Corporate Avenger
04-14-2006, 11:14 PM
A U.S. military strike against Iran and its nuclear facilities, now under discussion in policy circles, would most likely take the form of air strikes against selected targets. But given Iran's long reach in the Middle East, analysts say the risks for the U.S. could entail everything from stepped-up terrorist activity to escalating violence in Iraq.
Analysts describe a military strike against Iran as a complex strategic choice. Conceivable scenarios range from a special forces campaign of assassinations and sabotage to a full-scale invasion, but the most likely option would be air strikes, either the bombing of a few key nuclear facilities or a broader campaign against Iran's technological and military infrastructure.
An air strike would probably delay Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons a maximum of two to four years, military and regional analysts said. Even that impact depends on accurate targeting of nuclear-related facilities, though intelligence may well be incomplete or include erroneous targets, analysts cautioned. And an attack could cause Iran to redouble efforts to build a nuclear bomb.
"The consequence might be anywhere between setting them back two years to accelerating the program," said Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who taught at the National War College and has run war games on military options against Iran.
What does he know?
While a ground invasion might oust Iran's clerical regime, the operation would be a formidable undertaking. The U.S. military already is stretched thin in Iraq. The Iranian military is more sophisticated than was Saddam Hussein's army. And Iran is a geographically more difficult battle space, with a land area four times as large as Iraq, a population nearly three times as large and more mountainous terrain.
Military action against Iran could provoke an array of potential responses, experts said. The United States would have to prepare for an aggressive campaign of suicide bombings or other terrorist reprisals from such groups as the Iranian-linked Hezbollah. Oil prices might spike, either because of an Iranian cutoff of exports to world oil markets or harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf. Iran could launch missiles—potentially armed with chemical weapons—against Israel, Arab allies of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf region or U.S. troops based in Iraq.
Violence in Iraq probably would increase, particularly in the Shiite-dominated southern regions that so far have been relatively calm. A strike against Iran would antagonize Shiite militias, which have close ties to Iran, and cleric Moqtada Sadr, who leads one such militia and has twice mounted uprisings against U.S. troops. Sadr already has threatened a revolt if Iran is attacked. A broad network of Iranian intelligence agents now in Iraq also could instigate or assist with attacks against U.S. troops.
U.S reprisals against Iraqi counterattacks, analysts suggest, could lead to a cycle of response and counter-response.
"You have to be ready for an open-ended war with the Iranians. This is a very big deal. It's not a simple matter of an easy strike," said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council official who was an influential advocate of the Iraq invasion.
And this guy even advocated the Iraq war!
"The critical thing is we should not start any shooting," Kirk said. "This is a political struggle as much as a military one, and I think the side that shoots first weakens its political case."
Should Bush decide to attack Iran, the most likely option would be some form of air strike, analysts said. Essentially, the president would choose between a limited strike against air defenses and a few key nuclear facilities or a broader campaign. A broader strike might target all known nuclear-related facilities.
In an effort to reduce Iran's capacity for reprisals, other targets might include suspected chemical production plants, mobile ballistic missiles that could be used against Iraq or other Middle Eastern countries and anti-ship missile batteries that could be used to attack tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf. Other military, intelligence and political targets might also be included to weaken the regime.
Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department official who is now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, projects that a strike against two or three key nuclear facilities could be accomplished with a combination of B-2 Bombers, carrier-based aircraft and sea-launched cruise missiles. The attack would probably require 100 or more flight sorties, including fighter escorts and refuelers.
A broader campaign could take several weeks to two months, he projected, and require as many as a thousand or more cruise missiles and strike sorties, even before counting fighter escorts and refueling missions.
Still, it would be difficult to eliminate the mobile missiles that could threaten Israel, Persian Gulf states and U.S bases in Iraq.
Richard Russell, a former CIA Middle East analyst who is now a professor at the military's National Defense University, said, "They can hide and move. We learned in the 1990 [Persian Gulf] war that we weren't all that good at getting rid of them, though we diverted a significant amount of air power to the task."
Even targeting the nuclear program can be problematic.
