What War with Iran Means

If Iran has secret plants working on nuclear weapons, why have we not been told where, and demanded that U.N. inspectors be let in? Why did 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, three years ago, tell us they did not exist and Iran gave up its drive for a nuclear weapon in 2003?

“Diplomacy has
failed,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told AIPAC, “Iran is on the verge
of becoming nuclear and we cannot afford that.”


 


“We have to contemplate the final option,” said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.,
“the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”


 


War is a “terrible thing,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but
“sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to
develop a second time.”


 


Graham then describes the war we Americans should fight: “If military
force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The
Iran government’s ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors
and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one
plane that can fly or one ship that can float.”


 


Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Neocon Central,
writes, “The only questions remaining, one Washington politico tells me,
are who starts it, and how it ends.”


 


As to who starts it, we know the answer. Teheran has not started a war
in memory and is not going to launch a suicide attack on a superpower
with thousands of nuclear weapons. As with Iraq in 2003, the war will be
launched by the United States against a nation that did not attack
us—to strip it of weapons it does not have.


 


But to Graham’s point, if we are going to start this war, prudence
dictates that we destroy Iran’s ability to fight back. At a minimum, we
would have to use airstrikes and cruise missiles to hit a range of
targets.


 


First, Iran’s nuclear facilities such as the uranium enrichment plant at
Natanz, the U.S.-built reactor that makes medical isotopes, the power
plant at Bushehr, the centrifuge facility near Qom and the heavy water
plant at Arak.


 


Our problem here is that the last three are not even operational and all
are subject to U.N. inspections. There are Russians at Bushehr. And
there is no evidence that diversion to a weapons program has taken
place.


 


If Iran has secret plants working on nuclear weapons, why have we not
been told where, and demanded that U.N. inspectors be let in? Why did 16
U.S. intelligence agencies, three years ago, tell us they did not exist
and Iran gave up its drive for a nuclear weapon in 2003?


 


If Iran is on the “verge” of a bomb, as Schumer claims, the entire U.S.
intelligence community should be decapitated for incompetence.


 


This week, in a hyped headline, “CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes,”
the Washington Times said that a new CIA report claims, “Iran continues
to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing
nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.”


 


Excuse me, but this is mush. We could say the same of a dozen countries
that use nuclear power and study nuclear technology.


 


But let us continue with Graham’s blitzkrieg war.


 


To prevent a counterattack, the United States would have to take out
Iran’s 14 airfields and all its warplanes on the ground. We would also
have to sink every warship and submarine in Iran’s navy and destroy some
200 missile, patrol and speedboats operated by the Revolutionary Guard,
else they would be dropping mines and mauling our warships.


 


Also, it would be crucial on day one to hit Iran’s launch sites and
missile plants for, like Saddam in 1991, Iran would probably attack
Israel, to make it an American and Israeli war on an Islamic republic.


 


Among other critical targets would be the Silkworm anti-ship missile
sites on Iran’s coastline that would menace U.S. warships and oil
tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Any Iranian attack on ships or
seeding of mines would likely close the gulf and send world oil prices
soaring.


 


Revolutionary Guard barracks, especially the Quds Force near Iraq, would
have to be hit to slow troop movement to and across the border into
Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers and civilians. The same might be necessary
against Iranian troops near Afghanistan.


 


With Iran’s ally Hezbollah in south Beirut, all U.S. civilians should
probably be pulled out of Lebanon before an attack lest they wind up
dead or hostages. And how safe would Americans be in the gulf,
especially Bahrain, home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a predominantly Shia
island? And whose side would Shia Iraq take?


 


Would we have to intern all Iranian nationals in the United States, as
we did Germans and Italians in 1941? How many terror attacks on soft
targets in the USA could we expect from Iranian and Hezbollah agents in
reprisal for our killing thousands of civilians in hundreds of strikes
on Iran?


 


Before the War Party stampedes us into yet another war, the Senate
should find out if Teheran is really on the “verge” of getting a bomb,
and why deterrence, which never failed us, cannot succeed with Iran.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>