Iran ... not so dangerous. You go first ...
| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | ||
| 'US could wipe out Iran nuke program in two days' | ||
| 2006-03-20 | ||
Gary Berntsen, the former senior CIA operative who led the search for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 2001, believes the United States has the ability to easily destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. He said the US could use bunker-buster bombs and other weapons to carry out the operation. "We can dig those things out. We can destroy them," he told The Jerusalem Post in an interview. "We can take care of it in a couple of days with air strikes and they wouldn't be able to stop us," he added. "It wouldn't be difficult to plan. They'd be some dangers but I think the United States can do it." Berntsen, who left the CIA in June last year after more than 20 years of service, believes it will be difficult to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear program. "I know the Iranians. I've worked against the Iranians for years. They are determined to get this no matter what, and they will lie and cheat and do whatever they have to do to get themselves a weapon," he said. Berntsen ruled out covert action because of the scale of Iran's nuclear program. "This is a huge system of facilities they have. This is not going to be a small sort of engagement. We are probably going to have to destroy 30 facilities in 30 locations. Or at least 15," he said. Berntsen's comments came after former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said earlier this month that Iran's prime nuclear facilities could be devastated in one night by a small fleet of US B-2 bombers. I'm
In addition, Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's former chief of General Staff, said the IDF has the capabilities to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and could do it in conjunction with the US and some EU countries. However, Berntsen believes Israel should not carry out any operation. "It's better for the United States to do it. If you (Israel) do it, we'll have all sorts of problems in the Middle East, all sorts of countries that will align themselves with the Iranians over this. Politically it makes more sense for the US to do it," he said. Berntsen also ruled out a ground operation. "This is huge country. There are 70 million people there. It's gigantic. We don't need to be getting into something like that," he said. However, Berntsen believes that the US should first exhaust all the political options before carrying out a strike. "We should do what we're doing right now. That means taking them to the United Nations and make this 'the world against Iran,' because the Iranians appear determined to create a weapon," he said. "If by chance they disarm, then we can avoid this, but if they don't disarm we will need to take care of this ourselves." "The Iranians have to know that we mean business. They will either disarm or we will destroy their facilities. No ifs, ands, or buts. They present a threat to peace in the Middle East. They present a threat to Israel. We cannot accept that," he added. Berntsen predicted that if Iran doesn't disarm, President George Bush would carry out an attack regardless of domestic opposition. "I think that President Bush has demonstrated that he says what he means and he means what he says. A lot of people didn't think he would do Iraq. This is a guy who doesn't put his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. President Bush means business. "The problem right now is that the Iranians are going to miscalculate. They are going to believe that because 2006 is an election year (in Congress), and due to all this political opposition to the president because of Iraq, they're going to think that he's weak in the knees, he can't do it and they're not going to negotiate. "That would be a very serious mistake for them. They're going to miscalculate. They think he's politically weak and George Bush won't care. He's going to do it anyway when it comes down to it," Berntsen said. "I believe that we'll get past the mid-term election in 2006 and then the Iranians ought to disarm themselves or suffer the consequences," he added. Berntsen recently released a book called Jawbreaker, which is about the search for bin Laden after al-Qaida's attacks on the US in September 2001. The book has been on the best-seller lists in the US but has yet to be released in Israel. | ||
| Posted by:lotp |
| #30 9-11 and the WOT for the Lefties and anti-US agendists is about inducing = forcing the USA under "justified" anti-American Socialism and OWG where the US is no longer sovereign nor has control of its own government or endowments - Iff this were WW2 we're talking about VICHY WASHINGTON.The DemoLeft has no scruples attaining PC power be it proclaiming to "save America-World" from GOP-led "quagmire(s)" and Nuke Brinkmanship, or by weirdly and mysteriously surviving any new [GOP-caused]Amer Hirosohima agz Dubya, his Admin, the NPE, anti-Clinton/Socialist Congress, or any other centres of pol power-influence. The only thing the Dems have is JImmy Carter's tenure and even then the debate atill goes on vv how "liberal" vs "Conservative" Carter's policies were. The Dems can't claim anything from the Clinton '90's thanx to Clinton himself. As for Iran, the Mullahs want a US invasion, not just air attacks. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-20 23:37 |
| #29 Slobedon was removed from power in Yug/Serbia because he dragged his nation in to a war and they lost face. Are we so sure that an attack would shore up the Mullahs? Might do the opposite since Islam is such a shame culture they might very well take the heat for pushing a conflict everyone knew they couldn't win. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-03-20 23:31 |
| #28 OP. Very interesting perspective and info. A week or so ago somebody posted an article stating that Iran imports refined gasoline and therefore is very vulnerable to a naval blockade, which builds on your point about 2 being able to play the 'close the straits' game. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-03-20 23:31 |
| #27 I've had no input and no information on what's going on in Washington, but I do know a bit about Iran's defensive and offensive capabilities. - I watched them build their first few Silkworm launch sites and the supporting infrastructure for them. They're not "hardened" - they can't be. "Hardening" a Silkworm facility would make it difficult to fire a missle, and it would take forever to reload. They're vulnerable to cluster weapons and aerial mining operations - two areas we're experts in. - Many of their naval facilities ARE hardened, much as the German "submarine pens" were hardened. We no longer have to attack from above - we can send missiles right into the facilities. Trapping the expolsions within thick concrete walls will only make the results more deadly. - The Iranian Air Force is starved for spare parts. Even without that starvation, they wouldn't be able to "surge" more than two sorties a day. The AVERAGE USAF and Navy pilot expects to fly five or six sorties a day during hostilities. Most of their aircraft will be caught on the ground and destroyed within the first eight hours, or shot out of the sky. They'll lose over a third to simple maintenance problems. - Moving their "missiles" from one place to another every two days is a waste of time. We know all the pre-surveyed sights. We'll hit them all, probably as close to simultaneously as possible. We'll hit with high explosives and air-sowed mines. If they're at a particular point, we'll kill them. If they're not, the next time they pull into a point, we'll kill them with our mines. - They have an army of a gazillion troops, but they have few, first-rate armored vehicles, and all of them are susceptible to some of the stuff we put in the air. The best air defences the Russians could sell them can't be everywhere at once, and our ECM is second to none. - You don't have to kill everybody to change hearts and minds. Just eliminate those that are in charge, and do it with what appears from outside as "no sweat", and the rest will scurry into the deepest holes they can find. The one thing the Iranians DON'T want to do is to close, or attempt to close, the Straits of Hormuz. The Japanese will decide they have no option but to end Iran's powers in order to secure a continuing flow of oil. A resolution to allow Japanese forces to conduct offensive operations will pass with a huge majority, and they'll be on the warpath the next day. Europe will be faced with an "either/or" situation: either they get off their lazy a$$es and stand up to Iran, or they'll pay through the nose for oil from now on. In the end, I think at least half of the nations of Europe would side with the US, because they have no other choice. One other thing: two can play that "close the Straits" game. The US can not only do it, but can do it much better than Iran ever thought of trying. They need the Straits for oil exports, food and material imports. There are NO decent harbors on the southern coast of Iran, and even if they were, they're a long way across a hostile desert from anywhere else. You can supply a city by air, but you cannot supply a nation a quarter the size of the United States, with 70 million people by air. Iran's backed itself into a tough spot, and has no wiggle room left. It's going to get VERY interesting in the coming months. As for the political scene, I think you're going to see the Democrats even more marginalized than they are now after the next election. They've just done too many stupid things in too many different scenarios for most Americans to trust them with helping Granny across the street, much less to elected office. I live in a "military" town. Military people and their families are VERY upset with the Democrats in Congress. Military families have parents, friends, and extended families. The disconnect between military people and the Democrats is far greater now than it was even during the Vietnam War. I saw my first "Impeach John Kerry" bumper sticker a week ago Friday. I've seen eight others since then. Three of the cars had Massachusetts plates. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-03-20 23:19 |
| #26 I've been ready since '79. Time to blow shit up and take these assholes down a century or two. Iranian people will persevere, and hopefully not let the same assholes back in charge |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-20 23:11 |
| #25 Sherman is my hero. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-03-20 22:38 |
| #24 Shock and awe was disinformation. Invoking memories of the much more dramatic campaign of Gulf War 1 to keep Iraqi heads down while the modern guided weapons- now known in Iraq as "the bomb that never misses"- picked Saddam's defenses apart. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2006-03-20 22:26 |
| #23 For someone my age, domestic preparation involved watching Iran humiliate the US for 444 days until somebody they feared was inagurated. If we get into it with Iran, especially if they start it, Bush has the green light. I think he knows this but hopes it can end bloodlessly with internal regime change. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-03-20 22:14 |
