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

[curmudgeon3]

The solution is very simple.

George W. Bush can spend a little of the enormous reservoir of goodwill he has created in the world to unite against Iran. The United States can stop buying all Iranian oil and convince the rest of the world to do likewise.

Before long, iran will do whatever is necessary to resume selling their oil.

Now wasn't that easy?

[Passenger57]

Hey,curmedgeon3 : what did Iran do? They are allowed to enrich uranium under the NPT - which Israel has not signed. Israel also has not allowed anyone to inspect its nuclear program,and I don't see any sanctions against them. There is no evidence that Iran is building a nuke.
We're about to -and many Americans apparently think we should - attack another country that we THOUGHT had WMD - only this time, the country we attack WILL fight back...

[K-Dog76]

curmudgeon3

1 Russia and China are Iran's biggest trading partners, goodwill or not there is supply and demand.
2 Iran is the world's biggest oil producer.
3 Sanctions don't work. Lest we forget the UN Oil for Food scandal that kept Saddam in power. We went in to Iraq to say we keep our promises. Or else you just end up saying:

"Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"

[helonias]

Such scary stuff when you think that Bush got rid of all the generals that would disagree with him and replaced them with ass kissers.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

As did Hitler.

[Ramirez]

And that proves Godwin's Law.

[K-Dog76]

BPCentris,

The Hitler/Bush analogy falls flat. THere are sop many more Hitler-like figures in the world right now:

1 Hugo Chavez
2 Mahmood Ahmadinejad
3 Kim Jong-il
4 Than Shwe (Myanmar)
5 Hu Jintao
6 Robert Mugabe
7 Muammar Gaddafi
8 Osama bin Laden
9 Paul Biya (Cameroon)
10 King Mswati III (Swaziland)
11 The Castro Brothers

These are real dictators, oppressors and murderers. Hate Bush all you want, but comparing him to Hitler is to not know or understand history and current events. Bush will leave office, Hitler never did and neither would any of the leaders above. As we can see by our discussion here, he isn't restricting the press, nor is imprisoning political dissidents, nor is he calling for the extermination of a particular segment of the population. He's just a bad president, let's leave it at that.

[Rog49Thomas]

And this is a great revelation?

Did anyone (with a modicum of intelligence) think otherwise?

That caveat will of course exempt certain political figures and members of the punditocracy from inclusion in my question.

[JustADumbFireman]

Could backfire? COULD backfire??????

[speakingtruth2power]

Of course it would be a bad idea, which is why 'they' want to do it.

[MyNameIsJames]

The only way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is to invade it. What army is willing to do that?
The psychology of the United States and Israel is self-defeating because neither of these nations are in a position to STOP Iran at this time. Of course if the Iranians get the bomb then Saudi Arabia will be next.

My question to the US and Israel is," If nukes are so bad then why do both of you have so many?"

Nukes represent prestige, scientific achievement and security to most nations in the world. When you have a nuke the international community MUST listen to what you say.

Iran is not bad for pursuing nuclear weapons no more than the US is bad for having 10,000 nuclear warheads, nor Israel for having about 300 warheads.

Those nations who have nukes and refuse to disarm deserve to face the prospect of their enemies having them also. It brings BALANCE to the world. Mutually Assured Destruction has a way of preventing all- out conflict between enemies.

[SanityNow]

N. Korea did a couple of test launches,
and, suddenly, we stopped hearing about them.

Until we declared them no longer a threat.

[K-Dog76]

SanityNow, Not enough MSM lately...

6-party talks have continued
NK has released of 18,000 pages of nuclear documents
NK is poised to allow inspections deadline is next week
NK is supposed to hand over the dozen or so bombs it has

[helonias]

Its called keeping up with the Jone's I mean Goldbergs

[meanguy]

zeeeee chewwwwzzz­zz...itt's immer mit zeeeeee chewzzzzzz­zzzzzzzz..­...jawhol!

[Ramirez]

A world free of nuclear weapons is a goal of all peace-loving people.

The first step in reaching that goal is a freeze on new nuclear states.

Therefore the nuclear weapons club is closed. If your membership app is late, sorry. No new members are allowed. You cannot join. If you think that is unfair, again... sorry. You are late.

And yes: We DO make the rules. And the rules are YOU cannot have nuclear weapons. Build something else. Plowshares or something.

[SanityNow]

Ramer - you just don't get it . . .
The reason you even think WE make the rules, is because "might is right", therefore, all you weak countries should just go back under your rock(?)

I'm sure England, Rome and all the Asian empires and dynasties felt that same divine entitlement. We are but 200 years old - technology and economics change the playing field daily. Today it's nukes, tommorow it's biological weapons.
By stepping on the world's throat, we are virtually guaranteeing our own demise
Sorry to tell ya - we do not own the world - or it's future.

They don't want to kill us for our freedom.
They want to kill us for stealing their resources, occupying their homeland and telling them what they can and can't have - including nuclear energy

[Passenger57]

Sorry , that tiime is past...we don't make the rules anymore so much as we apply the rules hypocritically,and then manupilate and outright lie when no one falls for it -and if THATdoesn't work...ATT­ACK!!

[majormoderate]

so wait... are you trying to tell me that invading a sovereign nation could backfire??? whuh? how? what examples from recent history do you have to back this up?

and it really took a full study to figure out that by attacking a country we give it MORE incentive to defend itself?

i've got an idea! lets create an "axis of evil" wehre we name three countries as our enemies, then invade and decapitate one of them... Lets see what the other countries do... im betting they try to defend themselves.

[Ramirez]

The concept of invading Iran is not on the table. The discussion is over surgical bombing of Iranian nuclear sites.

[helonias]

When a few million of pissed Iranians crossed the Iraqi border and their Shia brothers in Iraq join them, what would you call that.

[MajorKong]

Sounds like "surgically" whacking a hornet's nest with a stick.

[Passenger57]

Oh,it's just "surgical bombing"..­.why didn't you SAY so? They'll sit still for that...

[DavidMG]

The study makes too much sense for Bushco to follow. We are fu*%ked.

[K-Dog76]

Easy there David,

Bush will be out of office in Jan. I doubt Obama will do anything unless Iran invades somebody, and maybe not even then either.

[CC1]

It's disgusting how many people I see on here joking around about it. There's no proof of wrongdoing on their part (as of yet). Iran is full of innocent civilians! Do you people have any heart?! NO WAR!!

[MagisterLudi]

"here's no proof of wrongdoing on their part "

And there's no proof that US is about attacking Iran. Relax.

[MajorKong]

True, there's no proof. But I can hardly hear myself think with those war drums beating so loudly.

[Passenger57]

If Iran had a "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emption , they would have had every right to attack us and/or Israel by now. There's no way in the world we would sit on our thumbs while Iranian warships were in international waters off the coast of New York City.

[Hirnlego]

Oh please. Pay a bit more attention will ya
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia&timeline=complete_911_timeline

“Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”

[MajorKong]

You mean real people get killed in war? Civilians too? It's not just really cool pictures on CNN of rockets firing and smart bombs exploding?

[Soothsayer08]

Could backfire ! It will back fire! Anyone with half a brain can look at Iraq as a prime example of what will happen, if the US foolishly uses milirary force against Iran..

[Ramirez]

The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities is nothing like a ground invasion of Iraq.

[MajorKong]

No. It will likely be much, much worse.

[naturethings]

You mean the ground invasion that started with war boats blasting missles miles away. You mean that ground invasion?

[Hirnlego]

They NEVER foresaw problems in Iraq either

1999 War Games Foresaw Problems in Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110400577.html

'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1510382/%2710%2C000-would-die%27-in-A-plant-attack-on-Iran.html

Who cares? We're building a damn empire here

[WasteNJ]

Interesting that the story includes an image of a US made F16 fighter, currently used primarily by the Israelis and of course, the Iranians, since we sold them to both back in the 70's-80's.

