Emerging Technology
Article | July 16, 2022
With Iran in escalation mood to get n to "Holy War" or "War For Survival of Islam" with Air Striking US and Allied Bases in Iraq which though has hardly given any blow to US Confidence and its Marines deployed there,Iran is going to architect a full blown war which as we know it would feature a series of moves and countermoves, we know it’d be very messy and confusing, and we know it’d be extremely deadly.
But unlike with the path to war, it’s less useful to offer a play-by-play of what could happen. So with that in mind, it’s better to look at what the US and Iranian war plans would likely be — to better understand the devastation each could exact.
How the US might try to win the war
The US strategy would almost certainly involve using overwhelming air and naval power to beat Iran into submission early on. “You don’t poke the beehive, you take the whole thing down,” Goldenberg said.
The US military would bomb Iranian ships, parked warplanes, missile sites, nuclear facilities, and training grounds, as well as launch cyberattacks on much of the country’s military infrastructure. The goal would be to degrade Iran’s conventional forces within the first few days and weeks, making it even harder for Tehran to resist American strength.
That plan definitely makes sense as an opening salvo, experts say, but it will come nowhere close to winning the war.
“It’s very unlikely that the Iranians would capitulate,” Michael Hanna, a Middle East expert at the Century Foundation in New York, told me. “It’s almost impossible to imagine that a massive air campaign will produce the desired result. It’s only going to produce escalation, not surrender.”
It won’t help that a sustained barrage of airstrikes will likely lead to thousands of Iranians dead, among them innocent civilians. That, among other things, could galvanize Iranian society against the US and put it firmly behind the regime, even though it has in many ways treated the population horribly over decades in power.
There’s another risk: A 2002 war game showed that Iran could sink an American ship and kill US sailors, even though the US Navy is far more powerful. If the Islamic Republic’s forces succeeded in doing that, it could provide a searing image that could serve as a propaganda coup for the Iranians. Washington won’t garner the same amount of enthusiasm for destroying Iranian warships — that’s what’s supposed to happen.
An Iranian Army soldier stands guard on a military speedboat, passing by a submarine during the “Velayat-90” navy exercises in the Strait of Hormuz on December 28, 2011. Ali Mohammadi/AFP/Getty Images
Trump has already signaled he doesn’t want to send ground troops into Iran or even spend a long time fighting the country. That tracks with his own inclinations to keep the US out of foreign wars, particularly in the Middle East. But with hawkish aides at his side, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there’s a chance they could convince him not to look weak and to go all-in and grasp victory.
But the options facing the president at that point will be extremely problematic, experts say.
The riskiest one — by far — would be to invade Iran. The logistics alone boggle the mind, and any attempt to try it would be seen from miles away. “There’s no surprise invasion of Iran,” Brewer, who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, told me.
Iran has nearly three times the amount of people Iraq did in 2003, when the war began, and is about three and a half times as big. In fact, it’s the world’s 17th-largest country, with territory greater than France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal combined.
The geography is also treacherous. It has small mountain ranges along some of its borders. Entering from the Afghanistan side in the east would mean traversing two deserts. Trying to get in from the west could also prove difficult even with Turkey — a NATO ally — as a bordering nation. After all, Ankara wouldn’t let the US use Turkey to invade Iraq, and its relations with Washington have only soured since.
“IT’S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE THAT A MASSIVE AIR CAMPAIGN WILL PRODUCE THE DESIRED RESULT. IT’S ONLY GOING TO PRODUCE ESCALATION, NOT SURRENDER.” —MICHAEL HANNA, A MIDDLE EAST EXPERT AT THE CENTURY FOUNDATION
The US could try to enter Iran the way Saddam Hussein did during the Iran-Iraq war, near a water pass bordering Iran’s southwest. But it’s swampy — the Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet there — and relatively easy to protect. Plus, an invading force would run up against the Zagros Mountains after passing through, just like Saddam’s forces did.
It’s for these reasons that the private intelligence firm Stratfor called Iran a “fortress” back in 2011. If Trump chose to launch an incursion, he’d likely need around 1.6 million troops to take control of the capital and country, a force so big it would overwhelm America’s ability to host them in regional bases. By contrast, America never had more than 180,000 service members in Iraq.
