Gen. Cartwright: No Value in the Military Option

On the radar: Military leaders oppose a military strike; Why bombing is a bad idea; Iran, U.S. work to stall an Israeli strike; Paying more at the pump; China’s modernization slower than predicted; and the Overblown Iranian missile threat.

February 24, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

Cartwright, Fallon on the military option - “If they [Iranians] have the intent, all the weapons in the world are not going to change that,” former JCS Vice Chair General Cartwright said at CSIS yesterday. “They can slow it down. They can delay it, some estimate two to five years. But that does not take away the intellectual capital...As a former military person, I don’t see a lot of value in going in.” http://owl.li/9hu21

--“There’s an inverse proportion to those who have experience in what really happens in wars and what happens to people to those that have an awful lot to say about it,” former CENTCOM Commander Admiral Fallon added. “It’s certainly not a preferred option, not something that anyone that has any real sense of what happens in these conflicts would wish to have happen.” http://owl.li/9gPTJ

Tweet - @Micah Zenko: “Gen Cartwright + Adm Fallon oppose Iran attack. Sanger says he's never met US military official who supports an attack. bit.ly/ACua5g”

Convincing Israel - “Tehran and Washington have discovered a surprising common bond: to pretend that they might be heading toward serious negotiations,” writes Leslie Gelb in The National Interest. “What’s more, they are pretending for the same reason: to ward off an Israeli attack on Iran.”

--However, “there isn’t enough happening in the diplomatic back channels,” Gelb concludes. “Tehran’s and Washington’s subtle maneuvering to buy time is less a strategy than a prayer,” http://owl.li/9gQ9X

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

Influencing Iran - “Is there a danger that Iran will get a nuclear weapon before that happens? Yes, but bombing might only increase the risk. Can you stop Iran from getting a bomb if it is determined to have one? Not indefinitely, and bombing it might make it all the more desperate.” The Economist editorial board.

--Bottom line: “Short of occupation, the world cannot eliminate Iran’s capacity to gain the bomb. It can only change its will to possess one. Just now that is more likely to come about through sanctions and diplomacy than war.” http://owl.li/9gQ6y

Iran and oil prices - “Tensions with Iran are adding at least 30 cents to a gallon of gasoline in the United States, and experts say gas prices have only just begun to rise,” CNN Money reports. http://owl.li/9gQbZ

Cold War thinking - Last week’s media hype over possible arsenal reductions obscured the nuclear policy real issue, John Isaacs writes in The Bulletin. ”The US nuclear arsenal is still postured with Cold War-era nuclear war-fighting objectives in mind -- and it is time to reevaluate the country's strategy to put it on a 21st century footing.” http://owl.li/9gQes

Iranian elections - “More than 3,400 candidates across Iran kicked off their campaigns for next week's parliamentary elections, which mark the first test of popularity for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since his disputed 2009 re-election,” AP’s Nasser Karimi reports. http://owl.li/9gQhl

Assessing China’s modernization - Last week, the DIA chief Lt. Gen. Burgess told Congress that China is estimated to have “fewer than 50" missiles that could reach the United States, that number "will probably double that number by 2025."

--Back in 2001, however, the CIA predicted that China would have 75 to 100 ICBMs “deployed primarily against the United States” by 2015. “Projections like these always tend to promise too much too soon,” Hans Kristensen notes. “China’s nuclear modernization has been slower than anticipated a decade ago. And there is no indication that China has embarked upon a nuclear build-up intended to “sprint to parity” with the United States or Russia. That at least ought to be taken into account by those who use China’s nuclear modernization to argue against deeper U.S. (and, by implication, Russian) nuclear reductions.” http://owl.li/9gQxX

New Bomber Fact Sheet - The new long range bomber program is unnecessary, costly, and “runs counter to our nation’s obligation to work toward negotiations for nuclear disarmament in the NPT,” according to a new fact sheet form Peace Action New York State. Recommendation: a ten-year delay of the bomber program that would save $3.7 billion in R&D over the next five years. http://owl.li/9gQw7

Missile threat “far-fetched” - Israel’s New Yorkers can breathe a sigh of relief, because “missile and intelligence experts say Tehran has a long, technically complex road to travel before it can threaten Manhattan,” Spencer Ackerman writes in Wired. http://owl.li/9gQtz