SEND | An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could be limited to bombing, which wouldn't over-stretch our military |
Claim:Everyone knows that U.S. ground forces are stretched to the breaking point. Those who call for use of the military option -- such as retired Air Force General Chuck Wald -- assume that a successful campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities could be limited to air strikes.1Response:We have seen no credible military scenario involving bombing without invasion that plausibly leads to Iran's capitulation.The far more likely consequence of a campaign restricted to bombing is the consequence that followed Israel's bombing of Iraq's reactor at Osirak in 1981: the leadership is incensed and either starts or greatly expands a large, covert campaign to acquire nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Iran is highly likely to launch retaliatory actions against U.S. forces through loyal militias in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the Middle East. Within Iran, hundreds if not thousands of Iranians will be killed or wounded, turning what had been the most pro-American public in the Middle East (outside of Israel) into a large nation of people who truly hate America. Looking five years ahead -- instead of five days, as General Wald is doing -- reveals that bombing Iran is truly the march of folly. It will exact an enormous price, while delivering the opposite of the consequence intended. Footnotes1. See Chuck Wald, “Opinion: There Is a Military Option on Iran,” wsj.com, August 7, 2009. [back] |