US Military Strike set on Iran?
W. Joseph Stroupe
07 Apr 2008
While developments such as any US military strike on Iran are difficult to predict with certainty, an array of factors the Editor considers to be potentially important have recently emerged such that the he felt a responsibility to issue this alert in good faith, intended to heighten awareness of the significantly increased possibility, even likelihood, that the US will soon act on Iran. The factors that obliged the Editor to issue this alert are listed below. The reader should be aware of these, evaluate their importance for his/her self, and watch unfolding developments closely as the week of April 6, 2008 approaches.
· Top Bush administration officials have recently, and repeatedly, spun last year's Intelligence Assessment on Iran, which leaned toward the view that Iran had stopped its drive to acquire nuclear weapons, as signifying that Iran does indeed have a nuclear weapons program, that it has in all likelihood restarted that program, and that it will likely have a weapon by 2010 if not stopped now.
· Diplomacy, as nearly everyone can see, is mostly ineffective in stopping Iran in its nuclear aims and activities. Despite enormous diplomatic pressure, and its acquiring Russian fuel for its reactor at Bushehr, Iran continues its drive to enrich its own uranium, for but one example.
· Top Bush administration officials have recently resumed beating the war drums loudly with respect to Iran, regarding its nuclear activities, the ongoing and accelerating spread of its destabilizing tentacles across the Persian Gulf region, its activities in Iraq in instigating violence, calling Iran the most serious threat to stability and world peace.
· Dick Cheney has recently completed a ten-day tour of the Persian Gulf region, including also Turkey, where he met with leaders to discuss Iran, which was at the top of his agenda in every stop he made. His visit included every state that hosts large US military bases in the region, bases that would be key in any US military action against Iran.
· In Saudi Arabia, Mr. Cheney won the Saudi king's support for actions to ease oil prices - something the Saudis had steadfastly refused to do until now. Any US strike on Iran will produce an oil price shock. However, such a shock can be cushioned by increased supply by Saudi Arabia, it is hoped. Mr. Cheney won the cooperation of the Saudis with respect to an increase in the global supply cushion.
· Key European powers, most notably Germany and France, have recently come down firmly in support of Israel's security in the face of the mounting Iranian threat, which threat has been stated by German and French leaders to be grave and totally unacceptable. Though the German leader (Ms. Merkel) stopped short of endorsing military action against Iran, she vowed total support for Israel's security. One must realize that public statements that fail to explicitly support military action do not oblige Germany to withhold clandestine, real support for the military option. The French President is firmly on board with the US in a possible military option against Iran.
· The sudden resignation of US CENTCOM commander Adm. Fallon, a vocal critic of the militarist policies of the Bush administration, strongly suggests that the US is now poised to exercise the military option. Exactly one year ago, when the US had placed four aircraft carrier battle groups in and around the Persian Gulf, Adm. Fallon vowed he would resign before he would carry out the command to order US forces into action against Iran. In effect, he thereby vetoed the US strike that was imminent last April. In the year that has followed until now, the US pursued diplomatic options in a futile effort to stem Iran's rise. Adm. Fallon's sudden departure raises truly ominous signs that the US administration, along with key NATO allies, has decided it must resort to the military option. Adm. Fallon, as promised, resigned before he would have any part in such a foolhardy venture. Whether he was forced out or resigned willingly is of little consequence here. He leaves his post on March 31, 2008. After that date the way is clear for a US strike.
· Mr. Bush has only about 10 months left in office. If he is to deal with the swarming Iranian threat, he must do so now. He cannot risk leaving the problem to a democrat successor and thereby go down in history as a totally failed leader. In his mind, that is not an option. The window of opportunity for him to save/establish his legacy is rapidly closing.
· Starting on Sunday April 6, 2008 the Israelis will conduct the largest-ever nationwide, week-long defensive war drill simulating ballistic missile strikes on Israel from Iran and Syria. The dimensions of this upcoming drill are unprecedented. This drill may well be a cover, allowing Israel to prepare for an imminent US strike on Iran and Syria, but without depriving the US of its element of surprise.
