Iranian Options
Contrary to the botched headline over at the Fox News website last night, the U.N. didn't remove the final seals on the enrichment facility in Iran; the Iranians removed the U.N. seals while the U.N. inspectors watched.
And Iran has warned the U.S. and E.U. (read: threatened).
A "grave miscalculation"? They're illegally enriching Uranium, violating treaties that they entered into, and their sole motivation is producing nuclear weapons. They don't need the electricity, they've got massive oil reserves. They're also a clandestine state sponsor of terrorism. This situation is unacceptable.
So, what are our options? In my role as an unemployed military intelligence advisor, it is my duty to inform you, the valued reader, of the options as I see it. When the government decides to hire me, you're S.O.L., but that's not going to happen today.
The first option is the diplomatic one. As you can see from the articles above, it failed, and it will continue to fail, because short of a massive blockade and an international trade embargo enforced and observed by the entire world, the Iranians will have no motivation to give up their program. We don't have anything they need or want.
The second option is the economic one, which is a possibility, but not really very feasible. Iran is an oil exporter, and even if all of Europe and North America swore off Iranian oil and imposed economic sanctions, someone else would buy it and trade with them; the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, someone is going to buy Iranian oil.
The fourth option, which begins to get into the use of force, is an embargo and blockade. This would involved American (and British?) naval assets setting up a blockade in the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. This would severely limit Iran's export capacity, but it would probably incite an epidemic of smuggling through such nations as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey, all of which share sizable borders with Iran. The blockade would also rely on Russian cooperation, which can't be banked on; after all, the Russians are the ones who supplied the Iranians with nuclear fuel in the first place. A blockade could be used as a motivational tool, but I doubt that it's a true solution, particularly when the Iranians built their facilities into mountains and underground in order to avoid the fate that befell the Osirak facility in Iraq in 1981.
The fifth option is an aerial bombardment using JDAMs, a MOAB, Tomahawks, or something of that sort; it would have to be a precision munition, because the Iranians intentionally built their reactor in a populated area of extreme historical significance, and we all know how liberals react to the senseless destruction of antiquities in the name of international security and law enforcement. Depending on the aircraft used, the attack could be launched from the United States (B-2 Spirits), England (B-52s), or Diego Garcia (B-52s?). The aircraft would also determine how complex the mission would have to be; for example, F/A-18 Hornets would require accompaniment by electronic warfare aircraft, et cetera. Again, this method could be somewhat effective, at least with respect to the surface installations. However, as I noted above, a great deal of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure has been built underground in an attempt to prevent Iran's opponents (read: the rest of the world) from doing what Israel did in 1981.
The sixth option is a covert strike using commandos: Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance, and the like. There are several big problems with this sort of mission.
Special operators thrive in conditions where they can plan and execute a maneuver with exceptional information. Western intelligence agencies no doubt have some information about the layout of the Iranian nuclear compounds, but as I keep mentioning, they've been built underground where possible, which means that satellite imagery is essentially worthless; a well planned mission would require extensive human intelligence, which isn't likely to be extensive.
Though disabling several key facilities (Esfahan and Bushehr) would cripple the Iranian nuclear program, the fact of the matter is that there are several sites to worry about, all of which would not only have to be disabled, but disabled almost simultaneously in order to maintain the element of surprise. You can rest assured that the Iranians will be expecting it, too. The logistical requirements in a situation like this, where many operators are working at the same time, would be staggering.
Operators would have to infiltrate into the country first. This would be possible, but very taxing, and much more difficult than carrying out the same infiltration in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranian Army isn't composed of the same nose-mining pantloads that the Taleban employed, and they're much a better force than the Iraqi Republican Guard proved to be. In addition, once the alarm was sounded, the operators would have to egress the sites in question, which would be extremely difficult.
These scenarios all pose a difficult diplomatic situation for the United States and the European Union, particularly with the European Union divided on whether or not the omelette of international stability through use of military force to enforce international law is worth the broken eggs of domestic political risks and temporary economic sacrifice. Why do I bring this up? Because of one thing: the Israeli Factor.
The Israeli government frquently does things that are condemned by the U.N. General Assembly, or ruled illegal under international law by the International Criminal Kangaroo Court. Unlike the United States, which has to play a complex game of diplomatic hot potato, Israel has the advantage of being a small country surrounded by enemies on all sides. "Fly, you're crazy! Why is that an advantage?" you may ask. It's simple: they can afford to do whatever the hell they want. They did it in March of 2004, when they sent Apache helicopters to execute the leader of Hamas with extreme prejudice. They did it in the aforementioned 1981 destruction of the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak. When someone threatens the Israelis, the Israelis smite them.
According to one report I heard, the Israeli Air Force has the capability to make it to Iran, and nearly make it back, in F-16 fighter aircraft. In theory, the Israelis could launch an airstrike, most likely with the knowledge of (but probably not with the help of) the United States. I'll be honest, I might not put money on it, but I probably also wouldn't be surprised to wake up tomorrow, turn on Fox News, and see that the Israelis had launched a preemptive air strike on Esfahan and Bushehr.
