Military Analysts Believe Air Strikes May Force Iran's Hand

[ed316]

http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/printlogo.jpg


If Diplomacy Fails, What Can U.S. Do To Foil Iran's Nukes?

Military Analysts Believe Air Strikes May Force Iran's Hand

By JONATHAN KARL




March 9, 2006 — - When it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Pentagon planners and outside experts say there are no attractive options, but there are options.
"There is a broad and widely dispersed program infrastructure that could be targeted," said National Defense University professor Richard Russell, a former CIA analyst. "It's not an easy target package to target but you could do it in a sustained aerial bombardment campaign."
If Diplomacy Fails?


With U.S. forces tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials are reluctant to even speculate about military action against Iran.
The current U.S. strategy is to apply diplomatic pressure on Iran through the U.S. Security Council, which is expected to take up the Iranian issue next week. But the question is: What if diplomacy fails?
"I think there is a very real probability the first choice of diplomacy is going to be shown to be a dead end," said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. "And then everybody is going to have to confront what your second choice is -- is it atomic ayatollahs or is it the military option?"
There are significant obstacles to military action. For one, not all the targets are known. U.S. officials believe there are secret Iranian nuclear facilities that are not known by U.S. intelligence.
"Our experience from Iraq, for example, showed substantial intelligence shortcomings," said Russell. "You'd have to assume we too suffer from enormous intelligence shortcoming vis a vis Iran. That would be a problem."
Strike Hard?


And even the known sites are well-fortified and spread out across the country, making them difficult to destroy with air power alone.
But privately, senior Pentagon planners believe U.S. airstrikes could significantly disrupt and delay the Iranian nuclear program, setting it back years.
It's a view shared by many military analysts.
"You can delay, disrupt and kick the can down the road," Russell said. "You are not going to solve it. Ultimately you need to have a political resolution in some shape or form, but the military instrument can help you achieve that diplomatic resolution and it can also buy you time."
There are about a dozen known high-value targets, including uranium mines, research and development facilities and, most importantly, the Natanz uranium enrichment plant. Natanz is considered the crown jewel of the Iranian nuclear program. Experts believe it is big enough to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to fuel 20 nuclear bombs a year.
But Natanz is also heavily fortified. It's buried at least 30 feet underground and perhaps much deeper. Natanz is also believed to be protected by concrete walls that are nearly 10 feet thick.
It's unclear whether it can be penetrated by even the biggest "bunker-buster" bombs in the U.S. arsenal. If airstrikes can't destroy Natanz, however, they could severely damage it.
"You might not be able to get the deep bunker if it's sufficiently deep but you can certainly create a lot of rubble on top of it," said Russell. "And make it very difficult to dig out the material underneath it. "You can delay, disrupt and kick the can down the road," he said. "You are not going to solve it. Ultimately, you need to have a political resolution in some shape or form, but the military instrument can help you achieve that diplomatic resolution and it can also buy you time."

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[joshfox0]

While i'd like to see airstrikes against Iran i fear it could just cause them to pursue a conventional ground campaign into iraq and pissibly with the backing of part of the middle east (as in syria palestine and any predominatly Shia countrys) could even attempt to purse another war against israel. on the other hand it could indeed force them to back down from the situation they're in now because they basicly would lack the facilitys to build any weaponary.

[Argyll]

Airstrikes alone did nothing in Kosovo

[Victis Honor]

bomb iran now and a *censored**censored**censored**censored*storm will brake loose. Every muslim on the plant will think the west has it in for them, attacking a'stan and iraq where understandable, but iran no way. but he thats how i see it

[angry cow]

Argyll is right, airpower is fun to play with, but it can only be a part of an overall strategy, never the strategy itself. Here it is doubtful that sustained bombing campaign would be useful, since it would only harden Iranian resolve to push the nuclear program further and would give even more power to the religious hardliners.

[saigonsmuggler]

Airstrikes alone did nothing in Kosovo
true that we didn't destroy as much as we thought we did thru airstrikes in Kosovo but airstrikes in Belgrade did force Milosevic's hand.