William Nash, a retired Army major general who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, "In Iraq, every bit of intelligence we dropped on the UN inspectors turned up a dry hole. Give me one good reason we should trust our intelligence this time."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060412irandorning,1,69294.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Analysts describe a military strike against Iran as a complex strategic choice. Conceivable scenarios range from a special forces campaign of assassinations and sabotage to a full-scale invasion, but the most likely option would be air strikes, either the bombing of a few key nuclear facilities or a broader campaign against Iran's technological and military infrastructure.
An air strike would probably delay Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons a maximum of two to four years, military and regional analysts said. Even that impact depends on accurate targeting of nuclear-related facilities, though intelligence may well be incomplete or include erroneous targets, analysts cautioned. And an attack could cause Iran to redouble efforts to build a nuclear bomb.
"The consequence might be anywhere between setting them back two years to accelerating the program," said Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who taught at the National War College and has run war games on military options against Iran.
What does he know?
While a ground invasion might oust Iran's clerical regime, the operation would be a formidable undertaking. The U.S. military already is stretched thin in Iraq. The Iranian military is more sophisticated than was Saddam Hussein's army. And Iran is a geographically more difficult battle space, with a land area four times as large as Iraq, a population nearly three times as large and more mountainous terrain.
Military action against Iran could provoke an array of potential responses, experts said. The United States would have to prepare for an aggressive campaign of suicide bombings or other terrorist reprisals from such groups as the Iranian-linked Hezbollah. Oil prices might spike, either because of an Iranian cutoff of exports to world oil markets or harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf. Iran could launch missiles—potentially armed with chemical weapons—against Israel, Arab allies of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf region or U.S. troops based in Iraq.
Violence in Iraq probably would increase, particularly in the Shiite-dominated southern regions that so far have been relatively calm. A strike against Iran would antagonize Shiite militias, which have close ties to Iran, and cleric Moqtada Sadr, who leads one such militia and has twice mounted uprisings against U.S. troops. Sadr already has threatened a revolt if Iran is attacked. A broad network of Iranian intelligence agents now in Iraq also could instigate or assist with attacks against U.S. troops.
U.S reprisals against Iraqi counterattacks, analysts suggest, could lead to a cycle of response and counter-response.
"You have to be ready for an open-ended war with the Iranians. This is a very big deal. It's not a simple matter of an easy strike," said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council official who was an influential advocate of the Iraq invasion.
And this guy even advocated the Iraq war!
"The critical thing is we should not start any shooting," Kirk said. "This is a political struggle as much as a military one, and I think the side that shoots first weakens its political case."
Should Bush decide to attack Iran, the most likely option would be some form of air strike, analysts said. Essentially, the president would choose between a limited strike against air defenses and a few key nuclear facilities or a broader campaign. A broader strike might target all known nuclear-related facilities.
In an effort to reduce Iran's capacity for reprisals, other targets might include suspected chemical production plants, mobile ballistic missiles that could be used against Iraq or other Middle Eastern countries and anti-ship missile batteries that could be used to attack tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf. Other military, intelligence and political targets might also be included to weaken the regime.
Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department official who is now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, projects that a strike against two or three key nuclear facilities could be accomplished with a combination of B-2 Bombers, carrier-based aircraft and sea-launched cruise missiles. The attack would probably require 100 or more flight sorties, including fighter escorts and refuelers.
A broader campaign could take several weeks to two months, he projected, and require as many as a thousand or more cruise missiles and strike sorties, even before counting fighter escorts and refueling missions.
Still, it would be difficult to eliminate the mobile missiles that could threaten Israel, Persian Gulf states and U.S bases in Iraq.
Richard Russell, a former CIA Middle East analyst who is now a professor at the military's National Defense University, said, "They can hide and move. We learned in the 1990 [Persian Gulf] war that we weren't all that good at getting rid of them, though we diverted a significant amount of air power to the task."
Even targeting the nuclear program can be problematic.
William Nash, a retired Army major general who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, "In Iraq, every bit of intelligence we dropped on the UN inspectors turned up a dry hole. Give me one good reason we should trust our intelligence this time."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060412irandorning,1,69294.story?ctrack=1&cset=true