| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"PagCal" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2006 04:22:11 AM |
| Object: |
West Prepares for Iranian Air Strike |
Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
IT IS the option of last resort with consequences too hideous to
contemplate. And yet, with diplomacy nearly exhausted, the use of
military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme is being actively
considered by those grappling with one of the world’s most pressing
security problems.
For five years the West has used every diplomatic device at its disposal
to entice Iran into complying with strict conditions that would prevent
its nuclear programme being diverted to produce an atomic bomb.
Those efforts, however, are now faltering. US leaders are openly
discussing the looming conflict. A recent poll showed that 57 per cent
of Americans favoured military intervention to stop Iran building a bomb.
Tehran scoffs at threats by the West, has pledged to press on with its
nuclear progamme and defend itself if attacked.
The military option may be the only means of halting a regime that has
threatened to annihilate Israel from developing a bomb and triggering a
regional nuclear arms race.
Experts agree that America has the military capability to destroy Iran’s
dozen known atomic sites. US forces virtually surround Iran with
military air bases to the west in Afghanistan, to the east in Iraq,
Turkey and Qatar and the south in Oman and Diego Garcia. The US Navy
also has a carrier group in the Gulf, armed with attack aircraft and
Tomahawk cruise missiles. B2 stealth bombers flying from mainland
America could also be used.
The air campaign would not be easy. The Iranians have been preparing for
an attack. Key sites are ringed with air defences and buried
underground. Sensitive parts of the Natanz facility are concealed 18
meters (60ft) underground and protected by reinforced concrete two
meters thick. Similar protection has been built around the uranium
conversion site at Esfahan.
“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981
Israeli attack on the Osiraq centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the
opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq,” said the Global
Security consultantcy.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former US Air Force officer,
predicted that knocking out nuclear sites could be over in less than a
week. But he gave warning that would only be the beginning.
Iran has threatened to defend itself if attacked. It could use
medium-range missiles to hit Israel or US military targets in Iraq and
the region. It could also use its missiles and submarines to attack
shipping in the Gulf, the main export route for much of the world’s
energy needs. “Once you have dealt with the nuclear sites you would have
to expand the targets,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Gardiner. “There are
another 125 to deal with including chemical plants, missile launchers,
airfields and submarines.”
While this huge US offensive is underway Iran would almost certainly
deploy its most powerful weapon. It would unleash a counter-attack
through proxies in the region. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia,
would attack Israel. Moqtadr al-Sadr, the militant Iraqi Shia religious
leader, could order his Mahdi Army to rise up against American and
British forces in Iraq. Iranian-backed groups could wreak havoc against
Western targets across the world.
What began as a military operation to maintain a balance of power in the
Middle East, could instead plunge the region into another conflict.
“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,” said
Joseph Cirincione, an expert on non-proliferation at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. “An air strike against the uranium
conversion facility at Esfahan would inflame Muslim anger, rally the
Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government. Finally, the
strike would not, as it often said, delay the Iranian programme. It
would almost certainly speed it up,” he wrote in an article.
PUBLIC OPTIONS
‘All options — including the military one — are on the table’
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary
‘There is only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear
armed Iran’
John McCain, Republican senator for Arizona and US presidential hopeful
‘We are not seeking a military confrontation, but if that happens we
will give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout history’
Abdolrahim Moussavi, head of Iran’s joint chiefs of staff
‘Give another year to make HEU (highly-enriched uranium) for a nuclear
weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon
components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009’
David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, Institute for Science and
International Security
‘There isn’t a military option. There certainly isn’t one on the table,
let’s be clear about that.’
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary
‘Obviously we don’t rule out any measures at all’
Tony Blair
.
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: West Prepares for Iranian Air Strike |
07 Feb 2006 04:23:41 AM |
|
|
3 Myths About the Iran Conflict
By Mel Levine, Alex Turkeltaub and Alex Gorbansky
Tuesday, February 7, 2006; A21
Is there anything the West can do, short of a highly dangerous military
option, to prevent Iran from going forward with its nuclear program? The
answer is clearly yes.
Although a prolonged standoff with Iran over its nuclear program would
pose significant problems for Western countries, including a probable
rise in oil prices, the benefits of preventing a nuclear Iran would
clearly outweigh the costs. We'd like to try to dispel some common myths
on the subject.
· Myth 1: Economic sanctions would hurt the West more than Iran. The
premise of this argument is that any sanctions imposed on Tehran would
result in a dramatic rise in oil prices, hurting the economies of
Western countries and undermining public support for the sanctions.
