Weekly Commentary: Better Risk Air War Now Than Require Boots On The Ground
In Future
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 30 July 2015

Almost to a man, participants in the public debate of the Iran deal are
treating their audience like children who can’t bear to hear the truth.

And that applies to both sides of the debate.

Proponents of the deal argue that, with respect to the nuclear risk of the
deal, the United States will always have the same “military option” should
Iran make a dash towards building a nuclear weapon, so giving the deal a
“chance” is a risk free move with respect to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Opponents of the deal, almost to a man, insist that the consequence of the
deal falling through is a process that leads to tougher negotiations that
ultimately result in a better deal.

So why are these arguments treating the audience like children?

Because the real options are considerably less palatable.

So here it is:

1. As Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said on 10 April, 2015, the United
States today has “the capability to shut down, set back and destroy the
Iranian nuclear program" and this via an air-based operation. NO BOOTS ON
THE GROUND.

2. This air-based operation relies on B-2 stealth bombers dropping the
biggest bunker busters every made.

3. The consensus among the technology experts is that it is only a matter
of time before ant-aircraft systems are developed to detect and shoot down
B-2’s and this despite its extremely small profile. In fact, Russian Major
General Sergei Babakov revealed earlier this month that Russia has already
developed the ability to detect and shoot down B-2’s.

4. The Iranians would be complete and total idiots not to pay the
Russians whatever billions or tens of billions is needed to implement
anti-stealth aircraft technology to protect strategic Iranian
nuclear-related targets from an American attack.

5. The Iranians aren’t idiots.

6. The day the Iranians can detect and shoot down B-2’s is the day that
the United States is stripped of a conventional air-based military option.

Conclusion: Anyone making a reasonable assessment has to contend with the
reality that, in all likelihood, the window for the American conventional
air-based “military option” is short-lived.

As for the US rejecting the deal:

1. There is no guaranty that Iran will react to American sanctions by
returning to the table.

2. If Iran opts to run for the bomb, this rush to the bomb would make a
prima facie case for the United States to exercise its conventional
air-based military option to “shut down, set back and destroy the Iranian
nuclear program.” And this WITHOUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

So these are the true choices:

Accept the deal with Iran in the knowledge that when the day comes to stop
Iran’s run to the bomb that there very well won’t be a viable conventional
air-based military option.

Or

Reject the deal with Iran in the knowledge that this could set into play a
scenario in which it is necessary to stop Iran’s run to the bomb by
exercising America’s conventional air-based military option.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il