[Mb-civic] U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran
Any Mix of Tact, Threats Alarms Critics

By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 9, 2006; A01

The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against 
Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure 
Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to 
U.S. officials and independent analysts.

No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside 
and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an 
armed response would be effective. But administration officials are 
preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince 
them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.

According to current and former officials, Pentagon and CIA planners 
have been exploring possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment 
plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although 
a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing 
alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear 
sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array 
of military and political targets.

Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has 
vaulted to the front of President Bush's agenda even as he struggles 
with a relentless war in next-door Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a serious 
menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends, aides said, 
and the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month 
labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by 
any country.

Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling 
with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its 
nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion 
against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and 
especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for 
retaliation.

"My sense is that any talk of a strike is the diplomatic gambit to keep 
pressure on others that if they don't help solve the problem, we will 
have to," said Kori Schake, who worked on Bush's National Security 
Council staff and teaches at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Others believe it is more than bluster. "The Bush team is looking at the 
viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the 
only real option ahead," said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy 
official.

The intensified discussion of military scenarios comes as the United 
States is working with European allies on a diplomatic solution. After 
tough negotiations, the U.N. Security Council issued a statement last 
month urging Iran to re-suspend its uranium enrichment program. But 
Russia and China, both veto-wielding council members, forced out any 
mention of consequences and are strongly resisting any sanctions.

U.S. officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course but privately 
seem increasingly skeptical that it will succeed. The administration is 
also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team 
that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks 
and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

Bush and his team have calibrated their rhetoric to give the impression 
that the United States may yet resort to force. In January, the 
president termed a nuclear-armed Iran "a grave threat to the security of 
the world," words that echoed language he used before the 2003 invasion 
of Iraq. Vice President Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran 
does not give up any nuclear aspirations, and U.N. Ambassador John R. 
Bolton refined the formula to "tangible and painful consequences."

Although Bush insists he is focused on diplomacy for now, he volunteered 
at a public forum in Cleveland last month his readiness to use force if 
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tries to follow through on his 
statement that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy 
our strong ally, Israel," Bush said. "That's a threat, a serious threat. 
. . . I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to 
protect our ally Israel."

Bush has also been privately consulting with key senators about options 
on Iran as part of a broader goal of regime change, according to an 
account by Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.

The U.S. government has taken some preliminary steps that go beyond 
planning. The Washington Post has reported that the military has been 
secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004 using radar, 
video, still photography and air filters to detect traces of nuclear 
activity not accessible to satellites. Hersh reported that U.S. combat 
troops have been ordered to enter Iran covertly to collect targeting 
data, but sources have not confirmed that to The Post.

The British government has launched its own planning for a potential 
U.S. strike, studying security arrangements for its embassy and consular 
offices, for British citizens and corporate interests in Iran and for 
ships in the region and British troops in Iraq. British officials 
indicate their government is unlikely to participate directly in any 
attacks.

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a 
contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, 
a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even 
explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear 
plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has 
built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. 
strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the 
mission without nuclear weapons.

Iran appears to be taking the threat seriously. The government, which 
maintains its nuclear activity is only for peaceful, civilian uses, has 
launched a program to reinforce key sites, such as Natanz and Isfahan, 
by building concrete ceilings, tunneling into mountains and camouflaging 
facilities. Iran lately has tested several missiles in a show of strength.

Israel points to those missiles to press their case in Washington. 
Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about 
Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a 
decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical 
breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that 
Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, 
indicating that it is further along than previously believed.

"What the Israelis are saying is this year -- unless they are pressured 
into abandoning the program -- would be the year they will master the 
engineering problem," a U.S. official said. "That would be a turning 
point, but it wouldn't mean they would have a bomb."

But various specialists and some military officials are resisting strikes.

"The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so 
constrained" in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former 
CIA Middle East specialist. A former defense official who stays in touch 
with colleagues added, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the 
military option at this point."

As the administration weighs these issues, two main options are under 
consideration, according to one person with contacts among Air Force 
planners. The first would be a quick and limited strike against 
nuclear-related facilities accompanied by a threat to resume bombing if 
Iran responds with terrorist attacks in Iraq or elsewhere. The second 
calls for a more ambitious campaign of bombing and cruise missiles 
leveling targets well beyond nuclear facilities, such as Iranian 
intelligence headquarters, the Revolutionary Guard and some in the 
government.

Any extended attack would require U.S. forces to cripple Iran's air 
defense system and air force, prepare defenses for U.S. ground forces in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and move Navy ships to the Persian Gulf to protect 
shipping. U.S. forces could launch warplanes from aircraft carriers, 
from the Diego Garcia island base in the Indian Ocean and, in the case 
of stealth bombers, from the United States. But if generals want 
land-based aircraft in the region, they face the uphill task of trying 
to persuade Turkey to allow use of the U.S. air base at Incirlik.

Planners also are debating whether launching attacks from Iraq or using 
Iraqi airspace would exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world, 
which would see it as proof that the United States invaded Iraq to make 
it a base for military conquest of the region.

Unlike the Israeli air attack on Osirak, a strike on Iran would prove 
more complex because Iran has spread its facilities across the country, 
guarded some of them with sophisticated antiaircraft batteries and 
shielded them underground.

Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets 
and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices. The Natanz facility 
consists of more than two dozen buildings, including two huge 
underground halls built with six-foot walls and supposedly protected by 
two concrete roofs with sand and rocks in between, according to Edward 
N. Luttwak, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies.

"The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require 
nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels," said Kenneth M. 
Pollack, a former CIA analyst. "Could we do it with conventional 
munitions? Possibly. But it's going to be very difficult to do."

Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war 
games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an 
Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some 
below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.

At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that 
would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at 
nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating 
weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production 
plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with 
sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.

Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he 
believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The 
Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military 
option," he said.

Others forecast a more surgical strike aimed at knocking out a single 
"choke point" that would disrupt the Iranian nuclear program. "The 
process can be broken at any point," a senior administration official 
said. "But part of the risk is: We don't know if Natanz is the only 
enrichment facility. We could bomb it, take the political cost and still 
not set them back."

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said 
a more likely target might be Isfahan, which he visited last year and 
which appeared lightly defended and above-ground. But he argued that any 
attack would only firm up Iranian resolve to develop weapons. "Whatever 
you do," he said, "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb 
program rather than destroy it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082.html?referrer=email
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060409/c63fb386/attachment-0001.htm