Iran: Consequences of a War

[Guest guest]

IRAN:

CONSEQUENCES OF A WAR

 

Paul Rogers

February 2006

 

This briefing paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely

nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to

disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate

consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and

infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be

extensive.

 

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of

a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to

involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The

report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in

relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not

be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however

difficult these may be.

 

About the Author

 

Paul Rogers is Professor of Peace Studies at the University of

Bradford and Global Security Consultant to Oxford Research Group. Paul

has worked in the field of international security, arms control and

political violence for over 20 years. He lectures at universities and

defence colleges in several countries, and his publications include 20

books and over 100 papers. His latest book, Iraq and the War on

Terror: Twelve Months of Insurgency, 2004/2005, was published by I.B.

Tauris in November 2005. Paul is a regular commentator on global

security issues in both the national and international media.

 

 

 

OxfordResearchGroup

 

Oxford Research Group (ORG) is an independent think tank based near

Oxford which works to develop effective methods for people to bring

about positive change on issues of national and international security

by non-violent means. Established in 1982, it is a registered charity

and a public company limited by guarantee. We employ a small core of

staff and consultants, overseen by a Board of Trustees, and supported

by a network of Patrons, Associates and Sustainers who come from all

walks of life. In 2003, Oxford Research Group was awarded the Niwano

Peace Prize, and in April 2005 The Independent newspaper named ORG as

one of the top twenty think tanks in the UK.

 

Contents

Executive Summary 2

Introduction 3

The US Context 4

The Israel Factor 4

The Iranian Context 5

Current Circumstances in Iran 6

The Nature of US Military Action 7

Pre-empting Iranian Responses 8

Casualties 9

Iranian Responses 9

Wider Responses 11

Israeli Military Action 11

Conclusion 12

 

 

Executive Summary

 

An air attack on Iran by Israeli or US forces would be aimed at

setting back Iran's nuclear programme by at least five years. A ground

offensive by the United States to terminate the regime is not feasible

given other commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not be

attempted. An air attack would involve the systematic destruction of

research, development, support and training centres for nuclear and

missile programmes and the killing of as many technically competent

people as possible. A US attack, which would be larger than anything

Israel could mount, would also involve comprehensive destruction of

Iranian air defence capabilities and attacks designed to pre-empt

Iranian retaliation. This would require destruction of Iranian

Revolutionary Guard facilities close to Iraq and of regular or

irregular naval forces that could disrupt Gulf oil transit routes.

 

Although US or Israeli attacks would severely damage Iranian nuclear

and missile programmes, Iran would have many methods of responding in

the months and years that followed. These would include disruption of

Gulf oil production and exports, in spite of US attempts at

pre-emption, systematic support for insurgents in Iraq, and

encouragement to associates in Southern Lebanon to stage attacks on

Israel. There would be considerable national unity in Iran in the face

of military action by the United States or Israel, including a

revitalised Revolutionary Guard.

 

One key response from Iran would be a determination to reconstruct a

nuclear programme and develop it rapidly into a nuclear weapons

capability, with this accompanied by withdrawal from the

Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would require further attacks. A

military operation against Iran would not, therefore, be a short-term

matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting

confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled

out and alternative strategies developed.

 

Full text here:

http://www.iranbodycount.org/