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

[peterg76]

This is standard neo-con thinking. They have smart people, but they think short-term, with the assumption that someone else will deal with the consequences of their actions.

Plus, it's possible they couldn't care less about Iran's nuclear programme - they just want the price of oil to go up.

[indypete]

".... they think short-term, with the assumption that someone else will deal with the consequences of their actions...­"

That's what democrat administrations are for.

"... they couldn't care less about Iran's nuclear programme - they just want the price of oil to go up...."

Exactly.

[Hirnlego]

So? Another thing going well (I'm not sarcastic here) for the neocons?

[ribe8g]

My hope is that it would backfire, missiles making u-turns and all, return to sender.
Also that we leave Iraq with hair on fire and asses catchin'. Fingers burned and
no more taste for "nation building". And then maybe the countries hosting our
900 some bases worldwide tell us to go away. Blowback.

[meanguy]

you HOPE that we get hit by our own missiles, that our service people be run out of iraq? how many US casualties were you HOPING for...how many dead, how many wounded, would be enough to make you happy?

[helonias]

Say smoldering green zone silly

[Ramirez]

You're not anti-war. You're just on the other side.

[meanguy]

exactly...­just another pro--terrorist warmonger

[BlackbirdHighway]

Yeah, there is about a 99.9% chance that an attack will backfire.

The reason oil is down to $120 from $140 is that the Bush administration has backed off on "bombing Iran" rhetoric and actually engaging in negotiations. Sure, oil traders were all long oil, but that was because they knew that an attack on Iran would double the cost of oil overnight. Don't blame the oil traders for speculating on higher oil, they were simply responding to the signals they were getting the Bush administrations propaganda organization.

[Ramirez]

It's not always about Bush.

From the Telegraph:
*****

The great oil bubble has burst
By Martin Vander Weyer
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 08/08/2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/08/do0801.xml

[jimdog1954]

Everything we do has unintended consequences. Take your worst nightmare and multiply it by 1,000. You might come close to what will really happen. Did you ever, in your wildest dreams, think that we'd be stuck in this pig-sty called Eye-rack after 5 years and 4,000 dead boys? I did.

[nachlawi]

i am an israeli/american, and a reserve soldier in the IDF, and i just want to say that, contrary to what many of you might think due to some of the very unnecessary saber rattling by a few select brethren of mine back in the states, we are not a community mongering for war as many of you on the left claim we are. it is quite far from being a one way road. iran is not a threat whatsoever to the u.s, but for us in israel, the view is quite different. we have plenty of valid reasons to be waving a red flag or two. i really hope obama can succeed in bringing iranian leaders to the table for some type of substantiative compromise. if an attack is launched before then, i'll be very angry. however, if all options are exhausted, and the mullahs in teheran still insist on going nuclear, and still insist on supporting and funding terrorist groups all along our borders here, do not complain, when we take matters into our own hands.

at the end of the day however, everyone, friend and foe will do whatever is necessary to protect their children, and as israelis and jews, and more importantly human beings, we have just as much of a right to protect ourselves as anyone else. an attack on iranian nuclear facilities will bad, a nuclear armed iran will be worse.

[BigFootJesus]

Well said.

[KHAAANNN]

So it's OK for the Israeli's to "protect their children" but NOT OK for the Iranians to "protect" theirs?
Iran is in the same boat Israel is, surrounded by enemies who are threatening to destroy them and they are SCARED. Despots know that frightened people are EASY to control and that is what has happened in Iran. They have large numbers of the U.S. military on ALL sides of their country and G.W. Bush as President of the U.S. rattling sabers at them daily, with Israel joining the chorus.
Israel would wipe the floor with Iran in a military conflict (even without the help of the U.S.) and Iran knows it. Iran is not stupid enough to attack Israel, but Israel IS stupid enough to attack Iran.
Once that happens the only people who gain from it are the Russian Mobsters and the Saudi's who would see oil shoot to $300/barrel overnight. The entire economy of the world would suffer and plunge the globe into a SEVERE depression. It would also result in the total withdrawal of support for Israel by the world community, making their position WORSE.
Unfortunately, I think Ohlmert is enough of a meglomaniac to do this.

