The US military option in Iran
The United States has a military option in Iran - it's just a question of choosing to use it. Many policy makers and journalists dismiss the military option on the basis of a false sense of futility. They assume that the U.S. military is already overstretched, that we lack adequate intelligence about the location of covert nuclear sites, and that known sites are too heavily fortified.Unfortunately, the chances of the Obama administration undertaking military action are not good.
Such assumptions are false.
An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would mostly involve air assets, primarily Air Force and Navy, that are not strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the presence of U.S. forces in countries that border Iran offers distinct advantages. Special Forces and intelligence personnel already in the region can easily move to protect key assets or perform clandestine operations. It would be prudent to emplace additional missile-defense capabilities in the region, upgrade both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expand strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia to pressure Iran from all directions.
...
But the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing. If the Iranian regime continues to advance its nuclear program despite the best efforts of Mr. Obama and other world leaders, we risk Iranian domination of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, threats to U.S.-allied Arab regimes, the emboldening of radicals in the region, the creation of an existential threat to Israel, the destabilization of Iraq, the shutdown of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, and a regional nuclear-arms race.
A peaceful resolution of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions would certainly be the best possible outcome. But should diplomacy and economic pressure fail, a U.S. military strike against Iran is a technically feasible and credible option.
But there's someone else who can do it.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:00 AM
4 Comments:
carl,
you want america to go to war?? send us 10 trillian and we will do it
outside of getting your check, and there being real confirmation that iran is indeed close to developing a nuke....you are ess out of luck...for we is broke
broke and hard pressed to send our men and women to another front
Bacci40,
You obviously didn't read the whole thing:
"Many policy makers and journalists dismiss the military option on the basis of a false sense of futility. They assume that the U.S. military is already overstretched, that we lack adequate intelligence about the location of covert nuclear sites, and that known sites are too heavily fortified.
Such assumptions are false.
An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would mostly involve air assets, primarily Air Force and Navy, that are not strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the presence of U.S. forces in countries that border Iran offers distinct advantages. Special Forces and intelligence personnel already in the region can easily move to protect key assets or perform clandestine operations. It would be prudent to emplace additional missile-defense capabilities in the region, upgrade both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expand strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia to pressure Iran from all directions."
The consequences of doing nothing are far worse.
Shying away from the possibility of war with Iran will show American acceptance/support for Iranian nuclear development. A nuclear Iran is not in the interest of the Free World(tm), and America has the capability to do what needs to be done.
Note that the USAF has modified its B-2 stealth bomber fleet to carry the soon-to be-deployed 30,000-lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a bunker-buster designed to take out hardened facilities several hundred feet below ground. (The smaller 5,000-lb GBU-28 has been deployed to bases in Iraq since at least 2006).
Post a Comment
<< Home