remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu, September 29, 2010

Middle East Analysis

Upcoming Events

The U.S. Agency for International Development and Conflict: Hard Lessons from the Field

May 17, 2011, 12:00pm – 1:15pm

From Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan, Somalia, and South Sudan, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, is engaged daily in trying to help some of the most troubled nations on the planet make a lasting transition to stability, open markets, and democracy. Few areas of the agency’s work are more challenging or more controversial.

Join us for remarks by, and a roundtable with, the deputy administrator of USAID, Ambassador

more