"Attacking Iran" - Key Reasons NOT TO DO IT Explored

Hissyspit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-03-06 08:42 AM
Original message

"Attacking Iran" - Key Reasons NOT TO DO IT Explored

If you are at all concerned with the prospect of a military against Iran by the U.S., this article, by Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, which I posted earlier in the Editorials and Other Articles forum, lays out arguments against an attack of any kind and encapsulates and analyzes many of the relevant issues. (You could make the argument that he does empahsize humanitarian impact enough, possibly because he does not see it as his area of expertise.) See key points below:

http://www.alternet.org/story/35740

Previous post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x207744

Attacking Iran: The Israel Connection
By Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus
Posted on May 3, 2006, Printed on May 3, 2006

KEY POINTS:

First, some perspective:

The latest National Security Strategy document published earlier this year labeled Iran as the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country. This should be an indication of just how safe the United States is in the post-Cold War world, where the "most serious challenge" is no longer a rival superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems capable of destroying the United States, but a Third World country on the far side of the planet which, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate out of Washington, is at least 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon.

He lists tactical and political risks:

The Risks from a U.S. Attack on Iran

With the ongoing debacle in Iraq, any kind of ground invasion of Iran by U.S. forces is out of the question. Iran is three times bigger than Iraq, both in terms of population and geography. It is a far more mountainous country that would increase the ability of the resistance to engage in guerrilla warfare and the intensity of the nationalist backlash against such a foreign invasion would likely be even stronger. An attack by air and sea-launched missiles and bombing raids by fighter jets would be a more realistic scenario. However, even such a limited military operation would create serious problems for the United States. The Washington Post, in a recent article about a possible U.S. strike against Iran, quoted Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist, as noting how "The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained" by ongoing operations in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.

Zunes points out areas where the U.S. would be "particularly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation:"

One would be in the Persian Gulf, where U.S. Navy ships could become easy targets for Iranian missiles and torpedoes. Perhaps more serious would be in Iraq, where American troops are currently operating against the Sunni-led insurgency alongside Iranian-backed pro-government militias. If these Iranian-backed militias also decided to turn their guns on American forces, the United States would be caught in a vise between both sides in the country's simmering civil war with few places to hide.

It would be difficult for the United States to label militias affiliated with the ruling parties of a democratically-elected government fighting foreign occupation forces in their own country as "terrorists" or to use such attacks as an excuse to launch further military operations against Iran. (Given that the Iraqi government is ruled by two pro-Iranian parties, recent charges by the Bush administration that Iran is aiding the anti-government Sunni insurgency are utterly ludicrous and have been rejected by the Iraqi government.)

He states that "A U.S. air strike would be a clear violation of the United Nations Charter" and would result in "widespread condemnation in the international community," causing us to be isolated as what he calls "a rogue superpower..."

And finally, he makes THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT:

It Won't Work

A military strike against Iran, either directly by the United States or through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their country, to redouble their efforts. Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range, with at least nine major locations. Even the bunker buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, assuming all the secret sites could be located.