By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst escalating tensions with the U.S., Iranian military commanders are considering a preemptive strike on the Diego Garcia military base, spurred by the deployment of American B-2 bombers there. This action is intended as deterrence against a potential U.S. attack on Iran. The Iranian response includes preparing missile launchers and bolstering the protection of nuclear sites, reflecting a heightened state of readiness for conflict. Threats from both sides, including Iranian vows of retaliation and President Trump’s warnings of unprecedented bombing, have intensified the crisis.
Read the original article here
Iran urged to strike Diego Garcia base ‘immediately’ is a headline that immediately raises questions about the strategic thinking, or lack thereof, behind such a suggestion. The idea that attacking a joint UK-US military base would somehow deter a potential US strike on Iran seems counterintuitive, to say the least. It suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the likely response such an action would provoke.
This proposed preemptive strike against Diego Garcia appears to be based on a flawed assumption – that it would somehow dissuade the US from any further action. The reality is that such an act of aggression would almost certainly escalate the situation dramatically, likely leading to a far more devastating response than any perceived threat currently looming over Iran. It’s a risky gamble with potentially catastrophic consequences.
The feasibility of such an attack is another significant concern. The distance between Iran and Diego Garcia is considerable, well beyond the range of most of Iran’s known military missiles. While Iran claims to possess missiles capable of reaching such distances, those are primarily satellite launch vehicles, not weapons systems designed for strategic strikes. Even if adapted for military use, the reliability and accuracy of these repurposed missiles are questionable, given their documented high failure rates in previous tests.
This leads to the critical question of the motivation behind this proposal. It’s possible this suggestion is a calculated attempt to raise tensions and gain leverage in any ongoing negotiations. However, it is important to recognize that any “message” sent by such an attack would likely be overshadowed by the severe retaliation that would inevitably follow. A bluff or a feint, as some might suggest, seems highly improbable given the potential costs involved.
Moreover, targeting Diego Garcia also draws the United Kingdom directly into the conflict. This dramatically increases the potential scale of any ensuing conflict, triggering the possibility of a wider NATO response, rather than a limited engagement with the US alone. The potential implications of bringing the UK and potentially other NATO members into conflict with Iran should not be underestimated.
Instead of directly engaging US military assets, Iran might find a more effective deterrent strategy in other forms of asymmetric warfare. Focusing on targets closer to home, perhaps disrupting oil shipments or engaging in limited attacks on US assets in more geographically accessible locations, might be more strategically viable and less likely to trigger a full-blown military response.
The idea of launching missiles towards the island, intending for them to fall harmlessly into the ocean, is equally unconvincing. This strategy is highly unlikely to deter the US; indeed, it’s more likely to increase the perception of Iran as an unpredictable and dangerous actor. Such a blatant provocation could be easily misconstrued, leading to a disproportionate reaction.
In conclusion, the suggestion that Iran should strike Diego Garcia immediately seems to be based on a miscalculation of both the likely response and the country’s own military capabilities. It’s a high-risk strategy with limited potential for success and enormous potential for devastating consequences. A more nuanced and cautious approach is surely warranted to avoid a potentially catastrophic escalation of the situation. The proposed action, while seemingly bold, borders on reckless and potentially suicidal. The potential repercussions significantly outweigh any potential, highly unlikely, benefits.