Would a Tehran ‘No Fly’ Zone Work?
Iranian nukes have already begun to work their dark magic. They have empowered the new, throwback Persian Empire, even before the bombs have been tested. The utter futility of the West in trying to stop Ahmadinejad has encouraged the new “Shiite crescent,” giving Iran aggressive proxies from Lebanon to Syria.
Those countries are playing it safe in the anticipation of Iranian nukes.
In two years, when Tehran gets deliverable nukes, the Gulf Arabs — including the Saudis — will face the choice of surrendering to militant Shiite Islam or trusting the United States. But the U.S. is no longer trustworthy: we have abandoned the nuclear retaliation option that kept Soviet tank divisions out of Europe for half a century. Putin is taking notice, and so are the fascists in Tehran.
The United States ultimately won the Cold War by containing Soviet imperialism, but at very great cost, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Containment is again being suggested by the left — the very same people who facilitated Tehran’s 7th century regime in the first place.
A military “no-fly zone” over Iran is much more viable than a leaky containment policy.
Containment worked against the Soviets, because after the death of Stalin they were afraid of a nuclear exchange — a very rational fear. But Tehran is a martyrdom regime. Every day for the last thirty years they have had millions shouting: “Death to Israel! Death to America!” Now, the liberals are telling us the Iranian fascists don’t really mean that.
How much are you willing to bet on that being correct? How about the life of our nation and the peace of the world?
A no-fly zone is the legal equivalent of a naval blockade, but it can be used selectively to stop all military flights and all rocket launches. Because all of Iran’s neighbors are now on 15-minute notice against massive missile attacks with an expanding target radius that will soon encompass Europe and the United States, the crucial point is to stop Iran’s missiles from being launched in the first place. If someone is pointing a gun at your heart, make sure they aren’t able to pull the trigger.
The only way to stop a large-scale strategic attack is at the source. Ballistic missiles have to fight gravity on their way into space — they are a big fat target. Even jet planes and cruise missiles have a giant heat signature when they launch. If somebody can’t be stopped from firing a gun at you, you can only strike and take cover. The strategic equivalent today is a fast strike at known nuclear facilities in Iran, plus slamming a heavy lid on any military flights.
A single launch of a plane or rocket should receive instant, overwhelming retaliation. That can be done by using massive radar and satellite coverage over the complex topology of Iran, and with routine overflights by U.S. and allied air patrols.
A no-fly zone is relatively harmless to civilians — Iranian exports and imports could continue by land and sea, and sea shipping could be inspected for WMDs by the U.S. Navy.
If Iran chose to challenge the airspace blockade, its nuclear industry could be knocked down in a matter of weeks. From a threat, the nuclear sites would become a point of high vulnerability. No missile testing could take place, and any effort to commit aggression could be stopped at the source. It is even possible that Iran’s heroic, modernizing Green Movement would feel encouraged to overthrow the regime. Iran’s constant threats to its neighbors would be reduced.
In spite of large U.S. military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, our uncommitted air and naval power is still the most formidable in the world. A no-fly zone could operate with the cooperation of the Gulf Arab states, Egypt, and the Europeans. Russia and China would have no choice but to go along. The Arabs are most immediately threatened, but the Russians cannot live with a militant Islamist regime with long-range missiles and nuclear bombs within easy reach of its southern border. And Europe and Asia receive about 40 percent of their oil from the Middle East. Their economies would crash if Iran closed the bottleneck of the Gulf. They need the U.S. Navy to protect freedom of navigation.
A no-fly zone worked exceptionally well to keep Saddam down after the 1992 Gulf War.
It was heavily criticized, to be sure, but when the U.S. finally knocked Saddam over, his large army was shattered in just three weeks. The no-fly zone helped to hollow out Saddam’s military. If the U.S. had chosen to pull out before the Iraqi insurgency, the country would have fragmented in civil war, but without its strategic threat — without SCUDs, military jets, chemical weapons, or those 500 tons of yellowcake in Saddam’s warehouse.
Iran is now the biggest strategic danger to the world, including Europe and Russia. Under its neo-Ottoman rulers, Turkey has seen the writing on the wall and joined Tehran. That has reversed a century of Islamic modernization, just as the overthrow of the shah under the benevolent smile of Jimmy Carter reversed a century of modernization in Iran. As a result, the southern flank of NATO has now crumbled. Turkey, with its formidable armed forces and keystone geography, has joined the enemies of civilization.
