The 'no-military option' fallacy

The 'no-military option' fallacy

Jerusalem Post ^ | 11-28-06 | JONATHAN ARIEL



A chorus is telling the free world that an Iranian A-bomb is something we will have to accept. This is simply not true.

Over the past two or three years, as the full scope of Iran's overt and covert nuclear weapons programs has been disclosed, the possibility of preventive military action by either the US, Israel, or both, periodically comes up.

Every time it does, a chorus of naysayers emerges. They tell us that Iran is not Iraq, and that military option to preempt or at least significantly delay Iran's nuclear timetable does not exist, or is too expensive to be viable.

It is true that, unlike Saddam Hussein, the ayatollahs of Teheran have dispersed their nuclear facilities in heavily fortified underground facilities across their nation. This makes the kind of air strike Israel employed in 1981 to take out Saddam's nuclear reactor impractical.

THIS DOES not mean, however, that a military option does not exist. Several possible military viable military options do exist. The problem is not a lack of means or capabilities, but a lack of will and fortitude.

â?¢ One option is a sustained assault lasting several days. Iran's air force has been third-rate ever since Khomeini came to power, when it was purged due to the fact that all its pilots had been Western-trained and were considered pro-royalist by the Islamic regime.

Even though Iran has upgraded its air defense systems they are not capable of dealing with state-of-the art Western avionics and would soon collapse under a sustained air assault. Bottom line: A surgical missile strike against Iran's few advanced air defense facilities would dismantle them, neutralizing the country's entire air defense system.

Attacking air forces equipped with the most advanced technological capabilities would enjoy total air superiority, enabling the launching of a sustained prolonged strategic bombing attack.

Such an assault, in addition to causing significant damage to at least some of the facilities, could also jump-start regime change. The sight of US and perhaps also Israeli aircraft flying unopposed over Iran would be highly demoralizing for the regime. Dictatorships, which survive solely on the perception of power and fear, have difficulty surviving such humiliations.

Air strikes could also be used to carry out Israeli-style targeted eliminations, disrupting and destroying the battalions of the Bajilis and other similar groups of pro-government goon squad militias who crushed the student protests a few years ago.

Another military option would be the targeting of the country's clerical, political and military leadership. The only factor preventing such an attack is the current American doctrine, which prohibits the targeting of an enemy state's political leaders. All that is needed is the political will and wisdom to change the doctrine. Iran's leaders may aid, abet and provide comfort to terrorists, but they do not live and work underground. An air assault could eliminate most of the political leadership, neutralizing the revolutionary guard's (Pasderan) field officer corps and rank and file, creating a catalyst for anti-government forces to coalesce and hit the streets in force, bringing the government down.

Members of the leadership surviving the initial surprise strikes would be forced to go underground. Leadership has to be visible to be effective, especially dictatorial coercive leadership, which rules by fear. The very fact that the leadership would be known to be cowering underground, cut off and unable to muster or implement any kind of effective command and control would be sufficiently demoralizing for pro-regime forces, encouraging and empowering the legions of disaffected youth to hit the streets and effect regime change.

The biggest obstacle to a military option is not a shortage of capabilities or weapons systems, but a surfeit of conventional and outmoded thinking. This is the same kind of thinking that appeased Hitler from 1936 to 1939.

IRAN HAS been waging an undeclared war against Israel, world Jewry and the US for over 30 years. It has constantly and systematically attacked Israel, world Jewry and the US by proxy, arming, training and financing terrorist operations. In Argentina it went a step further, bribing the then head of state, former president Carlos Menem, to enable and cover up a massive terrorist assault against that country's Jewish community. It is financing Syria's attempt to assassinate the Lebanese leadership out of existence or into submission.

One thing Iran's leadership has shown is an ability to think out of the box and take risks. It's time we did the same. No country can afford to stand by and do nothing when another one wages an undeclared, yet very real and palpable war against it.

Not only are there several viable military options regarding Iran, ultimately they are the only options available, unless we want to see Iran achieve superpower status.

The writer is the former Editor-in-Chief of Maariv International. In addition he was an adviser to a foreign government, and has military experience (retired Lt.-Colonel).

Shit if hitler had the A bomb he wouldnt have needed gas chambers....

why didnt i think of that sooner


Hitler said he was going to kill the jews.....NO bomb

amad a blah blah jab said he wants to kill the jews.....wants, and making bomb.... huummm????????????????

he said he needs it for energy but he country is floating on energy.(oil for you libs)

You guys have learned nothing from the debacle in Iraq? Why doesn't that suprize me?

