Iran - The Military Option

From Thomas McInerney writing at The Weekly Standard.

A MILITARY OPTION AGAINST Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed. The announcement of uranium enrichment last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows Iran will not bow easily to diplomatic pressure. The existence of a military option may be the only means of persuading Iran--the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--to back down from producing nuclear weapons. rest here

McInerney lays out the munitions of choice and suggests a massive air assault over a 36 to 48 hour period, followed by covert operations to de-stablize the country. An insurgent force would be cultivated and trained during a run up period of diplomacy.

Iran's diverse population should be fertile ground for a covert operation. Iran is only 51 percent Persian. Azerbaijanis and Kurds comprise nearly 35 percent of the population. Seventy percent are under 30, and the jobless rate hovers near 20 percent.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) served as assistant vice chief of staff of the United States Air Force.

Whaty I didn't see mentioned was the need to ramp up head count in Iraq. WHile ideally we would destroy their ability to project military force outside of the country, I'd think it best to be prepared for retailiation most immediately through more operations by the Iranians aimed at our forces in Iraq.

But then, as they came over the border, I would hope it would be a good time to hit them as they came ... likely in small terrorist groups, as opposed to an actual attack.

Sounds like a plan.

Comments

[DennisAOK]

This would be much easier if we were not stretched so thin by being in Iraq. A nuclear Iran DOES represent a threat to our security; Iraq never did. A military move now looks like we are taking on the entire Muslim world.

[tester]

"An insurgent force would be cultivated and trained during a run up period of diplomacy."

Oh, sure. We're good at that.

Funny that: "Iran is headed into its June 17 presidential election, experts say, and polls show that nuclear power is popular among Iranians. "No candidate wants to be seen as giving away Iran's [nuclear] rights," Bunn says."

[tester]

Yeah, we need headcount.

Shall we start up the draft? (of course, after the November elections..)

[Laertes]

Bomb the hell out of 'em. Serves 'em right for being a foreign country in an election year.

[Laertes]

"MILITARY OPTION AGAINST Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed."

The problem is that we've heard this one before. A whole bunch of people voted for Bush's authorization-of-force resolution to strengthen his hand at the bargaining table.

He played them for fools. We now know, as an indisputable (and yet still disputed by the reality-challenged) fact that Bush had already decided to go to war at that point.

So obviously this talk now about how we need a credible threat of force to make diplomacy work is a perfectly transparent ruse.

On the bright side (for you guys) is that Bush doesn't NEED any such resolution again. We're far deeper into the imperial presidency now. Bush thinks he has the power to do absolutely anything as long as he mumbles the word "terrorism" while he does it, and this rubber-stamp congress doesn't have the stones to do anything about it.

[DennisAOK]

Laertes,

You are right, but remember most of the Democrats voted for this Iraq war as well. And the Republicans voted in favor despite criticizing Clinton for bombing Serbia on similar grounds just a few years before, and while promising a humble foreign policy that would foreswear nation building. We need a new political party in this country, but the campaign finance laws preclude building one.

[Rick]

"We need a new political party in this country, but the campaign finance laws preclude building one."

FINALLY!! Some words above and beyond the typical right/left BS of "My rich white guy is better than your rich white guy" Actually Dennis we can go around the "campaign finance laws" to achieve a third party. All we have to do is find a George Soros type who ACTUALLY gives a rip about America and the Constitution and go from there. Ross Perot came close until he revealed himself to be a nut. Keep plugging my friend a viable 3rd party is coming some day. Just hope that we don't have to drag what is left of the country from a mudhole to rebuild.