Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense under President George W Bush, would be pleased. President Trump\u2019s attack on Iran, using highly sophisticated B-2 bombers combined with submarine launched cruise missiles, is exactly the kind of operation Rumsfeld would have proposed. He was the ultimate \u201cNeo-Con\u201d, a true believer that US military might could alter the world. Not only would it be safer for the United States, but \u201cregime change\u201d could improve America\u2019s economic standing as well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201dRumsfeld Doctrine\u201d was based on the military concept of \u201cshock and awe\u201d. Rather than the long-term concentration of forces used in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, with 40 some countries allied against Iraq and months of preparation, Rumsfeld wanted to use an overwhelming force strike to topple the enemy leader immediately \u2013 shock and awe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, 160,000 troops marched in following massive airstrikes, including specifically targeted attacks on the Iraqi Dictator, Saddam Hussein. In less than a month, US forces were in the streets of Baghdad. Not only was Hussein deposed, but he was ultimately captured, tried, and put to death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Don Rumsfeld died in 2021. But using massive American armaments, the \u201cBunker Buster\u201d bombs, with a targeted airstrike launched around the world from Missouri with stealth aircraft would have been right up his alley.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cflip side\u201d of the Rumsfeld Doctrine was the answer to the question:\u00a0\u00a0\u201cWhat happens next?\u201d\u00a0\u00a0In Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States coalition deposed the existing governments, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.\u00a0\u00a0But once that leadership was gone, who would govern?\u00a0\u00a0That turned out to be a much thornier question for the US.\u00a0\u00a0In both countries, the “stood up” governments failed to survive.\u00a0\u00a0In Afghanistan, the Taliban waged a twenty-year war to regain power.\u00a0\u00a0They are in charge today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And in Iraq, the power vacuum created by the removal of Hussein, led to three actions. First, it allowed a huge increase in Iranian power. Iraq and Iran were at war with each other for a decade before, and taking Iraq out of the equation let Iran focus its goals on effecting the rest of the Middle East. Second, the ineffective government in Iraq allowed the extremist ISIS movement to gain momentum. ISIS ultimately became a prime target for US troops, with the worse fighting of the war occurring years after the first \u201cshock and awe\u201d shots in the battle, against ISIS, not Hussein\u2019s Iraqi Republican Guard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Saturday the United States launched an attack against Iran, an act of war. The goal was to destroy the ability of Iran to develop nuclear weapons, something that was a huge point of contention in the world. No one (other than Iran, North Korea and maybe Russia) thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The US attack definitely did damage. The main area where Iran enriches uranium, refining it to the 90% level needed for nuclear weapons, was the target of six \u201cbunker buster\u201d bombs. Certainly that site is damaged, perhaps destroyed. The whole thing is hundreds of feet under a mountain, and it\u2019s going to be difficult to get accurate damage assessments. Whether the uranium on site, already at 60%, was removed prior to the bombing is unclear. And, whether Iran has other alternate sites for the enrichment process is unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This weekend, I listened to a reporter describe an interview he did with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, years ago. Israel has been worrying about Iran\u2019s nuclear capacity for decades, and had the capability of disrupting it for most of that time. Barak described the Israeli dilemma as \u201cThe Three D\u2019s\u201d. Israel, like the United States today, were confident that they would win the \u201cday of the attack\u201d \u2018D-One\u2019, and disrupt Iranian nuclear development. And they were confident that they could survive whatever the Iranian immediate response would be, the Day-After, \u2018D-Two\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Barak said the problem was \u2018D-Three\u2019, the decade after the attack. What were the long term consequences of attacking Iran? What would happen if the Ayatollah was removed, a \u201cdecapitation\u201d strike. The United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq showed the dangers of trying to change leadership from the outside, euphemistically called \u201cnation building\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Don Rumsfeld may had said it best: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cReports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns\u2014the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.<\/em>\u201d<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cunknown unknown\u201d today is what Iran\u2019s response will be to what likely was a devastating United States attack. But the one thing we know for sure is that the next step is out of the control of the Trump Administration. They\u2019ve \u201cplayed their cards\u201d (as the President likes to say). Now we are waiting for the \u201cknown and unknown knowns\u201d of the Iranian response. Will they negotiate? Will they launch missile attack and US bases and ships? Or will Iran use its remaining Hamas and Hezbollah cells to attack?<\/p>\n\n\n\n