Is America Burning - a Forum To Discuss Issues

All comments welcome, pro or con. Passionate ok, but let's be civil. ...Pertinent comments will be published on this blog. Air your viewpoints.

Photobucket

Skyline - Houston, Texas

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Reuters.com - Thousands would die if US attacked Iran: study - Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:13 AM ET

worried american (is_america_burning@yahoo.com) has sent you this article.
Thousands would die if US attacked Iran: study
Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:13 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of military personnel and hundreds of civilians would be killed if the United States launched an air strike on Iran to prevent it developing nuclear arms, a British think tank said in a report released on Monday.

The report by the Oxford Research Group said any bombing of Iran by U.S. forces, or by their Israeli allies, would have to be part of a surprise attack that would inevitably catch many Iranians unprotected and could eventually lead to a lengthy confrontation involving many other countries in the region.

An attack could lead to the closure of the Gulf at the Straits of Hormuz and would probably have a substantial impact on oil prices, as well as spurring new attacks by Muslim radicals on Western interests, the report said.

"A U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf States being involved as well," it said.

"Military deaths in (the) first wave of attacks against Iran would be expected to be in the thousands, especially with attacks on air bases and Revolutionary Guard facilities," said the report by Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford.

"Civilian deaths would be in the many hundreds at least," it said. "If the war evolved into a wider conflict, primarily to pre-empt or counter Iranian responses, the casualties would eventually be much higher."

Western states suspect Iran of secretly aiming to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran says its nuclear facilities are intended to produce only electricity.

Washington and Jerusalem have said they would prefer to solve the dispute through diplomacy but have not ruled out military action.

The report said an attack by the United States or Israel on Iran would probably spur Tehran to work as rapidly as possible toward developing a nuclear military option.

It said U.S. forces, already tied down in Iraq, would have a limited number of military options when dealing with Iran and would have to rely almost entirely on the air force and navy.

Any attack would almost certainly unify Iran and bolster the government in Tehran, and mean that any future U.S. relationship with Iran would have to be based on violence, the report said.

A military response to the crisis would be a "particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further", the report concluded.

If you would like to receive news articles delivered to your email address, please subscribe at www.reuters.com

© Copyright Reuters 2006All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only.

3 Comments:

  • At Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:38:00 AM , Blogger Unknown said...

    I have heard a bit about this before on one of those news magazine shows--don't remember which one; they say that invading Iran wouldn't be the easy go it was in Iraq for several reasons

    Iran has rebuilt its standing army

    They have rebuilt their infrastructure

    The local population is opposed to the US and US interference with the Iranian government.

    There is still a lot of hatred against Americans in Iran for our support of the Shah's government and the subsequent freezing of assests in American banks, etc, after the hostages were taken.

    It's an interesting subject. I haven't read as much about Iran as I'd like, but Gary did leave a good link over at our blog. So much of interest to study--so little time.

     
  • At Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:31:00 AM , Blogger Unknown said...

    It's a good article but vastly underestimates the projected Irani civilian casualties. The government numbers for Iraqi casualties are cooked, ofcourse, but other less self-serving sources push the numbers to over 100,000 civilians.( See my This Is War blog about Iraqi civilians). That doesn't count the wounded, mutilated, maimed, starved, etc. or the ones doomed to slow death from radioactive poisoning from DUs.
    You are correct - Iran will not be as easy to overcome as was Iraq. In spite of the US sponsored 8 year war between Iraq and Iran, Iran has bounced back to full strength. When they fought Iraq, towards the end of the war they were recruiting 13 and 14 year old children to fight as soldiers. They will not be subdued easily. And if we nuke them, as is planned, half the Islamic world will come against us - and a few "backpack" nukes against us on our sacred shores??

     
  • At Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:07:00 PM , Blogger Unknown said...

    Bush will be blowing smoke out the other side of his butt when all the leaders of the Muslim world come HERE to throw him out of power.

    I agree about the civilians. They are just trying to live their lives & didn't ask for any of this.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home