Ever since Jimmy Carter, the most sinister and backward forces in the Islamic world have been on the march again. Thirty years ago it was Khomeini’s reactionary takeover in Iran. Today it is Turkey. Hezbollah is poised to return Lebanon to the 10th century. Hamas is doing it in Gaza, and wants to do it in the West Bank. Reactionary Islam is spreading all over the world, aided by Saudi Wahhabist imams who run new mosques built with oil money throughout the Western world.
If the modern world cannot shut down the Shiite and Sunni reactionaries at their source, we will be compelled to fight them at home.
Read your history of Islamic expansionism: within a century of Mohammed’s death, Islam had conquered most of the known world at that time. That is the choice Bush and Cheney clearly recognized. It’s the reality that Obama and the left is in deep denial about.
With the November elections threatening a massive defeat for the Democrats and a one-term failed presidency for Obama, both domestic politics and foreign policy point to the same strategic aim: to defang the Iranian threat. If Obama fails, he will be gone in 2012.
Yup, That went well in iraq didn’t it?
I wonder if down the road a ways we won’t be invading iran to release our captured pilots after they are shot down and held hostage.
I cannot see The current POTUS (PBUH) starting a war just to save American military men.
“That is the choice Bush and Cheney clearly recognized.”
Actually that is incorrect, like a broken record Bush repeated over and over again ad nauseum that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ and then based on that stupid and asinine assumption, he occupied two Muslim countries, because he assumed poverty and not Islam was the root causes of Islamic violence. Hence, the stupidity behind his two incredibly idiotic fantasy-based nation-building missions to win the hearts and minds of Muslims who are obligated to hate our kafir infidel guts, per their religion, no matter what. The reality is Bush couldn’t have been more incompetent had he tried. Not that Obama is any better.
In any event, can someone please explain to me what makes a primitive country like Afghanistan, a country where the majority of the people are illiterate and unskilled, where there are no roads let alone electricity, and where pack animals have to be used to plow fields, such a grave and perilous threat to a superpower like the USA that we would devote nine years, billions of dollars, and thousands of troops to prop up a Sharia state that we helped to create instead of ensuring that Iran never acquires nukes. How can our politicians be so stupid and so blinded by political correctness?
James: i am assuming that you did not go to West Point. you are hrdly a military genius…
And you are?????
Excellent idea, and that’s why this administration made of internationalist subversives will never implement it (nor anything else that can make the enemies of America weaker).
The only thing that will work is to stop the centrifuges now.
Once the uranium is enriched to weapons grade the bombs can
be assemble anywhere. The whole process becomes unstoppable.
Once the bombs are assembled..and tested the game is over.
Any kind of military intervention/invasion
would be impossible. No military action to pursue terrorists is
possible and Iran becomes terrorist base for every Islamic group.
Russia and China form an
nuclear powers club centered on the Persian Gulf. Sunni Saudi Arabia
acquires nuclear weapons to confront Shia Iran. The hatreds and
car bombs of the Iraq war shift to playing with 20kt fission bombs.
Where to start?
On the positive side, Mr. Lewis *seems* sincere and well-intentioned. He certainly recognizes the grave threat that Iran poses to the U.S.
And that’s about it. Sorry, but this was an otherwise god-awful piece that the PJM editors should have sent back to Lewis for major revision. It is a rambling, disjointed, nonsensical mess. And that’s being kind.
Specifically, the overall idea of a no-fly zone over Iran makes no sense almost any way you look at it. Sure, it might be feasible to shoot down ballistic missiles with air cover from a purely theoretical view, but it is wholly impractical. Iran is larger than Iraq and even with complete air superiority in Iraq we could not prevent Saddam from launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in 1991. Even with Lewis’ imagined radar net, tracking individual missile launches from mobile launchers in nation the size of Iran is nonsense. And to underscore, when we are talking about nukes, only one has to get through.
Even if we assume that the U.S. could somehow find a way to blanket every inch of Iranian airspace to prevent missile launches, Lewis’ argument ignores the most lethal delivery system that the mullahs possess: their highly developed, worldwide network of terrorist cells, some of which the FBI has admitted exist here in the U.S. So, yeah, let’s put that no-fly zone over Iran while they ship a handful of nukes or dirty bombs through the U.S.-Mexican border (which will remain undefended and easily traversed until Obama’s last day in office– may it come sooner than later).
And let’s not forget what makes Lewis’ piece complete fantasy-land: Obama would never implement anything even close to provocative against Iran. He is still smoking the “engagement” hash pipe with his Leftist pals in the Oval Office and making obscene phone calls to Netanyahu.
Speaking of hash pipes, Mr. Lewis, just what have you been smoking? A no-fly zone was not a means of containment in Iraq and it won’t be in Iran either. In Iraq, it was intended to protect the Kurds and the Shia from being massacred again by Saddam’s henchmen. In Iran, the only possible utility for a no-fly zone would be, perhaps, to protect a revolution by democratic Green Movement types seeking to overthrow the regime. But there are plenty of ways to support the Greens in such a laudable objective than air cover that do not require outright air war.
And there are so, so many better alternatives than no-fly zones. A naval blockade that prevents Iran from selling its oil (while we release the Strategic Reserve to cushion the effect on oil prices). Sabotage of the Iranian refineries and oil fields. Special Ops into Iran to set up and coordinate armed resistance to the regime which could be combined with the declaration of autonomy by regions of Iran that would then get our humanitarian protection. Or how about a simple military attack against Revolutionary Guard and basijj facilities that would cripple the regime and lead to the collapse of the dictators?
A no-fly zone? Stick to the science Mr. Lewis. Stick to the science.
Hm. I’m pretty sure you’re talking about an invasion from the air, not a “no-fly zone.” The latter could be imposed on Iraq under a veneer of legality because the UN-supported military force had just thrown its army out of Kuwait with virtually no casualties on the victorious side – from which step it wasn’t difficult to get agreement to “enforce the 1991 cease fire” via no-fly zones. I think they actually caused some controversy at first; they certainly became the occasion for controversy until they were terminated with OIF in 2003, particularly via Russian active measures.
But with Iran? We have no claim to their air space, nor is their an international will to impose a legal forcefield over them requiring and justifying US/NATO enforcement. It’s just a country; you can’t just fly over it and bomb it at will because “someone shot at us!” Come on. You have words to say it, but it doesn’t make any sense.
Now, we could just go *establish* air superiority at will, and then bomb every military target and drone-assassinate every leader of the revolution we could find – their only real defense would be to hold their people hostage or nuke us. Probably their other retaliatory measures could be ignored. But this is an invasion, not a no-fly zone.
Short of a nasty month-long air supremacy war we couldn’t create the conditions for a No Fly Zone. Iran has stocked up to the gills with the best Russian SAMs and AA systems its petro-bucks can buy — SA-5s, SA-10s, S-300s, the TOR-1M mobile AA system, not to mention older SA-2s and US-made HAWK missiles. That’s the real danger, an extensive SAM/AA network complemented by several hundred jet fighters of various ages and capabilities. We would lose pilots in such a fight, and then risk pilots everyday on patrols.
Does Iran still have any functional F-14s ?
I might be wrong, but I think I read somewhere they still have one able to fly, and use it as an AWACS platform, not as a fighter
Yes, let’s underestimate and laugh at an enemy, because that’s proven soooo successful through history. Over the last 30 years Iran has purchased fighters from Russia and China, including MiG-29s, so they have more than handful of aging F-14s and F-4s.
Lewis is half right.
The no fly-zone would crush the regime but it would be difficult to impose and no one should underestimate the difficulty of the operation.
But the reason we are even talking about such actions is whole point: the rogue Iranian terror sponsoring US troop killing regime is about to get nukes and they must be stopped. They are at war with us and have been for decades. Let them get nukes and the price of gas at the pump will go up to $24 a gallon and our oil dependent society will be driven to its knees.
The no fly zone is not hard to impose. Iran’s AA capabilities do NOT include the S300 (yet). But Lewis is calling for half measures. Any policy that does not take out the regime is worthless. The only thing that can drive them out with minimal casualties and the smallest war possible (and believe me this regime will only leave by war) is a blockade. Blow their pipelines and seize any and every ship leaving Iran or bringing military supplies to the regime. Nothing else will work. The one excellent point Lewis does make is the clerical regime’s domestic enemies would be emboldened by the no-fly zone. But that is not enough.
Are there other things we can do? Certainly. Tell any country with direct flights to Iran to cancel them at once or lose diplomatic relations with the US. Order all banks in any country that wants to ever have diplomatic relations with the US to freeze the regime assets immediately. Close their embassies world wide.
Iran is a small weak nation with massive ambitions. Now they are nothing but look how they behave. Imagine how they might act if they have the bomb. This is why people like Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey and Victor Davis Hanson are franticly warning the West of the Iranian danger. As someone who has read hundreds of books about totalitarianism, I assure you Iran’s regime are textbook fascists and are a war waiting to happen. People are going to die. The only question is how many and when. The choice is to strike them down now or let them become more deadly. It really is that simple and time is running out on low casualty options. The regime cannot be overthrown and we do not have the luxury of waiting while these monsters get the bomb.
The greatest failure of George W. Bush was leaving this danger to Obama. Our President reached out to Iran and they have responded by urinating on his nose. Sadly, Obama seems to think it is the nectar of peaceful international understanding.
The only good news is Obama has three carrier task forces operating in the Indian Ocean right now. I do not know why this is but clearly he has wised up or trying to send a message or something is up. I think the Israelis have told him time is up and gave the US the courtesy of prepositioning our forces so that if they do strike, the US can defend our interests in the Gulf region. We shall see.
I know little about “No Fly” zones but i think it’d work far less successfully in Iran than it did in Iraq. If anything, it’d be an invitation for Iran to become even more militaristic. Unfortunately, our government has interfered in their government for decades (half a century?) and our government used Saddam against them (among other things). Iran shouldn’t be a nation we take as lightly as Iraq or Afghanistan.
You can’t pour fuel on a fire and expect it to go out. It’ll only spread.
While I agree on the whole that such an operation would probably hurt us far more than it does the Mullahs in that it would likely cause any lasting cooperation for Tehran’s nuclear disarmerment (currently only in the form of spineless negotiations, but there are possbilities that we could turn that diplomatic alliance against the Mullahs’ nukes into a military one if we do not do anything stupid and the Mullahs do) and would result in yet another round of scratching in the “Transnational bodies” which have so damaged our efforts before, the simple fact of the matter is that Operation Ajax and Western “meddling” in the Iranian government is just a fig leaf for the Islamists rather than their actual motivation for doing what they do. Such a measure will not cause the Iranian regime to be any more militaristic than it already is for the simple fact that it is about as damn militaristic as it can get (now the PEOPLE, on the other hand…).
If Obama could push an ‘Easy Button’ and
reset Iranian nuclear capacity to zero
he would not do it; The US is just one
unexceptional nation among many, and
no longer the World’s policeman.
As Obama has to do is stall until Iran
goes nuclear, and all our options expire,
until Iran uses nuclear weapons, after
which it will do no good to use them.
If Harry Truman were President now, Iran
would suffer escalating conventional
bombardment until it surrendered,
and world opinion be damned.
Like other people in the comment thread, I think this is a bad idea. We can easily take out their Air Force, but the size of the country, numerous SAMs, etc. would make it difficult to impose in the first place. Additionally, Iran would immediately shut down the Straits of Hormuz with mines, etc. Unless we’re willing to take out its government, we would only be making things more difficult.
This could work, but it would have to be done in conjunction with a tight naval blockade. We can do both, but it would take political will/vision that is simply lacking with Barry and unfortunately was lacking with Bush as well.
The UN will not cooperate.
I believe Bush lacked the will, and sometimes I think that Barry agrees with leftist academia that an Iranian nuke would be a good thing as it would be a counterbalance to American imperialism.
Thank you all for a pretty good beating up. But I think the comments so far are astoundingly superficial. Let me take them one by one.
1. HEP-T. Contrary to your memory, the No Fly Zone worked magnificently in Iraq. It degraded Saddam’s formidable army so that it crumbled on impact with the US military when the time came. It was a classic case of squeezing the enemy until he was psychologically beaten long before the knockout blow. What you are criticizing is the post-invasion insurgency, which is another matter altogether. We could have left Iraq after several months of occupation and left the regime in ruins, open to its internal enemies who were thirsting for revenge after 30 years of Saddam. We did not do so, in my view, in part for humanitarian reasons (we wanted to replace the sadistic Saddamites with something more decent), and in part because we did not want the Iranians to take over.
2. Miriam Rove. Alas, I did not go to West Point, and I don’t claim to be a military genius. Those who do are pretty suspect.