And there’s the human cost. A US-Iran war would likely lead to thousands or hundreds of thousands of dead. Trying to forcibly remove the country’s leadership, experts say, might drive that total into the millions.
That helps explain why nations in the region hope they won’t see a fight. Goldenberg, who traveled recently to meet with officials in the Gulf, said that none of them wanted a US-Iran war. European nations will also worry greatly about millions of refugees streaming into the continent, which would put immense pressure on governments already dealing with the fallout of the Syrian refugee crisis. Israel also would worry about Iranian proxies targeting it (more on that below).
Meanwhile, countries like Russia and China — both friendly to Iran — would try to curtail the fighting and exploit it at the same time, the Century Foundation’s Hanna told me. China depends heavily on its goods traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, so it would probably call for calm and for Tehran not to close down the waterway. Russia would likely demand restraint as well, but use the opportunity to solidify its ties with the Islamic Republic.
President Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, stand side by side in the group picture at the G20 summit on June 28, 2019. Bernd von Jutrczenka/picture alliance via Getty Images
And since both countries have veto power on the UN Security Council, they could ruin any political legitimacy for the war that the US may aim to gain through that body.
The hope for the Trump administration would therefore be that the conflict ends soon after the opening salvos begin. If it doesn’t, and Iran resists, all that’d really be left are a slew of bad options to make a horrid situation much, much worse.
How Iran might try to win the war
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart left his post as the No. 2 at US Cyber Command in 2019, ending a decorated four-decade career. Toward the end of it, he spent his time at the forefront of the military intelligence and cybersecurity communities.
If anyone has the most up-to-date information on how Iran may fight the US, then, it’s Stewart.
“The Iranian strategy would be to avoid, where possible, direct conventional force-on-force operations,” he wrote for the Cipher Brief on July 2, 2019. “They would attempt to impose cost on a global scale, striking at US interests through cyber operations and targeted terrorism with the intent of expanding the conflict, while encouraging the international community to restrain America’s actions.”
In other words, Tehran can’t match Washington’s firepower. But it can spread chaos in the Middle East and around the world, hoping that a war-weary US public, an intervention-skeptical president, and an angered international community cause America to stand down.
That may seem like a huge task — and it is — but experts believe the Islamic Republic has the capability, knowhow, and will to pull off such an ambitious campaign. “The Iranians can escalate the situation in a lot of different ways and in a lot of different places,” Hanna told me. “They have the capacity to do a lot of damage.”
Take what it could do in the Middle East. Iran’s vast network of proxies and elite units — like Soleimani’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — could be activated to kill American troops, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region. US troops in Syria are poorly defended and have little support, making them easy targets, experts say. America also has thousands of civilians, troops, and contractors in Iraq, many of whom work in areas near where Iranian militias operate within the country.
US allies would also be prime targets. Hezbollah, an Iran-backed terrorist group in Lebanon, might attack Israel with rockets and start its own brutal fight. We’ve heard this story before: In 2006, they battled in a month-long war where the militant group fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel, and Israeli forces fired around 7,000 bombs and missiles into Lebanon.
About 160 Israelis troops and civilians died, according to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and about 1,100 Lebanese — most of them civilians — perished, per Human Rights Watch, a US-headquartered advocacy organization. It also reports about 4,400 Lebanese were injured, and around 1 million people were displaced.
But that’s not all. Iran could encourage terrorist organizations or other proxies to strike inside Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Gulf nations. Last year, it planned and executed drone strikes on two major Saudi oil facilities deep inside the kingdom, convulsing world markets. Its support for Houthis rebels in Yemen would mostly certainly increase, offering them more weapons and funds to attack Saudi Arabia’s airports, military bases, and energy plants.
The US government on April 8, 2019, said it had designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, marking the first time a US government has made such a designation on a foreign government’s organization. Rouzbeh Fouladi/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Experts note that the Islamic Republic likely has sleeper cells in Europe and Latin America, and they could resurface in dramatic and violent ways. In 1994, for example, Iranian-linked terrorists bombed the hub of the Jewish community in Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, killing 85 people and injuring roughly 300 more.
