The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action against Iran

[cato2]

Policy Focus #84The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action against IranPatrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt

Format: PDF, 45 Pages
Published: June 2008

Price: Free Download
File Size: 552 KB



Accepted wisdom suggests that preventive military action against Iran's nuclear program would entail significant risks and uncertain prospects of success. Much of the public debate surrounding these risks and uncertainties has focused on strictly military-technical considerations. Although important, these issues do not address the key political and contextual questions underlying any discussion of prevention and deterrence. For example, how would Iran -- and the international community -- respond to military strikes? Would such action convince the regime to permanently abandon its nuclear activities, or would Tehran simply rebuild? And what effect would such action have on subsequent diplomatic or military efforts?

In this paper -- the fifth entry in The Washington Institute's "Agenda: Iran" series -- Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt scrutinize these and other questions in an effort to understand exactly what preventive action would entail if the diplomatic road reaches a dead end. In doing so, they touch on the various scenarios under which such action might unfold, emphasizing the crucial role that context -- including the international political climate, Tehran's stance toward its nonproliferation commitments, public opinion in the United States and Iran, and similar factors -- would play in the success of any preventive strategy. Whether military force is viewed as a threat to gain diplomatic leverage or an actual "last resort," policymakers must come to a realistic understanding of its consequences if they hope to end the Iranian nuclear threat for the long term.

[leobold1]

If there's an attack on Iran's nuclear program, it's not going to be the US that does it. Its going to be Israel, and the only warning is when they tell us and the Iraqis that they'll be flying over Iraq to get there.

[cato2]

Originally Posted by leobold1

If there's an attack on Iran's nuclear program, it's not going to be the US that does it. Its going to be Israel, and the only warning is when they tell us and the Iraqis that they'll be flying over Iraq to get there.

I happen to think the same thing, it will be Israel. But I think that we will be involved with the operation at some level of support.

[Manchu34]

Originally Posted by cato2

I happen to think the same thing, it will be Israel. But I think that we will be involved with the operation at some level of support.

Not sure if we'd be involved. The main reason would be the ability for denial. Besides look at the last time Israel attacked an Arab nation's nuclear reactor. They were able to fly to Iraq and back without a loss. Furthermore, what is surprising is that the US and all the AWACs in the Middle East did not detect the F-16s

[Scrappy]

Originally Posted by Manchu34

... Besides look at the last time Israel attacked an Arab nation's nuclear reactor. They were able to fly to Iraq and back without a loss. Furthermore, what is surprising is that the US and all the AWACs in the Middle East did not detect the F-16s

Yes, that is our story and we are sticking to it

[Scrappy]

Quick quiz, name all the nuclear armed nations.

[Woodmonkey]

Too many for peace of mind.