Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.


US strikes on Iran would risk 'major war'

13 September 2012, 13:28

Washington - US military strikes on Iran would shake the regime's political control and damage its ability to launch counterstrikes, but the Iranians probably would manage to retaliate, directly and through surrogates, in ways that risked igniting all-out war in the Middle East, according to an assessment of an attack's costs and benefits.

The assessment said extended US strikes could destroy Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay — not stop — the Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lieutenant General Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Centre and former deputy commander of US Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released on Thursday.

It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran's nuclear programme would require a military operation — including a land occupation — more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

An advance copy of the report was provided to The Associated Press.

Mortal threat

The assessment emerges against the backdrop of escalating tensions between Israel and the US over when a military strike on Iran might be required.

The Israelis worry that Iran is moving more quickly toward a nuclear capability than the United States believes. The US has not ruled out attacking but has sought to persuade Israel to give diplomacy more time.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a mortal threat, citing Iran's persistent calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, its development of missiles capable of striking Israel and Iranian support for Arab militant groups.

Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

An oft-stated argument against striking Iran is that it would add to a perception of the US as anti-Muslim — a perception linked to the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and hardened by internet-based video excerpts of an anti-Muslim film that may have fuelled Tuesday's deadly attack on a US diplomatic office in Libya.

"Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike — by the Israelis or US — on Iran," retired Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

Stimulating thinking

The report was compiled and endorsed by more than 30 former diplomats, retired admirals and generals and others who said their main purpose was to provide clarity about the potential use of military force against Iran. They reached no overall conclusion and offered no recommendations.

"The report is intended to have what we call an informing influence and hopefully something of a calming influence, but that's something readers will have to answer for themselves," said Thomas Pickering, a former US ambassador to the United Nations who has held informal contacts with Iranian officials as recently as the past few months.

Kearney said the assessment was meant to stimulate thinking in the US about the objectives of a military attack on Iran beyond the obvious goal of hitting key components of Iran's nuclear programme.

"Clearly there is some [US] ability to do destruction, which will cause some delay, but what occurs after that?" he said in an interview.

Other endorsers of the report include Brent Scowcroft, who was President George HW Bush's national security adviser; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, former Senators Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel and two retired chiefs of US Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni and navy Admiral William J Fallon.

The analysis includes stark assertions about one of the most volatile and complex issues facing the US in a presidential election year.


President Barack Obama's failure to get Iran to negotiate acceptable limits on its nuclear programme is cited by his opponents as emblematic of a misguided and weak foreign policy.

The report said the Obama administration's stated objective — shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive US military assault could delay for up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.

"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future US attacks "and redress the humiliation of being attacked".

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the US to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the US has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.

The US had as many as 170 000 troops in Iraq at the height of the 2003-10 war, and US troop levels in Afghanistan peaked last year at 100 000. Eleven years into the Afghan war the US still has about 74 000 troops there.

Early drafts of the report were co-ordinated by the nonpartisan Iran Project, a private group funded in part by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropy that promotes peace and democracy.

The final version includes contributions from others with national security expertise. It is based on publicly available documents, including unclassified intelligence reports.

- AP


Read News24’s Comments Policy

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Read more from our Users

Nigeria @ 56: Words to my green f...

A leader’s job is not to dictate, but rather to be respected, admired and be a trustee, of the land we love, with so much potential, a land which should be freer than free. Its still a long way to fufilling our destiny! Read more...

Submitted by
Isaac Asabor263
Recession: An opportunity for Nig...

The recession should be seen as an opportunity for the country’s promotion as long as we all collectively conduct ourselves in a patriotic manner, writes Isaac Asabor.  Read more...

Submitted by
Black and White

We want to imitate the whites in everything because we are ignorant of our inherent originality and content. We spend all our Naira to acquire his inventions because we so oblivious of our natural endowments that we allow him have it for free. Read more...

Submitted by
Nate Nat
Adamawa State University Mubi: A ...

ADSU integrity forum has accused the Sunday Joshua Wugira, a lawyer, of adopting unorthodox tactics by abusing his privilege by attacking the integrity of ADSU Vice Chancellor Dr. Moses Zira Zaruwa, writes a News24 reader. Read more...

Submitted by
Abdulsalam Jubril
My Country Nigeria (Part One)

Poetry by Abdulsalam Jubril.

Submitted by
Abdulsalam Jubril
Recession, dearth in leadership a...

Every leader has the opportunity to become great and making himself immortal in the lives and hearts of people for generations to come. Will Mr. President seize this opportunity?, questions Abdulsalam Jubril. Read more...