Other than ad hominem remarks Ms. Rove fails to explain her point, so there is nothing to respond to.
3. Sherab Zangpo. I understand your point that this crew in the White House will never do it. However, as Harold MacMillan famously remarked, what really shapes a foreign policy is “Events, my Dear Boy, Events.” When reality forces even this feckless administration to respond, it does so. It’s been killing Taliban and AQ from the air in Pakistan and Afghanistan without a pause after the Bush Administration. It is (reluctantly) giving Afghanistan to the best-qualified general for that kind of warfare, General Petraeus. Obama just said (amazingly) that he didn’t understand why people were so “obsessed by deadlines” about Afghanistan, as if he hasn’t been prattling about deadlines since day 1. Now he says he only cares about outcomes — meaning victory. And finally, we now have three carrier groups operating withing range of Tehran, amid numerous rumors of converging US and allied forces in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, possibly Diego Garcia, and both in and around the Persian Gulf. Maybe it’s all a bluff, we can’t know. But neither can the Iranians.
4 ehunter. I agree. When you stop the centrifuges, if you can, you must still guard against deeply bunkered ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and jet bombers. That is the purpose of a No Fly Zone, with the ability to knock down missiles and jets rising against gravity. The precedent of Saddam is out of date by now, by the way, because we have much more advanced anti-missile systems today, including Aegis ship-mounted systems, eight or more Patriot batteries in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, some unknown number of radar and anti-missile systems in Azerbaijan, and in the direction of Israel, probably the most formidable anti-missile array in the world. That technology has advanced very fast, thanks to George W. Bush.
5. TSAfabet. Thank you for acknowledging my good intentions. However, the 1991 precedent of Iraq was 19 years ago, during which time our anti-missile technology has immensely improved. We now have twenty years more of high-priority advances in missile and jet detection and knock-down capabilities. Consider what the Israelis did to the Syrian nuclear plant two years ago. So you cannot use the old data to predict what we can do today. Thank heavens, because our defenses were totally inadequate to the threat, and they are only barely adequate today.
However, you are correct on the impossibility of controlling terrorist cells. If war breaks out in the Gulf next month, there will be some terror cells and even some IRBMs from Hezbollah and Hamas that will break through defenses. There may well be terror attacks elsewhere. What we have seen in previous wars since 1948, when there was the identical threat of terror attacks (it’s not new, folks!) is that rational regimes with what Israel calls “a return address” does not do that, unless it can be done in a deniable way. Put Iran’s gasoline refinery at risk, and if they are rational, they cannot afford to sponsor terror attacks. If they are irrational and suicidal, as they have been swearing up and down since Khomeini, then the sooner all their toys can be destroyed the better. But not without provocation of that kind. You don’t but all your chips on the table at the same time.
6. dan. No, not invasion from the air, because that would be risking our ground troops against their enormous IRGC, Basiji, and regular army. High precision bombing by B-2s from Diego Garcia, by carrier aircraft, by Israeli aircraft now rumored to be stationed nearby, by cruise missiles, and the like, all those optimize our assets and their weaknesses. Invasion does not.
As for legality, that is a fiction that goes by the board when the survival of nations is at stake. This is one of those cases, and don’t forget that for a minute. The current UN resolution supposedly allows for the halting and inspection of Iranian shipping, which “legalizes” that part.
7. EasyEight. Yes. That’s exactly right, but it’s not enough, because you have to allow for deeply buried missiles in the mountains of Iran. So you still need a No Fly Zone to keep a lid on any possible military activity that can be spotted by satellites or airborne, naval or ground-based radar.
8. Jon. You are grossly naive. Read up on your history.
9. M. Report. What Obama said in his grandiosity as a candidate is one thing. What he’s done in military actions (all inherited from Bush) since his election has the left going nuts with disappointment. The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully, and if Obama fails to act against a clear and present danger, like Iranian nukes and missiles, his political support will crumble. Even the Democrats like to survive.
10. Smart Grunt. Those are practical considerations. Seizing the Straits is going to demand a major effort, since the IRGC is concentrating all its efforts there. If you remember the “Tanker War” of the 80s, it barely made headlines in the media, but the US Navy kept the Gulf open to navigation with minimal disruption. That was using a previous generation of military technology. If anybody thinks that swarming US naval vessels with speedboats is going to stop them, I would invite you to join the Iranians and try it.
Thank you all.
