Retired USAF General says US strike on Iran feasible option!

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message


Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Aug 2009, 03:04

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........ :?

What do the members of the forum think???


Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 219
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 22:59

Unread post09 Aug 2009, 08:57

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?


Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Aug 2009, 15:01

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




  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2009, 14:03
  • Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Unread post09 Aug 2009, 20:40

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.

TC Moderator Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post11 Aug 2009, 21:22

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.


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post12 Aug 2009, 15:12

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.
User avatar


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 893
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 16:50
  • Location: Dodge City, Moscowchusetts

Unread post14 Aug 2009, 01:07

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!!!


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 597
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2007, 22:15

Unread post14 Aug 2009, 20:43

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? :shock:
If you're in a fair fight, Your tactics suck !!
User avatar


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post24 Aug 2009, 06:19

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."


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 736
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2008, 00:09
  • Location: Titletown, USA

Unread post02 Sep 2009, 01:45

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

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests