|
Analysis: Would Iran retaliate
to bombing
Derek Sands
UPI
Monday Sept 3, 2007
Although U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military
would likely overwhelm their forces, Tehran could still rely on
a host of weapons, from covert terror campaigns to long-range
missiles, to retaliate against an American attack.
While Iran's aging conventional military forces have little hope
of successfully maintaining combat against U.S. forces in the
Gulf in the case of U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities,
a quick attack by Tehran on ships in the Persian Gulf, and support
of anti-American militias in Iraq and Afghanistan, could prove
a real threat.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday warned that an attack
on Iran would be a catastrophe, but reports on Aug. 14 that the
Bush administration may designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
a terrorist group renewed fears that Washington may be seriously
considering military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The
guard is a military group within the Iranian government, but separate
from the regular armed forces, and is widely believed to control
Tehran's nuclear program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran recently agreed
to a timeline for more negotiations on convincing Iran to abandon
its nuclear ambitions, but the Bush administration dismissed the
agreement as nothing more than further delay by Iran.
(Article continues below)
The United States, as well as its allies in the United Nations,
feels Iran is trying to develop nuclear technology and know-how
in order to build a nuclear bomb, but Iran denies this, saying
it only wants peaceful but independent nuclear power.
Some analysts see bombing as a possible approach if negotiations
fail, but many think it would do little to eliminate the threat
of Iran's nuclear program, and at worst could rally support behind
Tehran at a time when government economic policies are blamed
for high unemployment and fuel shortages have led to violent protest.
But if Iran is attacked, Tehran has a wide variety of options
to use in retaliating against the United States, analysts say.
Iran has "a whole host of things, from the conventional,
to the irregular, to missiles to terrorism, that they could use
to retaliate," according to Peter Brookes, a national security
expert at the Heritage Foundation who has written extensively
on U.S. relations with Iran, as well as Iran's ambitions in the
region.
"We could see some attacks against our forces in the Persian
Gulf. They have anti-ship cruise missiles, highly capable Chinese
anti-tank cruise missiles; they also could do suicide attacks
against our ships," Brookes said.
Not only could Iran act against naval forces, but its 1,500-kilometer-range
Shahab-3 missile is within striking distance of Israel's largest
city, Tel-Aviv.
Anthony Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic &
International Studies who wrote several reports earlier this year
about Iran's military and its capacity to retaliate against the
United States, also concluded that Iran could attack the United
States with anti-ship missiles and mines.
Aside from attacks on U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf,
both analysts suggested Iran would likely pursue unconventional
attacks on the United States and its interests in the Middle East,
whether by attacking U.S. territory through Hezbollah sympathizers
in the United States or through increased support of insurgent
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Iran has close relations with many Iraqi Shiites, particularly
Shiite political parties and militias. Some Iraqi groups have
warned against U.S. military strikes against their neighbors,"
Cordesman wrote in a March report.
The Strait of Hormuz, at the base of the Persian Gulf and through
which one-fifth of the world's oil flows, has also been mentioned
as a possible target of Iran, although Iran's dependency on oil
revenue would make that a problem for the country.
"The economy is in terrible shape in Iran, so if they don't
mind cutting their nose off to spite their face, they could certainly
try. I don't think they could cut off the Strait of Hormuz, but
they could certainly sink a tanker," Brookes said.
Cordesman's assessment falls along the same lines.
"It could not close the Strait of Hormuz, or halt tanker
traffic, but it could threaten and disrupt it," and it "can
create a high-risk premium and potential panic in oil markets,"
he said.
Despite how it chooses to retaliate if attacked, Brookes does
not doubt Iran would act.
"I believe there would be some retaliation against U.S.
forces in the region, U.S. interests in the region, and potentially
the United States, and I think potentially Israel as well. And
anybody who supported them probably would also become targets
as well," he said.
Iran's outdated conventional military would likely pose little
long-term threat to American forces, although it is currently
modernizing its forces in an attempt to gain regional clout.
"They are trying to increase the capability of their conventional
forces. Iran sees itself as a rising power in the region, it wants
to be the most powerful country in the region, and it wants to
be the regional hegemon, and to do that, it's going to have to
improve its military strength," Brookes said.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
