Preemptive military action against Iranian nuclear facilities: intelligence assessment and operational options

Terrorism Situation Analysis - Preemptive Action Against Iranian Nuclear Facilities

NATIONAL SECURITY MEMORANDUM: CRITICAL SITUATION ANALYSIS

SECRET

Preemptive Action Against Iranian Nuclear Facilities

Situational Overview:

Intelligence information developed by the Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and provided to this office suggest that Iranian nuclear facilities near Teheran are much closer than previously anticipated to producing as many as five functional fission nuclear) weapons of the highly-enriched-uranium (HEU) type, as well as cruise-missile- type delivery systems with an effective range of approximately 900 kilometers.

This office has received a highly confidential request directly from the Prime

Minister of Israel urgently requesting both tactical and operational military support for a proposed joint action of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the United States Armed

Forces to neutralize the threat through combined tactical bombing operations in a preemptive nuclear strike conducted by U.S. Air Force resources, with plausible deniability facilitated by simultaneous conventional IDF tactical bombing of the adjacent area (including cruise missile launch facilities) using conventional (non-nuclear) ordinance.

At the present time, the U.S. Secretary of State opposes the request in its entirety; the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President support it in principle and rely on the analyses and recommendations of this office with respect to (1) approving the proposed U.S. military involvement in principle, and (2) evaluating the tactical outline proposed by the Israeli Defense Minister, or, in the alternative, proposing a suitable alternative. The Secretary of Defense has also proposed inserting a covert U.S. Delta

Force commando infiltration team into Iran, in mufti, to conduct an on-the-spot evaluation of the suspected facilities and, if necessary, to neutralize senior officers of the Iranian air defense directorate shortly before the combined U.S.-IDF air force strike package enters Iranian airspace.

Issue Analysis and Recommendations:

The suspected nuclear facilities themselves consist of research and development

R&D) installations located 50 feet underground in hardened bunkers in an ancient area of Tehran adjacent to a nuclear power plant purported by Iran to be exclusively used to generate electricity for non-military purposes.

Analysis and Recommendation:

It is the position of this office that the risk posed by Iranian offensive nuclear capabilities absolutely requires neutralizing those risks through military intervention.

Specifically, the current climate of Islamic radicalism and the known sentiments of Iranian President Ahmenidijad makes the specter of international terrorism in combination with nuclear weapon capabilities untenable (Allison, 2004). In this regard, this office is more concerned with the sentiments and thinly-veiled intentions of radical

Islamic factions toward the West and all non-Muslims in general (Schwartz, 2002) than with the specific immediate national security concerns - as realistic as they may be foremost in the mind of the current Israeli Prime Minister, as well as all former and future

Israeli Prime Ministers, by necessity (Lozowick, 2003).

This office is mindful of the strategic significance of Israel as it pertains to U.S.

A interests in the Middle East, as well as of the moral imperative of preventing the destruction of that nation by unprovoked hostile attack (Dershowitz, 2003). However, this office considers the Interests of Israel, however legitimate, as a moot issue in connection with a nuclear-armed Iran. Regardless of any immediate threat to Israel in particular, if the intelligence information provided by the Prime Minister proves to be accurate and reliable, the U.S. is obligated to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, strictly in relation to U.S. national security interests (Allison, 2004). Should

Iran export nuclear weapons beyond its borders, their likely destination is the American

Homeland.

Like the specific national security concerns of Israel, whether or not the intelligence establishes that Iran is actually on the verge of bona fide nuclear weapons, that point is also moot, with respect to the obligation of this administration to pursue a military recourse at the present time. A determination on the part of the joint agencies both domestic and those responsible for intelligence operations abroad, as recommended) charged with verifying the information supplied by Israel that Iran is imminently close to achieving nuclear weapons status is unnecessary to justify U.S.

A military action. It is entirely enough that those agencies determine that Iran is merely on the verge of possessing fissionable Uranium (i.e. HEU) in quantities sufficient to produce single device capable of nuclear detonation, regardless of its sophistication, suitability for delivery by missile delivery systems, or reliability (Allison, 2004). At the present time, this office harbors no delusions about the permeable nature of U.S. boarders and the inability of authorities to prevent the nuclear catastrophe envisioned and indeed planned by Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, et al. (Williams, 2005) by intercepting fissionable material at our borders. It is the view of many experts, including one former Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans (Allison), and a former Chairman of the Department of Military Strategy and Operations at the National War College and current

Director of the Institute for Homeland Security (Larsen) that failure to contain the nuclear threat before fissionable material falls into the hands of national entities sympathetic to Jihadist sentiments will likely result in a nuclear catastrophe on U.S. territory whose magnitude and consequences will relegate the infamous attack of September 11th to a mere "footnote" in American and world history, in relative significance (Allison, 2004).

International Law and Political Ramification Scenarios:

It is the position of this office that a nuclear capable Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat on U.S. soil, the prevention of which any incumbent U.S.

A administration must act to preempt, regardless of international law and opinion, and political fallout. In the event the intelligence detailed by the Israeli administration proves to be accurate with respect to nuclear weapons development, this office is reminded of the words of the late President John, F. Kennedy, spoken almost exactly 45 years ago to the day, on October 22, 1962, addressing the Soviet threat in Cuba:

We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace." (Sorensen, 1965)

Extraordinary risks to national security demand (and justify) extraordinary actions to prevent them from materializing. A military response will be required to participate with Israel in destroying Iranian nuclear facilities either in possession of or imminently capable of possessing bona-fide nuclear weapons. Since the Israeli weapons inventory does not include ordinance capable of penetrating and ensuring the destruction of hardened underground facilities, U.S. participation will be required. This office recommends that military analysts immediately begin the process of analyzing the capabilities of our most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) precision-guided ordinance to determine whether or not a nuclear strike of the nature proposed by Israel is necessary. If analysts determine that a nuclear strike is necessary to guarantee operational success, the magnitude of a failed (non-nuclear) strike makes that risk unacceptable. The harm to the international reputation and future ability of the U.S. To garner the cooperation abroad that our War on Terror requires, combined with Iranian reaction and the unification of Muslims who are presently moderates" rather than "extremists" within the global Jihad against this country, requires a nuclear first strike if that is necessary to guarantee operational success. In the event that the Israeli information is unable to be verified with respect to the advanced status of Iranian nuclear weapons production schedule, but corroborated with respect to their production of HEU or any other fissionable material, this office would recommend initiating operational planning for the joint preemptive strike proposed by Israel, but postpone its deployment pending the outcome of less drastic measures, both for the sake of Iranian civilians, as well as in the future international political interests of this nation. In that case, this office recommends that the President implement the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense with respect to infiltrating Iranian facilities to evaluate the relative risks, plan less damaging covert operations to disrupt production, and implement them as appropriate. This office would issue the same recommendation to determine, more precisely, the accuracy of the Israeli information, should our interviews of the subjects in IDF/Mossad custody prove inconclusive. Finally, this office does not consider long-term "deniability" of U.S. involvement, and does not recommend including that consideration in operational planning. In that regard, Muslim extremists already consider the U.S. To bear the responsibility for any Israeli military use of force. For this reason, the final respectful recommendation of this office is to dissuade Israel from any preemptive strike in the event our analyses determine that the information relied upon is inaccurate or the product of interrogation techniques that undermine its factual credibility.