Actually, I liked your idea pretty well. Of course it assumes that Obama is listening, and that he would put his prestige on the line to get a resolution through the UNSC. I don’t believe he will do that. The more practical option is to just to blow the regime to h$%^. Clearly he doesn’t want to do that; nobody really wants to do it in a military way, but the combined mass of Israeli worries and power, Arab worries and (oil) power, and American security concerns will eventually force his hand. Or, as you suggest, his support and base will crumble.
The issue on these matters with Obama is all the energy, time, logic and lives that are wasted as he is pulled, screaming, out of his sophomore seminar on Marxism to (reluctantly) defend the capitalist empire.
This member of the Loyal Opposition is encouraged by your counter-punching,
and your hard data; Even Obama cannot ignore an existential threat to the US,
and the combined threats of an EU financial meltdown, a new Caliphate, and
a prolonged reduction or cessation of oil flow from the Middle East add up
to just that.
In the past, the US has pressed into service prototypical Hi-Tech weaponry
with good results. Perhaps this will happen again, with an an awful shocking
display of pyrotechnics in the sky over Iran. One can hope.
Remember the old adage: if you are going to mess with a snake at all, strike at its head right away.
The minute the first shots are fired, all bets are off. The sooner, then, that we target and destroy those several hundred individuals that make up the leadership of the Iranian nazi ruling clique, the better off we’ll all be.
Accomplish that successfully, and the Iranian nukes will immediately matter much less, maybe not at all.
I agree – don’t muck around for years with the UN and “no-fly zones”. Kill the bastards who govern Iran by fiat. Air drop some pistols, carbines and ammo over population centers with lots of resistance activity. Let the problem take care of itself.
All the Persians I know don’t care for the Islamic Republic and many would probably rather go back to Zoroastrianism.
“…many would probably rather go back to Zoroastrianism.”
I’ve been wondering about that, myself. I’ve read there are still several thousand practicing Zoroastrians in Iran. Maybe there are really a lot more. It wouldn’t be the first time people practiced their ancient religion secretly.
There are many problems with a no-fly-zone. Iranian “Nutbag” number 123- Alpha says, “Hey guys lets load an commercial liner up with some war goods, let it be known and then also add 100 or so women and orphans. They will risk a lot if they shoot our plane down- “Allahu Akbar” ”
No a no fly zone , not really a good idea, a shooting war with F/18′s, F-15′s etc now thats a really good idea.
See anyone in the current political with a pair of cajones up for that? no I didn’t think so.
Unfortunately its likely someone will have to get nuked first before we deal with these Iranians
Check “6″^
and living in a small city is not a bad idea either!
The only bone I want to pick is your repeated suggestion that Russia believes that a nuclear Iran is a strategic threat to it. It doesn’t. It will come to that realization eventually, to its cost. But now Russia thinks it is pretty safe. It is as cosy with Iran as it is possible to get. It has armed Iran to the teeth. It has opposed sanctions all the way, and, make no mistake, its recent support for the watered down sanctions came with crossed fingers; Russia will do nothing to assist in enforcing them and everything it can safely do to help Iran evade them. Russia figures that Iran would never, never, attack it or slip a nuke to its proxies to be used in Russia, and anyway, the insurgencies in the Russian sphere are all sunni, and Iran hates them nearly as much as it hates the americans.
So short sighted. Russia is right in the short to medium term about Iran. But in the long term, a nuclear Iran run by shiite fanatics is a danger to everyone, including Russia. But Putin, thug that he is, and his secret police cronies, can’t get past their visceral dislike of the west in general and the US in particular. This is the man who thinks that the demise of the Soviet Union was “the geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”; whose idea of the selfless, noble public servant is the paranoid thug and murderer, Yuri Andropov; who has restored the security services to something like their privileged, lawless position under communism, and who has complete contempt for the rule of law and democracy. Hello? Are our leaders, is Europe, listening?
Don’t count on any rational help from Russia.
A No-Fly zone is very much like a naval blockade. It is a recognized act of war.
As you say, the No-Fly zone will not prevent goods or services from leaving the country, nor will it stop the refinement of uranium. It will not stop the container ships from moving cargo all over the world.
So, do you know for certain what is in each container on each ship?
A container could easily be sent to a major city anywhere around the world and nobody would notice.
Meanwhile, we’ll be playing in to the hands of those Iranians who have been spewing anti-American hatred since the 1980s. The Iranian people will be hardened against us for yet another generation.
