Joe Klein of Time magazine has a new piece out this week indicating that after being largely dismissed during the Bush administration, "the military option is very much back on the table" with respect to Iran's nuclear program. And while he notes that "the White House remains as skeptical as ever about a military strike," the Pentagon, the CIA and Central Command seem to be doing serious planning about how such a strike might be carried out.
Klein cites an Israeli military source who suggests that the Central Command has a much better plan now due to better "human intelligence": "there really wasn't a military option a year ago . . . But they've gotten serious about planning, and the option is real now." Given all of the potential push back against such a strike (which would more likely be a protracted series of strikes, as noted below), Klein indicates that in the worst case, "A catastrophic regional war is possible." Not likely, but possible.
Klein's revelations come the same week as the release of a new briefing paper by Paul Rogers of the Oxford Research Group that looks at the likely impacts of Israeli military action against Iran. Rogers' analysis suggests that an Israeli war on Iran over its nuclear program has far more risks than benefits: "The consequences of such an attack would lead to a sustained conflict and regional instability that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it."
Rogers's most important point is that any attempt to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability would be a long-term process, not a series of lightning strikes. It would include not only bombing of major nuclear and missile facilities -- "military real estate," as Rogers puts it -- but would likely extend to "factories and research centres, and even university laboratories, in order to do as much as possible to the Iranian that underpins the programme." The effort might even extend to assassinations of key scientific and technical personnel. Substantial numbers of civilian casualties would be inevitable, not just among technical personnel but among their families and others living near key research and production facilities as well as the people working at them.
What might all of this accomplish? Everything from Iran's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to Iranian missile attacks on Israel, to actions aimed at disrupting global oil supplies, to increased support for Hezbollah attacks on Israel, to Iranian support for anti-Western paramilitary groups in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is possible that Israel would launch a second war on Lebanon in an effort to cripple Hezbollah in advance of striking Iran. Israel's summer 2006 effort to do so was unsuccessful, even as it generated significant civilian casualties and destroyed large amounts of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure.
Meanwhile, within Iran, it is likely to harden resolve to build a nuclear bomb and further unify that politically divided nation behind the nuclear option.
All of which leads to Rogers' final point: "the consequences of a military attack on Iran are so serious that they should not be encouraged in any shape or form. However difficult, other ways must be found to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis."
Rogers' analysis has not received as much attention as it deserves, albeit Reuters did a story and a piece ran in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Given his findings, it's crucial that the military option be taken "off the table," both in Israel and the United States.
Robert Greenwald: Movement to Rethink the Afghanistan War Gains Traction
Newsweek's cover is just the latest sign that opposition to this brutal, costly war is now the norm, and American policy-makers had better take notice. Public opposition for to this war has exploded.
Haggai Carmon: Ten Questions Regarding the Case of the Missing Iranian Scientist
The barrage of information regarding Shahram Amiri offered during the past 5 weeks makes it difficult to distinguish between genuine information, disinformation and spins.
Russ Wellen: Iran Sanctions Come in Handy for Sabotaging Brazil and Turkey, Too
In part, "the rush to sanctions [was] hurried forward to torpedo the Turkish and Brazilian" nuclear fuel swap deal those states brokered with Iran.
Hartung's article is heavy on the worst-case outcomes of stopping Iran's nukes. He omits the outcome after Iran gets nuclear weapons. And he incorrectly focuses on an Israeli bombing of Iran, instead of a more capable US takedown of Iran's nuclear weapons.
While lightning strikes aren't the right solution, there is no shortage of time. If we act before Iran has nukes, there are many good bombing days left. Thoroughness is not a requirement. The fabrication of nuclear devices is complex and difficult, and breaking a few pieces should put a wrench into the system. And we can bomb every few years until Iran stops building nukes.
The absolute worst they can do is stop the oil flow. This is remedied by seizing the oil fields, which would be much easier than the effort in Iraq, as nation-building and ruling the country are not required. Just destroy the military and pump the oil.
The leaders of Iran have made Holocaust denial their policy, and tell both Germany and Israel that the Holocaust did not occur. The point is, that these are not mentally reliable men. They don’t reason the way we do. They must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Stop treating Iran as normal.
Your "strategy", of repeated bombing into submission to prevent militarization, has to be one of the most out-dated and usless doctrines left in the dust bins of history.
As to the UAE, that was a drunk "Prince" who rambled to the newspaper reporter. The government came back and denied it immediately: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-a-e-denies-backing-use-of-force-against-iran-1.300591
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-theyre-all-grovelling-and-you-can-guess-the-reason-2028720.html
No nukes in the ME=no nuclear war.
(Of course, that would only be the logical and rational thing to do, attacking a country for living by the NPT rules would be illogical and irrational, which is why I support the first, and you support the second)
Now the US starts taking heavier and heavier casualties, with the existing missile designs, the existing electronic warfare, etc. being countered by people who see it in action, and see what it does and does not do. How long before the US backs off? How long before everyone wants an Iranian air defence system for missiles? How long before everyone wants an Iranian air defence system for aircraft? How long before everyone wants several Iranian anti-aircraft carrier missiles?
Iran could become a global player in the arms market, and think what that would mean to Israel, who's planes, drones, and the rest suddenly become seen as inferior. Think what that would mean to the US and Russia.
The United States cannot afford another war; especially a war of choice with a very dubious "ally".
War is hell! Who are we fighting for? Not for me and people I know. I know Iranians would feel pain and would suffer and would die. But, they will not bend our way and say “Yes Master!” Would we attack them, they will give us hell. We will be in their home and they will be defending their families.
Why would we be there? Ah? Israel’s government wants us to. Be serious, it has nothing to do with any nuclear bomb. If we really cared about the bomb, we would have not allowed nuclear bomb in Israel.
Netanyahu said: "I know what America is," not knowing his words were being recorded. "America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction..." Are we being easily moved to attack Iran? War is hell! Just remember Vietnam.
We don't need to invade their homes or families, just stop the nuclear manufacturing.
Your slogan is funny. We'll put 'remember Vietnam' up right next to 'Remember the Maine' and 'Remember the Alamo'.
Vietnam had access to supplies from China and the USSR across the border. The main source of Iranian wealth is oil money from the US and Europe. Maybe some from China. Iran depends on the West. North Vietnam did not. The Basiji are not the VC, the desert is not the jungle, Iran has oil and Vietnam, not.
The USA Interests in the Middle East: Iran
http://stmichaeltraveler.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/the-usa-interests-in-the-middle-east-iran/
Are we really serious about nuclear bomb in Iran? I stated "Iranian must understand our position in the world; their insubordination is a threat to our national interests." What are our national interests? The article, cited above, specifies some of our concerns. It has nothing to do with bringing democracy to the region. Who are some of our friends in the region? Are these friend leaders of democratic systems? We, the American people, would need to do some inner reflection on the core of the issues and causes of war during the last 250 years.
"Iran’s President Now Aims at Rivals Among Conservatives":
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/world/middleeast/17rift.html
Or are you referring to the NY Times that was a major cheerleader for the war in Iraq?
Try travelling to Iran and talking to Iranians, not swallowing propaganda.
I am married to an Iranian. I study the news from inside and outside of Iran. I do my best not to "swallow propaganda. And you need to stop being so assumptive and bossy.
Another preemptive strike is just what we need. ( bomb bomb boom Iran just in case) World War 3.
Surely you know WWII happened because of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan military occupation of foreign lands and resources, and not because of their ideology or human right violations within their own borders before the war.
Nuclear weapons change all the rules. We are forced to judge intent ahead of time.