|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
America?s Options Against Iran
Harold C. Hutchison
1/11/2005 11:39:19 PM
|
America?s Options Against Iran. Iran?s nuclear program is a matter of concern.
The real question, of course, is ?what can the United States do about
it??
The options are negotiate, launch aerial attacks to take out the
nuclear program, or to enact regime change through one means or another.
Negotiation is not exactly an option ? Iran has pretty much ruled out any deal
that would limit its nuclear weapons program. There is also the fact that the
Israelis will not patiently sit by while the Iranians use negotiations to buy
time to continue their nuclear weapons development. These two factors leave only
the option of stopping the program through air attacks or regime
change.
Air attacks have huge problems. Iran has a widely-dispersed
nuclear program. There are at least 23 cities (plus uranium mines) in this
program. However, targeting does not just involve the nuclear program. Iran also
has a huge missile program. There are 40 cities or islands involved with Iran?s
missile program, which also would need to be hit ? so as to limit or preferably
eliminate delivery options for the Iranians. This means at least 63 sites have
to be hit in order to guarantee a major disruption to the Iranian nuclear
program and its delivery system.
The type of air attack involved would
probably be on the order of the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, in which a
devastating air attack was launched over a month?s time. Even that devastating
attack was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from launching missiles against
Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2003, special operations forces
were able to prevent a large number of launches, but their use is a huge step
forward. Iran has some modern planes (particularly the MiG-29 Fulcrum), but the
majority of their aircraft are old F-14As, F-4 Phantoms, J-7 Fishbeds, and F-5E
Tigers. An air campaign would be able to hit the sites, and degrade the program.
Iranian response would unpredictable, though.
The best option to
guarantee a halt to Iran?s nuclear weapons program is to overthrow the imams.
There are two ways this can be done; sponsoring the domestic opposition (which
has significant popular support), or through an invasion. The former option has
worked in the past. In the 1980s, the CIA was able to keep the Polish Solidarity
movement functioning as an opposition movement despite martial law and
opposition by the Polish and Russian secret police. That said, the effort took
eight years, and the CIA back then was run by William Casey. Today?s CIA has
become more of a bureaucracy, and much more risk-averse. The other problem with
such an effort is that the situation in Iran is markedly different in two
respects: Poland did not have a lengthy history of sponsoring terrorist attacks,
nor was that country trying to develop nuclear weapons.
The other option
is an invasion. This is probably the touchiest option. Currently, Iraq involves
17 American brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves
another division headquarters and three brigades. The 2nd Infantry Division is
pretty much committed to defending the Republic of Korea. Two more divisions are
carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and
Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 divisions
available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine).
The Army is arguably stretched thin, since some divisions will have returned
from Iraq or Afghanistan. Until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or additional
divisions are formed up, that will remain the case. Iraq has become an
insurgency, and those take time (usually five to ten years). Iran would, in all
likelihood, develop a similar insurgency. That will further tie down American
forces in the region.
The options against Iran are limited, in large part
due to the ?peace dividend? of the 1990s, in which eight active-duty and four
National Guard divisions were disbanded. What is also not mentioned is that the
divisions at the end of the Cold War had more troops per division than they do
now. The Air Force and Navy suffered similar cuts (the navy lost over 200 ships,
including three carrier battle groups, and the Air Force lost a dozen fighter
wings and retired the entire force of FB-111A and B-52G bombers). The peace
dividend is proving to be very costly three years into the war on
terrorism.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
