 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
U.S. Air Strikes on Iran Could Backfire, Eland ArguesThe Independent |
||
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh caused a stir recently when he reported in the NEW YORKER that the Pentagon had sent "black reconnaissance" teams (what used to be called "covert operations" forces, when they where directed by the Central Intelligence Agency) to find nuclear weapons labs and other potential targets in the event that the Bush administration decides to launch air strikes to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. A U.S. air strike against Iran, however, would be both ineffective and counterproductive, warns Ivan Eland, senior fellow and director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. "In fact, air strikes could ultimately accelerate Iran's nuclear program," Eland writes in his latest op-ed. Just as Iraq accelerated its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons after Israel bombed its nuclear reactor in Osirak in 1981, Iran may respond similarly if attacked. "In the wake of surgical U.S. attacks on some of its nuclear sites, an unnerved Iran would likely accelerate a clandestine nuclear weapons program," Eland writes. "Surgical attacks on Iran could also have other negative consequences in the region and around the globe," he continues. "The Iranians could retaliate by making the U.S. occupation of Iraq even uglier than it is at present. They could feed money, arms, and fighters into the Iraq war or stir up Shi'ite populations against the U.S. occupation. In addition, attacks by a foreign superpower could cause a 'rally around the flag' effect among a restive, young Iranian population that might eventually throw out the ruling theocratic mafia. Finally, attacking a third Islamic country after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could spike retaliatory terrorism on U.S. targets around the world by newly energized radical Islamists. Iran might even begin sponsoring such anti-U.S. attacks." To encourage Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, Eland recommends that the United States offer that country a carrot similar to the one that caused Libya to end its WMD programs: the removal of economic sanctions against Iran and the offer of a non-aggression treaty, in exchange for a verifiable end to the country's nuclear program. "With military options so counterproductive, the United States has no choice but to use negotiations -- not force -- to end Iran's nuclear program," Eland concludes. See "Should Iran Be the Next Target?" by Ivan Eland (1/25/05) To purchase PUTTING "DEFENSE" BACK INTO U.S. DEFENSE POLICY: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World, by Ivan Eland, see To purchase THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by Ivan Eland, see US 'Iran attack plans' revealedThe B.B.C. |
|||
