Would bombing Iran work?
Retired General Jack Keane tells Lee Smith that the U.S. military could seriously delay Iran's nuclear quest:
â??My judgment tells me that if we did something as devastating as we could do, taking down their major sites, which also means their engineers and scientists, I think the setback would be greater than five years. I donâ??t like to read too much into peopleâ??s motivations, but at times when we donâ??t want to do something, we build a case in terms of our interpretation that it is too hard or it isnâ??t worth the payoff.â? [Emphasis mine]
What this implies is that to really put time back on the clock - the U.S. would have to hit Iranian facilities en-masse on one day, during the day, so as to maximize the chance that people integral to Iran's nuclear program are killed.
A day-time strike is more risky for the U.S. and increases the number of civilian casualties in any attack - magnifying the potential for a strike to stoke Iranian nationalism.
Then there's this:
â??It is inconceivable that the American military would say â??we can strike but we cannot accomplish our objective.â?? The assessment of one to three years assumes one blow but that is not what the reasonable American option is, which calls for repeated attacks if the Iranians restart the program. It is unreasonable to assume that after the strikes the U.S. would sit pat and Iran would rebuild. Itâ??s absolutely imperative that if the U.S. strikes, its posture should be, â??Dear Iranians, please do not proceed to rebuild the program, or we will strike again.â??â?
In other words, for a military solution to work, the U.S. has to be prepared to wage open war on Iran indefinitely. In essence, we will embrace a similar containment regime that was applied to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
