Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails

The Times ^ | February 7, 2006 | Richard Beeston

[West Coast Conservative]

IT IS the option of last resort with consequences too hideous to contemplate. And yet, with diplomacy nearly exhausted, the use of military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme is being actively considered by those grappling with one of the world’s most pressing security problems. For five years the West has used every diplomatic device at its disposal to entice Iran into complying with strict conditions that would prevent its nuclear programme being diverted to produce an atomic bomb.

Those efforts, however, are now faltering. US leaders are openly discussing the looming conflict. A recent poll showed that 57 per cent of Americans favoured military intervention to stop Iran building a bomb.

Tehran scoffs at threats by the West, has pledged to press on with its nuclear progamme and defend itself if attacked.

The military option may be the only means of halting a regime that has threatened to annihilate Israel from developing a bomb and triggering a regional nuclear arms race.

Experts agree that America has the military capability to destroy Iran’s dozen known atomic sites. US forces virtually surround Iran with military air bases to the west in Afghanistan, to the east in Iraq, Turkey and Qatar and the south in Oman and Diego Garcia. The US Navy also has a carrier group in the Gulf, armed with attack aircraft and Tomahawk cruise missiles. B2 stealth bombers flying from mainland America could also be used.

The air campaign would not be easy. The Iranians have been preparing for an attack. Key sites are ringed with air defences and buried underground. Sensitive parts of the Natanz facility are concealed 18 meters (60ft) underground and protected by reinforced concrete two meters thick. Similar protection has been built around the uranium conversion site at Esfahan.

“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq,” said the Global Security consultantcy.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former US Air Force officer, predicted that knocking out nuclear sites could be over in less than a week. But he gave warning that would only be the beginning.

Iran has threatened to defend itself if attacked. It could use medium-range missiles to hit Israel or US military targets in Iraq and the region. It could also use its missiles and submarines to attack shipping in the Gulf, the main export route for much of the world’s energy needs. “Once you have dealt with the nuclear sites you would have to expand the targets,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Gardiner. “There are another 125 to deal with including chemical plants, missile launchers, airfields and submarines.”

While this huge US offensive is underway Iran would almost certainly deploy its most powerful weapon. It would unleash a counter-attack through proxies in the region. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia, would attack Israel. Moqtadr al-Sadr, the militant Iraqi Shia religious leader, could order his Mahdi Army to rise up against American and British forces in Iraq. Iranian-backed groups could wreak havoc against Western targets across the world.

What began as a military operation to maintain a balance of power in the Middle East, could instead plunge the region into another conflict.

“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,” said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “An air strike against the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government. Finally, the strike would not, as it often said, delay the Iranian programme. It would almost certainly speed it up,” he wrote in an article.

[TexanToTheCore]

Yes, they are scoffing at our threats to attack them militarily.



They don't understand the exercise.

[Dog Gone]

Finally, the strike would not, as it often said, delay the Iranian programme. It would almost certainly speed it up,” he wrote in an article.

That's just stupid talk.

[benjibrowder]

57% of America isn't stupid and isn't going to let a bomb go off in either Israel or America.

[reefdiver]

Every day we wait - They get that day to get closer to their goals. Just so we all know that

[tet68]

“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,” said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “An air strike against the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government. Finally, the strike would not, as it often said, delay the Iranian programme. It would almost certainly speed it up,” he wrote in an article.


Diplomats have never stopped a war yet.
This guy wants us to do nothing least they speed up their
armament race? The same mentality that says we shouldn't
kill terrorists cause we are then creating more of them.

Idioten!

[Busywhiskers]

It is the accursed Europeans who are going to be in range of Iran's missiles. Shouldn't they be the ones who take the lead in taking out Iran's nuke sites? If we do it, we will have to put up with a bunch of whining protest from the ungrateful SOB's we are trying to protect.

[benjibrowder]

Finally, the strike would not, as it often said, delay the Iranian programme. It would almost certainly speed it up,” he wrote in an article.

Explain to me how that works exactly? No, sitting around talking about talking about a potential strike will certainly speed it up. An immediate attack on their nuclear manufacturing facilities will put an immediate end to this threat (at least for a long while).

[Supernatural]

You are right, diplomacy stops nothing. It just gives the other side a chance to grow stronger and to strike when they think they are strong enough.

[yarddog]

Every time I see someone from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, I remember that is where Alger Hiss worked.

[COEXERJ145]

“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,”

More like B-2 Spirits carrying B-61-11 bombs.

[konahawk]

How could such a massive strike by U.S. "speed up the programme"...? That makes no sense at all. I can't imagine a scenario (wish I could) where war can be AVOIDED. I'm talking about a REALISTIC scenario. I don't think they will be stopped with threats,conferences,diplomatic overtures, boycotts,or appeasement. Ain't gonna happen.

[CommieCrusher]

All hell could happen anyday now,and once again good
will overcome evil.

[GladesGuru]

"Finally, the strike would not, as it often said, delay the Iranian programme. It would almost certainly speed it up,” he wrote in an article. Yeppers, being bombed by the US military just helps industrial effort no end.

[yarddog]

I am beginning to wonder if it will require some anonymous country to literally nuke them. They could always claim it was an accident.

[LibWhacker]

Thank God. It's the only way. A lot of us on FR have been saying it for years. Let's hope it's not so late that it costs millions of lives on our side. You just can't reason with someone who thinks God has ordered him to kill you and everyone you know, any more than you can reason with someone who thinks his neighbor's dog has ordered him to kill people.

“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,” said Joseph Cirincione...

Shut up, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!!!

[BIGLOOK]

“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,” said Joseph Cirincione

He might have a point but an F/A 18 could stop several mullahs dead.

[xzins]

The prospect of Iran having a nuke is far worse than that of al Sadr getting mad.

Iran will not stop with the mere possession of the weapon. They will use it either to blackmail or to attack.

[manwiththehands]

“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,” said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “An air strike against the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan would inflame Muslim anger, ...

It won't be F-15's. It will be F-22's, precision-guided bombs and nuclear bunker-busters.

"Let's kick the tires and light the fires!"

[sgtbono2002]

I am much in agreement with you. I have no qualms about the US leading the attack, but we should not do it alone.

We need a coalition that agrees that even if they dont fight the least they can do is not whine when we have finished saving their butts.

We have to have the Democrats in this country not only vote for the war like last time, but submit an affadavit that they will not bad mouth the President for doign what they all agreed had to be done.

This trying to pee backwards after the fact is sickening.