Though
undesirable, military action may become necessary. Now is the time
to prepare.
Iran wants nukes. Months of diplomatic efforts to dissuade the
anti-American mullahs from their quest have yielded one muted and
toothless United Nations resolution, and zero concessions.
Iran's intransigence, capped by this week's thumb-in-the-eye
announcement that the nation has started enriching uranium, forces
realists to consider alternatives to diplomacy. Common wisdom holds
that there are no good military options. Here, common wisdom is
right.
But just because military options are not attractive does not mean
they should be ruled out. Though we are not there, the time may
come when Iran's determination to play with nuclear fire makes bad
options look better and better.
The military options at America's disposal range from the "merely"
troubling, difficult and expensive, to the truly horrifying.
Option 1: Surgical attacks. The least unattractive
option, it would be hard to pull off. Israel's quick-strike
destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility 25 years ago cannot
be replicated in Iran. The mullahs have dispersed, hardened and
hidden nuclear installations and facilities throughout the country.
Putting them out of commission would require a sustained and
widespread campaign of air and missile strikes. Some locations
would likely require American boots on the ground. Not an
impossible task, but not quick and easy - or clean.
Option 2: Invasion. An even messier option, this
would look something like the invasion of Iraq, only a bit tougher.
Ultimately, Iran's military would be defeated. But U.S. military
forces would be strained severely - a situation that would continue
throughout an unpredictable and costly occupation. With unfinished
business in Iraq and other critical commitments - such as defending
South Korea, watching the Taiwan Strait, and supporting homeland
security - this option hinges on America's willingness to commit to
real and sustained increases in defense spending in the years
ahead.
Option 3: Nuke 'em. The "rubble don't make
trouble" approach is the least viable. Absent a clear, present and
immediate threat of nuclear attack, Americans instinctively recoil
from the thought of overthrowing even the maddest tyrant if the
price tag includes millions of innocent dead.
Fortunately, additional defense-related options exist. Though they
may not keep Iran from building a bomb, they can help make the
neighborhood safer.
For starters, we can beef up the Proliferation Security Initiative,
a multinational effort to break up networks trying to spread
weapons of mass destruction technologies and materials to
terrorists and other bad actors. The initiative has succeeded in
interdicting shipments of dangerous materials, and it's our best
hope of stopping delivery of a covert nuclear weapon.
Continued success on this front requires that we keep one step
ahead of the bad guys, by beefing up intelligence assets and
modernizing our Coast Guard and naval forces.
We also need to get serious about Theater Missile Defense. We're
already working with friends and allies to establish a mix of air-,
land- and sea-based defenses that can destroy ballistic missiles in
flight. We should put these efforts into overdrive to protect our
friends in the region.
To further pose a credible military deterrent to Iran, the United
States also must pump up its special operations and human
intelligence resources, and arrange ready access to the Middle
East.
Today, our special ops are overstretched. The Pentagon should stop
using these troops for foreign training assignments and other jobs
that can be handled by conventional units. And it should bolster
their ranks and expand human intelligence assets, ensuring that
they have the language skills, area knowledge, and detailed and
accountable intelligence needed to operate in Iran.
Finally, the Pentagon should nail down basing options in the
region. That doesn't mean permanent bases - just agreements with
friends who will let us use their territory, waters and air space
to launch and sustain operations against Iran, should they become
necessary.
There are no easy solutions for the threat posed by the nuke-hungry
mullahs of Iran. But appropriate military options exist. To be able
to exercise these options successfully - and to provide maximum
deterrent effect - we must start making the right military
investments now.
James
Carafano
is a senior research
fellow for defense and homeland security at The Heritage
Foundation.
First appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer