Posted on 03/20/2006 2:37:35 PM PST by Hannah Senesh
Another voice has been added to those who believe that air strikes should halt Iran's quest to develop nuclear weapons.
Gary Berntsen, the former senior CIA operative who led the search for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 2001, believes the United States has the ability to easily destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. He said the US could use bunker-buster bombs and other weapons to carry out the operation.
"We can dig those things out. We can destroy them," he told The Jerusalem Post in an interview.
"We can take care of it in a couple of days with air strikes and they wouldn't be able to stop us," he added. "It wouldn't be difficult to plan. They'd be some dangers but I think the United States can do it." Berntsen, who left the CIA in June last year after more than 20 years of service, believes it will be difficult to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear program.
"I know the Iranians. I've worked against the Iranians for years. They are determined to get this no matter what, and they will lie and cheat and do whatever they have to do to get themselves a weapon," he said.
Berntsen ruled out covert action because of the scale of Iran's nuclear program.
"This is a huge system of facilities they have. This is not going to be a small sort of engagement. We are probably going to have to destroy 30 facilities in 30 locations. Or at least 15," he said.
Berntsen's comments came after former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said earlier this month that Iran's prime nuclear facilities could be devastated in one night by a small fleet of US B-2 bombers.
In addition, Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's former chief of General Staff, said the IDF has the capabilities to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and could do it in conjunction with the US and some EU countries. However, Berntsen believes Israel should not carry out any operation.
"It's better for the United States to do it. If you (Israel) do it, we'll have all sorts of problems in the Middle East, all sorts of countries that will align themselves with the Iranians over this. Politically it makes more sense for the US to do it," he said.
Berntsen also ruled out a ground operation.
"This is huge country. There are 70 million people there. It's gigantic. We don't need to be getting into something like that," he said.
However, Berntsen believes that the US should first exhaust all the political options before carrying out a strike.
"We should do what we're doing right now. That means taking them to the United Nations and make this 'the world against Iran,' because the Iranians appear determined to create a weapon," he said.
"If by chance they disarm, then we can avoid this, but if they don't disarm we will need to take care of this ourselves," he said.
"The Iranians have to know that we mean business. They will either disarm or we will destroy their facilities. No ifs, ands, or buts. They present a threat to peace in the Middle East. They present a threat to Israel. We cannot accept that," he added.
Berntsen predicted that if Iran doesn't disarm, President George Bush would carry out an attack regardless of domestic opposition.
"I think that President Bush has demonstrated that he says what he means and he means what he says. A lot of people didn't think he would do Iraq. This is a guy who doesn't put his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. President Bush means business.
"The problem right now is that the Iranians are going to miscalculate. They are going to believe that because 2006 is an election year (in Congress), and due to all this political opposition to the president because of Iraq, they're going to think that he's weak in the knees, he can't do it and they're not going to negotiate.
"That would be a very serious mistake for them. They're going to miscalculate. They think he's politically weak and George Bush won't care. He's going to do it anyway when it comes down to it," Berntsen said.
"I believe that we'll get past the mid-term election in 2006 and then the Iranians ought to disarm themselves or suffer the consequences," he added.
Berntsen recently released a book called Jawbreaker, which is about the search for bin Laden after al-Qaida's attacks on the US in September 2001. The book has been on the best-seller lists in the US but has yet to be released in Israel.
It is the pacifits who have lost the ability to think and reason. Islam is an idiology that is well focused and brainwashed into it's followers, they are united and determined to achieve their goals.
No amount of talk will change that. Talk is a weakness in their eyes, and we are very weak, because we are determined to talk instead of doing what must be done. Hitler talked as well, he used talk to buy himself time to gain strength and buld defenses. These "Islamic fundamentalists" who see Hitler as a prophet second to only Mohammad, as a person who used Mohammad's war manual to great benifit, and have learn from Hitlers mistakes. This time, the more "talk" they can drag their enemies (us) in, the more time they can buy to assure their success in achieving their goals. There is no doubt in my mind they have already built a nuclear weapon. Now, talk and time is only allowing them to build more, and better ones.
"We can dig those things out. We can destroy them," he told The Jerusalem Post in an interview. Maybe??
The Germans who built Sadaams bunker correctly predicted we couldn't take it out with our Bunker Busters.
When we routed Sadaam and inspected the bunker that we bombed it was intact.
(Esser was a consultant for a German government-sponsored civil protection body and had his own company, Schutzraumtechnik Esser GmbH, which supplied equipment for Saddam's bunker.)
But Esser said "bunker busting" bombs would fail to penetrate the 1,800 square-meter bunker because they first have to get though the palace built directly above it.
