Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Case for an Internal Strike on Iran
By Arnis R. Putrenieks
What if the recent news coverage regarding a proposed military strike—Israeli submarines traversing the Suez Canal, Israeli war games held in the Mediterranean at the same dimensional scale of an airstrike against Iran, delivery of bunker-buster bombs by the U.S. to Israel, threats/suggestions by Zbigniew Brzezinski for creating a no fly-over zone above Iraq, and the constant delay in imposing realistic sanctions—were all a red herring, diverting attention from the real plan to delay/destroy Iran’s nuclear weaponization program?
The prevailing Common Wisdom presupposes a military strike utilizing aircraft, cruise missiles and special forces by Israel and/or the United States in a last ditch attempt to halt Iran’s move to joining the nuclear club. But such a move is fraught with significant risks:
• Given that there are two dozen plus sites involved in Iran’s nuclear weaponization program (source: GlobalSecurity.org) there is no guarantee that an external military strike would sufficiently incapacitate Iran’s nuclear weaponization program.
• Recognizing Iran’s existing level of paranoia and preparedness, an external military strike would likely result in the loss of men and material for the striking forces.
• It would be relatively easy to identify and then demonize the source of the striking forces and result in likely retaliatory attempts against both Israel and the U.S. and their interests and allies worldwide regardless of the actual direct source.
• Iran, in retaliation or desparation, would attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic choke-point in the worldwide movement of crude oil and thereby drive the price of crude oil skyward.
• Possible naval battles would result from an attempt to re-open the Strait of Hormuz, bringing other Middle-East nations, factions and proxies into the fray.
• Israel and the U.S. would be severely criticized/ostracized by the Arab Street and most likely, world community, even though no one else has the courage to ultimately do the dirty work.
But what if there was a better way to accomplish the task of delaying/destroying Iran’s nuclear weaponization program without a great risk of lost lives and material? And what if that way had even a greater probability of success?
A definite case can be made that an internal strike against Iran’s nuclear weaponization program, which would be directed against its hardware, software and intellectual-ware (scientists and methods, inverting the paradigm and turning the weaponization process against itself, could very likely be successful. How is this possible? Contrary to the prevailing Common Wisdom, the U.S. and Israel have long been aware of Iran’s objective and assuredly have kept close tabs on it through every Presidential administration, beginning with Ronald Reagan. Realistically, much of the material, machines and even technology has been imported from the West, primarily via Europe. As such, Iran’s program contains the blueprint of Western technical knowledge and therefore is highly susceptible to sabotage by Western agents during its design, manufacturing and delivery process.
What would an internal strike look like? Unlike an external strike, this internal strike would be initiated in the “belly of the beast.”
• Fatal flaws in metals and materials could have been introduced during the design, manufacturing and shipping process and at a pre-designated time, when combining certain materials or exposing the same to the radiation process could readily result in catastrophic consequences.
• Adapting and configuring detonators to the fission process could result in explosions or create radioactive/meltdown situations.
• Computer systems could be infused with worms and viruses instructed to disrupt or misdirect equipment and processes at their most critical juncture.
• Energy systems and air-handling systems could likewise be already compromised and infected and produce fatal consequences at pre-designated times when a great number of critical people are assembled..
• Hidden biological agents could be introduced to critical locations at times of highest concentration of key scientists.
• Or ,when in doubt, introduce to the equation, a homicide-bomber to a key facility at a critical time. Someone who lost a loved one during the June 2009 election protests in Iran would be an ideal candidate. Or, further yet, what loyal Israeli citizen wouldn’t give his/her life to spare the Jewish people a second Holocaust at the hands of another madman?
What makes an internal strike the weapon of choice? Using the analogy of the human body, we can see why the internal strike is the best solution. Picture a madman attacking you with full force. You don’t need to obliterate him to stop him, you just need a focussed pin-point attack at a critical body part or system, and he will literally be “dead in his tracks.” Following that logic, one can recognize that there are three primary critical points in the human anatomy—the heart, the lungs and the brain—they being the critical control centers of the circulatory, respiratory and nerve systems. Similarly, the nuclear weaponization program has its critical points—hardware, software and intellectual-ware. Going back to the times of the ancient Greeks, we recognize that every weapons system has its Achilles Heel. And the attacking madman of today is no different than back then. Thus a quick-acting poison, a biological or nerve agent, or a well-placed bullet or ice-pick can readily destroy a madman without having to obliterate his entire body. And this metaphor holds true for the nuclear weaponization program also. Someone, ages ago, in a far-off jungle, originated the phrase “cutting off the head of the snake” as the solution to stopping its attack and voracity. And that lesson still applies today.
Besides the obvious efficacy of an internal strike, Joshua Ramo Cooper, in his excellent book, The Age of the Unthinkable, titillates us with this telling clue regarding Israel’s strategy in dealing with terrorists by quoting Aharon Farkash, former Director of Military Intelligence in Israel as espousing: “Targeted killing is just what it sounds like: taking out only the most essential pieces of a network instead of trying to wipe away the whole system.”
Additional values attending an internal strike are:
• It affords Israel and the U.S. “plausible deniability” because their fingerprints would be nowhere to be found.
• A successful internal strike would setback the Iranian nuclear weaponization program for years, if not for decades, especially if it succeeded in destroying the intellectual property and the nuclear scientists associated with it.
• The loss in lives, physical destruction and the loss of billions of dollars in sunken costs of the nuclear weaponization program incurred at the expense of the Iranian economy could well bring down the tyrannical mullahs’ regime.
• The perceived “accident effect” would likely discourage any future Iranian government from renewing the nuclear weaponization program and also act as an emotional, but realistic deterrent for other wannabe nuclear powers. Not knowing if it was accidental or intentional would go a long way to stoking fear and uncertainty among our enemies worldwide.
• It still preserves the external military strike option as a valid potential deterrence without having been tried in action and found wanting—the ultimate high-stakes bluff.
• Without the evidence of Israeli or U.S. culpability, retribution against Israel or the U.S. on the part of Iran or its proxies becomes a harder case to justify in the world court of opinion, and also minimizes sympathy and action by China and Russia.
• The U.S. hopefully would be spared negative publicity. The price of crude oil would likely suffer only a very short-term blip until all the other Middle-Eastern states realize the beneficial impact of a successful internal strike.
Given Israel's commitment to the concept of "Never Again,” the Case for an Internal Strike is a very plausible scenario for terminating the Iranian nuclear weaponization program. Going back in time to the Summer of 1972, this would be akin to the Israelis knowing that the terrorists were coming to the Munich Olympics and being prepared for them.Swiss Voters Stand Up to Islamist Invasion
Prediction: America's first Muslim-born President will speak out on the Islamist side.Iran to Build 10 New Nuclear Sites
Islmonazi Iran's maniac-in-chief announced Sunday that Iran plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants--a dramatic expansion of its nuclear program. Click here for the story.
Monday, 30 November 2009
china confidential
Swiss voters have taken a courageous stand against the Muslim conquest of Europe. Click here for the story.
Obama's appeasement fans the flames of aggression.
Posts
