"Luttwak on Iran" Topic

I have long enjoyed Luttwak's books on grand strategy.

link

"That is how a Trump air strike could change the course of events. Its targets are obvious: the two headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards in Tehran, the Nasser-e and Quds-e, each housed in buildings well separated from civilian housing; and their equally distinctive buildings in Iran's other cities starting with Mashad, Isfahan, and Shiraz.

The argument for the air strike is that it could bring down the now hated regime, but also that it would make Trump a man of his word. He distinctly threatened attacks if the regime started killing people, as it has done on the scale of thousands, with more deaths every day. As of now, however, Trump says that the regime assured him that there would be no more executions, to the great joy of J.D. Vance and his fellow isolationists.

The latter's argument is that things could go wrong even if the US action is confined to several air strikes in the course of a single day. That is, of course, perfectly true of any military action — but it did not happen on 22 June last year when the nuclear targets were destroyed without incident. Nor did it happen when Mr and Mrs Maduro were lifted out of Caracas without any American being bruised in the process."

Doc adds, lots of back and forth in the comments

Well, now they've been warned. I'm sure someone on the Ayatollah's staff reads TMP, so the cat's out of the bag.

John, yes, indubitably.

I'm not a great fan of Luttwak.

His arguments can drift into ahistorical abstraction, cherry-picking examples that fit his theory while ignoring messy counter-cases. At times he underestimates human, moral, and institutional limits, treating states and armies as colder, more rational actors than they really are.

Specifically in this case, he presumes air power, on its own, can win a conflict. I'd refer him to the bombing campaign in Europe in WW2.

I would also refer you to Clausewitz if you want to read credible strategy.

i.e. even though Clausewitz wrote about war, one of his core insights is that military force does not automatically translate into political success. You might think the US should have learned by now a defeat inflicted with excessive violence can become a new and deeper conflict rather than a conclusive resolution.

Yet air power can certainly remove some things from the equation.

says Bomber Harris.

Yet air power can certainly remove some things from the equation.

So very true. Yes, Clauswitz is worth study and well as Suz Tzu, etc. However, we need to take into consideration. With the advancement of technology/AI, etc. we have the ability to literally reach out and touch someone. With no boots on the ground. E.g. all the terrorists the IDF eliminated with extreme prejudice with drones, missiles, etc. after 7 Oct. Many in islamist dominated countries in their cities, towns, etc. Far from the Front.

And along with the US killing Suleimani and some other islamists. Who were droned … "death from above" … they were mutilated and dead before they hit the ground.

As well as insurgencies, i.e. guerillas, it is generally accepted started in Spain during the Napoleonic era. However, as time went on especially during and after WWII. More and more guerillas/insurgents/partizans, etc. were seen on the battlefield. And that type of warfare became widespread in all theaters, in many regions. And almost became the norm in modern warfare, in many situations.

As opposed to some[not all] situations in the past. The 20th and now 21st Century has seen some dangerously fanatical nation's military forces, etc. Plus, with more ever evolving modern tech. These forces became that much more lethal. Off the top of my head, WWII Imperial Japan, and islamic terrorists who don't care if they die killing their enemies. Where many in the West put a higher value on our lives.

Not that Clauzwitz, Sun Tzu, etc. should be ignored. Just the opposite. But we have to look at other paradigms that may have some effect on those and other military philosophers' writings, etc. E.g. as we see in WWII it took extreme violence to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If it could have been some other ways. Those would have been chosen.

Started in Europe, maybe, but Francis Marion and Harry Lee understood guerilla fighting pretty well.

Now I happen to think that the Dresden firebombing was a moral outrage, but removing a transportation hub clearly affects a regime's logistical capability and thus its power on every front.

That airpower cannot do everything is certainly true, but saying it can do nothing is certainly false.

doc +1/+1 …

"but saying it can do nothing is certainly false."

I'm certainly not arguing that airpower "can do nothing" — that would be absurd. Can you point out where you think I wrote that? Airpower is an immensely powerful tool that can shape campaigns in decisive ways.

My point is narrower and more specific: airpower alone has not proved sufficient to win wars by itself, in the sense of compelling political outcomes without effective control of territory and populations. History repeatedly shows airpower being decisive in combination with ground and maritime forces, but not as a standalone solution.

Strategic bombing, interdiction, close air support, ISR, and air superiority all matter enormously — but they enable other forces to succeed rather than replace them. Even the strongest air campaigns (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) still required ground forces or political collapse driven by factors beyond air attack alone.

So yes: airpower does a great deal.
No: it does not, by itself, win wars in the Clausewitzian sense.
Bomber Harris & Curtis LeMay were wrong.

So, if Trump wishes to effect a regime change – American boots on the ground may be necessary. Good luck with that.

I never said air power was all it takes, and I do not think Luttwak is saying that either. But eliminating the regime's elite troop[s would certainly alter the calculus.

OP: "The argument for the air strike is that it could bring down the now hated regime,"
Wiggle further, if you like.

Airpower is indispensable, but it has consistently been a means rather than an end in war. History is fairly clear on that and I'm content to leave it there.

"The argument for the air strike is that it could bring down the now hated regime,"

🤔
Doc
It could be argued that two lone plane strikes, did finally bring down an evil regime. Japan in WW2?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Thoughts?

I never said air power was all it takes, and I do not think Luttwak is saying that either. But eliminating the regime's elite troop[s would certainly alter the calculus.

Bingo !!!

Airpower alone can only do so much. However, for supporting the Grunts on the ground it is one of very powerful direct support weapon availble.

When ask what was the most powerful weapon in my Plt or Co.?
I told them is was my radios.

FWIW – The A-bombs on Japan in WWII. It certainly ended the war. And save countless American/Allied lives. And in reality, it saved many, many Japanese lives in the long run. As they were planning to fight to the death. Every able-bodied man, woman and child.

American boots on the ground may be necessary. Good luck with that.

Not in this case, there is no reason for that. The Free Iranian Forces will do the work on the ground. Their Prince and others have said so. They will do the direct wet work.

Iran is much larger and has more difficult terrain than Iraq. I can't imagine anyone in the US gov't would think boots on the ground is an acceptable course of action. As we have learned in Iraq and A'stan. Too much blood and too much treasure expended. The US does not want to go thru that again. Even if we killed a million + islamists.

No boots on the ground … just plenty of ordinance from sea and air. No luck required … we have the tech to do what has to be done. Bottom line killing more islamists is again on the menu.