Israeli airstrike did stop Iraq's nuke program.

[joshfox0]

As far as im aware the situation is markedly different from that of Kosovo there are a limited number of targets and the larger infrastructure wouldn't need to be targeted as far as im aware. (correct me if i'm wrong which i may well be.)

[Canuck Farrier]

Are they worried about Iran nuking Israel is that the problem?

[ed316]

Are they worried about Iran nuking Israel is that the problem?

That and they might give it to terrorist like Isamic Jihad, Hezbollah and many other islamic terror groups

[ElHombre]

While i'd like to see airstrikes against Iran i fear it could just cause them to pursue a conventional ground campaign into iraq and pissibly with the backing of part of the middle east (as in syria palestine and any predominatly Shia countrys) could even attempt to purse another war against israel. on the other hand it could indeed force them to back down from the situation they're in now because they basicly would lack the facilitys to build any weaponary.

again, conventional attacks are not the problem. an iranian conventional attack would be easy to deal with, i.e.: firepower, of which the US has plenty. the problem is 130k US troops stuck in the middle of a hostile population. that would give the US a massive problem to deal with during which the iranians could rebuild.

[Canuck Farrier]

I dont think Iran is the only country that shoulnt have nukes.Why do Pakistan and India need them for.or any country for that matter must just be to show muscle.

[Canuck Farrier]

Also if you think about it they have Iraq on their left and Afghanistan on their right that have both been invaded and occupied by a coalition.They could even just be scared that they are next and may only use them for defense.but who really knows anyway all we can do is wait and see!p-)

[kineret]

Airstrikes alone did nothing in Kosovo


i dont know. kosovo was a different battle front. moving army, mass civilian executions, etc. iran is mostly immobile targets, some hidden, some underground. the real problem is not about hitting the actual targets, but the sh-t storm that iran will cause through its proxies in iraq. we're bogged down there as it is, if the shias rebel, fugedaboudit.

[ed316]

Also if you think about it they have Iraq on their left and Afghanistan on their right that have both been invaded and occupied by a coalition.They could even just be scared that they are next and may only use them for defense.but who really knows anyway all we can do is wait and see!p-)

Their nuclear programs goes back farther then Iraq and Afghanistan

[Argyll]

Iran has several locations to attack many are underground too by all accounts.........how will they be able to Judge if it's mission success,and that the Iranian nuclear capability is indeed defunct?....

Kosovo was a tiny place compared to Iran,and the flight times from Aviano and Sigonella were not very long......in Kosovo the targets actually destroyed by PGM's was something less than 30%......I know that the RAF's Mission was a total failure with mid 20's percent actually destroyed.......Iran is prepared,they can hit out at Forces in Iraq,in Kosovo,they didn't have an alternative target to strike back at.........an ariel bombardment against Iran might be like smacking a behive with a stone

The job has to be done the first time completely,total destruction of the Iranian Nuclear program and infrastructure......anything less is unnacceptable

[kineret]

Iran has several locations to attack many are underground too by all accounts.........how will they be able to Judge if it's mission success,and that the Iranian nuclear capability is indeed defunct?....

Kosovo was a tiny place compared to Iran,and the flight times from Aviano and Sigonella were not very long......in Kosovo the targets actually destroyed by PGM's was something less than 30%......I know that the RAF's Mission was a total failure with mid 20's percent actually destroyed.......Iran is prepared,they can hit out at Forces in Iraq,in Kosovo,they didn't have an alternative target to strike back at.........an ariel bombardment against Iran might be like smacking a behive with a stone

The job has to be done the first time completely,total destruction of the Iranian Nuclear program and infrastructure......anything less is unnacceptable


these are good points. have any of you guys read this excellent article from the Atlantic, it simulates a war game with iran, the game is led by top pentagon generals.


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

very good read.

[ZoneOne]

Well I hope we don't need troops on the ground in Iran. If we do truely need them. There is a very good chance we may implement the draft for supply issues and logistical support.

1. Possibility would be cordinated airstrikes with paramilitary support on the ground, i.e. CIA / Special Operations troops surgically striking certain area's
(There already was an article that claimed that Special Op's were already in counrty doing just that, or atleast prepping the playing field)
2. Another shock and Awe type plan. Non stop aerial bombardment.
3. Troops on the ground (The last ditch effort in my opinion)
4. Diplomacy anyone?

[Amandil]

If the can't bunker bust Natanz, then they should nuke it! How's that for poetic justice?

[sp2c]

well the problem is that you don't want to piss them off and set back their program a couple of years (unless you want to make these airstrikes an annual thing) while they screw things up in Iraq and Afghanistan so imo any airstrikes need to coincide with a large ground campaign and I'm not talking about what happened during the last Iraq war but something more aking to Desert Storm, at least 1/2 to 1 million troops (so none of this old Europe/new Europe crap from Rummy)

[Ea$y-8]

We saw how Iranians (and a huge number of other muslim countries) got all mad about those cartoons, just think about how mad they will get when we bomb out their nuclear plants!!

In any case missiles and aircraft are always sweet little toys. I don't think pressing that ol' cruise missile button a few times is gonna do the trick. I think we should send in Delta Force and DEVGRU to scout out and laze the sites for destruction. After our embassy in Africa was bombed Bill "I did not have ****** relations with that women" Cliton launched missile at AQ camps in Afghanistan... And that didn't work out as well as he taught it would. Something other than limited strikes needs to be done.

[Argyll]

CAG and DEVGRU have enough on their plate with AFG and Iraq right now......Army SF and regular SEAL teams are more than capable of performing Recconaisance and intelligence gathering missions

[TheStorm]

well the problem is that you don't want to piss them off and set back their program a couple of years (unless you want to make these airstrikes an annual thing) while they screw things up in Iraq and Afghanistan so imo any airstrikes need to coincide with a large ground campaign and I'm not talking about what happened during the last Iraq war but something more aking to Desert Storm, at least 1/2 to 1 million troops (so none of this old Europe/new Europe crap from Rummy)

You think Rumsfeld didn't want "Old Europe" to participate in OIF?

[Ea$y-8]

CAG and DEVGRU have enough on their plate with AFG and Iraq right now......Army SF and regular SEAL teams are more than capable of performing Recconaisance and intelligence gathering missions

I never said regular spec ops couldn't handle it. US Army SF are good at recon among other things. But Delta Force and DEVGRU are ideal for this mission because they are the best of the best of the best of the best ;).

[LaoSexMachine]

I think they been doing Recon already and probably still do. This kind of contigency plan have probably been already put in place. JMO

[ZoneOne]

Well if a military option is neccessary, hopefully Isreal will strike first so it doens't seem like America is stepping on everyones toes. We have enogh problems right now in the p.c. department.

[CyberSpec]

It looks like some sort of military action is inevitable unless the diplomats can manage to work out a deal that satisfies everyone.....but that seems impossible considering the positions of Iran and the US.....maybe the EU and Russia?

On the military side of thing, I don't understand how can anyone talk about a full scale invasion when there's no build up going on?......Am I missing something

[EvanL]

Well if a military option is neccessary, hopefully Isreal will strike first so it doens't seem like America is stepping on everyones toes. We have enogh problems right now in the p.c. department.
Hopefully?? If Israel attacks Iran right now, what do you think that will do with Arab support of the U.S. and allies in the region? It will be seen as an attack on Islam by the Jews and will garner more support for them.

[ogukuo72]

Underground facilities can be dealt with far more easily than people thought. It is a straightforward matter of physics, geology and applying enough energy on the right point. Anyone who is familiar with underground architecture will understand the many challenges and dangers of building things underground.

Actually, the most effective bunker buster had already been invented, the 10,000lb Tallboy, and the even larger 22,000lb Grand Slam. These not only penetrated deeply, but create earthquake shock waves that will effectively destroy underground facilities. Now, if only there's still some Lancasters around ...

[sp2c]

You think Rumsfeld didn't want "Old Europe" to participate in OIF?

I'm not sure what he was going for with these kinds of comments in the end though he pissed of a lot of people that could've been very helpfull in Iraq right now (even if they didn't participate in the fight against Saddam) so there shouldn't be any of that this time around imo

[soprano]

While i'd like to see airstrikes against Iran i fear it could just cause them to pursue a conventional ground campaign into iraq and pissibly with the backing of part of the middle east (as in syria palestine and any predominatly Shia countrys) could even attempt to purse another war against israel. on the other hand it could indeed force them to back down from the situation they're in now because they basicly would lack the facilitys to build any weaponary.


I would have to agree with on you on this subject.I would hope Iran would see the light and give up there program but they seem to have there blinders on or just really dont care what the west says,anyway you are correct that they will launch i'm sure some kind of ground assault so that the whole world can see they are responding and also supply the muji's in iraq with unlimited support.im sure we all know they are already suppling support with there IED's and so forth but if the US attacks thier facilties it's ON and they will not fight with there hands tied they will make no bones about it that they will fight american forces.

I beleive the only way they would not launch an all out ground attack or openly support jihad in Iraq is if the UN or EU take somekind of lead or show a good stance on this subject.

[CyberSpec]

I would have to agree with on you on this subject.I would hope Iran would see the light and give up there program but they seem to have there blinders on or just really dont care what the west says,anyway you are correct that they will launch i'm sure some kind of ground assault so that the whole world can see they are responding and also supply the muji's in iraq with unlimited support.im sure we all know they are already suppling support with there IED's and so forth but if the US attacks thier facilties it's ON and they will not fight with there hands tied they will make no bones about it that they will fight american forces.

I beleive the only way they would not launch an all out ground attack or openly support jihad in Iraq is if the UN or EU take somekind of lead or show a good stance on this subject.

How much help is Iran giving to the insurgency currently?

I'm asking about a realistic appraisal from people in a position to give a educated guess.

On the the stance of the EU regarding Iran, I think they will do all they can to avoid a war. The potential consequences are frightening, both economicaly and in terms of domestic unrest.

[Supe]

If the strategy is to contain/delay/interupt Iranian nuke development:


The goal here shouldn't be to occupy Iran or engage in Iran on its own territory but get them to come to you. That is - to get the Iranians to commit soldiers over the border into Iraq. In this scenario, you are not playing to Iranian home field advantage, you do not have the intention of occupying or invading Iran but instead allow the Iranians to blunt themselves on defending forces at points of your own choosing. I can't imagine the Iranian Gov not responding to a provocation like that.

Thoughts?

[CyberSpec]

If the strategy is to contain/delay/interupt Iranian nuke development:


The goal here shouldn't be to occupy Iran or engage in Iran on its own territory but get them to come to you. That is - to get the Iranians to commit soldiers over the border into Iraq. In this scenario, you are not playing to Iranian home field advantage, you do not have the intention of occupying or invading Iran but instead allow the Iranians to blunt themselves on defending forces at points of your own choosing. I can't imagine the Iranian Gov not responding to a provocation like that.

Thoughts?

I don't think they have the conventional capability for any largescale
offensive against an oponent like the US.....they'd be silly to try anything like that.

They could launch missiles and maybe artillery strikes. The best weapon would be guerilla activity behind US lines.

[Argyll]

There's not enough US Forces in Iraq to deal with attacks from Inside ie Iraq,and deal with an all out Ground assault by the Iranians...........The nightmare scenario is they sweep into Southern Iraq,capturing 10,000 plus coalition troops stationed there,they could then destroy the Iraqi Oil production facilities.......then hold the US to ransom......get out of the ME or we will kill all the POW's........then what?........do you think the Brits,Dutch and Danes and Czechs down there will allow this to happen just to prove a point?

