What Would War Look Like?

The Israeli paper Yedioth Ahronoth summarizes a new Time Magazine article on preparations by the US military for an attack on Iran. Generally speaking, the outlined plan is what we've been hearing for quite a while: an aerial attack aimed at ~1,500 targets, to be accomplished by thousands of sorties over the course of a few days, supplemented by missile strikes from submarines.

The only detail in the article that seems odd is that the purported purpose of the campaign is to knock back Iran's nuclear program by "only 2-3 years." That seems like a very narrow goal for such a provocative action. Especially when the relative consensus is that, presuming Iran wants to get a nuke, of which there is no evidence thus far, it would take them probably 5-10 years to do so.

Added to this comes a new report from Sam Gardiner that claims that the Bush administration is indeed disingenuously pushing through "diplomatic moves" on Iran's nuclear program that are destined -- and desired -- to fail. Gardiner goes on to say, somewhat against the conventional wisdom, that a well-coordinated, week's worth of bombing could do significant, comprehensive damage to Iran's nuclear facilities.

But, again, that's largely a red herring. Gardiner stresses that any bombing campaign would be intended to do far more than take out Iran's nuclear program -- it would be intended to overthrow the regime, ultimately. That goal -- more than the fear of nuclear proliferation -- is what is driving the Bush administration.

On a final note, Gardiner also popped up on CNN today affirming once again his belief that military operations are already underway against Tehran.