The Conventional Forces: Order-of-Battle Question
The Iranian approach to military power, a highly asymmetrical strategy that substitutes nuclear weapons, irregulars, proxies, and terrorism for conventional strength, is likewise inherently risky and increases the chances for miscalculation by both the Islamic Republic and its adversaries. With the overthrow of the shah and the breakout of the Iran-Iraq War, Iran has had neither the capacity nor the desire to build and maintain traditional military forces. The United States and other Western powers, which had provided much of the shah’s weaponry, have refused to sell either new systems or spare parts for old ones to Iran since 1979. As Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. al Rodhan note, “Iran built up major supplies of Chinese, Russian and other Eastern bloc weapons during the Iran-Iraq War, but its defeats in that war in 1988 resulted in the loss of some [40–50 percent] of its land order of battle.”99
Iran has also divided its military into regular and revolutionary components, with the inevitable politicization and loss of combat effectiveness. The regular army, the Artesh, has never raised a serious challenge to the revolutionary regime and remains politically subordinate to the IRGC, or Pasdaran, which “routinely exploits its access to the Supreme Leader’s office, volunteers key advice on national and foreign policy matters . . . and actively aims to influence policy and debate on security issues.”100 The regular army has suffered a number of purges and forced retirements through the years while the IRGC has had more stable leadership. In addition, the Basij militias—martyrdom-seeking zealots who conducted the suicidal human-wave attacks in the Iran-Iraq War—remain a sometimes-waxing and sometimes-waning power; they are thought to be undergoing a bit of a revival under Ahmedinejad, formerly a Basij instructor. In the aftermath of the 2009 Iranian presidential election, the Basij were given a prominent role in the internal crackdown and repression meted by the Iranian state. The Basij were formally incorporated into the IRGC’s ground forces in October 2009.101
Much of Iran’s conventional military modernization has been supplied by the Chinese and Russians. Beijing has sold thousands of tanks, artillery pieces, and armored personnel carriers; hundreds of fighters; and dozens of small warships to Iran. More critically, in light of Iran’s embrace of an asymmetric approach, the Chinese have supplied a variety of missile systems, from air defense and air-to-air missiles to antiship cruise missiles. The latter are among the most dangerous to US naval forces, especially in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf. In another indication of Iran’s focus on asymmetric warfare strategy, including swarming and suicide boat tactics, Iran has increasingly “concentrated on acquiring and developing small, fast boats, some lightly armed and others armed with missile and torpedoes, and will probably continue this trend.”102 Most recently, the IRGC navy announced that it intended to build armed copies of the Bladerunner-51 powerboat, a record-breaking speed vessel Iran evaded export controls to acquire in 2009.103 Iran has also purchased M-11 short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs)—capable of carrying a nuclear warhead—from the Chinese. Indeed, since the Iran-Iraq War and the missile exchanges that marked the War of the Cities that contributed to the final termination of that long, bloody, but indecisive conflict, missiles have been one of the key components of the Iranian military program.104 A 2001 Rand Corporation study finds,
Almost all Iranian leaders see the possession of long-range missiles as vital for Iran’s security. Missiles have certain advantages over aircraft for Iran today. Lacking access to spare parts from the West, Iran must turn to Russia or China for advanced aircraft. . . . In contrast, missiles are relatively easy to manufacture domestically, which helps Iran meet its goal of self-reliance. What they lack in flexibility . . . they make up for in their relatively low cost, their ease of concealment, the assurance of penetration, and the lack of the need to train pilots.105
Between 1995 and 2010, Iran increased the number of missiles it possessed from several hundred to an estimated 1,000. Simultaneously, the Iranian missile program fielded increasingly more-sophisticated missiles, with particular emphasis on technical efficiency and range. Iran possessed primarily SRBMs in the 1980s and 1990s and has developed MRBMs in recent years with the assistance of foreign technology. The regime now possesses the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the region with a range that covers the greater Middle East and parts of Europe. Although it is difficult to verify Iranian officials’ claims regarding the technical capabilities of its arsenal independently, most open-source assessments indicate that the regime has generally increased the number, range, and efficiency of its missiles over time. Since taking over Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics in 2009, Iran’s Defense minister and former Qods Force head Ahmad Vahidi has continued to develop the missile program as the centerpiece of Iran’s weapons capabilities. A nuclear Iran would seek to develop increasingly sophisticated and longer-range ballistic missiles for its warhead-delivery platform and offensive capabilities.
Iran’s development of the Shahab-3, Shahab-3 variant, and Sejjil MRBMs, the latter solid-fueled with a range of approximately 1,200 miles, reflect its desire to bring not only Israel but also Europe—certainly as a potential deterrent against any US attack on Iran and to limit any European interest in long-term economic sanctions—into its sights. A 2011 UN assessment confirmed reports that Iran carried out covert ballistic missile tests of the nuclear-capable Shahab-3 and Sejjil-2 missiles in October 2010 and February 2011.106 Further, reports indicate that Iran is attempting to create new and longer-range variants based upon the North Korean Taepo-Dong-2, a three-stage rocket. This would bring Tehran into the realm of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles.107 Iranian efforts to focus on developing its satellite launch capabilities also align with the development of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology. In 2009, Iranian officials touted the successful launch of its first satellite into orbit using rocket technology after several years of testing and preparation.108 The technology required to deploy a space-launch vehicle can be transferred to develop ICBM capability. Coupled with Iran’s nuclear-weapons ambitions, progress in such technology can be transferred to an ICBM program that provides Iran the missile platform required for long-range nuclear-weapons capabilities. The Department of Defense judged in 2010 that “with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”109
The Iranian military has demonstrated an interest in a number of conventional systems that would give it area or access-denial capabilities vis-à-vis US forces, although these investments have been limited. Land-based cruise missiles have been positioned near the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has a number of relatively modern and quiet Russian-made Kilo submarines. Iran has also invested in advanced mines as a way to potentially interrupt shipping lanes in the region, and is “investing heavily” in advanced air defenses.110
At the other end of Iran’s asymmetric spectrum is an increasing arsenal of irregulars, proxies, and terrorists. At the heart of the IRGC is the Qods Force with as many as 15,000 dedicated to unconventional warfare missions beyond Iran’s borders. Major General Qassem Soleimani, who reports directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, commands the force. Originally designed to export the Islamic revolution, the Qods Force is organized into specific groups or corps by country or region. Qods forces often operate out of Iran’s embassies; in some ways, they are a combination of military special operating forces and intelligence operatives. The Qods Force and the IRGC have directed and facilitated numerous global terrorist attacks, including the early 1980s bombings of US diplomatic and military installations in Lebanon, the 1990s bombings of the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community center in Argentina, and the 1996 bombing of US military housing at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia. Recently, the Qods Force directed a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States on US soil in a potential mass-casualty attack. In recent years the Qods Force has developed and
directed Shia militia groups in Iraq and aided the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. It also controls many of Iran’s training forces for unconventional warfare, not only in Iran but also in such countries as Sudan and Lebanon. The successes of Qods Force trainers ought to be respected: they were key not only to making Hezbollah and local militias in southern Lebanon much tougher foes during the Israeli incursion in summer 2006 but also to supplying more lethal improvised explosive devices (IEDs)—including explosively formed penetrators—to Iraqi insurgents.111 President George W. Bush described the effect of the Qods Force operation and underscored the difficulty of pinning the blame for such operations on the Tehran leadership:
I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of government. What’s worse: them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening?112
General David H. Petraeus recounted his experience of the Qods Force’s influence in 2010, saying,
In the middle of the battle with the militia in March and April of 2008, a message was conveyed to me by a very senior Iraqi leader from the head of the Qods Force, Kassim Suleimani, whose message went as follows. He said, ‘General Petraeus, you should know that I, Kassim Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.’ And indeed, the ambassador in Baghdad is a Qods Force member. The individual who’s going to replace him is a Qods Force member.113
Uncertainty will also apply as to whether the top echelons of the Iranian government are ordering the Qods forces to provide IEDs or weapons of mass destruction. The asymmetric nature of the Iranian order of battle vastly complicates the deterrence equation.
This trend will continue as Iran both develops and acquires a range of antiaccess and area-denial capabilities. These are, essentially, new forms of old technologies vastly improved in accuracy. The net result is to hold at risk the traditional forms of US power projection in the region: naval surface combatants including aircraft carriers, large land airbases, and points of deployment for land forces like ports and civilian airfields.114
While China’s rapid military modernization and heavy investment in such technologies is the more immediate challenge to US conventional supremacy, Iran is following a similar path and learning similar lessons. As Andrew F. Krepinevich writes:
With the spread of advanced military technologies and their exploitation by other militaries, especially China’s People’s Liberation Army and to a far lesser extent Iran’s military and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the US military’s ability to preserve military access to two key areas of vital interest, the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, is being increasingly challenged. While both countries profess benign intentions, it is an old military maxim that since intentions can change overnight—especially in authoritarian regimes—one must focus on the military capabilities of other states.
Unless Beijing and Tehran divert from their current course of action, or Washington undertakes actions to offset or counterbalance the effects of their military buildups, it is practically certain that the cost incurred by the US military to maintain access to two areas of vital interest will rise sharply, perhaps to prohibitive levels, and perhaps much sooner than many expect. Currently there is little indication that China or Iran intend to alter their efforts to create “no-go zones” in the maritime areas off their coasts.115
These developments not only alter the balance of conventional military power but also call into question the US ability to employ overwhelming conventional forces as a deterrent against a small Iranian nuclear arsenal. Marine General James Cartwright, recently vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an officer highly regarded by President Obama, has asserted that ensuring “conventional can substitute for nuclear” deterrence is his “first priority.”116 Even when US conventional forces enjoy their greatest margin of supremacy, it is far from clear that they can fulfill all the tasks of deterrence, unless they are employed in ways that provide a sufficient threat to a regime like Iran’s, as will be discussed below.
The deterrent value of US conventional supremacy is also being undercut by continuous and well-publicized reductions in defense spending, which has been marked, in recent years, by a growing number of terminations and cancellations of the very weapons most likely to provide a proximate danger in Tehran’s eyes. New Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey also testified at his confirmation hearing that the defense budget cuts proposed in a number of deficit-reduction plans “would be extraordinarily difficult” to implement and impose “very high risk” on future US forces in combat.117
Indeed, US forces are already on a path to a new kind of hollowness, facing crippling readiness shortfalls of long-term power projection, particularly in training for high-intensity, large-scale campaigns against a high-technology adversary. That is, the ability to deter Iran with conventional forces will be further weakened.
The Pentagon has skipped nearly a generation of modernization programs while, at the same time, failing to “transform” U.S. forces for the future. . . . All of the defense cuts [in 2009 and 2010] mortgaged the future to pay for the present.
Today, America’s military flies the same basic planes (e.g., F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters; B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers and a variety of support aircraft), sails the same basic ships (e.g., Trident ballistic missile and Los Angeles-class attack submarines, Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers), and employs the same basic ground systems (e.g., Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters) that it did at the end of the Cold War. The White House and Congress prematurely terminated, or never brought to production, follow-on systems such as the F-22 fighter, the Seawolf-class sub, or the Comanche helicopter. As a result, tens of billions have been invested on development with little fielded reward.118
In sum, as new challenges from Iran grow, there has been little new US capability brought into service. The prospect of bringing new capabilities to bear in a timely fashion is imperiled by budget-reduction proposals. In his final day at the Pentagon, former Defense secretary Robert Gates suggested the purchases of F-35 fighters—almost the sole remaining large modernization project—“might be cut back as part of the Pentagon’s new budget review.”119
The result of further large-scale reductions in conventional forces can only weaken the United States’ ability to deter a nuclear Iran. In combination with announced Obama administration policies to draw down and withdraw US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, Tehran is likely to see the conventional balance—heretofore a daunting prospect—as tilting in its favor.