The Iranian Military Option
Peter Brookes weighs in.
Brookes’ discussion hits many of the same elements Michael Ledeen et have discussed. Here are a few key grafs:
By burying and dispersing its facilities, Iran is clearly trying to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program back in 1981 — when Israeli F-16 fighters, crossing Jordan and Saudi Arabia, destroyed Iraq’s 40-megawatt Osiraq reactor in a dawn raid, effectively setting Saddam’s nuke dreams back a decade.
An Israeli strike at Iran today might feature fighters carrying satellite-guided JDAM bombs, cruise missiles on diesel subs — and Special Forces. But the task would be much tougher than the Osiraq strike, thanks to the number of targets and their dispersion, and the greater distances from any Israeli base.
What about U.S. airstrikes? These could take a range of forms, depending on policymakers’ desires. Surgical strikes might limit their targets to Iran’s air defenses (for access) and key nuclear sites (e.g., Bushehr, Nantanz, Arak). Or an escalated attack could nail all suspected nuke facilities — plus forces Tehran might use in a counterattack, such as its ballistic missiles and conventional forces.
Depending on the strike’s objective, think Operation Iraqi Freedom: B-2 stealth bombers carrying bunker-busters, F-117 stealth fighters and other Navy/Air Force strike assets from carriers and theater bases — plus Navy destroyers and subs loosing cruise missiles on Iranian targets.But could a raid destroy all sites? Thanks to the covert nature of the Iranian program, that’s not clear…
No, it isn’t clear.
Brookes also points out Iran’s use of the oil weapon. As I said on Larry Kudlow’s show last Friday afternoon, “the mullahs view black gold as a way to black mail the West.” And it is.
Read Brookes’ entire essay.
I am tempted to toss off the whole thing because Brookes mentions a “surgical strike.” Certainly if we have learned anything about airpower since WWII and even in OIF “surgical strikes” rarely are. It even appears that the much trumpeted bunker busting of SH bunkers in the ramp up to OIF were far less effective than press releases would have us believe. Oil is indeed the Achilles Heel of the West. Our interconnected economy is a fossil fuel based economy. If enough oil is withheld, the cost could lead to a recession if not a depression. Certainly not something to take lightly. Of course one of our reasons for entering Iraq was to establish a democracy to bring about a change in the whole region. What if we really worked at getting a democratic society established in Iraq? Then with just some subtle assistance from SOF/CIA working with forces in Iran we brought about regime change there? Nothing overt at all. Just give the majority of Iranians the tools needed to give them the government they seem to want.
Comment by Bill Gross — 1/24/2006 @ 3:10 pm
Austin Bay - The Iranian Military Option HT Austin Bay As I said in other posts today, don’t mess with Texas and don’t mess with Texans! If there is a military strike it will be lightning fast and extremely deadly for this is war. We have the ability t…
Trackback by Rocket's Brain Trust — 1/24/2006 @ 4:07 pm
All this talk about invading Iran is nothing more than an arm-chair general exercise. The reality is that the American public will *NOT* even consider the *THOUGHT* of such an invasion especially without the successful progress of the autonomy of Iraq and its respective military forces. This is not expected to happen in the near or immediate future. That’s a hard cold fact of life. *PERIOD* Furthermore, congress will be very hesitant to authorize military force for such an invasion in an expedient fashion. To add more reality to this fantasy, the American public will *REVOLT* at such a notion of invasion if a natural disaster occurs, or the economy tanks in the US. If we were to invade Iran, we would be expect to rebuild it and we will have to pay for it in two ways: In budget deficits and in sky-rocketing gas prices. It is common knowledge that the public does not have the appetite for this. Oh I am afraid the cries of the neocons fall upon death ears. The hour grows late as their pitiful case sees its twilight.
Comment by VoiceofReality — 1/24/2006 @ 11:27 pm
The way to avoid blackmail is to start making moves towards energy independence. Shell supposedly can produce oil shale at $30 a barrel - and there’s enough shalein Colorado alone to displace all of OPEC. Why isn’t the government encouraging efforts to get that off the ground?
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 1/25/2006 @ 8:15 am
I don’t agree with that at all. A quick military strike that doesn’t involve troops staying in Iran would be just fine with the American people, in my opinion. Especially, when we’re being threatened with nuclear weapons and stoppage of oil. Here’s a clear cut case where nobody can say Iran is not a legitimate threat.
Comment by Eye Doc — 1/25/2006 @ 8:20 am
I don’t think any military strike will be “quick.” Any airstrike that is worth the effort will probably have at least 100 nuclear facilities as targets, along with associated air defenses. The strike will have to be massive (and even then the prospects for success are uncertain.) Iran’s ability to retaliate, with oil, with missile attacks, with proxies in Iraq, with proxies in Lebanon and Palestine, is significant. An attack would not be a “lightning fast and extremely deadly” airstrike, it would be the opening shots of a major war.
Comment by bbq wings — 1/25/2006 @ 1:27 pm
Their ultimate weapons are oil, demographics, and time. Nukes will buy them that time. I’m afraid that the solution isn’t a nuke-free Islam. It’s an Islam-free world.
Comment by chickenhawklittle — 1/25/2006 @ 3:56 pm
The coming strike against Iran by the U.S. and/or Israel, although very vicious, will be limited by the two wars the Americans are already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The retaliation by Iran will be ferocious, targeting Israel and friendly Arab stateswith a volley of long-range missiles that’ll make the Iraqi SCUD attacks look like nothing. The Straits of Hormuz will be quickly shut down by Iran, triggering off a deep global recession. Syrian will join the war, launching missile and artillery attacks on Israel. The Golan Heights will be stormed by at least 2,000 Syrian tanks—while terrorism sweeps the world. An Armageddon-like nightmare could engulf the world.
Comment by Todd Daigneault — 2/18/2006 @ 11:18 pm
I’ve read all of the comments. The bottom line is the U.S. and other nations cannot ALLOW Iran to possess nuclear weapons and the missles to carry them. The U.N. is going to sanction Iran and China and Russia will follow the lead of the U.S. and U.K. Diplomacy does not work. We’ve seen the threats against Israel and the West will be next. We have a rogue government and lunatic in charge of the country. The only option is to take out the nuclear reactions with cruise missles, JDAM bombs and their military installations; including missles sites, their air force and subs. The big question !!! Who is going to do it? 1. Israel 2. The United States 3. Both 1 & 2 4. Germany, France and others who support the U.S. and Israel 5. All of the above Be damned with Iranian oil. Lets start talking with Canada and lets start drilling in Alaska.
Comment by Clayton White — 2/20/2006 @ 6:34 pm