Recent muscular US administration rhetoric toward Iran signaling displeasure with Iran?s nuclear ambitions, as well as revelations that the US has conducted clandestine reconnaissance operations within Iran to scout potential targets related to Iran?s nuclear, chemical, and missile capabilities, suggest that the US may seek a more forceful confrontation over Iran?s nuclear weapons development programs. Such rhetoric and military operations that convey a bellicose US posture?one likely to be perceived by Tehran as setting the US on ready footing to strike militarily?will likely have the effect of presenting a menacing outside enemy with designs of invasion. This perception, in turn, may serve to galvanize Iran?s government, terrorism-sponsoring military and intelligence agencies, and Iranian society against the US. This perception by Iran may be useful for the US in future negotiations in its establishment of a relatively credible US intent and capability for military action and invasion against Iran?a potential infused with all the more credibility against the backdrop of the US invasions of Iran?s neighbors?against which other, more diplomatic, non-confrontational, and conciliatory options for Iran become more attractive. However, this perception may also have counter-productive effects in compelling Iran to assume an equally bellicose posture and ready its retaliatory capabilities and, possibly, even take preemptive actions if an imminent or implacable US threat is perceived.

As has been noted in these pages for over a year (see for example the October 20, 2004 WAR Report), a conflict with Iran over its nuclear ambitions or support for international terrorism, however necessitated in current administration policy terms, has the potential to compel Iran to retaliate via sophisticated and capable terrorist and paramilitary groups, networks, and agencies it supports or controls around the world, possibly within the US homeland. Such a confrontation with Iran has the potential to provoke bloody terrorist and guerrilla attacks against both US personnel and assets abroad–particularly in Iraq where Iran has invested large numbers of Hizballah , paramilitary, and intelligence operatives?and also against the US homeland. As such, it would seem prudent to calibrate US rhetoric and actions so as to not unnecessarily provoke Iran into launching attacks against the US, while exploring and exhausting all mechanisms of US power?diplomatic, economic, intelligence, clandestine direct action, etc.?that might more subtly and deftly succeed in achieving Iranian capabilities and behavior acceptable for the maintenance of US national and security interests. As the preeminent state-sponsor of terrorist networks around the world, Iran not only represents the most important target in the so-called Global War on Terrorism (GWoT) but also represents one of the most fearsome potential adversaries, and as such, the US should tread carefully and intelligently in its engagement with Tehran to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

<