[Ramirez]

Israeli nukes pose no threat to the region, the Middle East, or the world.

[helonias]

Its called keeping up with the Jone's

[Coattails]

Israel will probably do it the week after our election, I don't think either candidate we have wants a conflict with Iran.

Bush though, it seems Iran is on his bucket list... as in, after we bomb the crap out of them, the most advanced piece of technology they will have left is a bucket.

Since the US did try to negotiate diplomatically with Iran and it failed, I hope now that nobody would seriously try to negotiate with those guys. Remember, their President is a puppet of the Ayatollah, who controls the police, justice system, and military of Iran.

[KHAAANNN]

Well, their media says the exact same thing about BUSH.
That he is a puppet of the Israeli's and he controls the police, justice system, and military of the U.S.

[Ramirez]

Our media says that too. It don't mean nothing.

[Passenger57]

Uh,yeah,they "negotiated" with Iran just like they "negtotiated" with Saddam...

[meanguy]

when there's a rabid weasel running around the yard, the only negotiating i do is over whether to use the 12 gauge or the 30-30...an­d the rabid weasel doesn't get a say in the matter

[NTO08]

They have to do a study to determine this? What money was used for this waste of time?

[LorettaSingbiel]

"They have to do a study to determine this? What money was used for this waste of time?"

If anybody's left alive after WE bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb IRAN, I suppose our children's, grandchildren's, great-gran­dchildren'­s money will be "used for this waste of time" and HUMAN LIFE.

I wonder if any warmongers THINK that the SURGE in Bin Laden's recruitment camps (in PAKISTAN) was the direct result of our illegal, immoral INVASION of the sovereign country of IRAQ?

I wonder if any warmongers THINK that we SHOULD have "wanted Bin Laden dead or alive" and stayed-the-course in AFGHANISTAN?!

END this CRUSADE for CRUDE ...

Drag BIN LADEN out of his hospitable hideway in PAKISTAN ... Bring him to justice ... along with THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ... and call it a day!

OBAMA '08!
HOPE & CHANGE!

[CaptainVideo]

The neocon credo. "Everybody wants to go to Bagdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."

[CaptainVideo]

The kind of surgical strikes that were used agaist nuclear or possibly nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria in the past worked because those countries were not in a position to retaliate. That is not the case with Iran.

If there were an attack on Iran's facilities, Iran has the will and the ability to retaliate by striking our troops in Iraq, attacking Israel, closing the Straits of Hormuz and other measures. This would inevitably lead to a war with Iran. And Iran is a lot bigger and more powerful than Iraq. So if you like the war with Iraq you will love the war with Iran.

The people who think that a surgical strike against Iran would be doable are the same people who though that Iraq would be a cakewalk.

[dadw5boys]

A military strike on Nuke Operations would be the dumbest thing any President could do.

So Bush your day is here!!!!!!!!!!

[dadw5boys]

Attacking Irani NUKE operation would spew radition into the air for thousands of miles oncluding our troops in Iraq, Afganistan, the Saudia's, Omman, Israel, Palistien. Lybia, India, Pakistan and about off of the middle east. Water will be contaminated for Million if not Billion of people every time the wind blows.
How many hundred years before life could exist within 200 miles of the site???? How many dead with cancer in a year? In how many countries?

Will that make people like the USA more or less?

[OldLeatherNeck]

Having spent most of my 30+ years, in industry, working with the Surface Navy, I can assure you that any attacks against Iran will result in intermittent closures of the Hormuz Straits. If you think that $140/barrel oil is bad, wait until it reaches $300/barrel. My predicition is that any un-provoked attack against the Iranians will result in an almost immediate doubling of oil prices, and a subsequent collapse of all western economies.

[macintoshsauce]

Yay! Can we all play "Collapse the Economy?"

[mamacat]

Sounds to me like a reason why the GOP would want to go to war with Iran. The higher the price of oil, the more profit Exxon makes. The more profit Exxon makes, the happier their lobbyists and their puppets in government become.

[arvay]

Lets see if the Pelosi Republocrat Congress can pass a resolution banning an unprovoked attack, prompting a loud, intense debate -- which would get the consequences of such an attack before the majority of the American people.

