Who cares what a bunch of generals, intelligence analysts and foreign policy experts think after war gaming various scenarios for a potential conflict with Iran? The only opinion that really matters is the one blurted out by 1st term Senator Tom Cotton and nascent military strategist, who knows precisely what would happen if we had to go to war with the Ayatollahs:
It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. Several days of air and naval bombing against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior. For interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we’re asking is that the president simply be as tough in the protection of America’s national security interest as Bill Clinton was.”
That bombing operation lasted four days and hit nearly 100 Iraqi targets after U.N. inspectors said Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspections.
Of course, military analysts point out that Iran is a larger country than Iraq with a more sophisticated military.
Yessiree, only a four day war and then we could declare victory! Or maybe, not:
“An Israeli attack on Iran could ignite a regional conflict from Afghanistan to the Gaza strip,” “For the Americans and the Obama administration it will be a disaster … Hezbollah will see an attack on Iran as a threat to their patron and there is a very good chance that they will initiate (another) Lebanon war only this time (with) even more rockets and missiles than in 2006 … We have every reason to believe that the Iranian will see an Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities as a joint American-Israeli attack and they will retaliate not only on Israeli targets but on American targets.” [Dr. Emily Landau, Senior Research Fellow and Director, Arms Control and Regional Security Program, The Institute for National Security Studies] …
“The indication is that at best it [military action] might postpone it [Iran’s nuclear program] maybe by one or possibly two years. It depends on the ability to truly get at the targets that they’re after. Frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get at… [T]he consequence could be that we would have an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret.” [Bruce Riedel, Senior Research Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institute] …
“[A] a clean, calibrated conflict is a mirage. Any war with Iran would be a messy and extraordinarily violent affair, with significant casualties and consequences…. A U.S. strike would damage key Iranian facilities, but it would do nothing to reverse the nuclear knowledge Iran has accumulated or its ability to eventually build new centrifuges. A U.S. attack would also likely rally domestic Iranian support around nuclear hard-liners, increasing the odds that Iran would emerge from a strike even more committed to building a bomb.” [Leon Panetta, Former Secretary of Defense] …
[W]ithout large numbers of troops on the ground, we doubt that U.S. military attacks from the air — even if supplemented by other means such as drones, covert operations and cyberattacks — could eliminate Iran’s capability to build a nuclear weapon, unseat the regime or force it to capitulate to U.S. demands…. [C]onsequences might include the increased likelihood of a decision by Iran to build a nuclear weapon; more instability in a region still seeking its footing; and the opportunity for extremist groups such as al-Qaeda to attract recruits.” [Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, former head of Israeli Military Intelligence]
Senator, please proceed.
