Military Strike On Iran Nuclear Facilities Could Backfire, Study Warns

Washington Post:

A military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would probably only delay the country's progress toward nuclear-weapons capability, according to a study that concludes that such an attack could backfire by strengthening Tehran's resolve to acquire the bomb.

The analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security found that Iran's uranium facilities are too widely dispersed and protected -- and, in some cases, concealed too well -- to be effectively destroyed by warplanes. And any damage to the country's nuclear program could be quickly repaired.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

AP) -- The European Union on Friday tightened trade sanctions against Iran to punish Tehran for not committing to a long-standing demand of the international community that it freeze its nuclear enrichment program.Fr­ance, the current holder of the EU presidency, said European governments would also carefully watch financial groups doing business with Iranian banks and step up checks on ships and airplanes traveling to Iran.

This is the proper way to fight the oppressive and devolutionary Iranian theocracy. There' no need to attack them. And obviously no attack is forthcoming. Unless you talk to the neurotics.

[loki]

I wonder if that was what the big handshake and hug Bush gave Putin today in China while Russia was invading Georgia. Putin gets to invade a couple countries, and Bush and Israel get to do theirs. Its the good buddy system. and as for the Jews being for an Iranian invasion by their government, I happen to know many people who live in Israel, all of them happen to be jewish. I dont know one who wants this to happen. Just like the majority of the people in the US didnt want Iraq to happen, but more often the people have no say in what the governments do.

[escobar]

I thought an unprovolked attack on a soverign nation was against every principle of international law.

[totaldisbelief]

Who's around to backup International Law? Wyatt Earp?

[loki]

Its not against Bush Neo Con PNAC law though.

[marleysghost]

Who dreams up these hare-brained schemes?? Somebody please shut them down and re-institute diplomacy and negotiation. This constant drumbeat of constantly going to war is so counterproductive only old men with no testosterone left think these things up in order to send young men to die for the wet dreams they can no longer have. Now here's where we should use all that stockpiled duct tape - tape their mouths shut ntil somebody with a reasonable mind is in a postion of power.

[BluesDogLefty]

"such an attack could backfire"

NO WAY---military action solves ALL problems!!!

lol---jeeze.

I don't understand why people can't grasp that military action from the right has more to do with internal politics than any real attempt to effectively interact on a global level.

[awcbuddy8]

Just ask Bill Clinton. His willingness to never ever use the military really struck fear into the heart of Al Qaeda.

[Hirnlego]

Oh please, not even you can be that ignorant.

[MajorKong]

I must have dreamed those three Bosnia/Kosovo deployments I did back in the 90s since Clinton never, ever used the military.

Of course, there was the massive outcry from the Republican congress for military action against Al Qaeda back then. "Terrorism is a phony issue." - Orrin Hatch

[loki]

But al Qaeda was not a big problem until Bush took office. Now they are bigger, stronger, and much more financed than at anytime in their history. Maybe Clinton was onto something.

[Destin]

Of course it will backfire, duh, it'll create 3 wars on 3 fronts.

[awcbuddy8]

It's actually one front. The countries border each other.

[MajorKong]

That's not what that hippie liberal peacenik Admiral Mullen thinks:

Since taking over as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year, Adm. Mike Mullen has repeatedly warned—often quite publicly—that military action against Iran, though possible, would be "extremely stressing" for an already overstretched U.S. military. "I'm fighting two wars, and I don't need a third one," Mullen said recently. "There's a real danger of any strike not only causing more instability in the region than there already is," adds a senior military official, "but of actually having the opposite effect of what you want." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also weighed in against action, noting recently that it would be "disastrous on a number of levels."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/08/07/why-the-pentagon-thinks-attacking-iran-is-a-bad-idea.html

[loki]

It could backfire??? Well then its good to go for the Bush and PNAC administration.
If you want to stop this, stop PNAC. If you can stop them, the white house will be empty because 80% of the most powerful in the white house and pentagon, are PNAC members.

[totaldisbelief]

and what country will they run off to?

[loki]

The Bush ranch in Paraguay with no extradition treaty?

[rollingdivision]

This report makes it clear the proper action is to decapitate the Iranian government and scientific community and destroy their infrastructure, if the Iranians continue building atomic bombs and the means to deliver them.

[evilzed]

and yet there is still no evidence at all of Iran even contemplating building weapons, only bull from the same experts that bought you the WMD in Iraq lies.
But hey, if Americans can even think of supporting such an insane move, to bomb another country with WMD themselves, expect one thing, a Jihad movement that will create millions of resistance fighters, a quite possible flowon effect that could include Russia and China and an worldwide financial crisis never experienced.

