Posted on 04/13/2006 9:14:41 PM PDT by Enchante
A MILITARY OPTION AGAINST Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed. The announcement of uranium enrichment last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows Iran will not bow easily to diplomatic pressure. The existence of a military option may be the only means of persuading Iran--the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--to back down from producing nuclear weapons.
A military option would be all the more credible if backed by a new coalition of the willing and if coupled with intense diplomacy during a specific time frame. The coalition could include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, and Germany. Solidarity is important and would surely contribute to potential diplomatic success. But should others decline the invitation, the United States must be prepared to act.
What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.
The objective would be, first and foremost, to destroy or severely damage Iran's nuclear development and production facilities and put them out of commission for at least five years. Another aim would be to destroy the Iranian air defense system, significantly damage its air force, naval forces, and Shahab-3 offensive missile forces. This would prevent Iran from projecting force outside the country and retaliating militarily. The air campaign would also wipe out or neutralize Iran's command and control capabilities.
This coalition air campaign would hit more than 1,500 aim points. Among the weapons would be the new 28,000-pound bunker busters, 5,000-pound bunker penetrators, 2,000-pound bunker busters, 1,000-pound general purpose bombs, and 500-pound GP bombs. A B-2 bomber, to give one example, can drop 80 of these 500-pound bombs independently targeted at 80 different aim points.
This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (the so-called JDAMS) to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.
The destruction of Iran's military force structure would create the opportunity for regime change as well, since it would eliminate some or all of Ahmadinejad's and the mullahs' ability to control the population.
Simultaneously or prior to the attack, a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy. This effort would be based on the Afghan model that led to the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Not only would the overt and covert attacks weaken the ability of Iran's leaders to carry out offensive operations in retaliation, they would cripple the leaders' power to control their own people.
Iran's diverse population should be fertile ground for a covert operation. Iran is only 51 percent Persian. Azerbaijanis and Kurds comprise nearly 35 percent of the population. Seventy percent are under 30, and the jobless rate hovers near 20 percent.
Iran's leaders have threatened to unleash a firestorm of terrorism in the event military action is taken against them. Any country involved in the attack would be subject to retaliation by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda, the Iranians have claimed. If nothing else, this threat demonstrates how closely tied Iran is to terrorist groups. The United States and its allies would have to be prepared for stepped-up terrorist acts. Iran could also project forces into Iraq, but this is unlikely because they would encounter the full strength of the American military. However, Iran might encourage proxies among Iraq's militant Shiites. Coalition forces in Iraq would have to be ready to respond.
No doubt the Iranians would attempt to close the Gulf of Hormuz and block the extensive shipping that goes through it. American air and naval forces are quite capable of keeping the gulf open, though shipping might be slowed. The most adverse economic consequences of shipping delays would be felt in Iran itself.
President Bush is right when he says Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The prospect of leaders like Ahmadinejad, who advocates wiping Israel "off the map," with their hands on nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. Diplomacy must be pursued vigorously, but the experience with Iraq suggests there's little reason for optimism. Thus, a viable military option is imperative.
Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) served as assistant vice chief of staff of the United States Air Force.
© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Well, there is one option Iran definitely would bow to!
Looks like a plan here.
Chuck Hagel says, “I think to further comment on it would be complete speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” he added. …
“I believe a political settlement will be the answer. Not a military settlement. All these issues will require a political settlement,” Hagel said.
Senator Hagel HAS taken the MILITARY OPTION off the table.
What a numb nut for a Senator. He must be dating Barbara Boxer!
I can never understand how people like Hagel cannot grasp that there is not even a possibility of any "political settlement" short of Iranian nuclear warheads on their Shahab missiles UNLESS they are certain that the only alternative is their imminent destruction. Even then, they are more than crazy enough to proceed..... but all the glib advocates of a 'political' or diplomatic solution are monumentally ignorant if they think that telling the Mullahs we will never resort to force is any way to get such a political settlement. The Mullahs are not looking for a win-win solution here, they are looking to end up with ample nuke warheads and if we don't find that acceptable (we don't , if we're sane) then we have to be willing to stop them with the kind of air campaign McInerny has outlined. Only if/when they see that as imminent is there any possibility of them backing down, but given the fanatics in charge I think they'd rather go out in a blaze of jihadist glory than make any concessions at all.
Does Chuck Hegel know he represents Nebraska? I am sick of the fools saying we can't do this. The more they say this, the more likely Iran will believe it, and continue on their path, unimpeded by their soon to be revolting studnts. I heard in 2001 they were going to revolt any second. I'm still waiting. That said, even if they do, they shouldn't be allowed to have nukes. It's bad enough Pakistan has them.
And (unless I missed something) the above plan doesn't even inlude the use of our very effective cruise missiles!
OOooops! I did miss something...:-{
Earlier in the week, I was complaining that we don't seem to have military leaders like Curtis LeMay anymore. Maybe I was wrong; McInerney's plan sounds like it could have come from LeMay...
We need more Gen. Patton's
If that weasel Carter had been a real president, all this could have been prevented.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Hagel is an appeaser. His desire to be president is doomed because of it.
I'll leave it up to the military experts as to whether the air power phase sounds plausible. I will say that there seems to be a good bit of wishful thinking re: the populace rising up to throw the mullahs out. It's a big step from not liking the regime you're under to actually putting your life on the line to get rid of it. I'll believe it when I see it happening, and not before.
Iran is now moving either a day-care center, school, hospital or baby milk factory to each of these 1,500 sites.
If perchance we can take out their military and infrastructure by air, they will have more of a head start in taking over than we did a couple of hundred years ago. We were assisted then by France, Spain, Mexico and others with supplies and finances, so I expect we could do likewise for them.
Natanz will be totally wasted if we attack, it's where the centrifuges are. It's out in the middle of nowhere so ground penetrating nukes can be used - if needed
BTTT
Folks, Iran is a rugged and largely desolate area, larger than all of Western Europe combined. This idea of a "1,000 plane nuclear raid," is an attractive movie scenario. Perhaps it's even feasible. But it's not a totally effective military option.
For the sake of argument, let's say we and our doughty allies bunker-bust-nuke the living crap out of them over a 15-day time frame. Can you guarantee that 15 or 20 of their Shahabs won't be flying toward Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Rome, Athens, or London, about 15 minutes into the first raid? Perhaps they won't be nuclear-tipped, we hope. But we know they can be very radioactive ... enough to poison a city.
Also, the Iranians won't be passive during this attack. Their air force is not as sophisticated as ours, but it's large enough and well armed enough to do some damage. Their AAA is fairly good, their army huge. This ain't no piece of cake. And the collateral damage is apt to include a lot of our good friends.
Shi'a theology, IMHO, is begging for an attack. Gotterdamerung is just an opera to us ... an End-of-Time world-wipe-out and a clean slate for Allah is central to their thought process, in which the Shi'a will show the rest of Islam what what Allah's Will is all about.
Not that it's part of my job description, but I can't think of a nice solution to the coming explosion in this particular outhouse. Diplomacy, while perhaps (just perhaps) keeping everyone alive while we talk, is not very attractive. It's just possible the world as we know it will be brought to an end by a bunch of nuclear-armed lunatics in dirty nightshirts.
If only a nice old-fashioned mullah-removal squad could get in there to give some spine to the opposition. Let's bring back the SHah, and this time, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
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.