· The US has recently positioned an array of Aegis destroyers, which excel in ballistic missile defense, close to its Persian Gulf allies and Israel, ready to intercept Iranian and Syrian missiles. The recent installation of such a buffer against retaliatory Iran-Syria missile strikes portends that something is in the offing with regard to US military actions against both Iran and Syria.
· The US has the ability, absent any significant number of aircraft carrier battle groups in the vicinity, to quickly turn Iran's nuclear and military sites and assets into a junkyard virtually overnight. From its bases in the vicinity (Iraq, Oman, Turkey, Israel), from its base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and from European and US bases, as well as from its submarine fleet, the US can employ B1, B2 and B-52 bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and shorter range attack aircraft to mount a massive air strike on Iran and Syria without any warning whatsoever.
· However, the US cannot hope to suppress all of Iran's and Syria's ballistic missile and asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities. Hence, some missiles and other forms of retaliation will likely reach their targets - US bases in Iraq, Oman, Qatar, etc; oil installations along the Gulf; Israeli cities and installations; shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The US is playing with catastrophe in opting for a military "solution" on Iran.
· It must be noted here that the US, if it does strike Iran and Syria, will almost assuredly use nuclear-tipped bunker busters to ensure the destruction of key targets buried deep underground, including nuclear assets, command and control, and the hiding places of the members of the Iranian and Syrian regimes. The US will enjoy plausible deniability as respects any use of nuclear weapons, since it can proclaim that any radiation that is released came from Iran's nuclear reactor (already fueled by Russia) and from secret underground nuclear sites in the target areas.
Updates, if any, to this alert will appear below as the week of April 6, 2008 approaches.
3/29/2008 @ 4:00pm MDT:
Why the sudden, major Iraqi/US push against the Sadr militia in Basra, especially after Al Sadr recently extended his commitment to refrain from engaging in military activities? Though the Maliki government and the Al Sadr militia are both Shiite, Iran and Al Sadr are much more intimately tied together than are Iran and the Maliki government. Iraq's government, and the US, see the Iran-backed Al Sadr movement as a pointed and grave threat to the current Iraqi government, cutting ever more deeply into its control over precious oil resources in the south. However, even if the Maliki government achieves complete control of Basra and the south, with US help, there still remains a serious risk that Iraq's government will still fall in closely with Iran, thus casting US strategic interests aside.
Nevertheless, from the US standpoint, the Basra campaign is important now because it seeks to roll back Iranian influence within Iraq - something the surge has at least temporarily accomplished farther north. This is important, since, if the US strikes Iran anytime soon, it will first have blunted Iran's ability to tip Iraq into chaos in retaliation. At least that is the hope of US leaders. Hence, the timing of the current anti-Sadr campaign is perhaps not by chance, but rather by design, intended to help buffer Iraq from the consequences of an impending US strike on Iran.
3/30/2008 @ 4:00pm MDT:
Significantly, CIA chief Michael Hayden today played down the importance of the US intelligence community assessment that concluded Iran halted its nuclear weapons drive in 2003. General Hayden, while "stand[ing] by the [official] judgment" on Iran's nuclear weapons program, asserted that Iran has a great deal to hide on the issue because it has withstood great diplomatic and financial pressures and penalties for refusing to come clean on all the issues put before it by the UN nuclear watchdog and by the world community. Why would it continue to place itself in line to suffer such penalties if it had nothing to hide? General Hayden emphasized the fact that Iran continues to develop the delivery systems for nuclear weapons and stated that his own view is that Iran is continuing its pursuit of the bomb without letup.
The US intelligence assessment that appeared to let Iran off the hook with respect to US military action continues to be systematically undermined by top Bush administration officials, who in concert are attacking (1) the popular interpretation of that assessment (that Iran is much less a danger than thought) and (2) a key part of the assessment itself - that Iran stopped its drive for nuclear weapons in 2003. Serious doubts are thus being raised with respect to the idea that Iran ever stopped its drive for nuclear weapons, and strong emphasis is being placed on the fact that it has a nuclear weapons program, despite all its denials in that regard. A renewed basis for military action is being established, therefore.
