|
America's Military Options in Iran
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.
As Iran readies itself to manufacture nuclear weapons and missile
delivery systems; surgical Strikes by U.S. forces could aim at
zeroing in on Iranian nuclear
targets, hitting the country's highest-risk sites — such as Bushier,
Natanz, Arak, Isfahan and a dozen or more others — using cruise
missiles launched from land or sea. "We are moving some aircraft
carrier groups into the Persian Gulf as
we speak," said retired Army Major Gen. Paul Vallely . "They
will be positioned to launch any aircraft from the Mediterranean Sea,
the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf." he added. Photo Credits: BBC
News ____________________________
Two retired generals and a military expert,
outlined some of the options on the table for the Pentagon.
Covert Action: The Bush administration might send CIA agents or
commandos to sabotage Iran's nuclear facilities. An unspecified
number have already taken the field targeting enemy positions, as
Seymour Hersh pointed out a few days back.
"There were no smoking guns, no fingerprints," said Walter Russell
Mead , a military expert with the Council on Foreign Relations. "We
wouldn't be
faced with that ugly, ugly choice of, - (either) we have a war or
they get a
weapon."
Naval Blockade: U.S. warships would be sent into the Strait of
Hormuz
to stop the export of Iranian oil. This would pressure the
mullahs to give up enriching uranium and allow intrusive inspections.
One downside is that Iran is OPEC's second largest oil
producer, so a blockade could also put a stranglehold on the
economies of many U.S. allies. Other potential problems are that it
may not work fast enough and it would leave Iran's existing nuclear
facilities intact.
"So the question is not whether we could do it. We could. The
question is, at what cost?" Mead said.
As Iran readies itself to manufacture nuclear weapons, surgical
strikes by U.S. forces could aim at zeroing in on Iranian nuclear
targets, hitting the country's highest-risk sites — such as Bushier,
Natanz, Arak, Isfahan and a dozen or more others — using cruise
missiles launched from land or sea.
"We are moving some aircraft carrier groups into the Persian Gulf as
we speak," said retired Army Major Gen. Paul Vallely. "They
will be positioned to launch any aircraft from the Mediterranean Sea,
the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf."
Next, F-117 stealth fighter jets could take out a radar system by
firing missiles and anti-aircraft guns at Isfahan or surface-to-air
missiles around the Bushier reactor. B-2 bombers carrying
eight 5,000-pound laser-guided bunker busters would hit buried
targets like the Natanz enrichment site or the deep tunnels
in Isfahan.
Surgical strikes would also aim to hurt Iran's ability to
counterattack while limiting civilian casualties, according to
Vallely.
"We're not after the population," he said. "We're not after blowing
down bridges anymore. We're trying to disrupt command and control,
their ability to use their forces on the ground, their forces in the
air, as well as their naval forces. ... Bring them to their knees
early. That's the key."
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.
The U.S. military is already stretched thin with its commitments in
Afghanistan and Iraq (Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with
almost three times as many people). A ground war could kill
thousands, maybe tens of thousands, and the cost could run well into
the billions. And assembling a broad coalition would be even more
difficult than it was for the Iraq war.
"For one thing, the British don't sound very willing. And let's face
it, without the British, we don't have a coalition," Mead said.
Vallely said that while the United States has the ability to launch a
major ground invasion, it wouldn't have to.
"We can take a country down with just our air assets," he said. "We
don't have put boots on the ground all the time if we're after
specific targets."
Iranian Response: Iran has threatened bloody retaliation if attacked,
so the Pentagon's military planners are conducting war games to be
prepared for any number of Iranian responses — from attacks on U.S.
forces in Iraq to missile strikes on Israel.
"I do not believe that Iran will take on the United States in a major
confrontation," said retired Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney.
Without a direct military response from Iran, the possibility exists
for an "asymmetrical response" — terror attacks on Americans
throughout the world and in the United States.
"Could they use part of the Al Qaeda network to launch a terrorist
attack on the United States?" McInerney speculated. "I believe
they could. That's probably going to happen to us anyhow. The
real question is, will it be a nightmare scenario? … Will it be
nuclear?"
The fear of a nuclear response is exactly why the experts FOX News
spoke with say the United States must do what it takes to stop Iran.
Story Credits:
FOX News' Bret Baier contributed to this report
|
