Region | Iran
'Military action last resort to halt Iran nuclear issue'
The next president would be wise to make contingency plans for a military attack against Iran, but even a successful strike might not stop Tehran's development of nuclear weapons, a bipartisan study group has concluded.
- AP
- Published: 20:22 September 19, 2008
-
Lawmakers seek unified GCC stance
Lawmakers seek unified GCC stance on Iran
-
UN has evidence of Iran nuke bomb
UN nuke watchdog shows evidence of bomb programme
-
Ahmadinejad plays down UN concern over Iran nuke issue
Ahmadinejad plays down UN concern over Iran nuke issue
-
Naval blockade may lead to war
Naval blockade may lead to war
-
Iran to continue N-work, despite threat
Ahmadinejad: Iran to continue N-activities, despite sanctions threat
-
'Israel in weak positiion to attack'
Ahmadinejad: Israel in weak position to attack any country
Washington: The next president would be wise to make contingency plans for a military attack against Iran, but even a successful strike might not stop Tehran's development of nuclear weapons, a bipartisan study group has concluded.
Intensified diplomacy and tougher economic sanctions aimed at Iran's oil and gas industries are more likely to be productive, said the forthcoming report by the Bipartisan Policy Centre, prepared under the guidance of former Senators Daniel Coats, a Republican, and Democrat Charles Robb.
"A military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran's nuclear development," the report said.
The next president could conclude that the risks of a military strike are outweighed by the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran dominating the Arabian Gulf and Iran possibly acting to eradicate Israel, the report said.
The US military is capable of launching a devastating strike on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, probably a more decisive one than Iranian leaders realise, the study group said.
It could set back significantly Iran's nuclear program, the report said.
'Repeated strikes'
"However, unless sustained by repeated strikes against rebuilt or newly discovered sites over a period of years, military action alone is likely only to delay Iranian nuclear development, while entailing risks of retaliation, ... which could quickly escalate to full-scale war."
Any US military attack also would run a number of risks, among them rallying Iranians around their "unstable and ideologically extreme regime" and triggering wide-scale Hezbollah and Hamas rocket attacks against Israel, the report said.
Even though a successful bombing campaign would slow Iranian nuclear development, Iran would retain its nuclear technical knowledge while the US would have to be prepared to attack previously undiscovered nuclear sites to ensure Iran does not resurrect its military nuclear programme, the report said.
Iran's nuclear development may pose the most significant strategic threat to the US during the next administration's tenure, threatening the Arabian Gulf region and its vast energy resources, the report said.
It could also spark nuclear proliferation all through the Middle East and destabilise Saudi Arabia and other nations in the region, it added.
Military option
The Bush administration has kept the military option on the table while taking the position that it would talk to Iran under certain conditions.
Republican candidate John McCain's approach is similar. He emphasises retaining the military option. Democratic candidate Barack Obama says he will consider unconditional talks with Iran. He has said little about a military option, but has not ruled one out either.
Share this article
Related Articles
Popular in News
News Editor's choice
-
Philippine massacre probe focuses on Arroyo ally
Arroyo vows justice for the victims and declares a national day of mourning
-
Italian PM gets 'Rockstar of the Year' title
Magazine hails Berlusconi's lifestyle
-
What drives Africa's new kind of refugees?
Warming-driven factors have led many in the continent to flee their homes