"The presidential palace above gives natural protection so the bunker can only be cracked by ground troops or a tactical nuclear bomb," said Esser.
Bush has talked of military strikes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1599805/posts
"Let's wait longer and let them move them like Saddam did or bury them deeper so we'll look like fools."
Lets tell Iran they have a few days ( not weeks/years) to get their butt to the table and agree to disarm, or "pucker up", that should be the end of the conversation.
OK, but it would be more credible if he had actually found him.
Mideast Ping!
Every step has appeared in the public press. Of course, most readers don't retain what they read or put things together, so they will be surprised, but have a vague feeling they knew about this.
When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuke facility in 1981, those seeking nuke weapons learned this lesson:
1] diversify your nuke assets, and
2] build as much as possible underground
Should the US be successful in eliminating Iran's nuke timetable, it will only delay Iran getting nukes. The new lessons learned will be
1] diversify assets even further
2] go underground even deeper
3] build your facilites in proxy nations that the USA will not attack, and
4] just buy the nukes on the open market, which North Korea or Pakistan sill proably do at some point, especially after Pakistan is overthrown by Islamic radicals.
Delays are nice, but it only moves the timetable back and does nto stop their goal. As bin Laden showed us, if they have a goal, they keep at it until its a done deal.
That's exactly what Saddam thought.
"Gary Berntsen, the former senior CIA operative who led the search for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 2001..."
Ohh yeah? How'd that pan out Gary? Nevermind.
"We are probably going to have to destroy 30 facilities in 30 locations. Or at least 15," he said. "
30? 15? Wow I love it when former CIA guys get all insider like that, maybe its 20 locations with at least 10...ah whatever, we'll just circle around with our heads out the window looking for stuff that looks nuclear.
"Berntsen's comments came after former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said earlier this month that Iran's prime nuclear facilities could be devastated in one night by a small fleet of US B-2 bombers."
and you know Pearle is not the type to toss around wildley unrealistic predictions in the build up to a war.
"It's better for the United States to do it. If you (Israel) do it, we'll have all sorts of problems in the Middle East."
Right, if we do it - no problems! Oil market anybody?
"They present a threat to peace in the Middle East."
A valid point in the unlikely event peace breaks out.
"A lot of people didn't think he would do Iraq."
OK, who besides Saddam didnt see Iraq coming?
Quagmire! did you say quagmire? Everything is a quagmire according to the NYT. And when it's not a quagmire, things are "rocking".
I would like to make a bold proposal....
not only do we bomb Irans nuke facilities, we take out their entire oil industry as well...oil rigs, onloading port facilities, refineries..everything...yes oil will go to $150 per barrel, but that would be less than the quadrupeling of prices etween 1973 and 1974...yes, it would likely cause a recession...but the negative impacts would last at most for 3 years. By 1976, the economy had begun to recover from the 1973 oil shock..unemployment and inflation had both fallen from their 1975 highs...the stock market which fell 45% in 1973-74 rose by over 50% between 1975 and 76.
It would cause us pain for a few years, but an Iranian nuke would cause us pain for eternity. We can live without Iranian oil, but Iran cannot.
very good point
One bomb is all it takes. And not even in Iran.
Run a nuclear weapons test on an atoll somewhere and announce that you are just checking the shelf life.
Iran will announce the next day they are stopping their program.
And he was right. We are too scared to do the killing that needs to be done. Blast a mosk full of "insurgents?" Heck no! Our guys are fighting with their arms tied behind their backs. Al Sadr is alive. WHY??
True Bush has talked about it, but not nearly the way he did about Iraq. Maybe its a new strategy, because the old one didn't work to well. He could be planning on just ordering the strike, and telling the world the next day. Its not like his public approval could get worse, plus he might earn back some of his base he lost with the port deal. Especially if after a bunker buster hits some sites a cloud of U235 comes out!
It is indeed necessary. However, Bush should not act without getting authorization from Congress. Bush needs to put the onus on the wimpy idiots in Congress. The left would like nothing more than to have Bush bomb Iran. They would then try and impeach him as a warmonger, etc. We Freepers are well informed and know the danger of Iran. However, many Americans could easily be swayed that Bush acted "alone" without consulting with Congress. I wish Bush would call Congress into session and ask for authorization to strike Iran. If Congress balks then Bush should wash his hands of action. I know it is dangerous, but it is more dangerous to have the rabid press and DemoRats relentlessly destroy him over this and win back Congress and maybe more. Let the Congress be forced to face reality instead of acting like a bunch is little crying children. I am sick and tired nonstop attacks by the leftist MSM and traitorous democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.