HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018106.jpg

22

including rising oil prices and falling stock values? What would the
economic situation be like in the United States and beyond? The
answers to these questions would have a substantial impact on the
war’s course, conduct and outcome.4
Whose War, for What Purpose?
Perhaps the most critical contextual element concerns how senior
U.S. decision-makers, the presumed initiators of war in this case,
would construe their war aims.5 These aims must somehow affirm
that force can be employed to achieve reasonable political and
strategic objectives, but those objectives could range from the limited
to the expansive. Three sets of objectives come readily to mind.
First, a war could aim to simply delay the Iranian nuclear weapons
program through the physical destruction of key facilities and human
assets: a Peenemünde option, so to speak.6 Second, war could aim to
effectively end the Iranian nuclear program by inflicting broad
damage on its components and other key regime assets, military,
infrastructure and leadership, combined with the threat to re-strike as
necessary: a submission option. Third, war could aim to topple the
regime through a concerted campaign against its assets and
supporting mechanisms, coupled with support to its presumably less
WMD-desirous opponents: a regime change option.
The U.S. government has military options corresponding more or less
to these aims. A Peenemünde option would presuppose a narrowly
focused, short duration strike largely limited to nuclear facilities. It
would aim to inflict serious damage, but also to restrict the scope of
conflict. Such an attack would rely on U.S. stealth systems, electronic
warfare, cruise missiles and air power. U.S. allies could play a
supporting role, especially in dealing with an Iranian response, but
American forces would carry the brunt of the action.
A submission option would call for a sustained air and naval
campaign against nuclear associated facilities, air defense systems,

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018106