US strike against Iran would lead to all-out war, report concludes

A U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could have
unintended consequences that would lead to all-out war, according to a new report
endorsed by more than 30 national-security experts.

The report, which is being released Thursday, says that a
U.S. airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facility would set back Iran’s program up to
four years, but would not permanently disable it.

And if the United States attacked Iran, Tehran would likely
respond with both direct and surrogate asymmetrical attacks, the report says,
potentially escalating the conflict into an all-out regional war.

“Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the
longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional
stability, including economic stability,” the report says. “A dynamic of
escalation, action and counteraction could produce serious unintended
consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead,
potentially, to all-out regional war.”

{mosads}The report also concludes that an attack on Iran’s nuclear
facilities could actually increase the likelihood that Iran becomes a nuclear
state.

“We believe that military action probably would reduce the
possibility of reaching a more permanent political resolution of concerns about
Iran’s nuclear program,” it says. “In fact, we believe that a U.S. attack on
Iran would increase Iran’s motivation to build a bomb, because the Iranian
leadership would become more convinced than ever that regime change is the goal
of U.S. policy, and building a bomb would be seen as a way to inhibit future
attacks and redress the humiliation of being attacked.”

The Obama administration has said that no options are off
the table to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including a military
strike, but that it prefers a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear conflict.

Israel, however, has ramped up its rhetoric about a
potential strike on Iran as it’s complained about U.S. inaction and the
ineffectiveness of sanctions and negotiations.

Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes
only, but the United States, Israel and their allies suspect Iran is seeking a
nuclear weapon.

The report says that a U.S. aerial strike on Iran could
destroy or damage the six most important nuclear facilities in Iran, setting
back Iran’s nuclear program for up to four years — but not permanently.

In order to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb,
the report suggests the United States would require a “a significantly expanded
air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years.”

If regime change in Iran was the goal, the report predicted
the United States would need “a commitment of resources and personnel greater
than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars combined.”

The report says an Israeli strike, on the other hand, would
set back Iran’s program for up to two years, and would not have the same
success as it did in Iraq or Syria because Iran’s Fordo facility is buried into
a mountain.

Potential Iranian retaliation would include targeting U.S.
facilities in the region, attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz and
targeting Israel, according to the paper. Attacks by proxies like Hezbollah
would also be likely.

The report also raises concerns that the international
consensus against Iran’s nuclear program could break down in the wake of a U.S.
or Israeli attack.

The report, which was drafted by Austin Long of Columbia
University and William Luers, director of the Iran Project, draws on
analysis and opinion from publicly available documents, including unclassified
intelligence reports. The authors say it is not an advocacy paper but designed
to weigh the costs and benefits of military action against Iran.