3/30/2008 @ 7:00pm MDT:
A top Saudi newspaper, Okaz, has reported on the heels of the recent visit by Dick Cheney that the Saudi government is in secret preparations to deal with the sudden nuclear fallout from an impending US missile strike on Iran's reactor and other assets. The German news agency DPA also ran the report. Other multiple reports, including one from Egyptian news sources, indicate the US has ordered nuclear submarines and other warships to the Persian Gulf.
4/1/2008 @ 8:00am MDT:
Israel is hosting a NATO naval task force of six frigates which arrived on Monday and conducted joint missile defense drills with Israel. The NATO task force is commanded by a Turkish admiral. Israel is suddenly and significantly beefing up its ties with NATO specifically in an effort to meet the mounting Iranian threat. It is not known how long the NATO task force will be in place off Israel's coast.
This development adds to the array of developments that ever more strongly suggest that something in the way of US military action against Iran is in the offing.
4/2/2008 @ 8:00am MDT:
Syria is mobilizing it forces in the face of what it believes will be an imminent Israeli preemptive strike on Hezbollah in Lebanon. With Iran and Syria's help, Hezbollah has stockpiled three times the weapons, including more dangerous long-range missiles, than it had in the 2006 war with Israel. Syria believes Israel intends to seize the initiative and attack Hezbollah positions so as to diminish its mounting threat. Syrian TV showed video of the mobilization of its forces.
Such an Israeli preemptive strike might well be coordinated with a US strike on Iran and Syria in an Western attempt to eliminate the combined threats in one fell swoop.
4/2/2008 @ 8:00pm MDT:
Today Syrian and Iranian officials said they believe the massive Israeli war drill that starts Sunday, April 6, 2008 is merely a cover for US/Israeli preparations for a preemptive war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly even against Syria and Iran themselves. Iran has sent Syria sophisticated eavesdropping devices over the last few months so that now it can much more effectively spy on Israeli activities in the lead-up to the week of April 6.
Saying that it is acting on intelligence that indicates Syria may have given Hezbollah missile warheads with chemical weapons, the Israeli leadership has decided to redistribute gas masks throughout the country, though the timing of when this will be done is somewhat obscure. A high state of alert now exists between Israel and Syria as both suspect the other of offensive war preparations. Hezbollah-Syrian-Iran retaliation in response for the recent Israeli assassination of a high Hezbollah official is a distinct possibility. The current Middle East situation resembles a dry tinderbox needing only a spark to set off a conflagration.
In a surprise development, China has forwarded to the UN secret intelligence on Iran's nuclear activities. An array of such intel has been given to the UN recently by Germany, France and several other states' intelligence agencies. The fact that China has seen fit to follow suit is significant in the sense that now we see a swarm of developments that appear to contradict last year's US intelligence assessment that seemed to let Iran off the hook - evidence is coming forth of Iran's secret push to acquire nuclear weapons. The US is likely to use such evidence (whether before or after a military strike) to make the point that diplomacy with Iran is futile and that the military option is (was) justified. Both Russia and China are now pressuring Iran to come clean at the UN. Why are they doing so now?
Either it is because they themselves have become worried that Iran may acquire the bomb, or it is because they see an imminent US strike in the offing and wish to undermine the need for it by pressuring Iran toward diplomacy and capitulation on the nuclear issue, thereby undermining the US case for military action.
On the first point, if one believes that Russia and China have just now become worried Iran may be too close to getting the bomb, one would also have to believe the Russians and Chinese are so stupid that they could not see this eventuality until recently. Russia and China are largely responsible for the Iranian missile and nuclear programs. Iran is their proxy in their clever contest with the US for influence in the Middle East and beyond. That contest involves a strategy to weaken the US and undermine its interests in the region, and Iran has played a key role here.
But Iran is a loose cannon, and both Russia and China know it all too well. China, especially, does not want to see Iran attacked, for it has become too reliant upon imports of Iranian oil. And neither Russia nor China ever wanted to see Iran actually acquire nuclear weapons and their long-range delivery systems, though they have gladly played a dangerous, high-stakes game of brinkmanship on the issue, as part of their strategy to undermine US power and interests. But now the game is nearing the stage where Iran may actually acquire those deadly weapons in only a year or two, and that was always unacceptable to both Russia and China. They've used Iran as a proxy, but now appear willing to throw Iran to the wolves at the UN unless it comes more into line with the clever strategy of its two big sponsors. Those sponsors would prefer not to see the US hit Iran. They will try to forestall such an eventuality, if they can, at this very late date. That is why they are pressing Iran to make certain capitulations on the nuclear issue.