There is a better way. There is no nice way to stop Iran from building their own nuclear weapons. However, we can isolate them and promise a policy of disproportionate retaliation if they ever use these weapons upon another country.
They wanted nukes? We can respond by making the use of these weapons pointless.
We should ensure that those Iranian politician who authorized, facilitated, or encouraged the construction of these weapons know that if these weapons are ever used, they will be personally targeted and hunted down, just as we did to the leaders of Iraqi Ba’ath party. Furthermore, if they ever export these weapons for use by others, or even lose track of a weapon, and it is used, we will treat that use as if it had been deployed by the Iranian Government itself.
If they want to be in the Nuke club, there is little we can do to stop them. But we can make it so uncomfortable that they will never consider using these weapons. It worked against the Soviets. I could scale down and work for North Korea and here.
Meanwhile they can act as big and bad as they like. Nobody will care, because we will have already made the ultimate decision. They can have their Pyrrhic victory.
Mr. Lewis: when you are right you are right. I should have explained myself.
What worked for Iraq not only is not going to work in Iran, it would also break
out to every part of that region. Iran is not Iraq. vastly different with many many resources. they could very well close the strait of Homoz, if which
case would devostate our already devostated economy and Europe as well. Iran
has a powerful military whose missles can reach a lot of European countries.
if they close they chock up the Persian Gulf, we then need to use our Navy. do you see where I am going with this?
I bet you roght now they probably have a 1000 missles aimed at Israel. do you think they would unleash them? YES. so no it will not work and I am not for it.
But here is my main reason: I am from Iran and I was born and raised there. I came here when I was 19… there is nothing more than I wish everyday for the a….hole mullahs and Ayatollahs to burn in hell so we can be free like anyone else.. our lunatic president there has made us all look like terrorist and a bunch of radicals, which we are not. I am 52 years old and I am betting by the time I am 60 those bastatrds will be gone. but here what you and your readers should know:
One- every Iranian regarless of their politcal views think they have every right to nuclear technology. remmeber you can bobm their facilities but you can not take the science away.
two_ this is the most imporatant! if a war breaks out with the Iranians, without any doubts people will unite behind the government and as they did for 8 years during Iran/Iraq war. which means these bastatrds will rule us for another century. this is not an OPTION NOW. hope this explains it.
Electricity. Without it, no spinning centrifuges. No power for machine shops. Deeply buried bunker facilities will gradually go dark as the fuel runs out for their local backup generators. Without electricity, Iran returns to the 19th century.
So — a coordinated cruise missile attack over a 48 hour period against electrical transformer stations, sub stations, and generating facilities — and their refineries to cut the flow of fuel for the backup generators — and the electrical infrastructure of Iran goes bye-bye. Some 300 – 500 missiles would do the job completely, with plenty out of that number for 2nd strikes or even a few 3rd strikes.
No electrical infrastructure — no nuclear fuel enrichment, no missile assembly. No nuke threat. Casualties — minimal. Of COURSE it would be an act of war — no question. But it would get the job done rather inexpensively and thoroughly.
What the author of this fantasy piece seems to be unable to grasp is that a no fly zone is imposed on a defeated enemy AFTER a war. Which would explain why the author also seems oblivious to the fact that it was the 1991 Gulf War that defeated Iraq allowing the imposition of the no fly zone which then only led to the easy time in 2003.
So there is no “easy” solution. The US will have to be in a major war with Iran with all the risks that come with it. After all no one really knows for sure whether the US can hold the Strait of Hormuz open. All the magic bullet posters, whether advocating bombing their power plants or the IRGC or the nuclear facilities seem to completely forget that after you do that, you are in a war with Iran. You don’t just get to walk away.
The US has 2 options on an airstrike. Big or small. Big is big like the air campaign preceding GW1 times 10. This would completely decapitate the government and economy of Iran with tens and possibly hundreds of thousands dead. It is unknown whether the Iranian military would stay a coordinated effective fighting force after that, but the Hezbollah example from 2006 indicates they would.
Option 2 is the small targeted strike whether by the US or Israel. This would leave Iran’s military completely intact to retaliate on their terms. This is non-option for the US.
On the Iranian side, they have 250 – 350 heavy MRBM that can deliver onto Israel. They have well over a thousand heavy SRBM to deliver onto US bases and oil infrastruture of the Gulf Arabs. They have an unknown artillery, ASCM, mine, fast attack boat capability to shut the Strait of Hormuz. And they have an unknown capability to escalate US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also have an unknown capability to start blowing up important things up in the US like power plants, wall street, major ports, etc.. The nightmare scenario is that Iran holds the Strait shut in spite of continual heavy bombing, requiring the US to choose from 2 options. Invade with a force of at least half a million(military draft) or the US sues for peace on Iran’s terms(the US loses outright).
So what you’re left with is a gamble. And if the cards don’t turn up right, the US could be in a situation where 40% of the world’s oil is taken offline. The price oil goes somewhere around $300-400/bbl, US residents are paying $20+/gal. Heavy rationing of gasoline worse than the 73 or 79 embargos. And the resulting complete collapse of the US economy.
So it appear the Ms Rove assessment of Mr Lewis is spot on. No only is he no military genius, but he appears to be at the short end of internet keyboard warriors.
Thank you, Miriam Rove, for explaining your comments. Many of us sympathize with your grief.
One major reason for the No Fly Zone option is to strike at the Khomeinist regime without alienating the Iranian population. As other commenters have pointed out, if Ahmadinejad threatens all of Iran’s neighbors day after day, and also has the means to destroy them in 15 minutes, the rest of the world has no choice. The Saudis want to eliminate the regime, the Gulf States do, Egypt and Jordon do — which is why Egypt just protected the US-Israel naval passage through the Suez Canal, Israel doesn’t want to live under constant threat of annihilation, and by now even Turkey and Greece are getting in range of Iranian missiles and potentially nuclear weapons. The only rational response is to kill the cancer without harming the rest of the body. At the G-20 conference Italian President Berlusconi told the press that everybody at the conference agreed on that. The Iranian people are not the enemy. I think everybody also knows that. The sooner decent Iranians can take over from the Twelvers the better.
If the no fly zone worked so in Iraq,why believe that Saddam could of aquired WMD
Brilliant idea… commit more acts of war against a country that hasn’t done anything to us.
“The life of our nation and the peace of the world?”
We should have thought about that before spending the better part of a century meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
Primary targets are the nuclear facilities, including the nuclear power plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast near Kuwait, and the nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz near Esfahan.
Bushehr is an industrial city, with nearly 1 million residents. As many as 70,000 foreign engineers work in the region, which includes a large gas field. Natanz is Iran’s primary enrichment site, north of Esfahan, which also has nuclear research facilities. Esfahan is a world heritage city with a population of 2 million.
According to the Center for Disease Control, the uranium 235 used in nuclear reactors has a half life of 700 million years. As nuclear reactor fuel is used, it turns into uranium 238, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
These radioactive isotopes are dangerous to health because they emit alpha particles and because they are chemically toxic. When inhaled, they damage lung tissue. When ingested, they damage kidneys and cause cancer in bones and in liver tissues. According to a recent review of medical research, uranium exposure causes babies to be deformed or born dead.
Saying they have successfully bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor, with no ill effects. Israel has also recently released video of its 1981 bombing of the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq. See, it’s easy. Nothing bad happens. But those were both construction sites, not loaded reactors full of tons of enriched uranium.
Never in history has it happened that nuclear power plants and nuclear enrichment facilities have been deliberately bombed. Such facilities, everywhere in the world, operate under severe safety conditions because the release of radioactive materials is deadly, immediately and also long after exposure.
If the USA or Israel deliberately bomb a fully fueled nuclear power plant or nuclear fuel enrichment facilities, containment will be breached; radioactive elements will be released into the environment.
There will be horrific deaths for families in the surrounding vicinity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.
Reactors and enrichment facilities are built of extra strong concrete, often with multiple layers of containment domes, often built underground. Bombing such facilities will require powerful explosives, earth penetrator war heads, maybe nuclear warheads. The explosions will blow the contamination high into the atmosphere. Where will it go is a question that is difficult to predict.
Americans with family and friends serving in the military forces in the Persian Gulf, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan need to wonder how expendable they are.
Bad idea. The no-fly-zone in Iraq lasted for over a decade and was merely prolonging the inevitable removal of their leadership. Not to mention how expensive it was.
The Obama administration is going to do nothing about Iran. America will have to decide whether that is by design or incomptence, and react accordingly in 2010 and 2012.