Posted on 04/21/2005 11:07:29 PM PDT by Cyclopean Squid
What Are U.S. Military Options in Iran? Thursday, April 21, 2005
WASHINGTON U.S. officials are still trying to find a diplomatic resolution over Iran's interest in creating nuclear facilities. But if diplomacy fails, the Bush administration is also looking at its military options.
FOX News spoke with two retired generals and a military expert, who outlined some of the options on the table for the Pentagon.
Covert Action: The Bush administration might send CIA agents or commandos to sabotage Irans nuclear facilities.
There were no smoking guns, no fingerprints, said Walter Russell Mead (search), with the Council on Foreign Relations. We wouldnt be faced with that ugly, ugly choice of, we have a war or they get a weapon.
Naval Blockade: U.S. warships would be sent into the Strait of Hormuz (search) to stop the export of Iranian oil. This would pressure the mullahs to give up enriching uranium and allow intrusive inspections...
--SNIP--
Surgical Strikes: U.S. forces could zero in on Iranian nuclear targets, hitting the countrys highest-risk sites...
--SNIP--
All-Out Assault: A huge American military effort, involving hundreds of thousands of troops, would be needed to get boots on the ground. But the experts FOX News spoke with consider that to be the least likely scenario...
--SNIP--
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How about we give them the red carpet treatment?
Iran ping
If military action takes place against Iran you will hear the familiar recycled talking points that the Dems used for the '04 election and Iraq:
Iran is not a threat, just like Saddam wasn't. Iran has nothing to do with terrorism, either. These people don't want freedom. We are only looking at excuses to get more oil for Bush, Cheney and Halliburton.
Heck, our friends the anti-war protesters will probably re-use their same ol' signs, and just change the Q to an N. And why not? Most of the slogans they used were ripped off of "They Live" anyway, so why not self-plargiarize off of a plagiarism?
If there are military actions against Iran you can kiss the vastly pro-American populace goodbye and you can say hello to the greatest strategic foreign mishap in the history of the US.
This is not Iraq - this is vastly different country with a totally different ethnicity, culture, history and political leaning.
President Bush will not strike Iran b/c he has brilliant scholars surrounding him.
I know these views aren't popular, but I have never courted popularity.
I'm not so sure that there won't be some form of military operations against Iran in the near future. The current intransigence of the mullahs seems to preclude any purely diplomatic option, and I think the President (and others) find it unacceptable for the current Iranian government to produce a nuclear device. In all likelihood, they would supply a terrorist organization with it and deliver the weapon to its target by proxy.
The President understands the pro-American viewpoint of many Iranians, but if the decision comes down to alienating a foreign people and protecting American interests, you had better believe he will go with the latter. He is encouraging the Iranian opposition to act against the mullahs, and there is something afoot there, but it is unlikely that they will succeed absent outside intervention, or the defection of the Iranian armed forces to the side of the opposition (unlikely, because as I understand many are foreign mercenaries).
I'm sure the President and his advisors are well aware of the differences b/w Iran and Iraq, including the difficult topography of Iran and its different past. No two war plans look exactly the same, and I'm sure the powers that be have taken all that into account. That said, I hope and believe it won't come to all-out war.
Finally, I beg to differ about military actions against Iran being the greatest strategic foreign mishap in the history of the US. That would be, in my estimation, the failure to give succor to the Shah in 1979. If we had supported him then, who knows where Iran (and the Middle East) would be today.
You clearly know much more about Iran than I do, being an Iranian-American yourself, and I am an eager student. I'd appreciate any more info you might have to offer.
Our options are to stand of nuclear attack. Otherwise, we'll have this going on:
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2005/april/ogrish-dot-com-helicopter_downed2.wmv
No more child games of war.
stand of = stand off
And yes, that's video of the 'alledged survivor' in today's helicopter crash.
I'd love to help. I'm, of course, more a capital A as in American than I as in Iranian, but i'm an American who speaks fluent Farsi and can certainly help whenever desired.
I saw the thread over at LGF (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15560_Monsters#comments). Cruel, mocking villains. Also accorder to the Lizardoids, the site you linked to is pretty sick. It contains many important videos such as with the murdered survivor, but everyone should be forewarned about the rough content.
In response to possible military options against Iran, you wrote: "Staying out of their business and minding our own."
Pat Buchanan has been shouting the same thing from the rooftops to all who will listen, but it just doesn't wash. Iran's mullahs have been in the business of financing and exporting terrorism. That is their business, which makes it our own. Who do you think is the target of any nuclear device the Iranians produce?
It's incredibly rough. A friend of mine and I agree it's about the worst video yet, and we've both seen the heads sawn off.
What's gonna be next? Our kids at schools begging to be released and them them shot up or their heads ripped off with 'allahu akbar' going on?
Get ready America, that's what's coming.
They left out "support and arm Iran's internal enemies," which is the cheapest and easiest way to bring down an enemy regime. We'd be fools to not be doing this already.
I am in total agreement to that,since Iran atleast were against Saddam and the Taliban during our campaigns against those terroristic regimes. Iran is another matter. They have a society that at least has the vestiges of a pluralistic democracy,suppressed though as it was.
I am in total agreement to that,since Iran atleast were against Saddam and the Taliban during our campaigns against those terroristic regimes. Iran is another matter. They have a society that at least has the vestiges of a pluralistic democracy,suppressed though as it was.
Make it the worlds largest parking lot.
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.