|
Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails
By Richard Beeston
Diplomatic Editor
02/07/06 "The
Times" -- -- IT IS the option of last resort with
consequences too hideous to contemplate. And yet, with diplomacy
nearly exhausted, the use of military force to destroy Iran’s
nuclear programme is being actively considered by those
grappling with one of the world’s most pressing security
problems.
For five years the West has used every diplomatic device at its
disposal to entice Iran into complying with strict conditions
that would prevent its nuclear programme being diverted to
produce an atomic bomb.
Those efforts, however, are now faltering. US leaders are openly
discussing the looming conflict. A recent poll showed that 57
per cent of Americans favoured military intervention to stop
Iran building a bomb.
Tehran scoffs at threats by the West, has pledged to press on
with its nuclear progamme and defend itself if attacked.
The military option may be the only means of halting a regime
that has threatened to annihilate Israel from developing a bomb
and triggering a regional nuclear arms race.
Experts agree that America has the military capability to
destroy Iran’s dozen known atomic sites. US forces virtually
surround Iran with military air bases to the west in
Afghanistan, to the east in Iraq, Turkey and Qatar and the south
in Oman and Diego Garcia. The US Navy also has a carrier group
in the Gulf, armed with attack aircraft and Tomahawk cruise
missiles. B2 stealth bombers flying from mainland America could
also be used.
The air campaign would not be easy. The Iranians have been
preparing for an attack. Key sites are ringed with air defences
and buried underground. Sensitive parts of the Natanz facility
are concealed 18 metres (60ft) underground and protected by
reinforced concrete two meters thick. Similar protection has
been built around the uranium conversion site at Esfahan.
“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of
the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq centre in Iraq, and would
more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against
Iraq,” said the Global Security consultantcy.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former US Air Force officer,
predicted that knocking out nuclear sites could be over in less
than a week. But he gave warning that would only be the
beginning.
Iran has threatened to defend itself if attacked. It could use
medium-range missiles to hit Israel or US military targets in
Iraq and the region. It could also use its missiles and
submarines to attack shipping in the Gulf, the main export route
for much of the world’s energy needs. “Once you have dealt with
the nuclear sites you would have to expand the targets,” said
Lieutenant-Colonel Gardiner. “There are another 125 to deal with
including chemical plants, missile launchers, airfields and
submarines.”
While this huge US offensive is underway Iran would almost
certainly deploy its most powerful weapon. It would unleash a
counter-attack through proxies in the region. Hezbollah, the
Lebanese Shia militia, would attack Israel. Moqtadr al-Sadr, the
militant Iraqi Shia religious leader, could order his Mahdi Army
to rise up against American and British forces in Iraq.
Iranian-backed groups could wreak havoc against Western targets
across the world.
What began as a military operation to maintain a balance of
power in the Middle East, could instead plunge the region into
another conflict.
“It will have to be diplomats, not F15s that stop the mullahs,”
said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on non-proliferation at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “An air strike
against the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan would inflame
Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise
unpopular government. Finally, the strike would not, as it often
said, delay the Iranian programme. It would almost certainly
speed it up,” he wrote in an article.
PUBLIC OPTIONS
‘All options — including the military one — are on the table’
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary
‘There is only one thing worse than military action, that is a
nuclear armed Iran’
John McCain, Republican senator for Arizona and US
presidential hopeful
‘We are not seeking a military confrontation, but if that happens
we will give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout
history’
Abdolrahim Moussavi, head of Iran’s joint chiefs of staff
‘Give another year to make HEU (highly-enriched uranium) for a
nuclear weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into
weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009’
David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, Institute for
Science and International Security
‘There isn’t a military option. There certainly isn’t one on the
table, let’s be clear about that.’
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary
‘Obviously we don’t rule out any measures at all’
Tony Blair
Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
