A reporter last month
asked Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the Israel Defense Force's chief of
staff, how far Israel is willing to go to stop Iran's nuclear
(weapons) program; the general answered: "2,000 kilometers"
— the flying distance from Israel to Iran's key nuclear
sites.
Keeping the military
option on the table for dealing with the Mullahs of Mayhem's atomic
intransigence makes good policy sense. Diplomacy and "soft
power" options such as economic sanctions are always more
effective when backed up by the credible threat of force.
Unfortunately, flattening
Iran's nuclear infrastructure isn't easy or risk-free —
and could have serious consequences for American interests. The
key challenge: the program is underground — literally and
figuratively.
Iran burrowed
many sites deep below the soil, making them much tougher targets.
(It also put some near populated areas to make civilian casualties
a certainty if attacked.) And these are the sites we know about:
At least two dozen nuclear-related sites are scattered
across the country (which is four times California's size) —
but it may be more than 70.
By burying and dispersing
its facilities, Iran is clearly trying to avoid the fate of Saddam
Hussein's nuclear program back in 1981 — when Israeli F-16
fighters, crossing Jordan and Saudi Arabia, destroyed Iraq's 40-megawatt
Osiraq reactor in a dawn raid, effectively setting Saddam's nuke
dreams back a decade.
An Israeli
strike at Iran today might feature fighters carrying satellite-guided
JDAM bombs, cruise missiles on diesel subs — and Special
Forces. But the task would be much tougher than the Osiraq
strike, thanks to the number of targets and their dispersion,
and the greater distances from any Israeli base.
What about
U.S. airstrikes? These could take a range of forms, depending
on policymakers' desires. Surgical strikes might limit their targets
to Iran's air defenses (for access) and key nuclear sites (e.g.,
Bushehr, Nantanz, Arak). Or an escalated attack could nail all
suspected nuke facilities — plus forces Tehran
might use in a counterattack, such as its ballistic missiles and
conventional forces.
Depending on the strike's
objective, think Operation Iraqi Freedom: B-2 stealth bombers
carrying bunker-busters, F-117 stealth fighters and other Navy/Air
Force strike assets from carriers and theater bases — plus
Navy destroyers and subs loosing cruise missiles on Iranian targets.
But could
a raid destroy all sites? Thanks to the covert nature of the Iranian
program, that's not clear. It's highly likely, though, that striking
key facilities would set the program back, possibly causing
Tehran to reconsider the folly of its proliferation perfidy.
But it's unlikely
to be that simple. After an assault, Iran might lash out with
a vengeance. We'd have to be fully prepared for some nasty blowback.
Tehran and its terrorist
toadies can brew up some serious trouble for both America and
Israel — or anyone else that supported an attack on the
fundamentalist Islamic state.
The Iranian regime
is already up to its neck in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It could certainly increase its financial/material support to
the Sunni insurgents, Shia militants, al Qaeda, and the Taliban
to destabilize the new Baghdad and Kabul governments — and
kill Coalition forces.
And don't forget about
Iran's other "secret" weapon — oil. As the world's
No. 4 oil exporter, Tehran could rattle oil markets and major
economies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, France, Italy) by slashing
output. It could also mess with other nations' oil exports —
attacking tankers in the Gulf using mines, subs, patrol boats
or anti-ship missiles.
The mullahs
could unleash their terrorist attack dogs Hezbollah, Hamas and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad against Israel, killing untold numbers
in suicide attacks — and scuttling any peace process prospects.
Iran could also pound populous Tel Aviv with its Shahab
missiles mated with chemical/biological warheads.
The U.S. homefront
could get hit, too. Over the last few years, the FBI has evicted
Iranian intel officers for surveilling New York City tourist/transport
sites. Hezbollah has supporters — and likely has operatives
— in America who might undertake acts of terrorism or sabotage
U.S. ports or bases, too.
Iran now harbors at
least 25 senior al Qaeda operatives, including senior military
commander Saif al Adel and three of Osama bin Laden's sons. If
we come to blows, would Tehran help al Qaeda hit the U.S. homeland?
(The offices of Iran's U.N. mission might facilitate such an attack.
. .)
This doesn't mean
we shouldn't use military might to interrupt or end Iran's nuclear
gambit; it may be the best/only option. There are no easy answers,
only tough choices.
But the military option
has to stay on the table. Otherwise, it's a snap that Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will let Tehran's nuclear genie
out of the bottle.
Peter
Brookes is a Heritage
Foundation senior fellow. This article originally appeared
in The New York Post.
©
1995 - 2006 The Heritage Foundation
Visit the Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/