So, there you have it, folks. Bottom line? The Bush Administration, and even the leaders of the Big Three in the European Union, are unlikely to let Iran enrich Uranium without putting up a major, knock down, drag out fight. The question is, what kind of fight: diplomatic, economic, or military? I'll tell you this much: diplomacy has failed, just like conservatives said it would, so the diplomatic work is probably just about done.
What do you think?
And Iran has warned the U.S. and E.U. (read: threatened).
Iran has warned it would be a "grave miscalculation" for the US and EU to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme.
The warning came after Iran broke UN seals at its nuclear plant at Isfahan, making it fully operational.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on European Union countries to continue dialogue with Iran.
EU countries have proposed a resolution to the UN nuclear watchdog in Vienna calling for Iran to halt work.
But Iran's chief negotiator at the talks there said Tehran had an absolute right to produce nuclear fuel.
A "grave miscalculation"? They're illegally enriching Uranium, violating treaties that they entered into, and their sole motivation is producing nuclear weapons. They don't need the electricity, they've got massive oil reserves. They're also a clandestine state sponsor of terrorism. This situation is unacceptable.
So, what are our options? In my role as an unemployed military intelligence advisor, it is my duty to inform you, the valued reader, of the options as I see it. When the government decides to hire me, you're S.O.L., but that's not going to happen today.
The first option is the diplomatic one. As you can see from the articles above, it failed, and it will continue to fail, because short of a massive blockade and an international trade embargo enforced and observed by the entire world, the Iranians will have no motivation to give up their program. We don't have anything they need or want.
The second option is the economic one, which is a possibility, but not really very feasible. Iran is an oil exporter, and even if all of Europe and North America swore off Iranian oil and imposed economic sanctions, someone else would buy it and trade with them; the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, someone is going to buy Iranian oil.
The fourth option, which begins to get into the use of force, is an embargo and blockade. This would involved American (and British?) naval assets setting up a blockade in the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. This would severely limit Iran's export capacity, but it would probably incite an epidemic of smuggling through such nations as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey, all of which share sizable borders with Iran. The blockade would also rely on Russian cooperation, which can't be banked on; after all, the Russians are the ones who supplied the Iranians with nuclear fuel in the first place. A blockade could be used as a motivational tool, but I doubt that it's a true solution, particularly when the Iranians built their facilities into mountains and underground in order to avoid the fate that befell the Osirak facility in Iraq in 1981.
The fifth option is an aerial bombardment using JDAMs, a MOAB, Tomahawks, or something of that sort; it would have to be a precision munition, because the Iranians intentionally built their reactor in a populated area of extreme historical significance, and we all know how liberals react to the senseless destruction of antiquities in the name of international security and law enforcement. Depending on the aircraft used, the attack could be launched from the United States (B-2 Spirits), England (B-52s), or Diego Garcia (B-52s?). The aircraft would also determine how complex the mission would have to be; for example, F/A-18 Hornets would require accompaniment by electronic warfare aircraft, et cetera. Again, this method could be somewhat effective, at least with respect to the surface installations. However, as I noted above, a great deal of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure has been built underground in an attempt to prevent Iran's opponents (read: the rest of the world) from doing what Israel did in 1981.
The sixth option is a covert strike using commandos: Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance, and the like. There are several big problems with this sort of mission.
These scenarios all pose a difficult diplomatic situation for the United States and the European Union, particularly with the European Union divided on whether or not the omelette of international stability through use of military force to enforce international law is worth the broken eggs of domestic political risks and temporary economic sacrifice. Why do I bring this up? Because of one thing: the Israeli Factor.
The Israeli government frquently does things that are condemned by the U.N. General Assembly, or ruled illegal under international law by the International Criminal Kangaroo Court. Unlike the United States, which has to play a complex game of diplomatic hot potato, Israel has the advantage of being a small country surrounded by enemies on all sides. "Fly, you're crazy! Why is that an advantage?" you may ask. It's simple: they can afford to do whatever the hell they want. They did it in March of 2004, when they sent Apache helicopters to execute the leader of Hamas with extreme prejudice. They did it in the aforementioned 1981 destruction of the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak. When someone threatens the Israelis, the Israelis smite them.
According to one report I heard, the Israeli Air Force has the capability to make it to Iran, and nearly make it back, in F-16 fighter aircraft. In theory, the Israelis could launch an airstrike, most likely with the knowledge of (but probably not with the help of) the United States. I'll be honest, I might not put money on it, but I probably also wouldn't be surprised to wake up tomorrow, turn on Fox News, and see that the Israelis had launched a preemptive air strike on Esfahan and Bushehr.
So, there you have it, folks. Bottom line? The Bush Administration, and even the leaders of the Big Three in the European Union, are unlikely to let Iran enrich Uranium without putting up a major, knock down, drag out fight. The question is, what kind of fight: diplomatic, economic, or military? I'll tell you this much: diplomacy has failed, just like conservatives said it would, so the diplomatic work is probably just about done.
What do you think?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home