Joe Howell
May 28th, 2009, 9:00 pm
If it becomes necessary to launch a military strike against Iran, there are good reasons it should be launched by the United States.
With North Korea defying the world by testing another nuclear weapon over the weekend as well as conducting several missile tests, and the Taliban threatening to take over Pakistan, including their nuclear arsenal, the world is once again brought back to the subject of nuclear proliferation.
The recent meetings between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu focused on two points. President Obama wanted to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two state solution and getting the talks back on track. Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to focus on Iran. The real world means Netanyahu wins. There are no talks to be had with the Palestinians because there is no one to talk to. The Palestinians are split between a corrupt, marginally effective leadership on one hand, and a terrorist organization on the other that has killed, or caused to be killed, more Palestinians than Israelis. The subject of Iran is the subject of the survival of Israel. A nuclear strike of three or four weapons, even relatively small ones, would destroy the Jewish nation.
Israel has the capability of striking Iran. Its long range F15I and the new F16I Sufa (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/f-16i.htm)give it the strike force to reach many parts of Iran without refueling. Israel also has an aerial refueling capability giving it the extended reach necessary. What is less certain to me is the staying power to do a complete job. The Iranian nuclear program has reportedly been widely dispersed and much of it is said to be in underground facilities. Both are designed to add complexity to strike planning. In truth, it would be difficult to significantly degrade the Iranian program without multiple strikes over several days with the right kind of ordinance.
Does Israel have the necessary "bunker buster" bombs to penetrate deep, concrete reinforced facilities? In September the United States agreed to sell the Israelis 1,000 GBU-39 bunker buster smart bombs but these are unlikely to get the job done on Iranian facilities; they are too small. I am not aware of any sales of the larger, more effective GBU-28 that the United States used against hardened Iraqi bunkers during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Israel is also unlikely to attempt to pull off more than one large strike. After that it would have lost the element of surprise. At most it might try two waves in quick order. The widely dispersed targets in Iran, their hardened, underground locations, and the sheer quantity of potential targets would require a more concentrated aerial assault than Israel is capable of to completely degrade the Iranian nuclear program. Israel's most likely tactic would be to hit fast, hard, and by surprise. They would concentrate their available strike force on the most important targets they could identify with the aim of setting Iran back several years. The hope would be that something in the area would change over that time, like revolution in Iran, that would stop the program.
What would the Iranian response be? First, Iran would almost certainly crank up an immediate asymmetric warfare response against Israel through proxies. That would mean an all out terror assault by Hamas and Hezbollah.
Second, Iran would seek to turn up their terror machine in Iraq. Their Quds Force, the commando arm of the Revolutionary Guards, would step up to a high pitch their efforts to smuggle explosives and other munitions across the long border with Iraq. We have already siezed several Iranians in the past two years involved in such exercises and there are indications the borders with both Iran and Syria are once again seeing increased traffic of weapons and terrorists entering Iraq as President Obama makes it clear our days there are numbered.
Third, Iran will move to close the Strait of Hormuz. This chokepoint at the mouth of the Persian Gulf has 20% of all the oil traded in the world transit it on a daily basis. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would take between 16 - 17 million barrels of oil per day off the market causing an immediate and severe spike in world oil prices.
All of these items make a powerful tactical case for the United States to be the nation to act if a strike against Iran is inevitable. The alternatives simply do not add up.
The world economy simply can't afford to allow Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. There is only one force that can, without a doubt, reopen the Strait in short order, the United States Navy. Therefore, even if Israel acts first, the United States would be forced to get involved against Iranian forces. The world would in fact be better off if the United States acted to prevent Iran from even making the attempt to close the Strait.
It would make sense for Israel to launch preemptive strikes into Lebanon against Hezbollah, and Gaza against Hamas in advance of a strike on Iran. I am not talking here about the half-hearted attempts Prime Minister Netanyahu's predecessor launched. Those attempts moved into both areas, took casualties, inflicted casualities, earned the worlds castigation, but never moved forcefully enough to wrap up the enemy. I am talking about the kind of full scale move to crush both groups that I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would approve. But if Israel is engaged in large scale military operations on both fronts it further limits the available assests to devote to the Iranian strike.
Tactically, a full blown aerial assault of the "shock and awe" type on the Iranian facilities, the kind of strike only the United States could deliver, makes more sense. It would have the depth to strike a large list of targets repeatedly, over several days, and with the right weapons, to maximize their destruction. This would have the desired effect on Iran's nuclear program.
The United States would also be able to preempt the Iranians from moving on the Strait of Hormuz by taking out their air and naval forces at the same time. While we were at it we could go after the Quds Force staging areas in western Iran to provide force protection to our units in Iraq.
If Israel goes it alone, they will have to get our cooperation to allow over-flight of Iraqi air space to reach Iran. The Iranians and their patsies in the world will hold us responsible in any case. The "Arab Street" will make just as much noise either way. The Arab countries will shout and stir up the protests, but will not let them get out of control. They are just as worried about Iran having nuclear weapons as Israel is. They have no desire to fall under the boot of Persian conquerors again.
There may be many good strategic reasons to argue against us striking Iran or even letting Israel do it, it is not the intent of this commentary to address the strategic questions. From a purely tactical perspective, I believe if it must be done, we should do it.
Note: Promotional note and link removed by LEE
With North Korea defying the world by testing another nuclear weapon over the weekend as well as conducting several missile tests, and the Taliban threatening to take over Pakistan, including their nuclear arsenal, the world is once again brought back to the subject of nuclear proliferation.
The recent meetings between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu focused on two points. President Obama wanted to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two state solution and getting the talks back on track. Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to focus on Iran. The real world means Netanyahu wins. There are no talks to be had with the Palestinians because there is no one to talk to. The Palestinians are split between a corrupt, marginally effective leadership on one hand, and a terrorist organization on the other that has killed, or caused to be killed, more Palestinians than Israelis. The subject of Iran is the subject of the survival of Israel. A nuclear strike of three or four weapons, even relatively small ones, would destroy the Jewish nation.
Israel has the capability of striking Iran. Its long range F15I and the new F16I Sufa (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/f-16i.htm)give it the strike force to reach many parts of Iran without refueling. Israel also has an aerial refueling capability giving it the extended reach necessary. What is less certain to me is the staying power to do a complete job. The Iranian nuclear program has reportedly been widely dispersed and much of it is said to be in underground facilities. Both are designed to add complexity to strike planning. In truth, it would be difficult to significantly degrade the Iranian program without multiple strikes over several days with the right kind of ordinance.
Does Israel have the necessary "bunker buster" bombs to penetrate deep, concrete reinforced facilities? In September the United States agreed to sell the Israelis 1,000 GBU-39 bunker buster smart bombs but these are unlikely to get the job done on Iranian facilities; they are too small. I am not aware of any sales of the larger, more effective GBU-28 that the United States used against hardened Iraqi bunkers during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Israel is also unlikely to attempt to pull off more than one large strike. After that it would have lost the element of surprise. At most it might try two waves in quick order. The widely dispersed targets in Iran, their hardened, underground locations, and the sheer quantity of potential targets would require a more concentrated aerial assault than Israel is capable of to completely degrade the Iranian nuclear program. Israel's most likely tactic would be to hit fast, hard, and by surprise. They would concentrate their available strike force on the most important targets they could identify with the aim of setting Iran back several years. The hope would be that something in the area would change over that time, like revolution in Iran, that would stop the program.
What would the Iranian response be? First, Iran would almost certainly crank up an immediate asymmetric warfare response against Israel through proxies. That would mean an all out terror assault by Hamas and Hezbollah.
Second, Iran would seek to turn up their terror machine in Iraq. Their Quds Force, the commando arm of the Revolutionary Guards, would step up to a high pitch their efforts to smuggle explosives and other munitions across the long border with Iraq. We have already siezed several Iranians in the past two years involved in such exercises and there are indications the borders with both Iran and Syria are once again seeing increased traffic of weapons and terrorists entering Iraq as President Obama makes it clear our days there are numbered.
Third, Iran will move to close the Strait of Hormuz. This chokepoint at the mouth of the Persian Gulf has 20% of all the oil traded in the world transit it on a daily basis. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would take between 16 - 17 million barrels of oil per day off the market causing an immediate and severe spike in world oil prices.
All of these items make a powerful tactical case for the United States to be the nation to act if a strike against Iran is inevitable. The alternatives simply do not add up.
The world economy simply can't afford to allow Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. There is only one force that can, without a doubt, reopen the Strait in short order, the United States Navy. Therefore, even if Israel acts first, the United States would be forced to get involved against Iranian forces. The world would in fact be better off if the United States acted to prevent Iran from even making the attempt to close the Strait.
It would make sense for Israel to launch preemptive strikes into Lebanon against Hezbollah, and Gaza against Hamas in advance of a strike on Iran. I am not talking here about the half-hearted attempts Prime Minister Netanyahu's predecessor launched. Those attempts moved into both areas, took casualties, inflicted casualities, earned the worlds castigation, but never moved forcefully enough to wrap up the enemy. I am talking about the kind of full scale move to crush both groups that I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would approve. But if Israel is engaged in large scale military operations on both fronts it further limits the available assests to devote to the Iranian strike.
Tactically, a full blown aerial assault of the "shock and awe" type on the Iranian facilities, the kind of strike only the United States could deliver, makes more sense. It would have the depth to strike a large list of targets repeatedly, over several days, and with the right weapons, to maximize their destruction. This would have the desired effect on Iran's nuclear program.
The United States would also be able to preempt the Iranians from moving on the Strait of Hormuz by taking out their air and naval forces at the same time. While we were at it we could go after the Quds Force staging areas in western Iran to provide force protection to our units in Iraq.
If Israel goes it alone, they will have to get our cooperation to allow over-flight of Iraqi air space to reach Iran. The Iranians and their patsies in the world will hold us responsible in any case. The "Arab Street" will make just as much noise either way. The Arab countries will shout and stir up the protests, but will not let them get out of control. They are just as worried about Iran having nuclear weapons as Israel is. They have no desire to fall under the boot of Persian conquerors again.
There may be many good strategic reasons to argue against us striking Iran or even letting Israel do it, it is not the intent of this commentary to address the strategic questions. From a purely tactical perspective, I believe if it must be done, we should do it.
Note: Promotional note and link removed by LEE