The Desert Fox Option, Revisited

I think a prolonged all-out air campaign would be ideal. Not only would we be able to take out targets with ease, but it is harder to mount an insurgency against an purely air-campaign. The psychological effect after weeks of nothing but bombing would have to take it's toll. And when the days come when you find targets few and far between. Bomb an open plain, but within hearing distance. Bomb targets twice, three times. Day and night. 24/7. Air power is just as powerful a psychological weapon as it is a conventional weapon.

Nice new site! You sure you guys can't import all your old posts to this site? It'd be a shame to lose that.

Found via Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004984.htm

"...we still underestimate the destructive capability of air war." Interesting comment. I'm reading a bio of Gen. Billy Mitchell. His vision of future air power got him an invitation to a court marshall.

"If we build it, we should use it," especially the F-22s!

A sustained air campaign would undoubtedly destroy most if not all of Iran's military infrastructure. As for breaking the enemy's will to fight, it might be instructive to look at the "Battle of Britain" or even or own strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany. While military targets and whole town and cities were destroyed it wasn't until we actually occupied the country that they actually surrendered.

While someone might tempted to point to Japan and the Atomic bombings as an example, I would say that is flawed as well...the Japanese leadership surrendered because they essentially saw the handwriting on the wall...they were the picture of rational thought when compared with the people we are now dealing with.

Maybe if it were Desert Fox on steriods...this would be a good concept. Desert Fox without all the Clinton caution and limits built into it: more than 4 days with no off limits targets; repeat visits to targets; perhaps coupled with a real effort at the start to target the atomic scientists and other trained personnel running the program (i.e., bomb the buildings at shift change).

We need to get the other NATO nations to do this campaign.

If the US gets involved, I really think there would be heavy reprecussions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iranians know this and hence why they are trying to rub our noses into it as much as possible.

I really don't want us doing this without the IDF. The Israelis are so dadgum talented it hurts. We could do the Turkish Airspace scenario and handle all the refueling for Unit 69 and other outfits so they could come down through the north. Avoid the Arab League issues. No one really WANTS the Persian Fuhrer to have the bomb and I'm sure we could find a way to make things amenable for the Turks, unlike the diplomatic screwups from OIF.

BTW, any word on when that underground test is out in Nevada? End of May, isn't it?

I think it would work well - but within limits. All we are buying is time for something else to work.

Three points, though:

First, I would be thinking about a massive air campaign, then send in a ground force to raid the nuclear sites and verify the demolition. Not an occupation force, just a raid with cameras and demolition charges.

Second, I suspect that this sort of smash-and-leave action will become very popular over the next decade. The Iraq experience has left the public skittish about ground interventions.

Third, if we do take this path, DOD will have to face the need to rebalance the force structure. Our current force structure is the 1985-vintage force on a starvation diet - but that force was built to fight a land war in Europe. Big Army with heavy armor predeployed, big Air Force with lots of tactical aircraft, medium Navy with lots of ASW to get resupplies across the ocean. A true post-Cold War force needs more mobility and autonomy. Which means a shift away from the Army, a shift in the Air Force from fighters to bombers, and a much bigger carrier force for the Navy. We've got to break away from the Cold War force structure.

Good luck launching your new site on such a downer note as the easily discredited theory of AF superiority.
Pull your head out and let's go win this war.

I think what Gen. McInerny is suggesting is much more robust than Desert Fox. It is close to the Desert Storm bombing campaign or the campaign against the former Yugoslavia. It is the plan I have been suggesting for some time. I strongly believe that we must destroy Iran's ability to make war. To go gack to the Vietnam analogy, we need the "hard knock" championed by the joint chiefs instead of the graduated campaign favored by McNamara.

Desert Fox level air assault will only kick the can down the road and cement the Mullahs power just like GW1 did for Saddam. And I would feel sorry for the “revolution” that pops out to only see 91’ on a vast scale. Not to mention the fact Desert Fox was conducted in a short time frame mainly due to the fact the target Iraq was already broken in and had not been allowed to rebuild their air defenses/command and control.

We need more like GW1 level air campaign. Degrade as much as possible their WMD programs along with the crippling of their air defenses and military capability. This combined with some decapitation and strikes on the Iranian transportation, infrastructure and especially the government leadership will give the “revolution” a fighting chance. The “revolution” remembers full well how Saddam reping 20% of his pop and a handful of helicopters and tanks drove an 80% two front revolution into mass graves in 91’.

If the revolution never appears then we go to plan B and continue the decapitation process until such time we get a Mullah that will surrender to terms. Those terms being full surrender with restrictions on the rebuilding of their forces maybe some government requirements but most importantly strong inspections with well written out consequences if not abided by (we should have learned enough from Saddam to write a effective treaty today). This would be my idea of a containment strategy.

This is one of those all or nothing kind of games. To do Iraq without doing Iran is worthless while at the same time to hit Iran without at least trying to give the Iranian pop a chance is worthless. I don’t suggest a roll to Tehran but I think we could bomb them into submission then start cutting off chunks like the Oil rich South, Kurd North, and the many Islands and zone directly across the Harmuz with the Baluchi. Iran has some real weak points we could exploit without having to take the whole thing at once.

If we can cleave off Iran & Iraq the WOT from here on out would be pretty much maintenance and cruise control support of our new allies. I mean wont have just planted a seed but a freekin Oak tree.

In my strategy I see Worst case we are stuck in a containment position on Iran with the Mullahs still in power but greatly weakened possible with forces in holding positions in Southern Iran to protect the shipping lanes and groom the “revolution”.

Best case would be our massive air assault weakens the Mullahs grip enough for the different segments to break away emboldening the Iranians “revolution” that takes down the Mullahs with minimal US support of (air support, SOF, weapons financing).

Here is what I would do: blockade Iran´s oil exports - by bombing if necessary - and wipe out half the Iranian economy. Oil is the only base of Iranian influence. Those who can take away the oil are more powerful than those who have to sell it. And the US can do that.

I know it will cost us - all of us - as oil prices go through the roof. But it will put a different kind of choice before the rest of the world: do something about Iran or feel the consequences. For example, such a move would hurt China even more than us. Right now, China believes a nuclear Iran is not its problem, maybe even beneficial because it is more of a threat to US interests. Once China realizes that Iran´s behaviour will endanger its oil supplies by provoking US retaliation, it will turn against Iran. It´s called appeasement. At the very least Iran will not be able to pay Russia for their technology and SAMs.

I know it will not happen. But it should.

Once Iran hits oil installations around the Gulf, which they will surely do once they have nukes, we will pay the price anyway.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. " --FDR

"Some chicken. Some neck." --Winston Churchill

Our enemy within WANTS to see our troops on the ground in these places so they can use haughty words like "quagmire".

But don't you dare question their patriotism.

I think people are still stuck on the 'failures' of the Vietnam air campaign. Hampered by poor target designation, red tape and strange ROEs. They are beginning to re-realize the real power in air war with Desert Storm to some extent and Iraqi Freedom. Although the claims of sucess will be blunted with things like not killing Saddam with a bomb and the good-old North Vietnamese tactic of claiming the US blew up a hospital or orphanage or mosque or something.
Harland
PS - Great to have you on a beefed up site.

I think that an air campaign would play into Iranian leadership's hand. I think that Amedajani is actually taunting us to do it. His approval levels in Iran are very low now. The best way of solidifying a nation behind a leader is by the attack of a foreign nation.

Look at how 9/11 unified the US population. Look at how Stalin, a truely gruesome monster, became revered by the Russian people when Germany attacked Russia in 1943.

Another point is that many of the Iraqi Shite militia who we have been trained within the Iraqi army have close ties to Iran. The current leadership in Iraq, only last year negotiated oil trade agreements with Iran. The Shites in power were negotiating to allow Iranian troops to enter iraqi soil to police Najaf last year, this was stopped when the Bush administration went ballistic.
Chalabi, who provided much of the rosy scenerios and false propaganda that got us into this war, is in charge of the oil, he also travels often to Iran and has close Iranian ties.

An attack on Iran would seriously undermine our position in Iraq, and Afganistan. Oil export through the straits would be cut off sending the price spiralling up. We would risk unifying the Muslim world against the US. Our alternative sources of oil are not secure ... think about the politics in Venezuala, Nigeria.

I think our only realistic option is to act through the international community as a unified block.

Dead on point. Very few people understand that precision weapons, combined with the precison targeting equipment we possess, and the sortie rates we can generate with the likes of the -15, -18, -16 vice the F-4s, -105s, -106s, make the air forces of our country logarithmically more capable than they were during the Vietnam era.

The US has plenty of non-nuclear options that can be made effective...the military has the might...does the nation have the will?