That remains the largest terrorist attack in Latin America’s history, and the possibility for an even bigger one exists. In 2018, Argentina arrested two men suspected of having ties with Hezbollah.
But Chris Musselman, formerly the National Security Council’s counterterrorism director under Trump, told me the US and its allies may have the most trouble containing the proxy swarm in Western Africa.
“We could see a conflict that spread quickly to places the US may not be able to protect people, and it’s a fight that we are grossly unprepared for,” he said, adding that there’s a strong Hezbollah presence in the region and American embassy security there isn’t great. Making matters worse, he continued, the US isn’t particularly good at collecting intelligence there, meaning some militants could operate relatively under the radar.
“This isn’t really a law enforcement function that US can take on a global scale,” he said. It would require that countries unwittingly hosting proxies to lead on defeating the Iranian-linked fighters, with US support when needed.
The chaos would also extend into the cyber realm. Iran is a major threat to the US in cyberspace. Starting in 2011, Iran attacked more than 40 American banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The attack made it so the banks had trouble serving its customers and customers had trouble using the bank’s services.
In 2012, Iran released malware into the networks of Saudi Aramco, a major oil company, which erased documents, emails, and other files on around 75 percent of the company’s computers — replacing them with an image of a burning American flag.
In the middle of a war, one could imagine Tehran’s hackers wreaking even more havoc.
“WE COULD SEE A CONFLICT THAT SPREAD QUICKLY TO PLACES THE US MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PROTECT PEOPLE, AND IT’S A FIGHT THAT WE ARE GROSSLY UNPREPARED FOR” —CHRIS MUSSELMAN, FORMERLY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL’S COUNTERTERRORISM DIRECTOR UNDER TRUMP
“I would expect them to have begun selected targeting through socially-engineered phishing activities focused on the oil and gas sector, the financial sector and the electric power grid in that order,” Stewart wrote. “There may be instances now where they already have some persistent access. If they do, I expect they would use it, or risk losing the access and employ that capability early in the escalation of the crisis.”
Recent reports indicate that Iranian cyberwarriors have stepped up their online operations, with a particular emphasis on preparing to attack US firms. Among other moves, they’re aiming to trick employees at major businesses to hand over passwords and other vital information, giving them greater access to a firm’s networks.
“When you combine this increase with past destructive attacks launched by Iranian-linked actors, we’re concerned enough about the potential for new destructive attacks to continue sounding the alarm,” Christopher Krebs, a top cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security, told Foreign Policy last July.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attends a graduation ceremony of the Iranian Navy cadets in the city of Noshahr on September 30, 2015. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
All of this — proxies striking around the world, cyberattacks on enterprise — would happen while Iran continued to resist conventional American forces.
In the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, Iranian sailors could use speedboats to place bombs on oil tankers or place mines in the water to destroy US warships. The Islamic Republic’s submarines would also play a huge part in trying to sink an American vessel. And the nation’s anti-ship missiles and drones could prove constant and deadly nuisances.
Should US troops try to enter Iranian territory on land, Iranian ground forces would also push back on them fiercely using insurgent-like tactics while the US painfully marches toward Tehran.
Put together, Brewer notes succinctly, a US-Iran war would be “a nasty, brutal fight.”
Aftermath: “The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious”
Imagine, as we already have, that the earlier stages of strife escalate to a major war. That’s already bad enough. But assume for a moment not only that the fighting takes place, but that the US does the unlikely and near impossible: It invades and overthrows the Iranian regime (which Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton, at least, has openly called for in the past).
If that happens, it’s worth keeping two things in mind.
First, experts say upward of a million people — troops from both sides as well as Iranian men, women, and children, and American diplomats and contractors — likely will have died by that point. Cities will burn and smolder. Those who survived the conflict will mainly live in a state of economic devastation for years and some, perhaps, will pick up arms and form insurgent groups to fight the invading US force.
Second, power abhors a vacuum. With no entrenched regime in place, multiple authority figures from Iran’s clerical and military circles, among others, will jockey for control. Those sides could split into violent factions, initiating a civil war that would bring more carnage to the country. Millions more refugees might flock out of the country, overwhelming already taxed nations nearby, and ungoverned pockets will give terrorist groups new safe havens from which to operate.
