Tuesday, October 03, 2006
US has plans to kill Iranian leadership
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: A report issued last month by the Century Foundation warns that some in the Bush administration are making the case for air strikes aimed not only at setting back Iran’s nuclear programme, but also at toppling the country’s government.
The report’s author, retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, says that these officials are undeterred by the concerns of military leaders about whether such attacks would be effective.
“If this uncertainty does not appear to worry the proponents of air strikes in Iran it is in no small part because the real US policy objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear programme, but to overthrow the regime,” according to him. “It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air attacks,” the author adds.
The report titled ‘The End of the ‘Summer of Diplomacy’: assessing US military options on Iran,’ claims that the policymakers’ plan is to use targeted air strikes to kill the leadership and “enable the people” of Iran to take over the government. The assumption is that more reasonable, US-friendly, leadership will emerge. Gardiner argues that the plan is dangerously flawed and would more likely yield very different results. “No serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change,” he reveals. “On the contrary, whereas the presumed goal is to weaken or disable the leadership and then replace it with others who would improve relations between Iran and the United States, it is far more likely that such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the United States into Iran’s permanent enemy.”
Gardiner also argues that the administration’s frequent efforts to link Iran and Al Qaeda may represent an effort by the Oval Office to authorise air strikes on Iran without first consulting Congress. “This linkage of Iran and Al Qaeda fits neatly into the broader effort to sell a strike to the American people,” he writes. “But more importantly, it opens the way for an argument that a strike on Iran was part of the global war on terrorism already authorised by Congress. In other words, approval by Congress does not necessarily have to be part of the calculation of when an attack could take place.”
Gardiner maintains that the immediate consequences of air strikes on Iran will include an Iranian strike against Israel, the targeting of US forces in Iraq, and Iran’s channelling more weapons to Shia militias in Iraq. Longer-term consequences could include a spike in oil prices and a backlash among other Arab states in the region against the United States. According to the author, the administration is not seriously seeking diplomatic solutions to the Iran nuclear issue. “From diplomacy to sanctions, the administration is not making good-faith efforts to avert a war so much as going through the motions, eliminating other possible strategies of engagement, until the only option left on the table is the military one,” he writes.
Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College, and Naval War College.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\03\story_3-10-2006_pg1_4
US has plans to kill Iranian leadership
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: A report issued last month by the Century Foundation warns that some in the Bush administration are making the case for air strikes aimed not only at setting back Iran’s nuclear programme, but also at toppling the country’s government.
The report’s author, retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, says that these officials are undeterred by the concerns of military leaders about whether such attacks would be effective.
“If this uncertainty does not appear to worry the proponents of air strikes in Iran it is in no small part because the real US policy objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear programme, but to overthrow the regime,” according to him. “It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air attacks,” the author adds.
The report titled ‘The End of the ‘Summer of Diplomacy’: assessing US military options on Iran,’ claims that the policymakers’ plan is to use targeted air strikes to kill the leadership and “enable the people” of Iran to take over the government. The assumption is that more reasonable, US-friendly, leadership will emerge. Gardiner argues that the plan is dangerously flawed and would more likely yield very different results. “No serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change,” he reveals. “On the contrary, whereas the presumed goal is to weaken or disable the leadership and then replace it with others who would improve relations between Iran and the United States, it is far more likely that such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the United States into Iran’s permanent enemy.”
Gardiner also argues that the administration’s frequent efforts to link Iran and Al Qaeda may represent an effort by the Oval Office to authorise air strikes on Iran without first consulting Congress. “This linkage of Iran and Al Qaeda fits neatly into the broader effort to sell a strike to the American people,” he writes. “But more importantly, it opens the way for an argument that a strike on Iran was part of the global war on terrorism already authorised by Congress. In other words, approval by Congress does not necessarily have to be part of the calculation of when an attack could take place.”
Gardiner maintains that the immediate consequences of air strikes on Iran will include an Iranian strike against Israel, the targeting of US forces in Iraq, and Iran’s channelling more weapons to Shia militias in Iraq. Longer-term consequences could include a spike in oil prices and a backlash among other Arab states in the region against the United States. According to the author, the administration is not seriously seeking diplomatic solutions to the Iran nuclear issue. “From diplomacy to sanctions, the administration is not making good-faith efforts to avert a war so much as going through the motions, eliminating other possible strategies of engagement, until the only option left on the table is the military one,” he writes.
Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College, and Naval War College.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\03\story_3-10-2006_pg1_4
