LIMITED WARFARE WITH LIMITED DAMAGE... WE HOPE!!!! 

The " What If " game is one that is played by every serious government in the  world.

It's the only way they can anticipate with any degree of certainty what actions may have to be taken to mitigate  damage.

So, lets take a look at one possible scenario Iran may execute  in terms of  "limited, Unilateral conflict".

A few basic assumptions:

1.  Iran would want to limit the damage to it's critical infrastructure.

2. The Western powers would have the same objective, allowing  Iran  to continue to provide for it's population....

            Wars of Occupation  are no longer economically practical.

3.  Iran would strike first but would probably fabricate an event that would present them as reacting to a hostile act.

            Critical for keeping the " street population of the Middle East sympathetic.

4. Iran would reach out to Russia and China as soon as the event started, thus allowing a immediate window of opportunity for disengagement.

Ok, here is how I think this could take place.

Iran can limit the damages to it's critical infrastructure by keeping the conflict confined to the waterways.

The people in the streets of Tehran will not lose power or water if Iranian Navel forces are engaged in battle.

Keeping this fight to the waterways will also allow Iran the advantage of saying, " I told you so".

If they were to attack the shipping lanes of the Straits, they would be living up to their word and that would play large to the youth of the Middle East.

The reaction would be immediate but would probably not prevent news coverage showing burning tankers and a violent spike in crude oil prices.  

The first day of the event would probably clearly go to Iran... from a media perspective.

How hard and Iran attacks the targets in the Straits and the duration of the attack would need to be carefully weighed.

A massive attack against multiple ships could lead to a disproportional response and   the classic unintended escalation theory.

Iran would be wise to limit it's Air force support to this operation given the airfields inland would become instant targets and that would go against any concept of keeping the fight out in open waters.

A Falklands scenario is a historical baseline, with the exception of the land actions by the British Marines.

What Iran would have to prepared to accept is the destruction of it's Navel fleet and it's Navel facilities along it's coastline.

The Western Powers could very well limit the destruction to these Navel Facilities yet make them dysfunctional in the conflict.

Iran would need to make it very clear their ballistic facilities were not part of the operation and that would require a preemptive news release stating the Iranian Navy were " currently" the only forces involved in the conflict.

Ok, it its becoming easy to see how fast this event could get completely out of control.

The only factor in favor of keeping the lid on this type of conflict is the desire by all sides to limit the damage.

This is where the planning of careful counter actions become vital.

All parties involved can have the " intention" to limit the damage, but emotion driven events and the law of unintended consequences can quickly come into play.

Conflict has a long history of spiraling out of control!

Let me add one  classic example of what could quickly turn this into a regional war regardless of what Iran or the West intended.

Israel!

Israel gets a vote on how limited the event is.

The US and it's Allies were successful during Desert Storm in convincing Israel to sit on the sidelines...

I am not confident that would happen again.... Times have changed.

A conflict where Israel once again has no real, final outcome with the Iranian issue may simply not be tolerable.

A conflict that leads the Iranian nuclear program intact, would be a very hard sell to the Israeli public.

Iran and the West may wish to keep a conflict ' contained', but Israel will get a vote.

Even if they " vote" to agree and " sit this one out", AGAIN.. I'm not convinced they would live up to it.

In conclusion:

I have made the argument Iran " could" and in my opinion would wish to fight a limited conflict, the odds of it ending up that way are simply not good.

As history has shown us time and time again... a " limited event" could easily turn into a " Regional" nightmare.

The World needs the Arab Spring far sooner in Iran than it is probably going to show up and it needs to show up in their military first.

Could such a thing happen?

Could the Iranian military fracture?

I will talk about that soon!