Retired general: US strike on Iran 'feasible and credible'

www.ynetnews.com...

An interesting piece from a former US military general:

Retired general: US strike on Iran 'feasible and credible'

Charles Wald, former deputy commander of US forces in Europe says in Wall Street Journal op-ed policy makers must prepare for 'Plan B' should diplomacy, economic pressure fail

AFP
Published: 08.09.09, 10:23 / Israel News

A devastating US military strike against Iran's nuclear and military facilities "is a technically feasible and credible option," a retired general asserted in an article published on Friday.

Retired air force general Charles Wald, a former deputy commander of US forces in Europe, said US policy makers must prepare for a "Plan B," including the military's role, should diplomacy fail.

"A peaceful resolution of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly be the best possible outcome," Wald wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

"But should diplomacy and economic pressure fail, a US military strike against Iran is a technically feasible and credible option," he said.

Wald's views were in striking contrast with those of the Pentagon's top civilian and military leaders, who have warned repeatedly that military action against Iran would be highly destabilizing.

'Iran would retain nuclear know how'

President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has sought to engage Iran diplomatically, but prospects of a breakthrough have been clouded by political turmoil in Iran over President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's disputed re-election.

"Many policy makers and journalists dismiss the military option on the basis of a false sense of futility," Wald wrote.

"They assume that the US military is already overstretched, that we lack adequate intelligence about the location of covert nuclear sites, and that known sites are too heavily fortified," he said.

"Such assumptions are false," he said.

Wald argued that serious military preparations for a strike could in themselves help persuade Iran to end its nuclear defiance "without firing a single shot."

Pressure could be applied by deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers to waters off Iran and conducting military exercises with allies, he said.

If that failed, he said, the US Navy could blockade Iran's Gulf ports, cutting off gasoline imports that constitute a third the country's domestic consumption.

"Should these measures not compel Tehran to reverse course on its nuclear program, and only after all other diplomatic avenues and economic pressures have been exhausted, the US military is capable of launching a devastating attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities," he wrote.

Wald acknowledged there were "huge risks to military action," including that Iranians would rally around "an unstable and oppressive regime" and that reprisals and regional unrest would follow.

"Furthermore, while a successful bombing campaign would set back Iranian nuclear development, Iran would undoubtedly retain its nuclear know how," he said.

"But the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing," he said.

If Americans just accept and go along with a third consecutive, simultaneous and preemptive war; the world will lose all respect for them, for a very, very, long time.

Someone needs to tell this general where he can shove his imperialist wet dream.

reply to post by john124


OK so let me get this straight?

Some retired General states the obvious about the US abilities. He could just as easily said we have the 'feasible and credible' ability to attack Canada. This is news? There is nothing in this story that proves that the US is actually planning such attack this is all hypothetical Fear Mongering.

Yea well what good is a retired generals point of view. If hes retired it must be for a reason, I mean generals never retire right? It's not like they do a mans job. Any old fart can sit around a map playing war chess. I think this general is probably an underachiever.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by john124

 

OK so let me get this straight?

Some retired General states the obvious about the US abilities. He could just as easily said we have the 'feasible and credible' ability to attack Canada. This is news? There is nothing in this story that proves that the US is actually planning such attack this is all hypothetical Fear Mongering.

Whilst I disagree with this general, I also disagree with most ats members. Is this general's opinion any less than yours?

It's a sad day when somebody reacts emotionally and lacking judgement to a news article. It's what ats has become - anger, pettiness and accusations, rather than discussing the issue at hand.

Everybody on here seems to have textbook answers - fearmongering, spy accusations etc.

What's happened to people using their brains and engaging an issue with real productive discussion.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by john124]

The military have and have always had plans to attack EVERY counrty on the planet. Just because the plans exists does not mean we will actually execute them.

It's called "Threat Assement". What could ???? do to us? How might we respond?

Relax. It's just posturing.

Pffffft... he only made deputy commander? A bit of a loser then!

It's a little rich of the US government whining that they want to engage Iran in talks, whilst at the same time openly pledging $Millions in funding to anti-Iran, and Iranian opposition groups, working to destabilise and overthrow the current rulers.

Then there is the issue of the Iranian power station. The US and it's Israeli handlers have yet to provide any evidence at all of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Arguing that they might develop one a few years from now just doesn't cut it. Tonga might as well, or Burkina Faso - are they gonna get on a hit list too for what they might do in the future?
On the other hand of course, we have Israel, which does have a nuclear weapons programme and is not a signatory to the NPT, dictating to everyone else that they should go fight another war to remove another of their enemies.
The destabilisation of Iran has been long in the planning, ever since Bush came out with neo-con penned "Axis of Evil" BS. Iran was moving steadily towards better relations with the West up until then but in one fell swoop they were once again the enemy, without actually having done anything. This is all just another big game by the globalist players and their banker elite handlers. War is good for profit and if peace broke out all over they'd lose so much power.

Originally posted by john124
What's happened to people using their brains and engaging an issue with real productive discussion.

You're absolutely right. When we here at ATS are bombarded day and night with these types of scenarios some of us do tend to turn a blind eye to the possibilities of such situations.


Allow me to reassess my opinion.

Fear mongering and Sabre rattling.

This is just one mans opinion.



[edit on 9-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

I side with Slayer on this. Why take this so damn seriously? Let's Iran know we're still watchin'em. Maybe bluff them right out of the game even.

I seriously doubt we'll try to blockade Iran to stop them from importing gasoline. Iran has one of the world's highest oil reserves. They can make their own gasoline, if they choose.

I'm also curious how the US would plan to blockade Iran from the sea. For one thing, Iran borders on the Caspian Sea, which we can't even reach. It's not connected to any other oceans. We can't seriously blockade the entire Persian Gulf coast of Iran.

As for a military possibility, of course the military is coming up with plans. Do you think they'll wait until Congress authorizes a strike, before trying to figure out how to do it? They'll have a wide variety of plans in place, ranging from some covert operation with a few Special Forces, to a nuclear strike on the reactors, and everything in between.

But right now we've got two unwinnable and very unpopular wars going on that are taking up most of our military's attention and energy. We're really not in a good position to start yet another war, especially against an enemy like Iraq, which has a serious army and would fight bitterly.

If we attack yet another Muslim country, all that will do for us is get even more moderate Muslims angry and polarize them against us. At some point we'll wind up getting all one billion of these guys mad at us, and then what? I guarantee you, it won't be an improvement.

[edit on 8/9/2009 by chiron613]

Opinions are like ***holes everyone has got them and I would take this General's assessment with a grain of salt. However, he is right that a military option should always be on the table dealing with any country and hopefully that option is never used but one can't remained blind to it either.

I'm with with Slayer 69 this some of that good ol' sabre rattling. Now if Secretary Gates or other Pentagon top brass begin an escalation in military rhetoric regarding Iran then I would be concerned and interested, but if an arm chair General wants to analyze the situation I wouldn't put much stock in it.