Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

U.S: Air Force Think Tank Advises Against Iran Attack

By Jim Lobe, IPS News. Posted August 11, 2008.


A major study produced for the U.S. Air Force by a top defense think tank concludes attacking Iran would be a disaster for the U.S.
Advertisement

Amid rising speculation about the possibility of an Israeli or U.S. bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month, a major study produced for the U.S. Air Force by a top defense think tank concluded that U.S. 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 Jul. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 Wednesday that top U.S. 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 U.S. -- 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, Adm. 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 Five Plus One 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 U.S. allies to bar certain Iranian officials associated with the nuclear program from obtaining visas for foreign travel.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iran, nuclear, wto, rand

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service. His blog on U.S. foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The flower before the gun!
Posted by: LionHeart on Aug 11, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine, using economic incentives and developing an atmosphere to foster improved relations with a country.

Obama stands the best chance of making this happen as McCain seems steeped in the military option.

Iran was and apparently would still be eager to participate in a meaningful relationship that would open up markets for them, and encourage transfer of technology etc.

The question would be would their ruling religious leaders even care about such issues?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh good!
Posted by: donl51 on Aug 11, 2008 7:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That gives Bush the ok to attack Iran! that's the way his strange mind works!...after all those in the know finish speaking schrub jumps right in and does the exact opposite....maybe try a little reverse phycology?.....too chancy????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vahid V. Motlagh
Posted by: vahidvmotlagh on Aug 12, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this major study done by RAND is worthwhile to read. And of course, I agree that the final question is whether the US is going to keep Iran unconnected to the world or get it connected. As the researchers have pointed out in their concluding remarks in the long-term the strategy of connection may well come to fruition. However, I tend to raise a couple of criticisms also. There are numerous cultural misunderstandings between our nations let alone the problems between our governments. There is a nice anecdote which may help me highlight the point. This British businessman purchases a US factory. Upon visiting his new property he tells the American employee: "Gentlemen, I feel that it might be better if you do this and that". Some months later he revisits the factory and surprisingly notices that none of his requested changes have been done at all by Americans. He gets angry and ask for an explanation. But the Americans tell him: "Sir, yes, we do agree that it would be better to do this and that, but if you really wanted us to do this and that you should have ordered us directly!" Likewise, many American officials do not get it right when listening to whatever bellicose and harsh language which is being used by some Iranian officials. Indeed, they take them too seriously, while these officials are, for the most part, sentimental and not rational. In addition, I am almost sure that many of the expatriate Iranians living in the US or elsewhere whose articles and books have been chiefly cited by RAND researchers, will give you a very biased picture of what is the real situation in Iran. Naturally they have suffered a lot before immigration and will take revenge on their fellow countrymen, no matter they are responsible or not, in their conversations with foreigners. Regarding the nuclear program I must say that most Western analysts fail to consider the symbolic value of becoming a nuclear country for Iranians. Indeed, during past decades a good evidence of the economic growth becoming an official dogma can be seen in Iran. I.R. Iran's 20-year vision,which was adopted by religiously driven leadership in 2005, envisages that "I.R. Iran in 2025 is a developed country that ranks first economically, scientifically and technologically in the region (of South West Asia).... with constructive and effective international interactions." When I asked one of the contributing officials to provide the supporting documents, I noticed that the Expediency Discernment Council's members had used internal and external environmental scanning and scenario planning in their deliberations. There were three scenarios primarily based on the economic growth rate in the last 10 years and three assumptions about the futures of the economic growth rate. Right now Iran ranks the fourth country in terms of GDP per capita after Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.The first assumption was that during the next 20 years, countries in the South West Asia region will develop by an average of their 10-year record. To rank first in this vulnerable scenario Iran has to develop by a 5.6 annual growth rate. The second assumption was that during the next 20 years, countries in the region will develop by their top annual growth rate. To rank first in this unrealistic scenario Iran has to develop by a 11.5 annual growth rate. And the third assumption was that in the next 20 years, countries in the region will develop by an average of their top record and average of their 10-year record. To rank first in this plausible scenario Iran has to develop by a 8.6 annual growth rate. The latter assumption and therefore desirable scenario substantiates the official 20-year vision document which aims specifically at one future. If anyone can bring about an alternative, either symbolic or non-symbolic, in which the I.R Iran's 20 year official vision can be realized "without" nuclear program, I see no reason for not pursuing a more flexible attitude toward negotiation with the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vahid V. Motlagh Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Vahid V. Motlagh Posted by: vahidvmotlagh