Iran would be on the verge of being a failed state, if it wasn’t already by that point, and the US would be the main reason why. To turn the tide, America may feel compelled to help rebuild the country at the cost of billions of dollars, years of effort, and likely more dead. It could also choose to withdraw, leaving behind a gaping wound in the center of the Middle East.
In some ways, then, what comes after the war could be worse than the war itself. It should therefore not be lost on anyone: A US-Iran war would be a bloody hell during and after the fighting. It’s a good thing neither Trump nor Iran’s leadership currently wants a conflict. But if they change their minds, only carnage follows.
“The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious,” Hanna told me.
Read More
Emerging Technology, Government Business
Article | October 7, 2022
The average smartphone user should be fully informed about 5G, or have seen dozens of commercials promoting the service. Telecom companies are aggressively pushing it, with some even offering 5G routers and access points for home.
While the federal government has always been interested in 5G and is testing it at several military bases, the technology's consumerization means that agencies must work faster to integrate it into their own networks. Citizens who have grown accustomed to lightning-fast connections on their home internet and phones will expect the same when contacting the government.
For the past few years, the development of government 5G has been slow. The Trump administration sanctioned Huawei, the leading supplier of 5G wireless network infrastructure at the time, in 2019 because its ties to the Chinese government posed a national security risk. For a time, this limited the availability of 5G network technology in the United States until telecoms were able to switch to non-Chinese company vendors.
The 5G Market is Starting to Open Up to Federal Customers:
Other challenges for federal 5G include the potential for signals to disrupt safety equipment aboard commercial aircraft (Verizon and AT&T agreed in January not to turn on hundreds of transmission towers near airports), as well as ongoing supply chain and workforce shortage issues.
Agencies are also in the process of transitioning their telecommunications contracts to the GSA's Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions contract. All existing telecom contracts that are not already covered by EIS will expire in May 2023.
It's been a trying and perplexing time for 5G supporters. However, the 5G market is beginning to shift, which may allow federal agencies to move as quickly as consumers would like.
Changes to the 5G Network Will Increase Speed and Improve Workflow:
Agencies wishing to deploy 5G will require vendors capable of securing the endpoints that connect to the network, whether on the ground or in the air, as well as the connections between the agency and its telecom provider. As network usage grows, user authentication and identity management will become essential services.
5G will allow agencies to receive and transmit far more data at a much faster rate than ever before, but that data must be protected and secured. 5G may also replace existing network technologies such as WAN and multiprotocol label-switching, and agencies must prepare for this transition.
Read More
Article | June 17, 2020
COVID-19 hit the construction industry like a tsunami. Almost all medium to large construction projects were shuttered as government leaders scrambled to protect the health of Americans.
Today, however, even though the pandemic has not been contained, there is renewed interest in construction and reason for optimism. The immediate future is considerably brighter today than it was three months ago. Although construction projects are moving slower and fewer new ones being launched, there is definite movement.
One year ago, construction projects were so abundant industry leaders warned of imminent danger related to America’s shortage of skilled construction workers, designers, and engineers. Those alarms are not as loud today, but that could change soon because new projects are being announced on a daily basis throughout the country.
Officials at the Tampa International Airport placed approximately $906 million in construction projects on hold, but there’s little doubt that construction will begin again in the not too distant future. Air travel is down more than 95 percent, and urgency for planned expansions and upgrades is not as great.
Many colleges and universities also have delayed projects. In fact, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) put a two-year halt on construction planned for this month. A $155 million football facility near Memorial Stadium is delayed primarily because university officials anticipate a $50 million budget shortfall. There’s also uncertainty about when sports events can resume.
But, more positive news may definitely be found in almost every state in the U.S. Here are just a few examples of upcoming construction projects in America.
Louisiana
The Louisiana State Legislature has approved $529 million for construction on university campuses. The University of Louisiana at Lafayette plans to spend $187,700 to repair Fletcher Hall and $16.4 million to renovate Madison Hall. Northwestern State University will receive $37.4 million for construction related to Kyser Hall. Louisiana Tech University plans to spend $40.5 million for a number of campus improvements, and Louisiana State University (LSU) has $227.7 million for construction projects. Southern University in Baton Rouge has planned renovations and expansions for about $18.2 million.
