Should the U.S. actually
take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few
sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear
efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and
fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and
whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance
gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive
mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel
another decade of a nuke-free Iran.
There’s been a lot of
loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might
ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington’s best-connected
defense analysts, has put together aremarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf),
cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types
of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American
strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian
counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a
two-fold conclusion:
*
“Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes
that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite
the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem,
the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as
allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged. It would
invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks — by missile,
terrorist, and boat — jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It
would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even
manages to pull the mission off — something Cordesman very much doubts.
* The U.S. might be able
to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. But to do so, it’ll be
an enormous undertaking. The initial air strike alone will “require a
large force allocation [including] the main bomber force, the
suppression of enemy air defense system[s], escort aircraft for the
protection of the bombers, electronic warfare for detection and jamming
purposes, fighter sweep and combat air patrol to counter any air
retaliation by Iran.”
But the first attack
might actually be the easy part, writes Cordesman, an expert at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
A depiction of the ballistic-missile battle that could follow an American strike on Iran. Illo: CSIS
At the same time, the
U.S. has to keep Iran from blocking the ultra-important Strait of
Hormuz, the 21-mile-wide waterway through which flows around 20 percent
of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas supplies. And America has to
protect its energy-producing allies in the Persian Gulf, or else there
will be no oil or gas to send through the Strait.
That will be no mean
task, Cordesman writes: “Iran can cherry pick its targets in an effort
to pressure and intimidate the U.S. and Southern Gulf states. It can use
long-range conventionally armed missiles or drones against large
military or urban targets as terror weapons. It can attack sporadically
and unpredictably in a war of attrition or attempt to ‘swarm’ U.S. and
Gulf naval forces.”
Some of this defensive work has already begun. To keep the Strait open, the U.S. has kept up a steady patrol of aircraft carriers and stationed gunboats, minesweepers, and robot subs in
nearby Bahrain. To spot Iran’s missiles — many of which can hit their
targets in as little as four minutes — the U.S. is building a next-generation X-band radar station in
Qatar. To knock those short- and medium-range ballistic missiles out of
the sky, America has sold billions of dollars’ worth of Patriot and
Terminal High Altitude Air Defense interceptors to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and the United Arab Emirates. Those anti-missiles will be augmented by
U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers equipped with Aegis ballistic-missile defense systems — one of the most-proven components in the American interceptor stockpile.
But to make sure
Tehran’s missiles don’t hit Riyadh or Kuwait City, the U.S. will have to
take out Iran’s eight ballistic-missile bases and 15 missile production
facilities, and 22 launch facilities if a preemptive strike is ever
ordered. America will “need to destroy as many missile launchers as
possible … in order to reduce number of incoming warheads,” Cordesman
writes. Each target will require two aircraft each — either
carrier-launched F/A-18s or F-15Es and F-16Cs flying from nearby air
bases — for a total of 90 jets. Auxiliary targets could include Iran’s
refineries, its power grid, its military bases, and its roads and
bridges.
American jets and
fighters will be pretty much free to fire at will — the Iranian air
force is a joke, and its air defense systems don’t have the sensors or
the networking to seriously threaten U.S. jets. Still, those air
defenses and enemy fighters will have to be taken out before they manage
to get off a lucky shot.
Drones will be deployed
for further intelligence, “deception, jamming, harassment,
or destruction of enemy forces and air defense systems.” Special
operations forces will conduct “direct action missions, special
reconnaissance, and provide terminal guidance for attacks against
valuable enemy targets.” Somehow, attacks from Iran’s terrorist allies —
including Hamas and Hezbollah — will have to be blunted, as well.
And then, of course, there’s the main attack.
Destroying each of
Iran’s five nuclear facilities will require a pair of B-2 bombers flying
out of Diego Garcia. Every plane will carry two of the U.S. military
next-gen, king-sized bunker-busters, the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator. The
“GPS-guided weapon contain[s] more than 5,300 pounds of conventional
explosives inside a 20.5 foot-long bomb body of hardened steel. It is
designed to penetrate dirt, rock and reinforced concrete to reach enemy
bunker or tunnel installations,” writes Cordesman, who believes such a
bomb can set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions for years.
Israel might — might —
be able to pull off a similar strike, but only just barely. It’ll
require using a quarter of the Israel Air Force’s fighters, and all of
its tanker planes, leaving no aircraft for all these other secondary
targets. The jets will have to hug the Syrian-Turkish border before
flying over both Iraq and Iran. And that is not exactly friendly
territory. “The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and
getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be
complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall
mission will have a high success rate,” Cordesman writes.
And even if the reactors
are hit, the ”Iranian retaliation will have a devastating regional
consequences,” he adds. You don’t even want to know what the Middle East
would look like the day after Israel attempts anuclear strike on Iran.
Which leaves the American attack option. It may be technically possible. “It’s clear that if the United States did it we would have a hell of a bigger impact,”
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in the spring. Cordesman would
rather see negotiations instead: “The brief shows just how dangerous
any war in the Gulf could be to the world’s economy.” Some politicians
may be calling for a preemptive strike on Iran. There’s a reason
military planners are so wary.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου