Bombing Iran Would Carry Heavy Consequences
Analysts see no easy military option to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Bombing could be at least partially successful, but it might bring negative consequences.
By Drew Brown
Miami Herald
January 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - Most analysts agree that military action against Iran is unlikely at this point because the Bush administration and European countries appear intent on pursuing diplomacy first. But what if diplomacy fails?
Many analysts say that in that case, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be relatively easy to carry out. With U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with warplanes and ships scattered throughout the Persian Gulf, U.S. forces essentially have Iran hemmed in on three sides. U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft with precision-guided bombs likely would overwhelm Iran's air defenses.
The key questions, however, are whether such an attack would be very effective and how Iran and the rest of the world would respond. Some experts say an attack would delay, not destroy, the Iranian regime and would only reinforce Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran, taking lessons from the Israeli air attack that destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981, has dispersed its atomic research and development facilities in dozens, if not hundreds, of locations above and below ground.
'Weak links'
Regardless of the total number of Iran's nuclear facilities, Isfahan and Natanz are the most important because they constitute the ''two weak links'' in Iran's program, said Cliff Kupchan, an Iran expert and former State Department official in the Clinton administration.
Isfahan, a facility that converts uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride gas, could be bombed easily, said Kupchan, now at the New York-based Eurasia Group, a political risk advisory and consulting firm.
The other, Natanz, is a research facility where experts are trying to master the technique of converting uranium hexafluoride gas into enriched uranium. Low levels of enriched uranium are used for civilian nuclear plants, and more highly enriched fuel is used in nuclear weapons.
International inspectors found the facility after they were tipped off by an Iranian dissident group in 2002. Iran recently resumed research at Natanz and said it was for peaceful purposes, but analysts have expressed doubt because of Natanz's size and the fact that part of it has been constructed underground.
During a 2003 visit, Iran advised International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei that it had almost completed the construction of a pilot uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif.
An easy target?
The test plant will consist of 164 centrifuges, machines that spin uranium hexafluoride gas at high speeds, but it isn't fully operational, according to a January report by the Institute for Science and International Security. The group said Iran would need six months to a year to complete the process needed for enrichment.
Of greater concern at Natanz are underground chambers that are expected to house an estimated 50,000 gas centrifuges, enough to produce weapons-grade uranium for several nuclear weapons a year, according to experts.
While it's unclear what other capacities exist at the site, ''what is obvious is that the pilot facility is above ground and would be easy to take out,'' Kupchan said.
Bombing the facilities at the two locations ''would set the Iranians back by two to three years,'' he said.
''It wouldn't be that hard to do,'' Kupchan said. ``You'd be picking a hell of a fight, though. Iran is a sophisticated country, with a very sophisticated leadership. It has a range of retaliatory options that are extremely unpleasant.''
Iran strikes back
Among those options are missile attacks. Iran's missiles are capable of hitting U.S. bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Iraq and could strike Israeli cities.
The missiles ''are not capable of mass destruction, but they are capable of some destruction,'' said Sammy Salama, a terrorism expert at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
Iran also could unleash terrorism against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran also could stir up trouble through Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed group that attacked Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, or attack U.S. embassies around the world.
Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a policy research group, said military strikes on Iran are unnecessary. ''The country is five to 10 years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs,'' he said.
In addition, many countries might view any nation's attack on Iran as undue aggression unless it had U.N. backing. This could raise Iran's stature.
''People would rally around the flag, just as they would in any country,'' Salama said. ``It will just make the regime stronger than it is now.''
By Drew Brown
Miami Herald
January 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - Most analysts agree that military action against Iran is unlikely at this point because the Bush administration and European countries appear intent on pursuing diplomacy first. But what if diplomacy fails?
Many analysts say that in that case, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be relatively easy to carry out. With U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with warplanes and ships scattered throughout the Persian Gulf, U.S. forces essentially have Iran hemmed in on three sides. U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft with precision-guided bombs likely would overwhelm Iran's air defenses.
The key questions, however, are whether such an attack would be very effective and how Iran and the rest of the world would respond. Some experts say an attack would delay, not destroy, the Iranian regime and would only reinforce Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran, taking lessons from the Israeli air attack that destroyed Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981, has dispersed its atomic research and development facilities in dozens, if not hundreds, of locations above and below ground.
'Weak links'
Regardless of the total number of Iran's nuclear facilities, Isfahan and Natanz are the most important because they constitute the ''two weak links'' in Iran's program, said Cliff Kupchan, an Iran expert and former State Department official in the Clinton administration.
Isfahan, a facility that converts uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride gas, could be bombed easily, said Kupchan, now at the New York-based Eurasia Group, a political risk advisory and consulting firm.
The other, Natanz, is a research facility where experts are trying to master the technique of converting uranium hexafluoride gas into enriched uranium. Low levels of enriched uranium are used for civilian nuclear plants, and more highly enriched fuel is used in nuclear weapons.
International inspectors found the facility after they were tipped off by an Iranian dissident group in 2002. Iran recently resumed research at Natanz and said it was for peaceful purposes, but analysts have expressed doubt because of Natanz's size and the fact that part of it has been constructed underground.
During a 2003 visit, Iran advised International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei that it had almost completed the construction of a pilot uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif.
An easy target?
The test plant will consist of 164 centrifuges, machines that spin uranium hexafluoride gas at high speeds, but it isn't fully operational, according to a January report by the Institute for Science and International Security. The group said Iran would need six months to a year to complete the process needed for enrichment.
Of greater concern at Natanz are underground chambers that are expected to house an estimated 50,000 gas centrifuges, enough to produce weapons-grade uranium for several nuclear weapons a year, according to experts.
While it's unclear what other capacities exist at the site, ''what is obvious is that the pilot facility is above ground and would be easy to take out,'' Kupchan said.
Bombing the facilities at the two locations ''would set the Iranians back by two to three years,'' he said.
''It wouldn't be that hard to do,'' Kupchan said. ``You'd be picking a hell of a fight, though. Iran is a sophisticated country, with a very sophisticated leadership. It has a range of retaliatory options that are extremely unpleasant.''
Iran strikes back
Among those options are missile attacks. Iran's missiles are capable of hitting U.S. bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Iraq and could strike Israeli cities.
The missiles ''are not capable of mass destruction, but they are capable of some destruction,'' said Sammy Salama, a terrorism expert at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
Iran also could unleash terrorism against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran also could stir up trouble through Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed group that attacked Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, or attack U.S. embassies around the world.
Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a policy research group, said military strikes on Iran are unnecessary. ''The country is five to 10 years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs,'' he said.
In addition, many countries might view any nation's attack on Iran as undue aggression unless it had U.N. backing. This could raise Iran's stature.
''People would rally around the flag, just as they would in any country,'' Salama said. ``It will just make the regime stronger than it is now.''
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 11:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home