North Carolina
Wake County has approved a $1.47 billion budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). It outlines construction projects at Wake Technical Community College that include new buildings on many campuses. One project outlined in the CIP is a new Emergency Operations Center, and other projects include a new Public Health Center, construction of training space at the Board of Elections Center, facility upgrades at Human Services Sunnybrook, a Facility Condition Assessment program, and vacant space build out for housing at Oak City Multi-Services Center.
Missouri
On June 2, North Kansas City Schools received approval for a $155 million zero-tax increase bond issue. Lee’s Summit voters also approved a new $224 million bond issue for various infrastructure projects in the R-7 School District. Some of the construction projects include a fourth middle school facility and renovations to the three existing middle school facilities. Voters approved a no-levy-increase bond question for $25 million for improvements to district facilities at Belton School District 124.
Wisconsin
The city of Sun Prairie has approved its 2021-2023 Capital Improvement Plan that includes many construction projects. The funding includes $7.4 million for phosphorous treatment and plant capacity upgrades at the Water Pollution Control Facility and $2.1 million for Sun Prairie Utility’s Business Park Substation expansion. Unfunded projects for 2021 include $3 million for a library expansion, a public works campus, and a Grans-Hepker intersection expansion. In 2022 the city will spend $7.4 million on street reconstruction. Another unfunded project for years 2022 and 2023 is a $5.7 million bathhouse renovation.
New Jersey
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority and the South Jersey Transportation Authority approved a toll increase to fund approximately $25 billion in construction over 10 years. Projects include the widening of 15 different sections of a turnpike, the replacement of a bridge between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and upgrades to roadway tolling stations. The plan also calls for widening of a 13-mile section of the Expressway, construction of a direct connector to the Atlantic City Airport and installation of cashless toll equipment.
The governor announced plans this week to develop an offshore wind port on an artificial island along the Delaware River, potentially giving the state a competitive edge in the race to attract offshore wind jobs and manufacturers. The project would be unlike anything yet proposed in the U.S. and its cost could be as high as $400 million. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority will lead development of the port with the hope of creating thousands of high paying jobs and establishing New Jersey as the national capital of ‘off shore wind’.
Texas
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Transportation Policy Board adopted a 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that has numerous major construction projects. It includes $633 million for the I-35 Capital Express project which will be sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The TIP also outlines transportation plans from regional transportation entities including TxDOT-Austin District, Capital Metro, Capital Area Rural Transportation System, and other local sponsors that have federally funded or regionally significant projects. One project the board chose to maintain is construction of two lane frontage roads on U.S. Highway 183. That project is projected to cost approximately $75 million.
Other projects in the CAMPO plan are:
Slaughter Lane widening to six lanes from Brodie Lane to N. Mopac Expressway – $15.73 million;
William Cannon widening to four lanes from McKinney Falls Parkway to Running Water Drive – $14.69 million;
Braker Lane extension from Samsung Boulevard to Dawes Place – $14.05 million;
University Boulevard reconstruction and widening to four lanes from County Road 110 to A.W. Grimes Road – $7.88 million;
Gattis School Road Segment 6 widening to six lanes – $11.38 million;
RM 967 widening from Oak Forest Drive to FM 1626 – $5.32 million;
FM 621 widening from CR 266 to De Zavala Drive in Hays County – $5.1 million;
SH 180 left turn lane installation and elimination of shoulder gap – $2.05 million; and,
Hopkins Multi-use Bike-Pedestrian Facility construction – $2 million.
Construction, engineering, architectural, and design firms will, no doubt, find immediate opportunities to contract with public officials. Additionally, as Congress begins to take up the task of developing an infrastructure bill, it is clear that construction projects will be hailed as the fastest way to stimulate the nation’s economy – a goal that has bipartisan support in America.
Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., a business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S. Her recently released book, Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, is a handbook for contractors, investors and the public at large seeking to explore how public-private partnerships or joint ventures can help finance their infrastructure projects.
Read More