Saturday, September 5, 2015

Iran Deal Analysis - From a Terrorism Analyst Who Predicted 9/11

Iran Deal Analysis - From a Terrorism Analyst Who Predicted 9/11

If you want to see a war that could cost more of our military lives in five minutes than were killed in Iraq in ten years, then by all means, reject the Iran Deal. How do I know this? Don’t take my word for it. The U.S. military already knows this based on an exercise that was conducted in 2002 called “Millennium Challenge.”

Rejection of the deal means that the European sanctions would end and Iran would press ahead with full nuclear development.  There would be zero inspections.  There would be no reduction in centrifuges as contained in the agreement negotiated by John Kerry. War would be inevitable.  It would not end as most Americans expect.

In Millennium Challenge, the military simulated a mock war with Iran between a U.S. aircraft carrier group and the Iranian navy, which includes scores of small, fast boats. The military commander for the opposing forces approached the exercise like the Iranians would—and swarmed our ships. They called it off after we lost over 16 ships including an aircraft carrier. One aircraft carrier has over 5,000 personnel on board. We lost 4,500 military dead in over 10 years in Iraq.  That’s the real math in this equation.

Iran has a “Sunburn” missile that is so fast it can outrun our ship’s radar. In a short five minute flight, it could incinerate an aircraft carrier like the one Iran recently conducted a test on. I can’t imagine how many would die if we lost 16 ships in a real battle.

I was one of those trapped in Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis when Brown & Root wanted to send me to be a contract lawyer on a naval base they were building for the Shah. I was a TV terrorism analyst during the roll up to the Iraq war, on the Houston Fox news channel no less. I argued against that war because I knew Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

No one listened. That invasion opened Pandora's Box, found no weapons of mass destruction, and cost Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. It created ISIS that threatens to take over a region that has fallen apart from the aftermath created by Bush's blunder.

I am now hearing the same arguments against the Iran Deal, including “we can’t trust them.”  This is by members of Congress, a majority of whom do not have a passport, meaning that they have not been outside the U.S. and have no clue what it’s really like. Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, whom he had called “the evil empire” In order to shrink the size of their nuclear forces. His motto was “trust but verify.”  While we really didn’t trust them, the Soviets honored the agreement.

Rather than learn from that experience in Iraq, I now see Americans being misled about Iran by the usual suspects (who supported war against Iraq) now opposing the Iran nuclear deal.  Israel is not a midget power; it is the largest military force in the Middle East. Experts believe that it has a minimum of 80 nuclear bombs of its own. Even if Iran got one nuclear weapon, it would be no match. It would be instantly vaporized.

Perhaps Millennium Challenge in 2002 is why Bush picked Iraq to attack it instead of attacking Iran in 2003. Even Bush knew that we were screwed if we went into Iran because of the weapons they had back then—with 2002 technology! Remember, Iran held off Iraq and Saddam for 8 years of war!

Do we really have to get hit upside the head again to finally get it? Another war is not the answer, unless you are totally in favor of your kid being blown up on a ship in the Persian Gulf.

This nuclear deal needs to be approved, just like Reagan's nuclear deal with the Soviet Union was approved. Both unwind a march towards mutual destruction and open the door to diplomatic solutions that could bring Iran in from the cold.

If not, then get ready for another unpaid for war a thousand times worse than Iraq. Just don't be as surprised as you were by the mess in Iraq that is still spitting out evil because we were foolish and na├»ve and believed it would be “solved” with a war instead of diplomacy.

Michael Fjetland, BBA/JD



No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments from real people welcome. The only comment rule is "BE CIVIL." Let's discuss SOLUTIONS based on real FACTS.

Thanks for your feedback! Click "Subscribe" or "Follow" for notification of future posts. Feel free to Share with your friends.