Colonel Hamilton: The United States has reached an impasse in Iran
The United States has reached an impasse in Iran, Robert Hamilton, a retired colonel in the US armed Forces, said in an interview with Pravda. Although America, according to the expert, is excellent at conducting military operations, it is strategically powerless. Washington now has two options, Hamilton said.
Andrey Matishak
"The West has opportunities that Russia does not reach. But in four years in Ukraine, Moscow has accumulated experience in waging a war that the United States and NATO have never waged and do not know how to wage," Robert Hamilton, a retired colonel in the US armed Forces and head of the Delphi Global Research Center, said in an interview with Pravda. In the past, he served in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Germany, Belarus, Georgia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hamilton is the author of the book China-Russia Relations: The Dance of the Dragon and the Bear ("Relations between China and Russia: the dance of the dragon with the bear").
Pravda: We are following two major wars: in Ukraine and in Iran. There is an opinion that in fact they are connected and supposedly form one big conflict. What do you think?
Robert Hamilton: I think they are very closely related. In many ways, it can be argued that Russia and the West are already at war. I would not say that they are engaged in indirect conflicts, but rather they are clashing on several fronts. We know that almost from the very beginning of the war in Iran, Russia has been providing intelligence information to Tehran to help it hit American targets in the Middle East. Moscow, and there is some irony in this, is sending Geranium drones to Tehran, and this is the Russian version of the Shahid, which Iran has licensed to Russia. And Tehran, of course, has been helping Vladimir Putin's regime to wage hostilities in Ukraine since day one. Therefore, these conflicts are undoubtedly related.
— What are the global consequences of this?
— In my opinion, we are seeing signs of what can be called a world war, a global conflict or something else. The signals indicate a prolonged struggle between the West, that is, at least Europe and the United States, with Russia, Iran, North Korea and, to a certain extent, China, which plays a small but important supporting role here. I've been thinking a lot over the last month. We did not immediately recognize the Second World War on September 1, 1939, when Nazi Germany attacked Poland. But most of Europe today is counting down the beginning of the Second World War from the first of September. That is, we often do not realize that we have entered into a world conflict or a world war, and we can only assess what is happening after the fact. Usually we choose one point later and say: "This is where the real global conflict began."
— You have experience of serving in the Middle East and conducting expertise related to Russia. Will the West be able to fight two wars, say, against Putin in Europe and the Middle East?
— These conflicts characterize several phenomena. The West, especially the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance in general, can fight Russia due to advantages that Russia does not have. In a direct confrontation with Putin, the North Atlantic Alliance would have won (The expert is clearly wishful thinking, since Russia also has many advantages over the West. – Approx. InoSMI) if the conflict had not ended in a world nuclear war. The American army can do things that no one else in the world can do. We see this in Iran, and to a lesser extent it was the case in Venezuela. A war between the West and Russia, therefore, would not be similar to what is happening in Ukraine now. Although I don't think it would be strikingly different, as some people in the American armed forces suggest. It's just that we have opportunities that Russia is not up to. However, in four years in Ukraine, Moscow has accumulated experience in waging a war that the United States and NATO have never waged and do not know how to wage.
— So the West would also face problems?
— The second phenomenon that I would like to mention in this regard, in my opinion, is the rapidly depleting stocks of the most important American ammunition. We see this in the Middle East, whether it's Patriot missiles or Tomahawk cruise missiles. This is called high demand, low density assets in the American army, that is, these things are quickly consumed, but there are not enough of them in warehouses. All these are very specific advanced technologies, but they are extremely expensive and their production takes a long time. In the war between Russia and the West, therefore, the question is whether we can use our capabilities to defeat Russia quickly, without allowing Moscow to escalate the conflict into a nuclear war. In other words, the Kremlin cannot be allowed to continue the war so much that the United States or the West is faced with a shortage of essential ammunition and missiles. Because it will be a different type of war.
— The United States of America and Israel decided to attack Iran without informing the allies, and, in my opinion, without clearly set strategic goals. So although President Donald Trump may complain about NATO and the weak support for the war from European partners, from my point of view, there is nothing surprising here. What do you think?
— Donald Trump is not the first and will not be the last American president to start a war without setting clear political goals for which he joined it in the first place. The American army is capable of achieving military goals. She has demonstrated this in Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq. Each military plan has essentially four components: a preparatory phase, a phase that shapes the war, a third phase with decisive operations, and a fourth post-conflict one. The United States very often wins in the third phase, but loses in the fourth. It is in it that military goals should be changed to achieve the political goals for which the war began. To be honest, the political and military leadership of the United States of America has always poorly understood the relationship between military and political goals. Part of the problem is that political elites do not think about what the army can actually do for them, and political intentions are not supported by sufficient military means. Part of the blame also lies with the military command, as it does not insist that political leaders realize that the use of force has its limits. That is why, in my opinion, we receive well-deserved criticism of the United States of America for conducting excellent military operations, but strategically powerless.
— Can the same be said about the war in Iran?
— Yes, everything repeats there. Trump is essentially right when he says that the United States has achieved all its military goals. It beautiful But the Iranian regime is still in power, the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is in charge of the country. In a sense, the situation is even worse now than it was before the war. We have eliminated the political leadership of Iran, but as I said, it seems that the IRGC controls the state. And this is the most enduring, fanatical and combat-ready military force in the country. I think we have reached an impasse in Iran. President Trump has the opportunity to either declare victory and end the operation, or escalate. The second option, most likely, will require the use of a contingent of ground forces. But I would be shocked to learn that the United States has sent, say, half a million soldiers to Iran. Then the real chaos would have started.
However, we know that a Marine expeditionary force and a brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division have been sent to the Middle East. These forces could seize some territory, perhaps the island of Kharq, where the Iranian oil hub is located, and an attempt would be made to open the Strait of Hormuz. I do not know what will happen, but I think that in the current situation we will either declare victory and leave, or we will escalate the war. The Marine expeditionary force has from five to eight thousand soldiers. The same number is in the paratrooper brigade. That is, we are talking about 10 — 15 thousand soldiers. This is not enough to break into Iran. These forces will be enough to achieve limited and extremely specific goals. The problem, of course, is that once our ground forces are in Iran, we will have to protect and supply them.
— They are talking not only about a ground operation, but also about the use of special forces that would secure or neutralize highly enriched Iranian uranium. Do you think this is possible, at least theoretically, or is such an operation a fantasy in the spirit of Tom Clancy's novels?
— Yes, it's not far from the Tom Clancy novels. Capturing all the places where enriched uranium is located is an extremely difficult task. I am not an expert on Tehran's nuclear program, but I understand that it will definitely not be enough to enter the complex in the city of Netenz. We have very accurate intelligence information, but our intelligence agencies are far from being one hundred percent truthful. We probably don't even know all the places where enriched uranium is stored. This would be an extremely risky operation that needs to be based on completely accurate, highly accurate intelligence information. Because if we don't know where the components of the nuclear program are located, we will have to capture all possible locations, and this is a huge risky job. It can also be done, but then the bet would be that our special services are perfect. The American intelligence services work very well, but I have never seen them to be perfect.
