The 'no-military option' fallacy

[Torog]

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).

Torog Reviewed by Torog on 11-29-2006. 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. Rating: 5

[Bong30]

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)

[andruejaysin]

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

[Bong30]

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^^^^^

[andruejaysin]

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.

[Bong30]

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?

[andruejaysin]

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

Not our fucking problem, now is it?

[Bong30]

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.

[Breukelen advocaat]

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.

[Bong30]

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.