Winning with Iran
By Dr. Earl Tilford
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 9, 2007


At the invitation of the Iraqi regime, the United States recently agreed to 
multi-lateral talks with Iran and Syria aimed at breaking the diplomatic 
impasse between Iran and the United Nations over Tehran’s nuclear program. 
Negotiation supporters point to recent successes in getting North Korea to back 
off its nuclear weapons program. The big difference between North Korea and 
Iran, however, is that China used its influence with Kim Jung Il’s regime. 
Unfortunately, there is no equivalent ally with that kind of leverage with 
Tehran. With U.S. forces involved in an increasingly unpopular commitment in 
Iraq, America’s strategic capital rests largely on the implied threat resulting 
from deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the region. 
Many think that if a solution is not reached soon, Israel will settle the 
matter with a bold aerial attack similar to the raid conducted against the 
Iraqi centrifuge in 1981. Despite the tactical excellence of the Israeli Air 
Force, such a mission would prove a “bridge too far” for its capabilities, even 
if Israel’s neighbors obligingly offer overflight permission. The Russian-built 
M1 Tor surface-to-air missile (SAM), probably the world’s best low-to 
medium-altitude SAM system, protects Iranian nuclear facilities and it will 
take more than Israeli tactical excellence to overcome it. Unless Israel has 
developed an effective countermeasure, the only trump for M1 Tor is stealth. 
While the F-15s Israel flies are among the best fighters in the world and its 
F-16s are somewhat “stealthy,” the Tor system will exact a heavy price. 
Furthermore, the Iranian nuclear program is spread out, dug in and redundant. 
Israel does not have the resources to mount the sustained bombing campaign 
needed to degrade it effectively. In short, such a mission would be suicidal 
and unlikely to succeed. On the other hand, American air power can do it, but 
the risks are enormous, as demonstrated by the following possible scenario. 
The opening gambit would entail a massive U.S. cruise missile attack to 
diminish Iranian air defenses hitting M1 Tor sites, air defense radars and 
airfields. An almost immediate follow-on attack by B-2 and F-117 stealth 
aircraft will strike command and control facilities. Once Iran’s defenses are 
degraded significantly, B-1 and B-52 bombers flying from Diego Garcia will join 
Navy carrier-based aircraft and Air Force fighter-bombers based in the region 
to deliver bunker busting bombs, some of which may be nuclear. It also may be 
necessary to insert SEAL or other special operations teams to use nuclear 
satchel charges on some installations. Given the risks involved and the likely 
Iranian response, this attack cannot be undertaken unless the objective is the 
decisive destruction of Iran’s nuclear program. Iranian casualties will be high 
and the United States will suffer some losses. Furthermore, Iran likely will 
retaliate.
Iranian retaliation could involve three components. First, expect “swarm” air 
and sea attacks conducted by every imaginable type of aircraft and sea-going 
vessel the Iranians can muster to throw at U.S. naval vessels operating in the 
area. While fleet defenses will destroy most attackers, it is possible some 
will get through on suicidal missions. Aircraft carriers will be a prime target 
both for their symbolic value and potentially large numbers of casualties. As a 
second component, expect Iran to undertake a massive ground attack to overwhelm 
U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. It is possible Shiite elements of the 
newly-revitalized Iraqi army might turn on the Americans. If Iranian forces 
pour into Iraq, it will take tactical nuclear weapons to stave off a disastrous 
defeat. 
For its third component, Iran will unleash Hezbollah, including the estimated 
several thousand terrorists thought to be residing in the United States, on a 
global terrorist rampage. It is possible al Qaeda will join with Hezbollah and 
if they have nukes, which they may have obtained from former Soviet arsenals by 
way of Chechen contacts with the Russian mafia, they will use them. At the 
least, expect a wave of terror strikes across the United States and at U.S. 
interests and citizens globally with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilian 
casualties. 
It is uncertain whether even direct negotiations can compel Iran to give up its 
nuclear weapons program. The only real capital the United States has in 
negotiations is our deterrent credibility. Unfortunately, that is questionable. 
Teheran surely noted the firestorm that erupted in Congress over the planned 
surge of 21,000 troops requested by U.S. generals in Iraq and continuing talk 
of appeasement by groups like the World Council of Churches delegation that 
recently visited with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Thus encouraged, 
Teheran may prove obdurate.
If negotiations fail, then the only alternative may be to strike Iran. The 
United States has the military power to do this successfully even if the risks 
are significant. The question is, does it have the will? If not, the global war 
with the Islamist jihadists is lost. 
While there are no good choices, great nations make the hard choices and see 
them through to a successful conclusion. But know this: America and Iran are 
already at war.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
WIN $1,000,000.00 - FREE registration takes less than 60 seconds -- good luck!  
  http://super.nu

Last year's average TurboTax Federal refund was $2,265 -- Get your
FREE Turbotax Software now - Limited Time Offer http://www.beam.to/turbotax



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to