WASHINGTON - Amid rising speculation about the possibility of an Israeli or
United States bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month,
a major study produced for the US Air Force by a top defense think-tank
concluded that US military action against Iran was "likely to have negative
effects for the United States".
The study, by the Rand Project Air Force, a division of the California-based
Rand Corporation, was released on July 9, the same day that Tehran test-fired
medium- and long-range missiles in an apparent response to reports the previous
week that Israel had carried out secret exercises designed to simulate a raid
on Iran's nuclear facilities the previous month.
Amid all the fireworks, however, the report, which also called for a
multi-faceted strategy designed to encourage democratic development in Iran,
was ignored by the mainstream media.
Entitled "Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities", the
156-page report also called for Washington to "tone down" its policy statements
supporting "regime change" and to "discourage Iranian ethnic groups from
revolting against the regime". Both policies, it said, are likely to be
counter-productive.
Instead, according to the three main authors of the study, Washington should
adopt a more patient approach, "designed to create conditions for effective
relations [with Tehran] over the long haul".
As with the Soviet Union, "[W]ith Iran, the US government will again need to
keep an eye on the long term, communicating with the current government but
also encouraging more discussion among Iranians and more contacts and
interactions between Iranians and Americans."
"Societies and governments change. The US government has some ability to foster
favorable trends in Iran, but these policies will take time to come to
fruition," said the report, which also noted that Iran "appears to be on its
way to becoming a nuclear power".
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has, in fact,
subsided somewhat over the past three weeks, although the issue has flared
again as a result of successive visits by Israel's chief of staff and defense
minister, Ehud Barak, over the past week. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times
reported on Wednesday that top US officials had reassured Barak that the
military option was still "on the table".
Still, most analysts believe that while such an attack - either by Israel or
the US - remains possible, it is not probable, if for no other reason than the
military brass in the Pentagon, especially the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has made its opposition to the idea increasingly
clear over the past month.
In addition, the decision to send a high-ranking State Department official to
participate for the first time in talks 10 days ago with Iran as part of the
"Iran Six" process that also involves France, Germany, Britain, Russia and
China has been taken as a signal that Washington is increasingly committed to
diplomacy as the means to address its concern over Tehran's nuclear program.
If, in addition, the State Department receives White House approval for opening
an Interests Section in Tehran - a move that is currently the subject of
discussions at the highest level of the administration - the likelihood of an
attack before President George W Bush leaves office will recede even further.
In that respect, the Rand study bolsters those who favor engagement with Iran,
even as it also supports the maintenance of certain kinds of sanctions, notably
the embargo on certain high-tech gas liquefaction technologies, as a bargaining
chip for future negotiations with Tehran. To increase pressure on the regime,
the report also recommends expanding contingency plans to seize Iranian foreign
bank and commercial accounts and encouraging US allies to bar certain Iranian
officials associated with the nuclear program from obtaining visas for foreign
travel.
As for the possibility of an attack, however, the report is clear that such an
option will almost certainly be counter-productive, particularly with respect
to Washington's hopes that it could result in diminished support for the regime
or even its overthrow.
"A large majority of Iranians strongly believe that Iran has the same right as
other nations to develop nuclear energy, including the construction and
operation of nuclear enrichment facilities," it said. "If Iran's facilities
were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would
likely be widespread."
The most likely response, indeed, would be a "strong push to retaliate [as]
[c]ritics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent" in the
nationalist backlash that would ensue.
Moreover, such an attack "would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear
program," according to the authors. While it might set back the economy in
certain ways, the resulting increase in oil prices would enable the government
"to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current program
without major budgetary consequences".
Another option, a blockade of Kharg Island, Iran's main loading terminal, or
the Straits of Hormuz to prevent Iranian oil from being exported, would indeed
have a "devastating effect" on Iran's economy, but it would also "probably do
more to solidify public support for the regime than weaken it", according to
the report, which also noted the likelihood that such a step would ensure a
sharp rise in global oil prices and probably result in Iranian attacks on
tanker traffic in the Gulf.
The report also warned against covert action programmes designed to aid
minority opposition groups, as "Iranian security forces have convincingly shown
that they can handle restive ethnic groups, and violent opposition to Iranian
rule is more likely to entrench the current security and political forces than
to elicit a positive change in regime policies."
Instead, Washington should concentrate its efforts on fostering conditions for
a more pluralistic Iran in favor of a more patient approach toward a regime
that the report said "most Iranians perceive ... as legitimate". It called for
greater funding for program that facilitate contacts between Iranians and US
citizens and to encourage US officials and citizens to provide interviews and
commentary for Iranian media ..." At the same time, it should "mute US policy
statements advocating regime change" as the government often uses these as "an
excuse for detaining individuals seeking more freedom".
The report also calls for support of International Monetary Fund and World Bank
efforts to encourage better economic management and cease US opposition to
Iran's accession to the World Trade Organization.
Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy, and particularly the
neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