But while Iran holds the world's second-largest reserves of oil and gas
and is the fourth-largest oil producer, it is in fact a net importer of
refined oil products, including gasoline. And internal consumption of
oil products in Iran is growing by 5.2 percent a year, far faster than
its ability to increase refining capacity. This means that the levels of
imports necessary to make the Iranian economy function will only
increase over time. Thus, sanctions that prevented Iran from importing,
say, refined oil products, including gasoline, could bring its economy
to a grinding halt. Perhaps more important, the subsequent shortages
would disproportionately affect President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
political base, the urban underclass and lower-middle class, as well as
the military.
No doubt there would be some cost to Western countries if Iran chose to
retaliate by lowering or shutting down its oil production. But Iran
would be unlikely to halt oil production for long, because under
sanctions, it would depend more than ever on oil revenue to maintain its
grip on power: As the economic situation in Iran worsened in response to
sanctions, the government would have to rely on handouts and state
assistance to maintain loyalty and support from the army and the general
population.
Moreover, playing the oil card in a way that created a significant rise
in oil prices would leave Iran isolated both in the Middle East and
within OPEC. Most of the world's other oil producers, including Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela and Russia, believe that a significant further
increase in prices is likely to undermine oil revenue because of a
likely decrease in oil consumption in the West. In the long term, such
price spikes could encourage investment in energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies, as happened after the oil shocks of the
1970s.
· Myth 2: Russia and China would never go along with sanctions. While
persuading Russia and China to support sanctions might take some time
and effort, these countries are unlikely to prove reliable allies for
the Iranian regime.
Russia has little strategic interest in supporting the Iranian cause.
While it may see Iran as a useful tool for balancing U.S. power in the
Middle East, it has far more to fear from Iran's nuclear program in the
long term than does the United States or Europe. Iran's support of
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism across the Middle East and Central Asia
is a direct challenge to Russian interests in territories that were part
of the old Soviet empire and are still considered by Moscow to be within
its sphere of influence. While playing the role of honest broker between
Iran and the West certainly suits the Putin administration's goals of
raising Russian prestige and influence, policymakers in Moscow are
realistic about the challenges presented by Iran to Russia's long-term
interests. While Russia is willing to search for a face-saving
compromise, it is unlikely to support Iran to the bitter end.
The Chinese are also unlikely to stand in the way of a serious sanctions
regime, particularly if forced to do so alone. While China has committed
to substantial investments in Iran's oil and gas sector, it is unlikely
to jeopardize its relationship with the United States and the European
Union over the issue. Beijing also believes that while it should
certainly let its views be known on important geopolitical issues, it is
not yet ready to single-handedly resist the combined pressure of Western
nations on an issue they consider of vital strategic importance to them.
· Myth 3: Iran might respond to sanctions by irrationally lashing out at
Israel and other U.S. allies. One of the most dangerous assumptions
about Iran is that it is acting irrationally or is led by people who do
not calculate the potential costs and benefits of their actions. But in
fact, while one can challenge the logic that leads the Iranian
leadership to seek nuclear weapons in the first place, the Iranians have
acted with complete rationality in seeking to achieve their objectives.
For example, Iran has been careful to escalate this crisis slowly over
the past two years, engaging in protracted talks with the "E.U. Three."
Recently, as the likelihood of Iran's being referred to the U.N.
Security Council has increased, the Iranians have patiently probed for
fissures among the Western allies by offering to restart negotiations
with the Europeans. The Iranian leadership has meticulously cultivated
allies in India and China by signing lucrative oil deals with both
countries, and it has reached out to Syria, another isolated Middle
Eastern state. Even in its choice of timing for the most recent
escalation Iran chose a moment when Israel, a key regional adversary,
appeared headed for political disarray. None of these has been the steps
of an irrational actor.
Iran's seeming brinkmanship, relative, for example, to the actions of
North Korea, another aspiring nuclear power, stems not from
irrationality but from a sense that the country has far more leverage
over the West because of its oil wealth. At every step of the way, Iran
has carefully calculated the likely response of its adversaries to
various provocations and has tailored its approach accordingly.
The showdown with Iran over nuclear weapons is a difficult situation
with few appealing options. But there are steps that can be taken to
change Iran's calculations about the benefits of a nuclear weapons
program. And while many of the options available could have significant
effects on the global economy, the consequences for Iran would be far worse.
Mel Levine, a former Democratic representative from California, is with
an international law firm. Alex Turkeltaub and Alex Gorbansky are
managing directors at Frontier Strategy Group, a consultancy on the
natural resources industries.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
