Forum: Air Power

Retired USAF General says US strike on Iran feasible option!



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Aug 09, 2009 - 04:04 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1909

Status: Offline
Washington, 7 August (WashingtonTV)—Retired US Air Force General Charles Wald said on Friday that the Obama administration should prepare a “Plan B” for Iran, including the military’s role, should diplomacy fail to curb its nuclear ambitions.


Wald, a former deputy commander of US forces in Europe, said that while a peaceful solution was the “best possible outcome”, a military strike was “a technically feasible and credible option.”


In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Wald argued that the military could play an important role in resolving the ongoing row, “without firing a single shot.”


“Publicly signaling serious preparations for a military strike might obviate the need for one if deployments force Tehran to recognize the costs of its nuclear defiance,” he wrote.


Wald said that the U.S. could deploy additional carrier battle groups and minesweepers to the waters off Iran, and conduct military exercises with allies. If those moves failed to persuade Iran to abandon its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, the US Navy could move to blockade Iranian ports.


He said that “a blockade – which is an act of war – would effectively cut off Iran’s gasoline imports, which constitute about one-third of its consumption.”


If none of these measures compelled Tehran to reverse course on its nuclear program, and only after all diplomatic measures and economic pressures were exerted, a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities should be carried out, he stated.


Wald acknowledged that there were “huge risks to military action”, including US and allied casualties, Iranian reprisals against the U.S. and its allies, and Iranian-instigated unrest in the region.


But he argued that those risks must be weighed against those of “doing nothing”.


If Iran continued to advance its nuclear program, the U.S. risked threats to its allies, a regional arms race, the breakdown of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and the emboldening of radicals in the region.


Wald also rejected the argument that the U.S. military was already overstretched, that Washington lacked adequate intelligence about the location of covert nuclear sites, and that known sites were too heavily fortified.


Top US military officials have warned repeatedly that military action against Iran would be highly destabilizing.


Source: Wall Street Journal


© WashingtonTV 2009. All rights reserved.


Personally, this sounds like the only solution at this stage. As Iran is not going to change course........ Confused


What do the members of the forum think???
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: May 25, 2013 - 10:33 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
tank_top
PostPosted: Aug 09, 2009 - 09:57 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 01, 2008 - 10:59 PM
Posts: 219

Status: Offline
I agree that it will inevitably be our only option. With current forces could we strike ALL of Iran's nuclear facilities with impunity or close to it, or would we need to conduct a much more comprehensive attack to achieve that goal?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Aug 09, 2009 - 04:01 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1909

Status: Offline
Well, I would follow the plan as discribed by the Air Force General. Then if it fails to change Iran's course? Isreal will attack even without out consent and at least set the Iranian Nuclear Program back several years...........That said I think the plan has good odds of success. IMO
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
runi_dk
PostPosted: Aug 09, 2009 - 09:40 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Feb 08, 2009 - 02:03 PM
Posts: 76
Location: Copenhagen Denmark
Status: Offline
I think the area has been destabilzed enough.. Military action would cause further destabilization and might hit you right back in the face (long term).

It was quite stupid that the Bush administration declined a fair deal some years back, it would then be different.

I think the problem is to complex, to either write yes or no to a military attack, but military attack at this moment does not seems apporiate, to me.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
TC
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2009 - 10:22 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
F-16.net Moderator


Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006

Status: Offline
Runi's right. It's going to take a lot more than laying in a couple of cruise missiles on "Party Headquarters" to change anything there. Ultimately, I think it will cause more harm than good. We have enough on our plate right now, to worry about starting a 3rd PITA with Iran.

_________________
"He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bjr1028
PostPosted: Aug 12, 2009 - 04:12 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 07, 2009 - 04:34 AM
Posts: 503
Location: Dubuque, IA
Status: Offline
Was he possessed by the ghost of the Hedgehog or something? We may have to do something, but we'd also have to be prepared for a larger conflict. If there's going to be a strike, let the Israelis do it, and officially condemn it while giving them a pat on the back while nobody's looking.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
StolichnayaStrafer
PostPosted: Aug 14, 2009 - 02:07 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jan 20, 2008 - 04:50 PM
Posts: 854
Location: Dodge City, Moscowchusetts
Status: Offline
We need closure on at least one(if not both) of the current middle eastern and west asian(?) excursions before attempting such an undertaking. That being said, it doesn't mean that contingency plans shouldn't be planned for. Brainstorming for ANY kind of scenarios, no matter what theater or location worldwide, should always be contemplated and studied long and hard.

In this day and age, yesterdays enemies could be tomorrows allies- and vice versa. Who knows what is in store for anyone just around the corner...

_________________
Why is the vodka gone?
Why is the vodka always gone... oh- that's why!
Hide the vodka!!!
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Tim
PostPosted: Aug 14, 2009 - 09:43 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Feb 25, 2007 - 10:15 PM
Posts: 601

Status: Offline
Quote:

If there's going to be a strike, let the Israelis do it, and officially condemn it while giving them a pat on the back while nobody's looking.
I like the way you think! Whistle
Did I say that out loud? Shocked

_________________
If you're in a fair fight, Your tactics suck !!
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
PhillyGuy
PostPosted: Aug 24, 2009 - 07:19 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Sep 29, 2006 - 04:07 AM
Posts: 547

Status: Offline
Any military strike on Iran would take away the internal momentum against the regime and unite the country. Focusing that attention and anger on external threats instead, i.e. the great Satan and the horrid Jews. So no, I would not approve of such anytime soon.

_________________
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
ptplauthor
PostPosted: Sep 02, 2009 - 02:45 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Nov 02, 2008 - 12:09 AM
Posts: 732
Location: Titletown, USA
Status: Offline
I don't think we'd be able to escape any fallout if Israel went after Iran's sites as long as we're in Iraq unless the IAF goes over Turkish airspace, I don't think they'd be able to pull it off going over Saudi...they tried that the first time.

I think the only way to solve the situation in Iran will be to apply covert pressure in just the right way to topple Amadinejad's regime and get someone more willing to cooperate. But thanks to Kermit and the Gang that won't be very attractive either...since that particular Charlie Fox the Iranian people have grown to distrust our leaders.

On top of that, we won't be effective at all without a full-court-press from EVERY country in the region. Israel and the Arab countries won't be enough, because Iran is comprised of Persians, and Persians and Arabs have a history of conflict, and of course, Amadinejad wants Israel gone anyway, he doesn't care what they think.

We need to have Russia and the CIS jump in too, and stop playing both sides of the darn fence.

_________________
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic