OK, according to Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, it WOULD be possible to disable Iran's nuclear program militarily, and in a single night no less!
Shit, we went into Iraq on the "theory" that WMD of the non-nuclear variety "could" be present, and that Saddam "could" still have a nuclear program hidden somewhere, just waiting for us to lift sanctions so he could continue it, so what's the hold-up with Iran???
Here's a country that not only has nuclear ambitions, they have ANNOUNCED their intentions openly, kicked out the IAEA, threatened Israel and the US (the whole world actually) and we're sitting here biting our fingernails doing nothing but "warning" them and calling it "diplomacy."
Why give them any warning? Did we learn nothing from Saddam? You don't "warn" people like this, you take them at their word and then quietly go about the business of gassing up the bombers!
I realize there are those who'd argue that taking out Iraq's nuclear reactor was easier because there was only one (as compared to Iran's 100+ installations that constitute their entire program), but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Yes, Iraq's weapon program of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike carried out by less than a squadron of fighter-bombers because it was centered in a single large reactor building. Once it was destroyed, the mission was accomplished. To do the same to Iran's 100-odd facilities would require almost a hundred times as many sorties as the Israelis flew in 1981, which would strain even the U.S. Air Force. Some would even add many more sorties to carry out a preliminary suppression campaign against Iran's air defenses (a collection of inoperable anti-aircraft weapons and obsolete fighters with outdated missiles). But the claim that to stop Iran's program all of its nuclear sites must be destroyed is simply wrong.An air attack is not a Las Vegas demolitions contract, where nothing must be left but well-flattened ground for the new casino to be built. Iran might need 100 buildings in good working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its program for years -- and perhaps longer because it would become harder or impossible for Iran to buy the materials it bought when its efforts were still secret. Some of these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but it seems that their architecture has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs.
Nor could destroyed items be easily replaced by domestic production. In spite of all the claims of technological self-sufficiency by its engineer-president, not even metal parts of any complexity can be successfully machined in Iran. More than 35% of Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components currently under U.S. embargo, and which the locals cannot copy. Aircraft regularly fall out of the sky because Iranians are unable to reverse-engineer spare parts.
The bombing of Iran's nuclear installations may still be a bad idea for other reasons, but not because it would require a huge air offensive. On the contrary, it could all be done in a single night. One may hope that Iran's rulers will therefore accept a diplomatic solution rather than gamble all on wildly exaggerated calculations.
I'm also not all that interested in finding out what life would be like (literally overnight) with one-third less oil to go around to the economies of the world that need it (ours in particular).
I have no idea what the administration's strategy is right now, but I sure hope they listen to guys like John McCain who said--very clearly and audibly--that he would not take the military option off the table. Why we would go to war in Iraq but NOT in Iran at this point is simply beyond my comprehension. It may not be a popular thing to say, but there it is.
Posted by insomnomaniac at February 8, 2006 7:04 PM | TrackBackMy own theory is that because our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely to establish a military presence - and therefore a deterrent - to Iran to prevent just what they've been doing. Their relative positions on the map have always been strongly suggestive to me - and all this business in the bordering countries may have been, at least in part, setup for something to come in Iran.
And to my knowledge that genius of analysis and finding secret causes - Michael the Manatee Moore - hasn't considered such a possibility, since the slogan "war for oil" answers (not necessarily correctly) the question of "why" in a way that satisfies his curiosity and that of his cultists.
Posted by: Murel Bailey at February 8, 2006 11:08 PM