| #22 Zenster, The short answer is the enemy gets to vote. The Iranians will respond. We can play tit for tat for a while but the question is how we reach an end state. It may require Shermanization once we start down that path. That would result in domestic problems for Bush given the domestic preparation to date. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-20 22:05 |
| #21 Being a mere civilian I found it interesting that they call it 'effects based' operations. I am curious what a non-effects-based campaign would look like. The opposite is the more traditional military planning process that focuses on broad measures: attrit the enemy, seize/control territory. This is a top-down planning process. Effects based planning starts from specific outcomes desired and works back to means - which might be changed over time based on partial results. It started with the Air Force, which began looking at the specific effects desired from a bombing raid, working back to choose the munitions and delivery method to suit each target. It's expanded now to a broad range of operations. One thing EBO does is to account for political and economic as well as obviously military objectives. In the traditional model, if there was a main bridge the enemy might use, you would probably take it out to deny him that means of transit. In EBO you still might, but you'd pay a lot more attention to any commanders' intents re: keeping the civilian economy alive if that bridge were a key transit point for crops or exports, for instance. EBO at least in theory gives a lot more flexibility down the command chain. Mid and lower-level echelon commanders are given objectives and left to their best judgement, to a fair degree, in how to attain them. Like a lot of things, it sounds simpler than it is in practice. Effects based assessment requires careful consideration of the evaluation measures you will use to measure progress towards each objective. Get those wrong and it's quite likely they will incent unhelpful decisions over time. And since multi-dimensional objectives may well be in tension with one another, senior commanders must be able and willing to establish their relative priorities among them. Caveat: I am not military or a military planner. I've had some role re: effects based assessment in the last few years, hence the above. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-20 21:31 |
| #20 Let's be rational, as the author of this piece was. BTW, he's no desk-bound analyst, so I'd be very very slow to dismiss him. A few observations: We have been watching, probably tasking more than one satellite at all times, since the info about their program surfaced. Our people, those who analyze the take, are very very good, as are our optics. The best. Building a nuclear weapon production capability requires construction of facilities. Alot of facilities. Large facilities. It cannot be completely hidden from the satellites and our people, those who analyze the take, are very very good, as are our optics. These facilities require power, water, transportation of employees, delivery of matériel, etc. Alot of all of them. Again, these things are visible. Everyone here is aware that we're talking about multiple facilities dispersed to make it harder to knock it out. Well that creates a new vulnerability: intermediate product must be moved from stage to stage, facility to facility. Visible. You don't have to take out everything, you only have to sever the production stream. If you know most of the locations where the work is occurring, you can do that with solid redundancy. If you only know the locations of two or three choke points in the process, you can shut it down. Think strategically. Your intel doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough. I'm banking that it is. I know for a fact that every Pentagon type who's been asked to put his career on the line for a best estimate is playing it clean. Don't know about the CIA, but why should it be any different there? Careers SHOULD be held at risk in weighty matters of National Security and nuclear threats. I hope they know it's successful plans and estimates balanced against their asses. Deep facilities don't have to be blown up, just in. Entomb them. They have ventilation. They have entrances. They have resources running to them that are required to maintain livable conditions. There are signs and vulnerabilities to underground facilities, too. Gravity is our friend. Four or five consecutive bunker busters with GPS precision with a time on target spread can undo anything the Iranian engineers can devise, whether it's to cause collapse or to simply seal them up. Regardless, knocking the crap out of a facility, whether it's a total loss or not, terminate its function. I'm very inclined to listen to a guy who's an insider, who knows his craft, and isn't some desk jockey "expert", but the real deal. |
| Posted by: Spugum Sherens5365 2006-03-20 21:27 |
| #19 LTD - once the MM's are emasculated, they will be desposed. They rule the country like a criminal gang, not a religion. Basij are foreigners brought in to do their thugwork. Does that sound like a religion. We need to de-claw them and their troops in their barracks/positions, let nature take its' course |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-20 21:24 |
| #18 To me, the best explanation of 'shock and awe' or 'effects based' bombin campaigns is that we bombed the houses of baathist officials (i.e. we had GPS coords on their street address) not just the normal government sites. Not sure if this is an accurate descriptor, but it got it home for me. It is not about making a big show on CNN but for destroying the enemies command and control in ways he did not forsee. Being a mere civilian I found it interesting that they call it 'effects based' operations. I am curious what a non-effects-based campaign would look like. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-03-20 21:19 |
