Posted on 12/24/2006 10:06:55 AM PST by maquiladora
One potential military option that would be available to the United States includes the use of air strikes on Iranian weapons of mass destruction and missile facilities.
In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran. The 1000-megawatt nuclear plant Bushehr would likely be the target of such strikes. According to the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, the spent fuel from this facility would be capable of producing 50 to 75 bombs. Also, the suspected nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak will likely be targets of an air attack.
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.
Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities in an effort to delay or obstruct the Iranian program or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq.
Many aircraft are still in the region supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The United States had aircraft at multiple locations throughout the Persian Gulf, including Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Diego Garcia. While the number of aircraft in the region has declined significantly since the end of major hostilities in Iraq, the United States continues to have some number of F-15Es, F-16s, naval aircraft, and some unidentified number of heavy bombers in the region.
Information regarding how many aircraft are actually in the Persian Gulf region is scant as units are returning to the United States and it is not clear if units are being sent as replacements. By mid-June 2003 there were no longer any AWACs in region and stealth aircraft had long since departed for the United States. Insufficient information regarding available aircraft makes it impossible to predict how many Joint Direct Attack Munition capable aircraft were available for strikes and how many potential aim points this would provide to mission planners.
Redeploying US forces to the region would take a small amount of time, but the absence of significant numbers of stealth aircraft, early warning aircraft, and other assets by September 2004 was a possible indicator that the United States was not actively considering the air strike option. The US had postured a number of strike aircraft to attack North Korea during the first half of 2003, and might make similar preparations in anticipation of a strike against Iran. Alternately, the US might wish to retain the element of surprise, and use heavy bomber forces staging directly from the United States.
Since the end of major hostilities in Iraq the United States has typically kept one aircraft carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf region in support of Iraqi Freedom. Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed on cruisers, destroyers, and submarines could also be used to strike fixed locations. A Carrier Strike Group would typically have about 500 verticle launch system cells, which could mean that roughly 250 Tomahawks would be available for tasking.
CBS News reported on 18 December 2006 that the Bush administration has decided to ramp up the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to send a message to Tehran. CBS reported that an additional aircraft carrier would be added to the Gulf contingent in January 2007. A Pentagon official called the report "premature" and denied knowledge of changes in deployments in the Gulf. The New York Times reported 20 December 2006 that the Bremerton-based aircraft carrier and its strike group could leave weeks earlier than planned as part of a move to increase the U.S. military presence in and around the Middle East. Cmdr. Dave Werner, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said that no decision had been made about changing the level of naval forces in the region.
Moving up the Stennis’ departure date in January 2006 allows a longer overlap with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the carrier currently in the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007. According to the New York Times story, the move was intended as " ... a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country ... Doubling the number of carriers in the region offers commanders the flexibility of either keeping both strike groups in the Gulf or keeping one near Iran while placing a second carrier group outside the Gulf, where it would be in position to fly combat patrols over Afghanistan or cope with growing violence in the Horn of Africa. ... Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative."
Air power “persistence” is essential. During normal cyclic flight operations, a pilot spends a significant amount of time transiting to and from target areas. With the enhanced capabilities the CTF provides, by alternating air plan flight cycles, the CTF is able to maintain a nearly constant air presence over the targeted areas. It is difficult for one CVW to conduct flight operations for much more than about 12 hours before having to stop. However, with the combined striking power of two CVWs, the CTF is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle. During the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was operating with USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) off the coast of Afghanistan. When the order to launch air strikes arrived, together, both CVWs flew 24-hours a day.
The one theory I've been waiting to hear about or read about is how FDR and Ike would have prosecuted WW-II while they were having to buy oil from Adolf Hitler. The US should be exporting oil and not importing it and I'm starting to get the impression that the only possible way to get from here to there is the same way you stop smoking, i.e. just stop. The idea would be to ban all oil imports. That would mess us up as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year and a half and, after that, we'd be better off than we are now, and Ahmadinajad and every other clown in the world like him would be living in tents and riding on camels, and terrorism would be the furthese thing from their minds since they'd not have the financial wherewithal for it.
The Iranians are correct in their belief that air strikes alone will just slow them down. That they will be able to regenerate their nuclear program.
That being said, what must be done is to partition Iran so that it cannot reconstitute what has been destroyed.
While this is not easy, it is far easier than invading Persia. This is because the outlying regions of Iran are filled with several kinds of non-integrated, powerless, and despised minorities, who have far more in common with adjacent nations then they do with Persians.
The divisions are obvious, and it would be easy for these adjacent nations to absorb their kin, and defend them with their armies, assuming the Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard had been reduced.
Iranian Kurdistan would join with Iraqi Kurdistan to make a greater Kurdistan. Perhaps this would be too much for them to remain a part of Iraq and a de jure Kurdistan would be created as a new nation.
For its part, Arabic Iraq could take Iranian Khuzestan, which likewise has a Shiite/Sunni split, and much of Iran's oil reserves. This would soothe Iraq's Arabs on their loss of Kurdistan.
Iranian Baluchistan would join with Pakistani Baluchistan, its twin, under the authority of Pakistan. It has far too much mineral wealth, and a new deep-water port, for Pakistan to be willing to part with it.
Finally, the Iranian Azeri lands would become part of Azerbaijan. This is the trickiest part, as Azerbaijan is militarily weak, so would require a contingent of Americans there for a while.
So there is the strategy: use air power to destroy their nuclear program; then partition Iran, leaving Persia alone, but taking away their mineral, oil and money resources.
And their military and Revolutionary Guard would be forfeit.
Do you think that FDR knew about the specific attack on Pearl Harbor days, perhaps weeks, before it happened? That is my guess, that FDR did know. Yet he dared not launch a preventive strike against the Jap fleet -- why? Because had he done that the worst thing that could happen would have been the destruction of that fleet. His critics and opponents would have forced the war to be limited. They would have strenuously argued and been potent -- with heroic figures of the time, men like Lindbergh and Ford, against it.
Today the danger from nuclear missiles, container-cargo nukes, mines and subs that Iran could launch is a many levels greater than a carrier fleet of WW II. A Commander making a decision to hold fire until struck will have hundreds of thousands of first strike casualities for which to answer.
However, once a preemptive counterstrike is launched, and successful that very success could bring about the impeachment and trial for war crimes of that same commander.
A very hard choice.
The islamic injunction against realistic images has produced an amount of neglect in the image-making profession. But, the Revolutionary Soviet-NaZi style of the poster behind Iammadjohn is entirely appropriate for Iammadjohn's apocalyptic revolution visions.
This month's Pop Mech has an interesting article about a version of the "rods of God" only launched from Trident missiles. The article, while raising questions about the danger of delivering conventional munitions with sea launched ICBMs, left little doubt that the capability of delivering thousands of hyper velocity tungsten rods over a given area exists now. This might be a time to try it out.
"If the democrats win you know they'll do nothing,..."
Well we know that a democrat was President for our entry into WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Balkans.
As a further matter of fact Clinton continued Bush I's policy of flyover bombings in Iraq.
So your claim has no backing in history.
I don't know if we will actually attack, but moving a second carrier into the region makes it much more likely, especially when additional carriers are scheduled to deploy to replace the first two carriers. The change-over period is when an attack would take place. Given that vaq-137 and vaq-139 are the EW squadrons with the new ICAP-III EA-6b aircraft, and since these are stationed on the Enterprise and Ronald Reagan, which were in the gulf area this past year, any movement of these two carriers to replace the Stennis and the Eisenhower would be the ideal time to strike.
Alternatively, it would be a good time for _Israel_ to strike. That way plenty of US assets would be in place when the inevitable Iranian counter-strike against US bases in the Mideast took place. The Iranians have stated many times that they would attack the US forces if the Israelis attacked their nuke plants. Thus by international law the US would be in an ideal position to crush the Iranian military.
Jim, airpower DOES WORK. You just have to make sure you have the right weapons package on board.
The first strike must be designed to take out the NY Times. Once this propoganda tool is silenced our men and women in the military will be safer.
Finally, ignore the arm chair generals who don't have a clue on strategy and tactics. The Viet Nam war was a mega circle jertk since a jerk tried to manage the field from afar. As a Viet Era Air Force Officer I/we argued at Sqaudron Officer's School for an Air Force oriented attack venue. We bombed the jungle into a lunar waste land and defoliated triple canopy jungle but in two weeks of Christmas bombing when we sent the B52s to Hanoi we accomplised in 14 days what we didn't do in 8 plus years and 50,000 plus dead.
I have favored banning oil imports for some time.
If you did that, you'd have to immediately go after every possible energy source available to us hard, and I'd assume that the rats in Florida and California would be told that the oil offshore from those states belonged to the American people and was not thiers to play any sort of games with.
Perhaps two dozen? In other words he doesn't really know. There could be three dozen or four dozen. The fact is that air strikes can't be 100 percent effective, and if we launch them we have no idea what real effect they have had. Air strikes alone won't do it. Air strikes alone have never done it. It'll take boots on the ground and unfortunately all ours are already committed.
I say start now by dropping a few hundred tons of manure on the NYT and then tell Ahmadinejad that he personally is next with a million gallons of pig urine...save the nukes for the second round!
When we strike, not if, it will be massive air strikes going to every know military and political target. The entire coast by the Straits of Hormuz will be flattened. Every military base in the country will be hit. The question really is, since the Iranians will know that its coming thanks to our good friends the neo-soviets and the chicoms they may choose to attack Israel first, hence fulfilling all the biblical prophecies. If this happens, all bets are off. Israel, even led by an ineffectual effete lib Ohmert will be forced to retaliate with a full nuclear press.
My own personal opinion was that after the election that Bush would throw in the towel and leave this mess for the next dim president. However, his unequivocal quashing of the Iraqi Surrender Groups absurd suggestions shows us that he will stand his ground and take any measures necessary to contain the axis of evil.
Next question. What about N Korea. When they see how much fun the Iranians are having will they join in? Don't know. Will China invade Taiwan? Don't know. As Rumsfeld said, there are unknowns that we know we don't know and there are unknowns that we don't we don't know. My feeling is that this one falls into the latter category. Time will tell, but one thing is certain, Iran's days under the current Islamofacist regime are numbered.
Iran is too big for us to carry out that kind of campaign against. If we had a loyal CIA, I would recommend the kind of of internal destabilization tactics the USA used to be good at - encouraging the middle class to revolt, etc. As it stands, we are going to have to come up with something else.
Bush might as well invite Ahmadinejad to the ranch for a barbecue and a frank discussion - he's had all kinds of other unsavory characters there over the years. ;)
Currently the question remains, will the White House and our allies allow Haman Jr to pull the same elongated stall games Saddam did relating to nuclear inspections, or will the obvious & required actions be swiftly enacted in order to prevent jihadic controlled Iran from committing the unthinkable.
It appears that the USA will not initiate anything this time, Iraq having generated too much dissension at home. We're back to the Old West style of waiting for the black hat to slap leather and then wading in.
We're back in the saddle again, wearing our old 44.
-Gene Autry
BUMP!!!
Maybe Bush does what needs to be done, and if Nancy plays that card, Bush can say I did what I had to do because it was the right thing to do, I quit, now deal with Dick.
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.