Debate a point or, jUst hate Bush?

We are in the fight of my kids life time, with Islamofascism.

why cant you pull your head out of your ass to see it?

Al quida is useing the Media...I see it works on your pea sized brain.



I dont think its a debacle......listen Idiot

If you didnt want freedom of religon.....( it is death penalty to switch from islam).....

wouldnt you send fighters to stop it......Iran is sending fighters into Iraq cause it is the last thing they want is freedom of religon.....

^^^^debate that smart guy^^^^^

Al quaida loves you bong, it's fools like you who help them drag the world into the religious war they want. Yes, I hate bush, but he's a little smarter than you. Haven't heard much from him lately about wanting a war with iran, have you? He was stupid enough to start an unnessecary war, and lose it. You would have us start two, and lose them both. You are the most dangerous type of fool, one who would put us all at risk rather than face your own paranoia and prejudice. Why does iran want the bomb? Perhaps because they face possible attack from nucleur armed enemies? They won't nuke isreal, because they would nuke them back. Or else they will, which would be really sad, there would be nothing else on TV for weeks. Iran is sending fighters into iraq to take part in a civil war to decide which faction controls iraq. Whoever wins, we lose. The good knews is that as long as our enemies fight each other, we win. Time to get the fuck out and let them fight each other. Why would I debate religious freedom in iraq with you? What the fuck do I care? There will be no religious freedom in iraq anyway, it's not even an option. This is about whether shia fanatics allied with iran or sunni fanatics allied with al quaida will control iraq. Which would you prefer, bong? Me, I think we should have minded our own fucking business. To late for that in iraq, but we still have an opportunity to mind our own fucking business in iran.

The problem is......Iran wont mind there bussiness in Isreal.


The president of Iran wants to bring the 12th Imam out of the well......


You dont hear talk...cause it is going to happen. Not if, but when?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

The problem is......Iran wont mind there bussiness in Isreal.

---

Not our fucking problem, now is it?

I will fight till the death for the Jews....

it is my problem.....


when they Nuke 6 million Jews thats our problem......



when you get in the way, you will be the problem..... you will be mowed down all the same....enemy within.

The Israelis should move out of there. Israel has less people than New York City, and there is not one valid reason why they belong in a desert surrounded by enemies. This "Holy Land" nonsense is the excuse - and the Xian bible thumpers think that it is a priority because their mythical savior god was born there.

It's time for Israel to find a new home - and I'd be the first one to contribute to a fund for relocation.

If they won't move, then we shouldn't continue to give them money for their military. We've given them 100 billion, and it's time to stop.

I would love to see them move.....(then sheets of glass as far as the eye can see).....

but why?

dont you think they will just find another reason to hate them?


If NYC was the new Holy land.. could you imagine...seriously.


you think 9-11 was bad...please.

Yeah, if god gave them that land they really should find a good attorney and see if it's to late to say "thanks, but no thanks" But where could a jew find a lawyer?

And bong, there is a recruitment center nearby, just waiting for ya. Or maybe you'd rather hide behind your moniter while better men die in your place.

Is it really practical for a whole entire culture to get up and move? Especially after they've fought so hard to keep what they have. As good as it sounds I don't think I can ever visualize that happening. On the other hand how hard is it to stay out of over-sea affairs? How negatively would it affect America if we pulled out Iraq, or maybe never even went at all, and never even considered going into Iran?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VoidLivesOn

Is it really practical for a whole entire culture to get up and move? Especially after they've fought so hard to keep what they have. As good as it sounds I don't think I can ever visualize that happening. On the other hand how hard is it to stay out of over-sea affairs? How negatively would it affect America if we pulled out Iraq, or maybe never even went at all, and never even considered going into Iran?

---

Yes, I would say that we made a mistake going into Iraq, and staying there would be futile. We should have knocked over Iran when the Ayatollah's regime allowed the hostage crisis.

The column below expresses the authors' findings about American aid to Israel - four years ago. I'm sure that it's even more now.


Christian Science Monitor
Work & Money
from the December 09, 2002 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US
By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby


For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.

In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.

That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.

Other US help includes:

â?¢ US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

â?¢ The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

â?¢ The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

â?¢ Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

â?¢ Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

â?¢ US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

â?¢ Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they criticize America's policies toward Israel.

See also: Editor's note regarding objectivity in this column.