Former ambassador analyzes, calls out attack on Iran
Perhaps the administration thought the United States would be treated by the Iranian people as conquering heroes. That there would be parades in the streets for them as Americans came through the center of town.
Maybe the administration thought Iran would simply cave without a struggle or response, and that the United States would simply change the regime with what resembles a democratic style government.
Whatever the case, things have not turned out as the U.S. government planned, because in war, it almost never does. And due to a lack of strategy and anticipated, things have been done incompetently.
That was the assessment made by Ambassador Peter Galbraith as he spoke with Southwest Floridians Thursday at Big Arts Sanibel Island as part of the venue’s Conversations Speaker Series.
Hundreds came to hear what Galbraith had to say about the attack, ask questions and speak with him after to get a more personal dialogue with a man who has spent most of his life dealing with wars, and post-conflict situations.
Galbraith started by asking two questions he said should have been asked before the United States decided to go after Iran: Will it work and achieve U.S. objectives? And are the objectives worth the cost in lives, money, alliances and reputation worldwide?
Galbraith’s main point is that wars rarely turn out as planned; history is littered with wars that those who start them believe will be over quickly, only to find the war lasts years with lives and capital gone.
“George W. Bush thought his 2003 war with Iraq would be quick and now we still have troops in Iraq,” Galbraith said, $5 trillion later.
Wars also have unintended consequences and that in war the enemy always gets a vote. He said the Russian War with Afghanistan and the Iran Revolution in 1979 all eventually led to 9-11 and that you always have to deal with the enemy as Iran has told us how they feel about our actions.
In a moment that brought a chuckle to the audience, Galbraith added that it helps to know a little about the country you’re attacking. He said that happened when George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003.
“They, the people in Iraq they invaded, were called Iraqis. Iraq is inhabited by 20 percent Kurds, who are offended if you call them Iraqis,” Galbraith said. “The result was to turn the government over to Shiite religious parties.”
As a result, Iran’s closest ally is Iraq. Before 2003, Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies, entirely because of the United States, Galbraith noted.
The objectives of the war, according to President Donald Trump, are to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat and ballistic missiles, regime change, which has been walked back, and unconditional surrender.
Galbraith said there was a deal with Iran regarding nuclear capabilities in 2016. Trump withdrew from that deal in his first term in 2018 despite Iran honoring the agreement and objection from allies.
He added there was no evidence Iran had produced a weapon or missile that could reach the United States or had nuclear capabilities.
Israel attacked Iran last year, where Trump said Iran’s nuclear program was “completely obliterated,” only to say months later Iran’s nuclear program was an “imminent threat.”
“Has the United States achieved the goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program? Yes. Like Bush achieved the goal of eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” Galbraith said.
Experts say Iran is almost a decade away from having a missile that could hit the United States but, without a nuclear warhead, it’s practically worthless. Therefore, No imminent threat.
Regime change has been the objective for Israel and the neocons in the U.S. As for unconditional surrender, that hasn’t happened, Galbraith said.
As for cost, Galbraith said few American lives have been lost, but many Iranian lives have. Also, monetarily and reputationally, the cost has been huge.
“The United States is using expensive weapons to attack targets to shoot down inexpensive Iranian weapons,” Galbraith said. “It turns out it’s a good idea to consult your allies before you undertake military action. This was as big a surprise to our allies as it was to Iran.”
The war has ravaged the economy. Oil is at $110 a barrel and gas is $4 a gallon and rising in a country that depends on fossil fuel for energy, meaning everything will go up in price.
This is where the enemy gets a vote. Without a strong military, Iran has closed off the Strait of Hormuz which supplies 20 percent of the world’s oil.
It has blown up some strategic areas in other countries, including a natural gas supply in Qatar and has done as much as $130 billion in economic damage. It cost Iran pennies on the dollar to use the drones.
Galbraith said people look at Iran in a cartoonish fashion. It’s a country with a rich culture and somewhat freer than North Korea. Iranians do realize it’s a dictatorship.
Galbraith said America’s misunderstanding about Iran has been the true unforced error throughout this entire war.
“Iran is really a complex country. We’ve bitten off a lot here. It’s a country five times bigger than Afghanistan, three times the size of Iraq. It’s clear the Trump administration didn’t prepare at all,” Galbraith said. “They did not anticipate the Iranian reaction or strategy, which was the only strategy they had, which they executed very well.”
During the Q & A period, Galbraith spoke of the bombing of a girl’s school and the faulty intelligence that led to its bombing.
“We are good at hitting the target we want to hit. We are not nearly as good at knowing what’s there. This kind of incompetence is inexcusable,” Galbraith said, adding this does not qualify as a war crime, provided Israel and the U.S. had not tried to kill civilians or were reckless.
He also added the destruction of the oil refineries near Tehran that produced acid rain and toxic chemicals in the air was closer to the edge, Galbraith said.
Regarding Russia, Galbraith said Russia wins, another unintended consequence, since oil sanctions have now been lifted.
“We are now funding Putin’s war machine on Ukraine. Iran has allies with China and Russia, who have condemned the attack,” Galbraith said. “Putin has won the chutzpah award for condemning the American attack as an unjustified attack on a sovereign nation.”
When asked what Galbraith would do as president, he said he’s better at saying what we shouldn’t do.
“I would denounce my predecessor as an out-of-control, semi-senile guy. I would come in and engage in negotiations,” Galbraith said. “You can’t have a nuclear weapons program, but we can lift sanctions. Change will be more likely by lifting sanctions and linking them to the outside world, and not isolate them.”
To reach CHUCK BALLARO, please email news@breezenewspapers.com