• Comment (6)

Key General: White House Briefed on Iran Target Options

Former Joint Chiefs No. 2 doubts Iran can be stopped

February 29, 2012 RSS Feed Print

The Air Force has provided the White House with options for a strike against Iran's nuclear weapons sites, but a former top Pentagon official is warning America and Israel lack the weaponry to halt Tehran's atomic arms program.

Iran's defiant pursuit of nuclear weapons "has the attention of the [Joint] Chiefs and other national security officials," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters Wednesday. "Our obligation is to provide options" to the defense secretary and the president, Schwartz said, "and we have done that."

President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have said for months they will continue with a plan based on increasingly severe sanctions aimed at weakening the regime in Tehran. But the U.S. leaders contend a military strike is very much on the table.

[Iran Flexes Military Muscle in Persian Gulf.]

The strike options apparently include dropping the Air Force's 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bomb. That weapon is designed to penetrate deep into the ground and take out deeply burried enemy targets.

Schwartz's revelation that strike options have been sent to the military's civilian bosses in the Pentagon's E-Ring and the White House came less than a week before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with Obama in Washington. And it came six days after the former second-ranking U.S. general said flatly that the Air Force and Israel lack the firepower to bring Iran's nuclear arms program to a halt.

"No, we don't," retired Marine Corps Gen. James "Hoss" Cartwright, until last August the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said last week during a forum in Washington. "If they have the intent, all the weapons in the world are not going to change that ... because the knowledge is there." Cartwright's role as vice chairman would have given him access to Washington's best intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.

Another reason is that U.S. intelligence has concluded Iranian officials have moved many of their nuclear labs over the last few years to hardened locations deeper and deeper underground, Cartwright and retired Adm. William Fallon, a former U.S. Central Command chief, said during the forum.

Schwartz acknowledged that would make such sites difficult to reach. "It goes without saying that strike is about physics. So the deeper you go, the harder it gets," Schwartz said. But the bunker buster bomb, the air chief added with a confident grin, "is not an inconsequential capability—I think "Hoss" Cartwright would agree with that."

Israeli officials have been more brash than have Obama and Panetta about taking out Iran's nuclear program. But Cartwright said America's closest Middle East ally only possesses the combat power to "slow it down" or "delay it" by two to five years.

"I don't see a lot of value in going in," Cartwright said.

His comments raised eyebrows in Washington, partly because prior to becoming vice chairman he was U.S. Strategic Command chief. That Nebraska-based organization oversees America's nuclear weapons and other weaponry like conventionally armed bombers and missiles that would likely be used to strike deeply buried targets like Iran's nuclear arms labs.

What would it take to forcibly stop Iran's program? A large-scale invasion with the goal of toppling the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[Senators: U.S. Forces at Risk Due to Syrian Chemical Weapons.]

"It's not a single target, one strike and it's over" kind of operation, Fallon said. "They've been pretty clever about distributing stuff [across the country]. To really take care of the problem, it will require people—and quite a few of them. You can do air strikes only to delay them."

Not even the most fervent U.S. or Israeli hawks have advocated launching a ground war in Iran.

Tags:
Iran,
military

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

There is more than enough probable cause to greenlight efforts to stop an illicit nuclear bomb making program under a guise to build and provide nuclear energy.

Iran has been given more than 5 1/2 years to reasonably settle this problem. Yet, they have refused to do so and have wasted an enormous amount of time which could have enabled a very reasonable settlement. If they were so concerned about the security of their country, then why provoke the West into attacking Iran? Those in charge in Iran do not care about the safety and welfare of their own people - they will expose them to needless death and injury and economic losses while saving their own skin.

Amadejadein will have to face his generals after he loses the Air Force, Navy and Army to air attacks. Very brilliant to provoke the tiger (US) into attacking and what do you have left - no airplanes, no ships and a demoralized, destroyed army. Not looking too bright isn't he?

To date, I have not heard anything about secret negotiations aimed at settling outstanding issues. If we are not talking, then what are we waiting for? Bomb them back to the stone age and teach them a lesson!

Air strikes will only delay the nuclear program two to five years or even longer if critical infrastructure is successfully destroyed. It is not worth it to bring ground troops as they will be come static targets for insurgents, IED's and suicide bombers.

But do give the Iranian people a stronger incentive to throw the clowns of idiots out of office. Many Iranians despise the current regime and love Americans and their culture. Give them a chance to do something about this mess their leaders helped create due to their own stupidity. If we put ground troops, they become targets from Iranians. If we leave it up to them, then the people will amaze us.

In the end, we can discern between a peaceful nuclear program and an illicit effort to develop a nuclear device. Countries that opt not to have a nuclear device but want a nuclear energy program have no problem obtaining the nuclear infrastructure. If those countries have no problem going down that path, then why cannot Iran do the same if they want a peaceful nuclear energy program?

James of PA 3:33AM March 02, 2012

So when does the American public get to weigh in the the issue of going to war? This is not some knee jerk reaction requiring the President to take immediate action to defend American lives or interest and requiring the ultimate consent of Congress under the war powers act. This is a contemplative action wherein we will commit this country to going to was (again). Congress cannot, once again, cede this issue to the executive branch. We really need to weigh the strategic issues of our relationship with the entire Middle East and the rest of the world versus the short term temptation of slowing Iran getting a nuclear weapon. We need to weigh this keeping in mind the price we are likely to pay with the lives of our soldiers. Did we not contain the Soviet Union with their thousands of warheads poised to launch on warning? Does it make sense to go to war to prevent Iran getting a weapon when Israel had hundreds of nuclear weapons? If Israel were hit, either by Iran or their proxies, would not they retaliate overwhelmingly and destroy the Persian civilization? Does not anyone remember John Kennedy's warning to the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis that a launch of a nuclear missile anywhere in our hemisphere against anyone in the hemisphere would be considered an attack against the United States, requiring the full retaliatory response against the Soviet Union? Cannot the Israelis issue a similar warning to Iran?

The war drums are getting louder just like the run up to the war with Iraq. Even though many of my fellow senior leaders in the military counseled against going to war, as we had Sadam contained with no fly zones in the north and south of Iraq, nevertheless, the civilian leadership continued to press for the war, encouraged by Israel.

The Congress of the United States of America needs to step up and exert it' s constitutional authority and decide if this nation goes to war yet again. The military will salute smartly and carry out the mission in the superb fashion that they always do but we had better take the pulse of what it will do to retention, as yet another war with many, many deployment will have a negative impact on the force. The executive cannot continue to use the force as a FedEx delivery man, expecting that all will be OK, after delivery of the package. The wives who have not seen their husbands and children who have not seen their fathers, except in brief interludes between middle east deployments, will likely have more influence than the pundits realize when they readily agree to send the force yet again to war. The world and middle east strategy going forward will be forever changed and not for the better and the US Armed Forces may be finally reduced in size enough by family actions to save Congress the job of slashing it to save money.

Stand up Congress and tell the President that you will decide when and if we go to war, that there is no immediate threat to this nation requiring another mistaken war in the M.E.

John Clinton of CA 7:01PM March 01, 2012

To stop Iran's program you use nukes to kill nukes. 5 megaton nukes will dig a 500 foot hole if used properly.

Four successive nukes on top of the other can dig a 2000 foot hole and drill to whatever depth is necessary to kill the program.

That's what Israel will end up doing with it's sub launched cruise nukes.

wowlfie of CO 10:18AM March 01, 2012

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos