WASHINGTON – The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.
No attack appears likely in the near future, and many experts harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat “to convince them this is more and more serious,” a senior official said.
According to officials, Pentagon and CIA planners have been exploring possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets.
Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has vaulted to the front of President Bush’s agenda, even as he struggles with the relentless war in neighboring Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends, aides said, and the White House, in its new national security strategy, in March labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.
Many military officers and specialists, however, view such talk with alarm. A strike in Iran, they warn, would at best delay its nuclear program by a few years. At the same time, it could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation.
The debate comes as the United States is working with European allies on a diplomatic solution. After tough negotiations, the U.N. Security Council issued a statement last month urging Iran to once again halt its uranium enrichment program. But Russia and China, both veto-wielding council members, forced out any mention of consequences and are strongly resisting sanctions.
U.S. officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course, but privately seem increasingly skeptical that it will succeed.
Bush has also been privately consulting with key senators about options on Iran as part of a broader goal of regime change, according to an account by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.
The U.S. government has taken some preliminary steps that go beyond planning. The Washington Post reported that the military has been secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004 using radar, video, still photography and air filters to detect traces of nuclear activity not accessible to satellites. Hersh reported that U.S. combat troops have been ordered to enter Iran covertly to collect targeting data.
Iran appears to be taking the threat seriously. The government, which claims its nuclear activity is only for peaceful, civilian uses, has launched a program to reinforce key sites such as Natanz and Isfahan by building concrete ceilings, tunneling into mountains and camouflaging facilities. Iran lately has tested several missiles in a show of strength.
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently outlined an Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.
At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that would require 400 “aim points” at nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. Special operations forces would be required, he said.
Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. “The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option,” he said.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