The most effective thing about Gen. McInerny's proposal is that it would be fairly stealthy, in that little visible build-up is needed to effect the result... ostensibly at 3:30am out of the dark. Any potential ground offensive, it would seem can be assembled where needed during the 36-48 hour fray, when Iran's leadership will be a little too distracted to watch MSM coverage of strategic troop deployments. We would seem to have the advantage of position and power, with two bases of operations flanking the lower torso of Iran separating the head from its Gulf if needed.

Now, if we can just keep the liliputian embiciles like Biden and company from tying the arms of the Administration with their threads of sedition, perhaps we can finally resolve this potential crisis... before it mushrooms.

Great site. I'm sure we'll be here often. And welcome to our blogroll.

Any air campaign that is not followed up by at least a limited ground assault will be a waste. We need to know what exactly was damaged and how long the Iranian nuclear program has been delayed. Without that exact knowledge the Iraniams can start making claims about being on the verge of having the bomb in a year or too. No matter how intensive the bombing campaign.

How confident can we be that Iran doesn't already possess a few blackmarket nukes? Some are unaccounted for from the Ukraine, for example. Smart as all our weaponry may be, could a first strike absolutely prevent even one of them being launched at Israel? Our forces in Iraq? Europe?
And what then?

No C-130s? Ho are they going to get the MOABs on target?

Follow on by raiders is critical.

Then let Iraq fall apart and create Persia, Kurdistan, Shiarabia and Sunnirabia. If the Turks don't cooperate, let them find a reduced Turkey.

A truly well-executed air attack on Iran could reduce its military's ability to defend Iran. People forget the million casualties in the war with Iraq - and it wasn't just Sunnis killing Iranians in that war. There would be nothing as effective as an outright Iranian attack on the Shatt al Arab to bring together the factions in Iraq. Pakistan is also less than friendly with the mullahs. Most regional leaders and people would love to see the mullahs brought low. Imagine a humbled Iran, with no air force, no or few tanks, no military factories. Then reduce their economic power by attacking the oil. They are tremendously vulnerable. I also think it's unlikely they have a nuke. The first thing they would do is to explode it, in their eastern desert.

Can't help lovin' McInerney. He was excellent on Hugh's radio show Wednesday on this very subject (transcript at radioblogger.com).

Fascinating post and commentary. My thoughts:

1) We can't rely on a revolution in Iran. We need a contingency plan, if it happens, but that's all.

2) There will be no unified international community. It will be another coalition of the willing. That's basically all any alliance is worth anyway. But waiting for China or Russia (or some others) to back us is futile; waiting for them will make Godot look punctual.

3) Bombing will not break the Iranian people's "will" (however you count it and whatever it's worth). It may break Ammedi-nutjob's support, resulting in a coup, and possibly less insane but no less tyrannical leadership. But there will be no revolution unless the IRGC is completely broken.

4) A ground assault is not required for damage assessment. That's what UAV's and spec ops are for. Plus any Israeli agents who manage to survive.

5) The clock is running.

Cb

How exactly will having the International Community over just a willing coalition change any or your scenarios you laid out their?

But on to your scenarios lets see here:

Amedajani – is taunting agreed, but I think its more a mix of his 12th mahdi cult insanity and the fact he like AQ believe their own hype, that the US is soft, weak, morally corrupt, and ripe for the picking. Kind of like what Japan WW2 thought, if they just hit US hard enough we would capitulate then when that failed it turned into if they could just bleed US enough we would negotiate.

Will the Iranian people rally around their current gov. I doubt it but lets say they do do that lessen or make it even more crucial to ensure their leaders don’t get Nukes (especially considering that’s the popular alternative to war pray for a people revolution). And how would that change the negotiated truce that will follow our decimation of their military and government infrastructure see Iraq GW1? Also don’t forget Iran is not the monolithic beast many play it as there is a rather unfriendly to the state Kurds, Baluchi, Shia Arabs, Azerbajani people populations taking up a good portion of the Shia Persian run Iran nation.

9-11 unified US ehhh see Democratic Party, Michael Moore, San Franciso, Daily Kos ect..?

Stalin Soviet Union/Germany ehhh actually the Russians/Ukranians/Lativans/Lithuanians/Estonians for the most part supported the German advance at first as liberators. The problem was behind the German frontal advance was the SS & Gestapo sweeping in killing entire villages for being well Russians/Ukranians/Lativans/Lithuanians/Estonians. Word of these slaughters got out pretty quick and the fight for your life the devil I know mentality kicked in. Even with this many of the Northwestern Soviet Republics populations still supported the Germans to the end.

I think the oil trade between Iraq/Iran actually were supported and edged on from US to help the electrical needs of Iraq. The Iranian troops in Iraq Najaf ehh never heard that one. The Shia Arabs for the most part are more competitors than allies of Shia Persians and don’t forget they were the majority of forces Saddam used in the Iran/Iraq war.

1) Now Sadr/Mehdi Army well they will jump and have to be killed YES (long overdue anyway thou). Another example of why you don’t leave business unfinished especially the dedicated enemy kind.

2) But then so will Hezbollah, Hamas, and many other Iranian proxy terrorist groups around the world. Will they change the outcome of the war NO. Will they kill some innocents and cause some havoc Yes.

3) Oil will be shut off in the Strait of Harmuz attacks on oil facilities oil prices skyrocket. Of course prices will jump and yes the strait will be slowed down for a time period before we re-secure the strait. And maybe even some strikes in neighboring oil facilities will cause some problems. Will it change the outcome NO will it cause some inconvience and havoc Yes. Will you pay an extra dollar or two for your gallon of gas for some months YES.

These above 3 are good points and there are more were that came from to be sure. However they don’t change the final outcome short of temporary havoc caused. But the bottom line is these very scare tactics are the proof of why we must take Iran down. Because you take these tactics and mix them with a Nuclear shield over Iran and these very tactics wont be a temporary outcome if some war with Iran breaks out they will be just another day living with a embolden insane enemy on a mission from god. Look at how blatant Iran is now with their support of terrorism and times that by 10 then 10 more for every month after that you don’t get your sack together and make the sacrifice.

Then you will be asking yourself the real scare scenario of can we risk a naval invasion of Iran with their nuclear silkworms & Shab 3or4’s ready to go? Because our Arab allies kicked US out and refused basing after Iran said they would nuke their capitol otherwise. Because Iran ordered punishment of the West over helping Israel cope with the Hezbollah long range missile strikes on Northern Israel and the Hamas strikes into central and southern Israel. Now that is a scare scenario.

Doug
We can do the air assault thing then if the “revolution” doesn’t pop out we decapitate leadership until we get someone that will sing surrender on our terms (that will involve well written inspections, limits, and spelled out consequences for non-compliance). If Iran just goes chaos in that case albeit unlikely we would have to occupy. I do however think limited occupation in piece meal Southern Oil Fields, North of Harmuz, Baluchi SE, Kurdish Areas, Azerbajani area would in steps be necessary to show seriousness and make our wonderful allies happy Russia/China needs that oil.

Igout
Say the Iranians does have a handful of rogue nukes. Does that in anyway change the fact that we either sacrifice acceptable losses today or see millions upon millions killed tomorrow. In 1936 Germany was weak but ballsy the British/French unwieldiness to sacrifice say 100k(Germany only had 30k man force then) dead then cost what 50million dead in WW2.

This is the big show guys. Iraq is going to look like a walk in the park.

Why not send in Sam Fisher? He's the only dude on the planet badder than Chuck Norris, and he could dress up like Muqtada al Sad'r to throw 'em off, slip up behind Amedajani, and put the stranglehold on him. When Amedajani asks "who are you?", Sam would tell him "I'm an extremely ill-tempered and heavily armed heating and cooling engineer", and then slit his pencil neck throat with that big knife he totes. That's what Tom Clancy would do, at least.

I posted this a couple of days ago on my blog as an alternative to nukes. It would also be a good balance with a full on conventional air assault...

"The first would be to invade and secure the area of Iran which surrounds the Strait of Hormuz. A Marine division or two with full on air support could accomplish this in a matter of a few days and thereby relieve the pressure Iran might be able to exert on the world’s oil trade.

The second, and this would be equally feasible, would be to attack and capture Khuzestan. this small province, adjacent to Iraq and populated by Arabs rather than Persians, contains the bulk of Iran’s oil. In this case it would indeed be “about the oil”.

There would be no need for sanctions if, at a stroke, Iran’s oil reserves were taken from her. It would be a matter of a few months before the Iranian regime was on the ropes."

Although I have great respect for Gen McInerney, our Special Operators are already maxed out with OIF and OEF, thus his plan will require extensive help from the IDF and the Turks to execute. Given our past history in the region, diplomatic initiatives are doomed to fail, especially since our European allies refuse to cooperate with the Bush administration, and will be willing to cut off their noses to in spite of their collective faces to smite the Americans. For this reason we are left with only a military option, and not a pretty one at that.

With a mutual defense pact, the Israelis and Turks have a common interest in defeating the Iranian missile threat, but the Turks will have to play this one out very carefully to avoid becoming pariahs in the Muslim world. For the first time in modern history we may be witnesses to the first joint Israeli-Muslim military operation.....

While Gen. McInerny's description is sound, it is really only the beginning of the beginning. Even before that how about we surprise everyone, and return to Pres. Reagan's dare to completely eliminate all nukes! A couple of questions arise, obviously. We'd only do so if the "Rods from God"/Project Thor strategy is ready to replace the atom, and we'd need to be very hard on forcing the diplomacy so that the immediate military follow-up is final and permanent.

I'm afraid an air campaign alone won't do it.

These people (and insert any number of middle eastern nations for "these") did not have a WW II, let alone a WW I, at least in the state-altering sense. In an odd way colonialism served them well in avoiding that. Occupation may not be necessary, but a pass through invasion may be.

Maybe the good general needs to review the photographs of the bunkers under Saddam Hussein's palaces. It is more fun ginning up ato's until the cows come home, but after weeks of being bombed with our best conventional deep penetrators, not a scratch inside the bunkers. If we are serious, then there is only one answer short of 300,000 ground troops. That is the crowd pleaser. Yes folks, the B-61-11 or equivalent. If we don't intend on sending ground troops to finish the job with hack saws and c-4, then only a -11 can insure destruction from above. We won't need 1000's of sorties. One is enough. And we can tell them 1 hour before it strikes to get their people out of the facilites. A few cruise missiles with high explosives and a few with ecm will make the B-2 as survivable as flying over Nebraska at midnight. But if senile old generals who think in terms of f-4's over nam still have influence, then yes, get ready for a protracted mess that will make Iraq look a cake walk.

that is all
kentug

The rain begin suddenly all over the roof,

At breakfast I showed the kids the worldsocialism card which meant I had to explain to them what capitalism is.

Except for cb, you people are out of contact with reality.
Your pipedreams remind me of Wolfowitz, Cheny, and Rumsfeld. None of whom ever carried a weapon larger than a dirtcloud when they were children. Need I say more about their "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think so.
The Chinese will stop recycling our dollars by buying someone else's bonds. And what they don't recycle will go into their growing military. The Russians will not sell us oil and the Iranians certainly won't. How do you propose to prevent devastating attacks on any petroleum pipeline? On anything American around the world. The government of Pakistan would, in my opinion, fall. Our own government will have little support for such a military adventure either by our own citizens, myself included, and the rest of the world and will undergo decades of non-support by nearly all of the world.
It is obvious from the breezy tone of most writers here that there is little grasp of the impact of such behavior and the aftermath. It also sounds like most, if not all of you, have never participated in a military conflict nor would you be the ones to be involved. Shades Wolfowitz, Cheny, etc.
I compare your 'airpower will take care of business' daydreams to shooting a beehive of africanised bees with a shotgun. The relatively low technology used against us in Iraq seems pretty effective in case you have not noticed. Did no one here read of the Iranian drone that buzzed our carrier recently? Likely you didn't read of the Chinese seersucker cruise missle that flew in unseen and impacted against our troops during the Iraq invasion. Have you forgotten the thrashing of the apache helicopter attack during that conflict's active stage? Just because muslim males foam at the mouth and twitch during a full moon doesn't mean they are not efective enemies. I witnessed a firepower demonstration for some congressional clown at Fort Ord during the Vietnam era. I walked away thinking no one could survive such a storm of lead. Vietnam taught me different.
Do you really think the Turks will support us? I suggest a double think on that one. Frankly, I don't think any countries other than Isreal would support us and I'm not certain of them.
Our military technology isn't infallible. Our potential enemies are not brain dead. Look how effective they are in Iraq. We probably spend millions per dead terroist. They spend tens.
There also appears to be little grasp of the impact on the world's economies from such an undertaking. I predict a world wide depression and certainly an unacceptable lowering of our and the rest of the world's economy.
I also feel the Iranian government will weaken to a point of greatly reduced power politically and that the venom spewing old goats will be replaced in time with little expense on our part.
It's late. I'm going to bed.

Roger

Thanks !!! ;)
I have found here much useful information.