Consequences of Attack on Iran for US.
Posted by QB on November 15, 2007
The military expert told Congress that Iran attack will have dire consequences for both sides. This was my point of view since the beginning that Iran attack will be suicide for US military and the country. The Iranians will face more deaths and destructions because of US air power and WMD, but they have to defend their country and honor if attacked.
What would happen if the U.S. launched a shock and awe style attack against Iran?
Members of Congress today put that question to top military strategists. The answer — dire consequences for both sides.
Let’s turn to CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre — Jamie, not a very optimistic scenario.
What did they say?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, right Wolf. You would expect a debate over the pros and cons of attacking Iran to have a mixed reaction. But this panel on Capitol Hill found basically very few pros and a lot of cons.
MCINTYRE (voice-over): Even with its military stretched to the limit in Iraq, the U.S. retains the ability to launch punishing air strikes against Iran — targeting both terrorists and nuclear facilities.
But what would the air war accomplish?
Not much, according to military strategists who testified before a House subcommittee on national security.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON (RET.), FORMER ADVISER TO COLIN POWELL: The more widespread strikes, while devastating — they would be — would solidify a nation of 70 plus million people — a great number of whom are under 35 years of age — a nation that is anything but solidified. And the uniting factor would be nationalism and a visceral hatred for America.
COL. SAMUEL GARDINER, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): We can destroy three to five years of construction. We know how long it took to build those. But the effect on the nuclear program, we may accelerate it. As a strategist, I would say you don’t take military action when you don’t know the outcome.
MCINTYRE: In fact, the strategists argue, going to war with Iran would just reinforce the belief it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself.
PAUL PILLAR, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: Many would see the U.S. action as a blow not against proliferation of weapons, but against a Muslim country with a regime that Washington doesn’t happen to like. So the dominant global consequence, in my judgment — especially in the broader Muslim world — would be an increase in anti-Americanism.
MCINTYRE: The experts predict the ranks of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard would swell, its support of terrorism would increase and any moderates would be undercut. Still, some experts argue the military option should not be taken off the table because without it, Iran simply has no incentive to compromise.
ILAN BERMAN, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL: Iran is not likely to bend to sanctions if it thinks all it has to do is weather sanctions and then there’s nothing else is coming down the pike. One of the world’s most dangerous regimes should not be allowed to acquire the world’s most dangerous weapon.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
MCINTYRE: But even the lone voice in favor of maintaining the military option as a threat called it “deeply flawed and dangerous” and says it has to be weighed very carefully about the situation of living with Iran as a nuclear power — Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Source Link : CNN – Situation Room Transcript.
You can read my posts on Iran ME/Iran