However, the US is likely to seize upon the new intel as justification for casting aside diplomacy in favor of military action now, before it is too late to stop Iran. If military action against Iran comes, Russia will be the large benefactor, because as the Middle East descends deeper into chaos in the aftermath of such a development, Russia and its comparatively far more stable and reliable energy exports will be thrust into first place on the global stage. Both Russia and China will benefit from the US becoming entangled in yet another quagmire, though China will be forced to come much further directly under the Russian energy yoke, since it will have seen its Middle East sources of energy imports significantly impaired. The fact that Russia is essentially in a win-win situation as respects Iran (it wins if the US strikes Iran and it wins if the US does not do so because it can continue to use Iran to keep a level of instability going in the Middle East and it can continue to weaken the US interests there) means that Russia may largely sit back and let the US act, picking up the pieces afterward. China will tend to work harder than Russia to prevent any US strike on Iran.
The fact that both Russia and China are now pressuring Iran bespeaks that they know a US strike on Iran is becoming a very real possibility.
4/4/2008 @ 7:30pm MDT:
China has denied reports that it handed over intelligence about Iran's secret nuclear program to the UN. This public denial is not surprising, however. Both Russia and China have today reaffirmed their support for Iran's "peaceful" nuclear pursuits - a statement packed with diplomatic doublespeak that can be taken to mean various things, depending upon the particular audience. Both Russia and China pointedly criticized US policy on Iran and stated that the US should negotiate with, rather than threaten, Iran. Of course, in their statement "negotiate" means "compromise", which would only further weaken an already weakened US, and strengthen the position of an already ascendant Iran. Yet, military strikes are no solution either, because the US is ill-prepared to handle their aftermath and to win the "peace" after the bombs stop falling.
Top Bush administration officials, including even those in high positions in the intelligence community who drafted last year's report, continue to undermine last year's intelligence assessment that had appeared to let Iran off the hook, as it were. A unified message of condemnation of Iran's nuclear activities and its al ledged responsibility for US deaths in Iraq is ever more powerfully emanating from the Bush administration. So much so that British officials today openly expressed concern that this is a concerted effort to lay the foundation for an imminent US strike on Iran.
Additional factors pointing to early April as the most likely time for a US strike:
The Pentagon has procured a large inventory of sophisticated bunker-buster bombs and their delivery systems. When the contracts for these systems were initiated last year, a clause required their complete delivery by the start of April, 2008.
Mr. Bush initiated a program to fill completely America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve with the stipulation that it must be completed by the start of April, 2008. It is now completely filled.
Against a dangerous enemy in possession of significant and deadly air defenses, the US always launches air strikes under the dark cover of an astronomical new moon so as to give its pilots every advantage and protection. Iran is such an enemy. Iraq in 1991 was also such an enemy, and US air strikes began at 3:00am local time on January 17, 1991 - the day of the astronomical new (darkened) moon. While the US did begin its air strikes against Iraq in 2003 on the night of a full moon (March 18, 2003), that was due to the fact that it had received credible intel as to Saddam Hussein's location, and it attempted to take him out, thus starting operations earlier than planned. Additionally, Iraq of 2003 possessed only a small fraction of the air defense capabilities it had in 1991, and thus posed little real threat to US air forces. The next astronomical new moon is April 6, an optimal date for utilizing cover of darkness for air operations. The next astronomical new moon after that is May 5.
It is reported by Scott Ritter, former chief US arms inspector, as well as by other sources, that now-former CENTCOM commander Adm. Fallon recently got into a dispute with the Bush administration over orders to deploy a third aircraft carrier battle group to the vicinity of the Persian Gulf, to be on station in early April. Adm. Fallon took the position that a third group was unnecessary unless a strike on Iran was in the offing, and refused to carry out the order. His partly forced/partly voluntary "resignation" followed immediately. The third carrier group is being deployed to within striking distance of Iran.
Topic: US Military Strike set on Iran? (Read 1455 times)