Kenneth Timmerman has a piece at Newsmax wherein he discusses how an attack on Iran might unfold and how Iran might respond. His article opens by quoting retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney:
According to the man who helped plan the first air war against Saddam in 1991, U.S. aircraft, armed with conventional bunker-buster bombs, would be more than enough to wipe out Iran's nuclear and missile facilities, and cripple its ability to command and control its military forces.
McInerney believes that U.S. air power is so massive, precise, and stealthy, it can effectively disarm Iran with just limited assistance from covert operators on the ground whose task would be to light up enemy targets.
In his "Big George" scenario, the United States would attack 1,000 targets in Iran. Fifteen B2 stealth bombers based in the United States and another 45 F117s and F-22s based in the region would carry out the initial waves of the attack, crippling Iran's long-range radar and strategic air defenses.
Massive, additional waves of carrier-based F-18s, as well as F-15s and F-16s launching from ground bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Bahrain, would take out Iran's known nuclear and missile sites.
"Big George" would also target command and control facilities - Revolutionary Guards command centers, key clerics, and other regime-sensitive sites - in the hope of triggering a revolt against the clerical regime by opposition groups inside Iran.
The massive strike scenario could be carried out in just two days, McInerney told an audience of intelligence specialists recently in Washington. "We must destroy and damage Iran's nuclear capability for at least five years," McInerney said.
Timmerman goes on at some length to discuss possible Iranian counter-measures and other difficulties, including the Sy Hersh allegations about alleged American plans to use nuclear weapons. It's a very informative article.
We reiterate something we've said previously on the matter of war with Iran. Before any military option is exercised the administration needs to be sure that the Democrats have gone on record as either opposing the use of force or endorsing it. If they are not compelled to announce their position on what should be done in the event that diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons fail, it is certain that whatever Bush does, the Dems will split the country and seek to undermine his policy by proclaiming that he should have done the opposite. They cannot be allowed the rhetorical space to do this.
It is time to insist that they take a stand on what course of action they recommend to the president should diplomacy fail, as, of course, it almost surely will.