US President George W. Bush is stepping up the rhetoric (directed towards Iran). He said that Iran is playing a destabilizing role in the region and that a nuclear holocaust could be the result of Iran’s nuclear program. Obviously, the US is determined to prevent such a nuclear holocaust from happening.
Meanwhile, Raw Story has a fascinating article up: it seems that the US has already done the necessary planning for a military strike against Iran. According to two respected scholars and experts, the US can launch strikes against Iran whenever Bush gives the order. Such a military strike, though, would not include ground forces: air power solely will be used to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites, infrastructure and most important governmental buildings. “The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions. ”
All in all:
# Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.
# US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.
# US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
# Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
# Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.
The authors of the paper on which the article at Raw Story is based, argue that ‘Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a “full-spectrum approach,” designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of “a weak or failed state”.’ More:
This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.
However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.
Israel Matzav’s Carl in Jerusalem argues that “I don’t see Bush planning on leaving office with this unresolved. The question is one of timing: At what point will enough be enough and how can the attack be pulled off in a manner that makes it not be a blatantly political tactic (recall President Clinton’s attack on Libya to try to distract the country from impeachment proceedings) that will divide the US for years to come. The US isn’t afraid to go it alone, and I believe that the UK and Sarcozy’s France (and of course Israel) will support the US anyway.”
I agree with Carl – I find it interesting to see that the authors of the paper do not seem to take France into account. Sarkozy seems to be quite different from Chirac. It seems to me that if the US decided to bomb Iran, Sarkozy’s France will support the US – if not militarily then at least politically. Furthermore, Germany will not oppose it too strongly – when the US invaded Iraq, Germany was led by Schroder. This time, there is a Christian Democrat ruling the country: Angela Merkel.
Meanwhile, Michael J. Stickings seems to believe that the only reason Bush might attack Iran is because he and “the neocons need it. Badly.” I see it quite differently, or at least more nuanced. Yes I think that Bush et al. feel that they need a military victory (somewhere, anywhere), but I also think that Bush truly fears that if he does not take care of Iran no one will (or only too late). In that regard, I think he might be right. With regards to Iran, other options are still on the table, but I think it is right for the US to plan for possible military action: whatever else happens, Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
The strategy may, indeed, also achieve something else that is very important: if Iran is seriously weakened, it will not be able to create problems elsewhere. As long as Iran is forced to rebuild itself, it cannot focus on destroying other countries and supporting terrorist organizations elsewhere. No – if Iran is weakened, its leaders have to focus on their own country and on the immediate needs of their own people. If they do not, the Iranian people might just decide that its time for a revolution. I am not calling on the US to attack Iran immediately, but I do believe that if Iran has not given up its program before George W. Bush leaves office, the US would be wise to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and to weaken its (economic) capacities.
H/t Memeorandum.Cross posted at The Gazette.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.