Skip to comments.US Intelligence Expert: Regime-Change the Answer in Iran
Posted on 12/15/2005 2:48:58 AM PST by F14 Pilot
Former justice department prosecutor and intelligence expert John Loftus says that Israel is unable to thwart Iran's nuclear projects through military action but that there is an alternative.
"Israel only has a few option and striking back is not one of 'em," Loftus told Israel National Radio's Tovia Singer. "The F-16-IL version that Israel possesses only has a combat radius of about 2,200 kilometers and you would need about 3,000 to hit the hard targets in Iran. Iran saw what [Israel] did to the Osarik reactor in Iraq and have spread their nuclear development stuff all over the country and a lot of the stuff is in the northeast corner of the country completely out of Israel's flight range. So, unless Iraq votes to allow Israel over flight rights to attack Iran which isn't going to happen - then Israel simply doesn't have the fuel to fly around Saudi Arabia to come up the Straits of Hormuz and attack Iran. There is simply not a military option available to Israel."
Loftus stressed, however, that there are other options that are likely to succeed and are already being put into effect. "The Bush administration is hoping that, ironically with [French [President] Jacques] Chirac's help, UN pressure will cause a regime-change in Syria. That the [UN's] Mehlis investigation [examining the Syrian governments connection to the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri] is going to come down hard and heavy. The US military is chomping at the bit to go across the border and take out the terror bases in Syria that Assad claims are not there. Once Syria is gone, Iran is isolated, with US troops on both their borders, in Afghanistan and in Iraq."
The intelligence expert, with contacts in the Pentagon says that the strategy is not for the US to actually invade Iran, but to affect a regime-change. "One of the intelligence agencies, which shall remain nameless, asked me to hold a conference of dissident groups in Iran. We are holding that conference and getting ready for regime-change."
Singer asked Loftus why US fighter jets do not bomb Iranian nuclear targets on their own from aircraft carriers in the region.
"That's a real good question that has been carefully studied," Loftus answered. "There are over 360 separate targets inside Iran that have been identified. Most of them are non-vulnerable many underneath residential neighborhoods and Islamic shrines. These are not places we can bomb. The Iranians were paying attention when Iraq's reactor was bombed and have learned the lessons."
"So what is to be done to bring about a regime-change?" singer asked.
"The aircraft carriers are there to defend the picket-line of ships that will place a blockade on the Straits of Hormuz," Loftus said. "Ninety percent of Iran's economy is based on oil exports so a blockade of as little as three weeks can cause their economy to collapse, the people to rise up and the mullahs to be overthrown. The problem with this is that Iran knows that this is the most likely scenario and they have been preparing for three years to thwart it. They [Iran] have developed vessels whose job is to sink as many oil tankers as possible to block the Straits of Hormuz. Once two, three or four vessels are sunk, you have cut off 40% of the world's oil supply. So the US doesn't mind we have a six-month stockpile of oil - but the EU is much more fragile and susceptible to oil shocks. So we might have to dump a large share of the US stockpile on the world market until the regime falls."
Asked whether he really thinks the government will topple so easily, Loftus responded, "It is hard to do polling in Iran you have to do it by telephone and you therefore only end up talking to the urban population. But we found that 83% of the Iranian urban population hates the mullahs and don't want to grow up under a dictatorship. Most of the country is young and wants music videos and TV and not the mullahs."
ticking. . one, two, three
The clock is ticking.
The drums of war have started..
Loftus is an idiot.
By the same argument, we didn't need to invade Germany. All we had to do was precipitate "regime change."
Both arguments are accurate, but the problem is implementing the strategy.
Politically correct insanity.
We CAN bomb these places if they are being used to hide or conceal military targets.
The resolve to defend ourselves is what we seem to be lacking.
"But we found that 83% of the Iranian urban population hates the mullahs and don't want to grow up under a dictatorship. Most of the country is young and wants music videos and TV and not the mullahs.""
Not to be confused with "We are willing to die for our freedom"
I do not care about Islamic shrines, but simple well buildt bunkers will be a severe problem to any air strike. Also the decentral targets will make everything extremely difficult.
This guy is right. The best alternative would be a blow from inside. We should help the Iranians in Iran to kill their theocracy and their contemporary gouvernment by themselves.
$500 per barrel=$20 per gallon
Oh, yeah, let's hope that the UN does something.
Since they have such a good track record...
What if you add one of these?
This is the point. To move something there you would need "boots on the ground". Bombing will not solve the problem. The question is if your gouvernment has the will to do such an invasion since they are the only nation that would have the resources to do this. Israel itselves is far too weak and too small to invade a country like Iran over such a long distance.
Intelligence Expert apologizes.
John Loftus on "How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis"
And there were many attempts to do this, the reason we had to invade in the end was because there was no viable alternative to the Nazis we could deal with.
By 1942 we had stopped trying to enable regime change through the German Office corp, each attempt had ended in disaster
It would seem that Israel has a different opinion...
From another article:
Thank God, Israel has the means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of this extremist regime in Iran. There will be no second 'final solution'," Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissin said.
They be a whoooole lota wishful thinkin' goin' on heuh.
Israel doesnt understand the word "cant." Not too smart to underestimate their ability to strike any time and any place.
He's got the main idea right.(the rest is crap) We need to "affect a regime-change".
Iraq's economy under Saddam was almost entirely based on oil exports. They were cut off for more than 10 years, the economy collapsed, and Saddam remained in power. Why should we believe that it would be different in Iran?
Not to mention that the economies of Japan, China, India and Western Europe are all dependent on Iranian oil. What do you expect them to be doing while we're cutting off their oil supply?
How pathetic. MTV rules the day.
"That's a real good question that has been carefully studied," Loftus answered. "There are over 360 separate targets inside Iran that have been identified. Most of them are non-vulnerable many underneath residential neighborhoods and Islamic shrines. These are not places we can bomb.
Not to be confused with "We are willing to die for our freedom"
If the choice is bombing Iranian religious shrines and civilian neighborhoods underneath which they are building nucelar weapons to destroy NYC, or letting them build nukes, the only option is #1.
It would be criminal to allow them to have nukes.
So, if a country, friendly to Israel, had in its inventory, a soon to be excessed aerial tanker, they might make it available to Israel.
What say, they render the aircraft completely airworthy and make it available for minimum consideration - $1.00.
Then that friendly nation could just play Sgt. Schultz - "I don't know nothing!"
Israel has complete responsibility for its actions. Our diplomats would state that Israel is a sovereign nation, and who are we to interfere with their internal security decisions.
At some point, the so-called 83% of the Iranian street will have to foment a genuine revolution if they don't want bombs raining down on them. They want their MTV but don't seem prepared to give their lives to have the freedoms they supposedly want.
Loftus is right, however, that conventional warfare would be a huge mistake unless there was overwhelming confidence that the entire program could be destroyed. Otherwise, without regime change, they'll end up getting set back a few years and launch as soon as humanly possible against Israel in retaliation.
Iran, on the other hand, IF they want to remain on the map, and save face, will have to drag out all their materiel and give Israel the option of destroying it in front of the world. This would prevent Israel from justifying the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and if they chose to bomb them conventionally, would open the door to retaliation by Iran.
The only way to avoid regime change for Iran is to avoid getting nuked. If they're patient, they could provide a "sitting duck" target for Israel in the short term, let them become the "aggressors" in the eyes of the world, and come back in three years fully nuclear and "justified" in whatever retaliation they prefer...
If the regime is placing targets in residential neighborhoods and mosques, it's the duty of the people to overthrow the government for putting them in the line of fire. At some point, if they accept the tyranny of their government, they must also accept the consequences doled out by the rest of the world because of that tyranny.
Yes I agree a better outcome than an all out war that is expensive in US lives and money. Not one of those people is worth 100 of our marines or infantry men. Take out their leaders destroy the infrastructure with surgical strikes and leave a young thriving Iran to become a democratic asset to the middle east. Not another post war dust bowl full of hatred and poverty ripe as a recruiting ground for terrorists.
I assume there are some tiers of target importance within the 360 number. Hit the first tier targets without warning and watch them all scurry around like ants wondering where we will strike next.
Very informative, Yes Once Syria is "liberated" and Iran too, we'll have on happy family of Democracies in the middle east!
I'm for it of course, but Whoa! the sheer immensity of it! Of course the other options are: wait for the nuke to drop from Islam......
We are between a rock and a hard place on Iran, and no amount of wishful or creative thinking will change that. The Iranian regime is hell-bent on securing nuclear weapons, and even if the EU or Mohammed El-Baradei or the Russians should manage to extract some conditional agreement from the mullahs, there is no reason to believe that the Iranian's won't cheat or renege. One variable that no one wants to think about is that the North Koreans might be willing to part with a couple of nukes from their meager arsenal (for the right, phenomenally high, price), thereby conferring an "instant" nuclear capability on Teheran. This is why passive assistance (e.g. intelligence, airspace allocation, aerial refuelling) to an Israeli effort to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities (and delivery means), fraught with peril though that may be, is the best of several bad options at this time.
Failing that, we know we can drop cement-filled bombs that cause almost no damage except where they land. A factory next to a shrine is at risk. We also have bombs that can delay exploding until they've penetrated a specfied distance. Installations under a civilian target would, therefore, also be at risk. If the mosque is empty at midnight, no innocents would be killed, the mosque would have a small hole in it, and the factory underneath would be obliterated.
Just let Israel's Navy swim around Africa, and hit the targets with missiles from the vessels and submarines at Persian Gulf.
Somehow I think that the Ruskies will "come to the rescue of" the mullahs by transporting the crude across the Caspian and exporting it as Russian oil. THe new Oil-For-Screw the US Program.
Or the even better, "We are willing to kill our tyrants for our freedom."
As they should be.
Israel has had aerial tankers since the 1960s. Today their mainstay tanker is Boeing 707 airframes. They also use C-130s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.