[rollingdivision]

The only reason for Iran to do their own enrichment is to enrich to 90 percent for nuclear bombs. There is no other reason for Iran to develop enrichment capability. Iran can purchase all the enriched to 3-5 percent reactor fuel it wants. But yet they are spending tens of Billions of dollars to set up enrichment. Nuts and nukes are a very bad combination. Atomic bombs is what they are developing and the means to deliver them.

Iran's theocratic dictatorship is first a religious cult and second a nation. All their actions start and end with their religious beliefs. Their conduct as a nation is inseparable from their religious beliefs on which they are based. They believe their actions are god's will and sanctioned by god. So Iran is not a normal nation and does not respond to diplomacy like a normal secular nation. Iran is run by, acts as and responds as a religious cult run by irrational religious zealots. So Iran is one of the most dangerous nations in the world.

[loki]

That was PNACs whole reason for having Gates brought in and Rummy out. Rumsfield had been caught in the lies, Gates, would look like an outside , unbias person. Without the baggage that Rummy had, Gates would appear more credible. Or that was their reasoning behind the change ( according to PNAC themselves)

[totaldisbelief]

They haven't built Atomic Bombs but some other country that we won't name has them already.

[Ajegunle]

I guess this means that Obama is also an American celebrity as well, you know like Reagan.

[darthdarcy]

For Israel or America an attack upon Iran at this point while they are still years from having any operable nuclear weapon will prove to only cause greater instability in that region with huge ramifications for the entire world...

[loki]

BINGO!!! Give that poster a prize!! That is the whole objective here. Its basic Machiavellian. Get them fighting between themselves, while you conquer the world.

[mulegino]

It's pretty clear that the only remaining proponents of a strike on Iran are the office of the VP, AIPAC extremists, neocons, assorted Israeli hawks, and the rapture ready "Christian" (note italics) fascists.
Pretty much everybody else knows that any gains (setting Iran's alleged weapons program back a year or two) will be insignificant compared to the risks-which could involve the collapse of the world economy, as well as reducing the U.S.'s position to that of irreversible strategic decline.
With the current situation in South Ossetia, August 2008 is looking more and more like August 1914.
The American military (especially the U.S. Navy) in and around the Persian gulf must be very, very vigilant against a false flag attack by "Iranian" speedboats.

[danoj]

I bet 6 million Jews that died in WWII would beg to differ with you on setting iran back a year or two not being worth while, despite any economic despare it may cause.

[totaldisbelief]

OH Please...s­pare me the melodrama.­.

[MajorKong]

This could be the foreign policy equivalent of the famous last words:
"Hey y'all! Hold my beer and watch this!"

[PADDYWHACK]

i'm not sure they even want nukes,more a measure of respect.Th­ings will turn eventually,it's amazing how accomodating old empires get at the end.We're close to that point,heavily in debt for these follies no one will loan us the money to play any more.We should look after our own back yard.We will get the mercy we showed everyone else,our economy is near collapse and we're pi$$ing away a fortune by the moment.

[ashabot]

Oh gee. Do ya think?

[cryingeagle]

I'm tired of lying, rich Republican criminal terrorists trying to destroy America and the world by stealing everything they can get their hands on.

Vote for change.

Vote for hope.

[K-Dog76]

crying eagle,


What exactly are repubs stealing, and what are their terrorist acts?

If you are voting for change and hope and Obama's $1000 refund from the Oil companies, aren't you voting to steal from private businesses? I mean you used the oil now you want your money back?

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama, may even vote his way if he straightens out on the economy. But scapegoating one political party shows a lack of knowledge and history. Both Democrats and Republicans have good and bad things to offer. The trick is to look into the specific policies and how things work. Government doesn't work if its one-sided.

[helonias]

And tell us abut Cheney's secret energy meeting with big oil or Exxons $400 million retirement.

What dems were involved

[ashabot]

"Gov. doesn't work if its one-sided?" Do tell. Ever here about the Justice Department scandal the Republicans are embroiled in?

[LorettaSingbiel]

"aren't you voting to steal from private businesses?"

You don't think that the price you are paying at the pump is BIG OIL BARONS STEALING FROM YOU?

The OIL MEN in OUR White House protecting the OBSESSIVE & OBSCENE GREED of BIG OIL BARONS! ... PRICELESS!