U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran

Washington Post ^ | 4/9/6 | Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks

[SmithL]

The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.

No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.

According to current and former officials, Pentagon and CIA planners have been exploring possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets.

Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has vaulted to the front of President Bush's agenda even as he struggles with a relentless war in next-door Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends, aides said, and the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.

Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation.

[SmithL]

I assume that this President is studying harder than Carter did.

[Atchafalaya]

Seymore has outed that Booosh is gonna nukem, no ifs ands or buts.

[JennysCool]

its alleged nuclear development program

Im guessing it ceases to be "alleged" once they start bragging about it.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Seymour Hersh claims Bush is planning to NUKE them.

[maro]

More media bias. The MSM is quite sure that Saddam had no WMD, but is careful to refer to Iran's nuclear pogram as "alleged." It is one thing to be netral and objective. It is another thing to side with our enemies. None dare call it treason.

[Lurker]

The guy 'alleging' it is no less than Ahmenjastunedbeeber himself.

Try running through a crowded market 'alleging' at the top of your voice that you have a bomb strapped to yourself and see how fast your local PD puts 15 or 20 rounds into you.

L

[Redleg1963]

Just send me as a Redleg this time!

[SmithL]

I was good with that, back in 1979.

[AZLiberty]

A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation.

Bring it on. Iran needs its butt kicked, and Muslim reaction will begin to look more like respect -- or at least fear -- than hatred.

[quantim]

Too funny, I was just watching "The Presidents" on The History Channel and they did everything possible to paint Carter in a positive light, but could not.

They did not show pictures with Castro while bragging about his 'human rights' efforts.

And then came Reagan...

[armymarinemom]

My guess is that we have been studying this for a loooooong time.

[rlmorel]

PING

[RobbyS]

The troops have already been positioned in anticipation of an attack upon them by Iran,

[Darkwolf377]

The kind of story that needs to be studied very hard by the "I'm staying hime in November over the immigration issue" Republicans.

Just look at my tagline to see my feelings on that issue, but we can't have a hissy fit and allow the Dims to get into power and have to deal with this kind of stuff.

I'm an atheist, but Thank GOD for W!

[Zhang Fei]

Article: A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation."

We delayed Saddam's WMD program for a dozen years by reapplying air strikes as needed. I'm sure we can do the same for Ahmedinejad. As the 9/11 attackers figured out, bombs are a lot cheaper than enemy infrastructure. A dozen JDAM's costing a million bucks can destroy a facility costing hundreds of millions of dollars. I think we can destroy Iran's facilities faster than they can build 'em - we have more bombs than they have hard currency. On top of this, the scientists killed in bombings are a lot harder to replace than physical facilities.

[maine-iac7]

England's got it's ducks in a row on this

[dk/coro]

Tell you what, sport-fan:

I agree with you about "W". He is a man of conviction relative to our National Security.

Secondly, relative to your atheism: I suggest you might want to re-think that issue, were you to see Ultra High Yield Hydrogen weapons cook off -- up close and personal.
(I was an Engineering Officer in USS Philip (DDE-498) in 1954, in the Marshalls, when we detonated the "Operation Castle Bravo" Hydrogen Device on 1 March in the Bikini lagoon (on Enyu Island). First of 8 or 9 shots that Spring at Bikini and Eniwetok. Absolutely incredible destructive potential -- and that was over 50 years ago.

Never Again, mate! Even the non-AA members of the crew were talking for days about a Higher Power! **S**

Loss of life; and we had to evacuate natives from Rongelap and Uterik to Kwag in order to keep loss of life to a minimum. And, that evacuation was over 180 miles distant from the detonation.

Need I say more? How about a mini nuke at Wall and Broad?Just the residual contamination would make all ATMs go down; fini the stock market for months; and devastate the federal Reserve. Just for openers.

Oh yep...I forgot: Have a nice weekend.

[Darkwolf377]

To be perfectly honest, I don't quite understand the point of your post. I'm not being snarky, I just really do not understand what you mean by the sentences after "Loss of life". Not sure what any of that is in reference to in my post--did I suggest a nuclear attack was a good thing? (Or a bad thing? I don't think I suggested either way.)

With all due respect, I frequently defend religious conviction, but find it annoying when a believer thinks that my problem is that I just haven't thought about it enough. I have. Seeing a nuclear bomb go off doesn't sound like any legitimate way of getting someone to believe in God; sounds more like someone was scared by an incomprehensible destructive power and decided they wanted to believe in a higher being who would protect them from the scary universe.

It's not my place to qualify someone else's belief, and I'm not doing that; so I ask only for equal respect in my non-belief.

Thanks for writing about your personal experience, though, it was interesting, though some of it confuses me.

[boycottliberalhollywood.com]

Im guessing it ceases to be "alleged" once they start bragging about it.

Not in liberal eyes. In the liberal mind, Bush Lied about Saddam's WMDs, even though it was Saddam who tossed the UN inspectors out, it was Saddam who cut the video feeds on the inspection sites. No, it wasn't Saddam, it was Bush who Lied. That's how the libs see it. So, until Iran detonates a nuke on our doorstep, Bush is Lying. And when Iran does detonate one, Bush Provoked Iran.

[truemiester]

A proposal for an 'armed' response to Iran.

1.) Have Iranian 'president' (selected from a few like minded approved types) lean forward.

2.) Have Uncle Sam insert arm to shoulder, up the tail pipe of aforementioned 'president'.

3.) Grab tonsils from the back.

4.) Pull downward in a hard, sharp manner.

5.) Jerk the fool inside out. Repeat as needed.