Easy 8......CAG and DEVGRU's main role is CT......not recconaisance.

If we rely on the Israeli's to strike,they have to over fly some other Arab countries to get to Iraq,that requires permission.....without it,it places Israel in a precarious position within the West,and the ME,should they chose to ignore the denial of request......if that country gives the permission,then they've just made themselves a target for retalitory attacks from Iran......a catch 22 for that country.......Will Iraq grant this permission also,knowing they'll be the piggy in the middle ?........I wouldn't be too sure about this

[Supe]

offensive against an oponent like the US.....they'd be silly to try anything like that.

Indeed they would be. But through the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad the Iranians may well have to, forced along by prevailing public opinion.

Of course a war (even a limited one) with Iran has global consequences that the E.U and the Americans will have to factor in. Iran too, must weigh the worth of its actions and decide if continuing down the Nuke path is ultimately in its best interests.


There's not enough US Forces in Iraq to deal with attacks from Inside ie Iraq,and deal with an all out Ground assault by the Iranians...........The nightmare scenario is they sweep into Southern Iraq,capturing 10,000 plus coalition troops

Right, but any attack on Iran (even via airstrikes) isn't going to take place without organising the ground contingents. We'll know if the Americans and E.U is serious about Iran if additional ground troops are deployed. Any strike plan will factor in all elements not just air power.

[Siddar]

Airstrikes alone did nothing in Kosovo

Airstrikes may not have done much in Kosovo but they did a hell of allot in Serbia.

The Serbs were looking at a cold winter aproaching with no fuel no electricty no phones no radio telvision stations in some places no water and no way to harvest crops in the field so a looming food crisis on top of that there was the slow destruction of Serbias economy from destruction of factorys.

All of that was because airstrikes and in end Serbs decided leaveing Kosovo was better then freezeing to death hungry in the dark.

Now the question I have is does Iran import allot of its food?

[Argyll]

ah you mean much like Iraq is now?

Finish the stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan first,before calling Iran into account.....maybe you missed the parts where the US said pinpoint attacks against the Nuclear program.........they never said anything about destroying Civilian infrastructure........begin hitting these and you will cause the ME to implode........is this a risk the US is willing to take?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

That and they might give it to terrorist like Isamic Jihad, Hezbollah and many other islamic terror groups

As radical as the current government in Iran is. Do you really think they are going to waste billions on developing a weapon only to hand it over to a terrorist organisation. Which in turn could use it against them?

Or

Once the terrorist organisation carried out the attack, and it's found that Iran supplied the weapon. Guess what? Iran gets nuked.

If a nation was going to supply terrorists with nukes, Dont you think it would of happened by now? I mean the stand off between Iran and the US is nothing compared to what the US and USSR went through.

[Futile Talisman]

There's not enough US Forces in Iraq to deal with attacks from Inside ie Iraq,and deal with an all out Ground assault by the Iranians...........The nightmare scenario is they sweep into Southern Iraq,capturing 10,000 plus coalition troops stationed there,they could then destroy the Iraqi Oil production facilities.......then hold the US to ransom.

Surely a buildup of this nature would be seen in advance, if by SIGNIT alone. Does Iran have the capability of launching an offensive with the amount speed and surprise to accomplish the "night mare scenario objective" without prior detection, I doubt it.

As Argyll pointed out above, and I find it a legitimate point of thought although properly identified as the nightmare worst case scenario. Could we halt such an offensive by the Iranians if they could coordinate an attack and maintain logistical support, despite withering US and coalition airstrikes.

My nightmare is that we detect it, yet can do nothing about it.

I would expect that Iran already has a fifth column appartus in place in the south, this could facilitate the ability of Tehran to conduct unconvential activities prior too and in conjunction with any convential attack. Their intelligence infilitration of this region must be robust. Thus creating a confused battlefield in the midst of an already confused battlefield.

Argyll, do you see any chance that indigenous Shiite groups in southern Iraq would aid Iran either in the above decribed nightmare scenario?

FT