| #17 I have read reports that Iran shifts its mobile missile positions every 2 days. Ya know what the call missiles that move every 2 days? "Soft targets". |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-20 21:09 |
| #16 Shock and awe was far less because of concerns of collateral damage and inability to employ all the weapons available in the arsenal. "Shock and awe" had much less to do with the volume of bombing as the targets; the description intentionally focuses on mental state, the purpose is to induce "shock and awe" by taking apart the target's communication. That happened in Iraq; the problem is, the results happened where the press was least able and willing to look -- inside the Saddam regime. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-20 21:08 |
| #15 I have read reports that Iran shifts its mobile missile positions every 2 days. Some of these could be launched on either a sporadic or mass basis against Carrier groups, if a command structure exists to so order. The best bet for the US is to force regime change in Iran, rather than accepting another 5, 10, or 20 year circus. Given the success of nuclear-blackmail in removing Soviet occupation troops from Iran, post WW2, exercise of that option is essential. The logic-chopping sandbags - we just don't do that; that would offend our values; blah, blah, blah - of a solution that would ultimately end up with Iranians hanging their Ayatollahs from lampposts, border on infantilism. Either support nuclear-blackmail as a moral means for de-proliferation in Iran, or force on future generations a preventable nuclear-jihad capability, usable by a tyranny whose leaders orchestrate "death to America" shrieks, at every opportunity. |
| Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-03-20 20:58 |
| #14 Care to share why not, NS? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-20 20:40 |
| #13 Iran ... not so dangerous. You go first ... |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2006-03-20 20:40 |
| #12 It won't be that simple. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-20 20:37 |
| #11 "I know the Iranians. I've worked against the Iranians for years. They are determined to get this no matter what, and they will lie and cheat and do whatever they have to do to get themselves a weapon," he said. 'Bout time someone said this loud and clear. You hearing this Pentagon? If Saddam couldn't be toppled by his internal opposition in a country that was 80% against him on account of religious or ethnic differences, the regime in Iran surely can't be toppled by its opposition. Bingo, ZF. At least we don't hear many voices talking about an occupation or some such nonsense anymore. Get overhead, break lots of nasty things in a big, bad way and get the he|| back out. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-20 20:34 |
| #10 18 hours tops -- bets? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-20 20:28 |
| #9 Great, how 'bout tomorrow and the day after. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-03-20 20:24 |
| #8 DD: Also, the whole idea of an air war against Iran doesn't take into account the fact that doing so will almost certainly shore up the regime. That's kind of silly. If Saddam couldn't be toppled by his internal opposition in a country that was 80% against him on account of religious or ethnic differences, the regime in Iran surely can't be toppled by its opposition. The regime doesn't need shoring up - it is not in danger of falling. The Shah fell because he wasn't willing to exterminate his opposition. The mullahs don't have that problem. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-03-20 20:15 |
| #7 Berntsen's book has an interesting account of what really happened at Tora Bora, up close and personal. |
| Posted by: HV 2006-03-20 20:11 |
| #6 All of this assumes our intelligence is accurate, something I don't think is safe given what happened in Iraq. Also, the whole idea of an air war against Iran doesn't take into account the fact that doing so will almost certainly shore up the regime. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2006-03-20 20:10 |
| #5 I'm a believer- it could be better written as: "2 days work = 10 years' delay. Is it worth it?" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-20 20:10 |
| #4 While it sound all good and nice, I doubt it. It assumes that the strike force wouldn't have its hands tied by political considerations. Shock and awe was far less because of concerns of collateral damage and inability to employ all the weapons available in the arsenal. Now if we had really unleashed a real shock and awe, I doubt the Iranians would be playing games at this moment. |
| Posted by: Whiting Fliger4401 2006-03-20 20:07 |
| #3 This theme doesn't actually surprise me. Our air force is built to take out strategic targets deep inside Russia - a country ten times the size of Iran and with air defenses far superior to Iran's. If we can't something similar to Iran, we need to scrap the current Air Force and rebuild from scratch. People who cast doubt on the Air Force's abilities vis-a-vis Iran don't understand its capabilities. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-03-20 19:45 |
| #2 Two days and it's toast. 'Bout what I figured... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-03-20 19:44 |
| #1 The voice of experience and reason. |
| Posted by: Spugum Sherens5365 2006-03-20 19:40 |