Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran

On Sept. 13, a group of former U.S. ambassadors, generals, officials and national security experts released a report cautioning against a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities without a robust public debate. The Iran Project report aims to offer “an objective description of some of the prerequisites for thinking about the use of military force.” It estimates that an American attack could set Tehran’s program back by 4 years but also “produce serious unintended consequences” that could lead to “all-out regional war.”

The following are excerpts from the executive summary with a link to the full report at the end.

Timing, Objectives, Capability, and Exit Strategy. The U.S. has signaled that it is prepared to implement “all options”—including the use of military force against Iran, should sanctions and diplomacy fail—if or when there is a clear indication that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon. After deciding to “dash” for a bomb, Iran would need from one to four months to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear device. Additional time—up to two years, according to conservative estimates—would be required for Iran to build a nuclear warhead that would be reliably deliverable by a missile. Given extensive monitoring and surveillance of Iranian activities, signs of an Iranian decision to build a nuclear weapon would likely be detected, and the U.S. would have at least a month to implement a course of action…
Benefits… In estimating that preventive U.S. attacks could delay for up to four years Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon, we are assuming the deployment of American air power, drones, sea-launched missiles, and perhaps special operations forces and cyber attacks for several weeks or more, seriously damaging hundreds of targets. Such a military action could produce the following benefits:
  • Damage or destroy Iran’s declared major enrichment facilities…
  • Damage Iranian military capabilities…
  • Demonstrate U.S. seriousness and credibility…
  • Help to deter nuclear weapons proliferation…
Costs. In addition to the financial costs of conducting military attacks against Iran,
which would be significant (particularly if the U.S. had to carry out thousands of sorties
and if it had to return to the use of force periodically for years to come), there would
likely be near-term costs…
  • Direct Iranian retaliation against the U.S….
  • Iranian strikes against Israel…
  • Indirect retaliation by Iran…
  • A potential breakdown of hard-won global solidarity against Iran’s nuclear program…
  • Increased likelihood of Iran becoming a nuclear state…
  • Global political and economic instability, including disruptions in energy supply and security…
  • Damage to the United State’s global reputation and increased credibility for anti-American extremist groups…

Click here for the full report.

Source: United States Institute of Peace

Veröffentlicht am 16. September 2012 in Empfehlungen, Gesetze, Medien, Meinungen, Politik und mit , , , , , , , , getaggt. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink. Kommentare deaktiviert für Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran.

Die Kommentarfunktion ist geschlossen.

%d Bloggern gefällt das: