|
Study: US preparing 'massive'
military attack against Iran
Raw
Story
Tuesday Aug 28, 2007
The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to
launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment
facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure,
using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.
The paper, "Considering
a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East"
– written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr.
Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre
for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental
and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin
Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information
Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee
of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW
STORY late Friday under embargo.
"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort
of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many
well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch
in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.
(Article continues below)
Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve
if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude
that based on open source analysis and their own assessments,
the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against
Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground
invasion.
The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to
destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state
apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of
President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising
the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation
more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using
its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
- Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale
but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities
would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President
Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave
the regime intact.
- US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy
10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.
- US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq,
and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and
the state at short notice.
- Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action
as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the
Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan,
Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage
of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
- Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by
the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental
effects would be devastating, while their military value is
limited.
- Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons
yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s
WMD programmes.
- The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government
and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet,
were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote
in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire
the bomb.
- The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations
to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The
US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces
as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian
WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about
what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly
has missiles and probably some chemical capability."
Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional
wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear
sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed
to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce
Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they
acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter
the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack,
they also emphasize that the administration's National Security
Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as
a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:
This wider form of air attack would be the most likely
to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long
period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation
goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of
employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian
government, since it would severely degrade the capability of
the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units
and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist
movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective
of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years
to come.
However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of
increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The
US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel
(and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for
success would be enormous.
Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons,
with some exceptions.
"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless
there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about
to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However,
the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it
MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started
it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine
to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all
other means failed."
Military Strategy
The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of
specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing
attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities,
and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment
of nuclear weapons.
In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as
Global Strike – the capability to project military power from
the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced
by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December
2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers
and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.
Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability,
almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated
communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed
by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have
to fight without protection from air attack.
British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that
"the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March
2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged
down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional
operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04,
for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan
1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits
of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the
US economy."
The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq.
Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with
its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct
a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft,
tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise
missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack
oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They
have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of
1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating
an advert for combat training software.
Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating
within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy
missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units
in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks
on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the
Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines
within Iraq:
A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra
province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its
sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt
oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However
it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against
Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central
Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional
force.
Experts question the report's conclusions
Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security,
Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in
the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson,
does not agree with the report’s findings.
"The report seems to accept without question that US air force
and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem
to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed
to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport
capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on
the study had been lifted.
"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that
Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are
vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the
Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing
what those risks are."
There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the
supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that
US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower
is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional
war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."
"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will
rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani
may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can
be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."
John Pike, Director of Global
Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and
security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the
one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.
"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed
that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather
than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote
Pike in an email.
Political Considerations
Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context
within the United States:
This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential
election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity
of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which
Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show
their strong national security bona fides. ...
The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political
context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle
East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced
from reality, but with the US ability to project military power
across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters
perhaps above all else. ...
We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability
to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge
from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised
if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question,
but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be
avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.
Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of
the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing
what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point
out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities
of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply
refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge
for the Iraq deceit."
And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful'
and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces
Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks
to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East
are grave indeed."
Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative
news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and
national security stories. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com
Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
