Group Urges Credible U.S. Military Threat To Iran

[Purveyor]

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 1, 2012 12:51pm EST

(Reuters) - The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action.

The report by a Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) task force of Democrats, Republicans and independents is to be formally issued on Wednesday and comes amid speculation about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran.

There is little evidence to suggest that U.S. President Barack Obama has any significant interest in the possibility of a military strike against Iran, though his administration has repeatedly said that all options are on the table.

MORE...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-iran-usa-report-idUSTRE8100BH20120201?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

[rfranklin]

1. Yes, that's it. We should turn Iran into a wasteland with our nuclear weapons...

That would show them that nuclear weapons are a very bad thing to play with.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. What's that I hear? Oh, the constant druming up of another war.

[Initech]

3. Ugh. The last thing we need is another pointless war we can't pay for.

All these wars are for is profit profit profit. They serve no purpose. Watch - Newt gets elected, this war will happen his first year in office. Mark my words.

[xchrom]

4. fuck. bipartisan, huh? well that's just fuckin great. nt

[leveymg]

5. Hey, the Persian Gulf are American waters, and we own the MiddleEast. Let's remind them of that.

Just look at the map:

[hifiguy]

6. Jeebus H. Christophorus

We sell the Israelis and the Saudis enough weapons that they should be able to handle this if it is necessary, which I doubt. More ginning up unwarranted fears to keep the war machine fat, happy and profitable.

[limpyhobbler]

7. This is horrible advice.

We are told we have to make threats to deter them from getting nukes. Later we will be told that if we don't follow through with our threat, we will be perceived as a paper tiger. Making threats is a necessary step down the path to war.

If you want to avoid war, avoid making threats.

The task force members include Chuck Robb, a Democrat and former U.S. senator from Virginia; Mortimer Zuckerman, a real estate mogul, publisher and long-time Democratic Party backer; John Hannah, national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Eric Edelman, a career diplomat who served at the Pentagon under former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

[FarCenter]

8. The press release

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2012/02/bipartisan-policy-center-report-recommends-credible-threat-military-forc

The Report "Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock"
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/meeting-challenge-stopping-clock

In this report we examine Iran’s rapid nuclear progress and its implications for U.S. economic and strategic interests, explain why containment will not work, and propose ways for the United States to prevent a nuclear Iran. After deliberations with a new, expanded task force, we have arrived at a bipartisan, fact-driven consensus that largely echoes our past reports: the best chance for successfully meeting the Iranian nuclear challenge is a robust and comprehensive triple-track strategy, involving the simultaneous pursuit of diplomacy; sanctions; and visible, credible preparations for a military option.


Task Force Members

Senator Charles Robb (co-chair)
Former Governor of and U.S. Senator from Virginia (D)

General (ret.) Charles Wald (co-chair)
Former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command; BPC Board Member

Representative Chris Carney (D)
Former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania

John Hannah
Former National Security Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney

General (ret.) Ron Keys
Senior Adviser, BPC; Former Commander, Air Combat Command

Ambassador Eric Edelman
Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy

Ed Husain
Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Stephen Rademaker
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation

Secretary Dan Glickman
BPC Senior Fellow; Former Secretary of Agriculture

Admiral (ret.) Grog Johnson
Former Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Europe

Representative John Tanner (D)
Former U.S. Representative from Tennessee

Larry Goldstein
Director of Special Projects, Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc.

Mortimer Zuckerman
CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Boston Properties, Inc.

[FarCenter]

10. The attack scenario

Should these measures – in conjunction with diplomatic and
economic pressures already being pursued – not compel
Tehran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military
is capable of launching an effective surgical strike against
Iran’s nuclear program. An air campaign would last several
weeks and target both key military and nuclear installations.
It would not target civilian facilities, and ought to initially
limit ground troops to Special Forces. Such action would
only set back Iranian nuclear development, but not destroy
Iranian nuclear knowledge. Still, it might persuade Tehran
that the costs of continuing its nuclear program are too high.
The fallout of Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in
1981 may be instructive; although it was estimated that the
attack would set back Iraq’s nuclear program three years,
Baghdad never rebuilt the reactor, though it did continue a
covert nuclear program. Thus, taking military action would
require continued vigilance in the years that follow, both
to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites
and to ensure that Iran does not revive its military nuclear
program.

It is also important that military leaders plan simultaneously
for the period immediately following any military action, both
providing food and medical assistance within Iran, as well
as protecting regional allies from either direct or indirect
Iranian response. Because there will be political, diplomatic
and strategic fallout from military action, it is important
that plans be in place to contain such fallout as much as
possible.

Indeed, we fully recognize the risks of a strike against
Iran: U.S. and allied casualties; rallying Iranians around
an unstable and oppressive regime; reprisals against us
and our allies; Iranian-instigated unrest in the Persian Gulf
states; a temporary shutdown of the Straits of Hormuz
through which roughly 33 percent of all seaborne traded
oil and 17 percent of total traded oil flows; and damage
to oil facilities in the region that could reduce the supply
of oil beyond the cessation of hostilities.8 Oil prices would
certainly spike higher, though the extent and duration would
depend on which of these risks materialized. A significant
and/or sustained oil spike would threaten the fragile global
economy. We do not minimize such a serious consequence,
though a timely release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, in coordination with the release of strategic
reserves from other nations, would partially mitigate the oil
price spike for a period of time. The resulting economic
impact, however, would be much smaller and of shorter
duration than the longer-term economic consequences of a
nuclear Iran.

[octothorpe]

9. Is this group of any relevance?

I see the list of names and their current and previous positions, but why would anyone listen to them? They're not exactly giving any compelling arguments about how this is a good idea either. Then again, at least half of the country wouldn't require a compelling argument to waste lives and trillions of dollars.