Shayan Ghajar

Concern over Iran’s desire to possess nuclear weapons has intensified in light of an article indicating Iran may begin construction on two more nuclear enrichment facilities and could be planning even more. The increasing tension over the topic has led to renewed calls for military action from various sources. However, a multitude of experts on Iran, international politics, conflict, and global economics conclude that an attack on Iran would be extremely counterproductive, both in terms of setting back Iran’s nuclear program and in weakening the central government or encouraging regime change.

According to the New York Times, which published an article on Sunday referring to an interview (Farsi language) from the Iranian Student News Agency, the chief of Iran’s nuclear program said construction on two new nuclear sites will begin soon. Five potential sites have been selected for their isolation and defensibility, Nuclear Chief Salehi said, and “these sites will be built with safety from any manner of attack as their primary concern.” For this reason, the sites “will be constructed deep inside mountains,” he clarified. Salehi hopes to begin construction within the next twelve months.

The evidence presented by the Times included anonymous reports from IAEA and National Intelligence Estimate officials indicating that Iran had likely resumed research and development projects within the nuclear program, and that more equipment is being manufactured than is actually used at known nuclear sites.

Revelations about Iran’s expansion of nuclear sites coincides with increasing discussions of possible strikes from either the United States or Israel. The Herald of Scotland reported on March 21 that British Foreign Secretary David Miliband is under mounting pressure to explain the transfer of American bunker buster bombs to a British base in the Indian Ocean. The base, located on Diego Garcia island, has been a launching pad for air strikes against targets in the Persian Gulf by American planes, as well as a way-point for the extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists. According to the Herald, experts suggest the bombs may be intended for use against Iranian nuclear facilities.

YNet, an Israeli news website affiliated with the country’s leading daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, quotes Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London: “They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran. US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.”

Israel, too, may be moving closer to launching a strike on Iran. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on March 21 that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will request bunker-buster bombs from the Obama administration for a possible strike on Iran. According to the World Tribune, the bombs on Diego Garcia were intended for Israel but have been diverted due to the current diplomatic wrangling between the U.S. and its ally.

The specific results of an Israeli strike against Iran are extremely unpredictable but would certainly be have a destabilizing effect on the Middle East as well as the global economy, Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution concludes (pdf file). Brookings conducted a war games simulation involving various specialists in American security and foreign policy, as well as experts on Iran. The simulation of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities highlighted several potential responses from Iran, and unpleasant ramifications for the United States and Israel.

Possible Iranian responses, the Brookings team concluded, could be the launching of long range missiles at Israel from Iran, as well as shorter-range missiles through Iran’s regional allies Hezbollah and Hamas. This rocket barrage would force Israel to engage in further air strikes against targets in Lebanon and possibly Iran as well. Iran may mine the Strait of Hormuz, home to 40% of the world’s maritime oil shipments, temporarily spiking the price of oil to high levels and forcing American intervention. De-escalating the conflict would prove difficult and costly.

An analysis posted on Reuters shared many of the same conclusions, but added that Iran may use its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan to mobilize political or militant groups against American targets in those countries.

The consequences of an American, rather than Israeli, attack on Iran are enumerated by Michael O’Hanlon and Bruce Riedel, also of Brookings, in a February 28 article. The authors contend that with the American military already engaged in two major conflicts immediately adjacent to Iran, the viability of effective strikes is very limited due to the pre-existing demands on military forces in the region. O’Hanlon and Riedel, too, point to the possibility of actions against American troops in those theaters in the event of an American air strike on Iran. Furthermore, the authors assert, the nuclear sites have been intentionally dispersed to various fortified locations, making it impossible to determine how long the program would be set back, if at all.

Both articles from the Brookings Institution also pointed out the catastrophic effect of strikes on Iran’s domestic opposition movement. The war games simulation concluded that foreign attack on Iran would lead to further marginalization of internal opposition movements by the central government, or would cause a surge of nationalism that temporarily erases domestic disputes. O’Hanlon and Riedel agree, saying, “nor is a strike by an outside power likely to help the cause of Iranian reformists.”

Prominent members of Iran’s opposition movement have reinforced this point multiple times. Mir Hossein Moussavi, the most prominent politician in the Green Movement, has repeatedly argued against sanctions or “foreign domination,” and has himself spoken in support of Iran’s right to nuclear energy. Human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, too, opposes any form of military action. Politician Ataollah Mohajerani, who has ties to numerous opposition leaders, said (Farsi language) that any attack on Iran would serve only to strengthen the Iranian military and distract the public from their internal divisions.

As Foreign Policy Professor R. K. Ramazani of the University of Virginia summarizes, an attack “would destroy the prospects of the pro-democracy movement of the Iranian people. If the Iranians feel their country is facing military attack they will rally around the flag, however much they may oppose their government.”