It's the jet the Israelis used to bomb the last Iranian nuke reactor in the 80's.

We have all but phased them out for bombing missions for some time, and would be more likely to use a shiny new F22 Raptor, or F117 Stealth fighter/bomber because of the range and payload advantages.

Definitely helps out when you absolutely, positively, have to start World War III.

[MajorKong]

The Iranians don't have F-16s. They have F-4s, F-5s and F-14s. It's questionable whether any of their F-14s are flyable due to spare parts issues.

They also have a smattering of Migs, Mirage F1s and some locally produced variations on the F-5.

[helonias]

They also have modern Mig 29's and Su 24's.

The big question is how well are their pilots trained.

[Ramirez]

Whatever. If it flies, it dies.

[evilzed]

they may not have greater technology in aircraft, but what they will have is 80,000,000 pissed citizens joining up with millions more in their neibouring country.
Tie that in with bills put in place for the draft, and Mr bomb, bomb, bomb Iran saying he will instigate the draft for attacking Iran, I hope you like wearing camo.

[helonias]

WE will use cruise missiles and GPS guided standoff weapons

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Iraqi reactor.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Former UN ambassador John Bolton, great pick, now a fellow with neocon-central, AEI, appears on Faux news and declares that a limited air strike is really an option. What Mr. Bolton forgets is, if Iran really wants to, it could make our situation in Iraq more difficult than it is. At the very least they could harass ground convoys that truck in millions of tons of fuel, supplies and parts along their 400-mile border with Iraq. An RPG round or missile can light up a fuel convoy faster than you can say mustache, big mouth Chicken Hawks like Bolton get people killed.

[Ramirez]

What you are forgetting is that no matter "how difficult Iran could make our situation in Iraq", we could make the Iranian situation in Iran much worse.

[MajorKong]

Those looney liberal peaceniks at the Pentagon really don't want to attack Iran right now. The Iranians have "escalation dominance" in Pentagon-speak. They can take things further than we're willing to go.

I wouldn't expect the Iranians to just sit on their hands while we bomb them.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Not without 300 to 500 thousand man, we don't have, and a lot of beat up equipment. The Iranian military may be 3rd rate, but they are not going to come at us like the Charge of the Light Brigade. So unless you plan to nuke 78 million people, tough talk is just talk.

[stavros]

Brilliant Ramirez. My dad can kick your dads a#@.
illogical thinking from illogical minds.

[bronceye]

Iran has missiles and the Green Zone can't move, you know.

[Ramirez]

And Tehran is mounted on a truck.

[isisdawnra]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

[RightWingMarine]

So... why can't Iran be bombed a second time after they start to rebuild their nuke facilities?

[Ramirez]

Rinse and repeat.

[MajorKong]

That assumes that we know everything they have NOW. A smart country (and these are pretty smart people) would probably take steps like building deep underground to make an aerial attack difficult.

[Passenger57]

And who knows what weapons they have that we don't know about? Remember, the US claimed that those "super IEDs" came from Iran and were taking out our top-of-the-line Abrams tanks...wh­at do they have for our top-the-line carriers?

[MikeDu]

"So... why can't Iran be bombed a second time after they start to rebuild their nuke facilities?"

Oh, PERHAPS because we would've caused so much harm in the region by the initial attack on Iran that mayhem will have broken out in the region. Its hard to bomb a country if nobody's willing to sell yo the oil to make JP jet fuel, and our regional military airbases ablaze.

[K-Dog76]

MikeDu
"Its hard to bomb a country if nobody's willing to sell yo the oil to make JP jet fuel, and our regional military airbases ablaze."

We actually have enough oil we can drill on our own in America to last 200 years. We just don't do it because its not fashionable.