A former senior Israeli commander warned that Iran could seek to arm its rapidly expanding ballistic missile arsenal — which already threatens Israel, U.S. bases, and allied interests across the region — with chemical or biological warheads, arguing that the “only viable option” may be a “massive” and “decisive” strike to bring down the regime as nuclear negotiations reach a critical juncture.

The post Exclusive — Former IDF General: Iran May Arm Missiles with Chemical Warheads; ‘Massive Strike’ Only Option appeared first on Breitbart.

As U.S. forces surge into the Middle East amid escalating tensions with Iran, the military posture is drawing comparisons to the 2003 Iraq War buildup. But military experts and former officials say that while the scale of visible force may look similar, the design and intent are fundamentally different.

In early 2003, the United States assembled more than 300,000 U.S. personnel in the region, backed by roughly 1,800 coalition aircraft and multiple Army and Marine divisions staged in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ahead of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The force was built for invasion, regime removal and occupation.

Today’s deployment tells a different story, and the absence of massed ground forces remains the clearest contrast with 2003.

"I believe there is absolutely no intention to put ground forces into Iran. So, the buildup is very different," retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, former NATO supreme allied commander of Europe, told Fox News Digital.

IRAN DRAWS MISSILE RED LINE AS ANALYSTS WARN TEHRAN IS STALLING US TALKS

"What is happening is that both firepower and supplies are being moved to the right places. … Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. And right now we are getting logistics right, not only in the form of shooters but supplies to sustain an effort," he said.

John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, told Fox News Digital, "The strategic objective in both cases is coercion, shaping an adversary’s decision calculus through visible military power. But while the scale of the buildup may appear comparable, what is being mobilized and threatened is fundamentally different.

"In 2003, the United States assembled a ground-centric force built for regime removal, territorial seizure and occupation," he said. "Today’s posture is maritime and air-heavy, centered on carrier strike groups, long-range precision strike and layered air defense, signaling clear readiness to act while also sending an equally clear message that there are no boots on the ground planned."

"The recent U.S. military buildup against Iran — which now includes two aircraft carrier battle groups, in addition to dozens of other U.S. planes that have been sent to bases in the region and air and missile defense systems — provides President Trump with a significant amount of military capability should he authorize military operations against Iran," said Javed Ali, associate professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School and a former senior counterterrorism official.

Ali noted that U.S. capabilities already in the region at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and other locations give Washington multiple strike options.

If ordered, he said, operations "would very likely be broad in scope against a range of targets like the ruling clerical establishment, senior officials in the IRGC, key ballistic missile and drone production, storage and launch facilities and elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and last for days if not longer."

IRAN RAMPS UP REGIONAL THREATS AS TRUMP CONSIDERS TALKS, EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF REGIME VIOLENCE EMERGE

Breedlove said the incremental deployment of carriers and air assets appears designed to increase pressure, not trigger immediate war.

"We brought in one carrier battle group that did not change the rhetoric in Iran. … So, now the president has started sailing a second carrier battle group to the area. I think all of these things are increasing the pressure slowly on Iran to help them come to the right decision. … ‘Let’s sit down at the table and figure this out.’"

Ali emphasized another major difference with legal authority and coalition structure. The 2003 Iraq War was authorized by congressional authorization for use of military force and backed by a large international coalition, including tens of thousands of British troops. 

"Currently, no similar AUMF has been approved by Congress for military operations against Iran, which might mean President Trump may invoke his standing authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution as commander in chief as a substitute legal basis, given the threats Iran poses to the United States," Ali said.

That does not mean escalation is risk-free. Ali warned Iran could respond with "ballistic missile attacks" in far greater frequency than past strikes, along with drones, cyber operations and maritime disruption in the Persian Gulf.

Breedlove pointed to lessons learned from Iraq. 

"We want to have a clear set of objectives. … We do not want to enter an endless sort of battle with Iran. … We need to have a plan for what’s day plus one," he said, warning against repeating past mistakes where military success was not matched by post-conflict planning.

The central military distinction, analysts say, is this: 2003 was an invasion architecture. Today is a deterrence and strike architecture.

The force now in place is optimized for air superiority, long-range precision strikes and sustained naval operations, not for seizing and holding territory. Whether that posture succeeds in compelling Iran back to negotiations without crossing into open conflict may depend less on numbers than on how each side calculates the cost of escalation.

EXCLUSIVE: This was the kind of prison break officials say could have changed the region, and perhaps even the world, overnight.

Nearly 6,000 ISIS detainees, described by a senior U.S. intelligence official as "the worst of the worst," were being held in northern Syria as clashes and instability threatened the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, the guards responsible for keeping the militants locked away and preventing a feared ISIS resurgence. U.S. officials believed that if the prisons collapsed in the chaos, the consequences would have been immediate.

"If these 6,000 or so got out and returned to the battlefield, that would basically be the instant reconstitution of ISIS," the senior intelligence official told Fox News Digital.

In an exclusive interview, the official walked Fox News Digital step by step through the behind-the-scenes operation that moved thousands of ISIS detainees out of Syria and into Iraqi custody, describing a multi-agency scramble that unfolded over weeks, with intelligence warnings, rapid diplomacy and a swift military lift.

US MILITARY LAUNCHES AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIS TARGETS IN SYRIA, OFFICIALS SAY

The risk, the official explained, had been building for months. In late October, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard began to assess that Syria’s transition could tip into disorder and create the conditions for a catastrophic jailbreak.

The ODNI sent representatives to Syria and Iraq at that time to begin early discussions with both the SDF and the Iraqi government about how to remove what the official repeatedly described as the most dangerous detainees before events overtook them.

Those fears sharpened in early January as fighting erupted in Aleppo and began spreading eastward. Time was running out to prevent catastrophe. "We saw this severe crisis situation," the official said.

U.S. ANNOUNCES MORE MILITARY ACTIONS AGAINST ISIS: 'WE WILL NOT RELENT'

According to the source, the ODNI oversaw daily coordination calls across agencies as the situation escalated. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was "managing the day to day" on policy considerations, while the ODNI drove a working group that kept CENTCOM, diplomats and intelligence officials aligned on the urgent question: how to keep nearly 6,000 ISIS fighters from slipping into the fog of war.

The Iraqi government, the official said, understood the stakes. Baghdad had its own reasons to move quickly, fearing that if thousands of detainees escaped, they would spill across the border and revive a threat Iraq still remembers in visceral terms.

The official described Iraq’s motivation bluntly: leaders recognized that a massive breakout could force Iraq back into a "2014 ISIS is on our border situation once more."

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the official said, played a pivotal role in smoothing the diplomatic runway for what would become a major logistical undertaking.

Then came the physical lift. The official credited CENTCOM’s surge of resources to make the plan real on the ground, saying that "moving in helicopters" and other assets enabled detainees to be removed in a compressed timeframe.

"Thanks to the efforts… moving in helicopters, moving in more resources, and then just logistically making this happen, we were able to get these nearly 6,000 out in the course of just a few weeks," the official said.

ISIS FIGHTERS STILL AT LARGE AFTER SYRIAN PRISON BREAK, CONTRIBUTING TO VOLATILE SECURITY SITUATION

The SDF, had been securing the prisons, but its attention was strained by fighting elsewhere, fueling U.S. fears that a single breach could spiral into a mass escape. Ultimately, detainees were transported into Iraq, where they are now held at a facility near Baghdad International Airport under Iraqi authority.

The next phase, the official said, is focused on identification and accountability. FBI teams are in Iraq enrolling detainees biometrically, while U.S. and Iraqi officials examine what intelligence can be declassified and used in prosecutions.

"What they were asking us for, basically, is giving them as much intelligence and information that we have on these individuals," the official said. "So right now, the priority is on biometrically identifying these individuals."

The State Department is also pushing countries of origin to take responsibility for their citizens held among the detainees.

State Department is doing outreach right now and encouraging all these different countries to come and pick up their fighters, Fox News has learned.

While the transfer focused strictly on ISIS fighters, the senior intelligence official said families held in camps such as al-Hol were not part of the operation, leaving a major unresolved security and humanitarian challenge.

ISIS EXPLOITING SYRIA’S CHAOS AS US STRIKES EXPOSE GROWING THREAT

The camps themselves were under separate arrangements, the official said, and responsibility shifted as control on the ground evolved. 

According to the official, the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian government reached an understanding that Damascus would take over the al-Hol camp, which holds thousands of ISIS-affiliated women and children.

"As you can see from social media, the al-Hol camp is pretty much being emptied out," the official said, adding that it "appears the Syrian government has decided to let them go free," a scenario the official described as deeply troubling for regional security. "That is very concerning."

The fate of the families has long been viewed by counterterrorism officials as one of the most complicated, unresolved elements of the ISIS detention system. Many of the children have grown up in camps after ISIS lost territorial control, and some are now approaching fighting age, raising fears about future radicalization and recruitment.

For now, the official said, intelligence agencies are closely tracking developments after a rapid operation that, in their view, prevented thousands of experienced ISIS militants from reentering the battlefield at once and potentially reigniting the group’s fighting force. 

"This is a rare good news story coming out of Syria," the official concluded.