Once the average American understands the consequences, public opinion will take such an attack "off the table" for good.

This will thwart the neocon high-stakes negotiating strategy and get things moving in the right direction -- toward a regional nuclear disarmament conference, which will deal with, among other issues, Israel's 150 nuclear weapons.

[danoj]

Hormuz would be closed for maybe a couple hours, as for the oil thing your right there, but it will not collapse western economies. That's why we have a strategic petrolium reserve.

[sparkandy]

Just curious. What is your native language?

[BigFootJesus]

Ignorant and arrogant.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"as for the oil thing your right there"

You got any kids, danoj?

How's about sacrificing THEIR lives for your PRECIOUS OIL?

“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on OIL from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

Sure as HELL McCain/Bush have nothing to lose ... and everything to gain ... from sending our young men and women into conflict ... FOR OIL!!!

This MURDERING RAMPAGE of THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION has NEVER been about "spreading democracy"! This SURGE has NEVER been about "meeting benchmarks"! It's about OIL, STUPID!!!

NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

STOP THIS INSANITY ... AND SAVE HUMANITY!!!

[ejay579]

You get your information from where? The same people who told us that going into Iraq was going to be a cake walk?

[markusmarkus]

As a retired Navy Senior Chief who spent 13 years at sea and many months patroling the "Gulf," I can tell you that the tanker companies wouldn't send their precious ships (a scarce resource) through the Strait of Homuz - they wouldn't be able to get, let alone afford, the insurance. $300 a barrel oil - ha! Try $1,000 a barrel oil.

"Oily Mission Accomplished"

[DMSmith]

This sounds eerily like a replay of the Iran mis-adventure.

No invasion? We weren't told we'd occupy Iraq! This is a repeat of that and they will go to war with Iran if we don't stop them. And if they do, it will be WAY more catastrophic than Iraq has been.

This MUST not happen.

[abby4ever]

I really don't think they will invade Iran, though I get your point. The most they will do is just bomb their nuke facilities until there's nothing left but sand. They may even let Israel do that and then just mop up afterwards if you know what I mean.

I wish they wouldn't..­.do...anyt­hing. On the other hand, I really believe that the president of Iran isn't just beating his gums together when he says he wants to wipe Israel off the map. I believe he really does have an almost Hitler-like obsession with, and hatred of, the people of that little country.

[Passenger57]

I posted somewhere above(hope it's still there) why Iran isn't going to use a nuke to "wipe Israel off the map".
Israel - that "little country" you refer to - is BRISTLING with every weapon you can think of - up to and including nukes.
Did you know there are Jews living in Iran? If MA hates Jews so much, why hasn't he "cleaned house" yet?

[Ramirez]

The time is coming when our nation will be forced into a stark choice:

A) Accept a nuclear-armed Iran
or
B) Take whatever steps are necessary to prevent that situation


This election will probably determine that choice.

[creationwaits]

I don't know, Israel will probably have to stop them, whether on their own or with us. I did see news this morning that two American carriers may be headed to the Gulf, however, and two other naval battle groups are already there.

I suppose you might say that the good news is we don't need to worry about close fighting like in Iraq and Afghanistan. We just need to destroy nuclear facilities, a standard target that won't suddenly turn into a civilian or disappear under a house. We're very good at stuff like that.

[MajorKong]

The problem is that the Iranians may not sit on their hands while we perform a limited strike. They have what the Pentagon calls "escalation dominance" at the moment. That is, they can probably take things further than we're willing to go. "The enemy has a vote".

[Hirnlego]

EXCEPT that there is zero evidence for a nuclear WEAPONS program. NIE report was clear, IAEA inspections say the exact same thing. They have signed the NPT and there is even a religious fatwa against nuclear weapons.

But facts don't matter really now do they?

YOU are being sold another war. And the more ignorant you are the easier.

[vippy]

Reminds me of Scott Ritter and Hans Blix and now we hear the CIA lied about the whole deal in Iraq. Of course, it was upon the urging of GWB, who never takes a blame.
Disgusting that Pelosi and Reid are accomplices in this. I, personally, say if Pakistan
can have nukes, Iran can too.