Air Strikes On Iran Could Backfire - Report

[Purveyor]

LONDON, March 5 (Reuters) - Military strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions could backfire, increasing Tehran's determination to obtain atomic weapons and bolstering hostility towards the West, a report said on Monday.

---

"With inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely it would be possible to identify and subsequently destroy the number of targets needed to set back Iran's nuclear programme for a significant period," said the report.

"In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time."

Such a weapon would then be wielded in "an environment of incalculably greater hostility," said the report, which was published by the Oxford Research Group and written by Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist and weapons expert.

---

BLIX BACKS REPORT

Iran is likely to have built secret facilities underground as well as "false targets" designed to look like nuclear sites and act as decoys, Barnaby's report said.

---END OF EXCERPT---

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0366765.htm

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Backfire? Do ya think?

[Monkeyman]

2. Big Time

[Tom Joad]

3. damn, liberal propaganda. it's gonna be a cakewalk.

[Amused Musings]

5. Yeah,

This seems pretty self-evident.

[Joe Bacon]

6. ANYONE with a brain would know this strike would backfire

OTOH, Not ONE NeoKKKonn or TV Preacher has a brain!

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Just what I was thinking. nt

[ninkasi]

19. Why are you worried?

Given Cheney's unerring accuracy in predicting events...wait...oh, SHIT!

[Tom Joad]

4. Bolton wanted Iran to pull out of NPT, to induce "counter-reaction"

See the story here. Basically, he said he was hopin' Iran would do something dramatic as a response to UN sanctions, like "hrowing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency" he told aipac members, "that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us"

http://www.stopaipac.org/boltontape.htm

These people are playing a dangerous game of chicken.

[FogerRox]

16. Backfire equals Flatulence ?

[lovuian]

7. No Duh!!! hello

the day of Nuke Bombs and missiles and bombs are futile

[kestrel91316]

8. And when it happens, they will steadfastly maintain that no one

could have forseen these consequences..........

[liberal renegade]

9. Could or would?

[peacetalksforall]

10. The entire world needs to have a place to post all the objections - we must

let Dick Cheney and friends know that the people of this world do not want Dick Cheney and friends killing Iranians by bombs and destroying their treasures and infrastructure.

How many years has there been a stand-off with North Korea?
How many years before Iran is ready to aim and release a nuclear weapon - maybe 10 years some people say.

There is no justification.

Bombs are for modern barbarians. Our leaders and leaders of other ocuntries are the barbarians.

[acmavm]

11. Backfire? Like Iraq? Gee, do you think that's possible?

:sarcasm:

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. I Can't Wait For Their Next Report

Because I for one am not sure if the sun rises in the east :sarcasm:

[sam sarrha]

13. whatever.. Bu$hitCo doesnt give a rats ass about the consequences

[killbotfactory]

14. Nonsense. They will welcome our bombs as liberators

with flowers and parades.

[goforit]

17. Why do they make it harder than it has to be?

I believe the deciders truely have only air between both ears.

[no_hypocrisy]

18. NSS

[kath]

20. Naaaahhhh - the whole world will shower us with rose petals.

[Edweird]

21. I disagree with the article. Airstrikes on Iran will

definitely absolutely 100% without a doubt be the dumbest thing that little peckerhead in the white house has ever done. It WILL backfire, BAD.

[HuffleClaw]

22. that is the understatement of the week for sure

'could backfire' hehehehheehehehe

[anitar1]

23. Has anyone ever thought that we might be the target of

the Big Bomb, if we persist in using a nuclear weapon first? Maybe the world may be tired of our war stance ?

[TexasLawyer]

24. kick

[AllexxisF1]

25. I really wish...

I really wish people would understand that attacking Iran will mean many deaths here at home. If people think that this will be another conflict that will not impact anyone here in the states they are badly mistaken. This won't be like Iraq, it will be WW3.

God save us from your uber devote followers.

[tex-wyo-dem]

26. Could it be that "backfire" is exactly what the neo-cons are counting on?

By bombing Iran with the justification of "combating a nuclear threat", the hostilities within the entire region would suddenly increase in a step-function manner. This would, in turn, justify ever increasing military and security spending that, as we've seen over and over again, will go right to the bottom line of a select few corporations.

War is in fact a very profitable business...and...

Money trumps everything.

[sutz12]

27. Scary, but likely true....

It's right out of Machiavelli. Keep the masses occupied with foreign wars while you consolidate power at home.

[Strelnikov_]

28. Link To Report

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/wouldairstrikeswork.htm

[hedgehog]

29. Damn - I'm in the wrong business!

How much do these people get paid for stating the obvious? What about benefits?

[AllexxisF1]

30. Just think out loud.

Seriously folks let's weigh the balance here.

Let's say we do dismantle their nuclear means to create a weapon with a total 100% success rate, what would we have to suffer for this one act.

1) Iran may close of the Straights of Hormuz which would drive oil prices through the roof.

2) During our attacks we will of course destroy all the oil fields in Iran. Which coincidently would take it off the market and raise the market value of Saudi oil. But the kicker is China has exclusive contracts in place with Iran for cheap oil, all of a sudden now the Chinese will have to purchase way more expensive oil from Saudi Arabia. Yea I'm sure they will be thrilled at this prospect.

3) Hezzbulah attacks possibly on U.S. mainland soil and abroad.

4) Possible expansion of hostilities in the region.


The thing is if Iran does get the bomb they would be bat shit crazy to even contemplate using it. Israel and every other nation in this world would simply wipe them off the face of this Earth.

[Zandor]

31. When have we ever failed in that region?

What? :)

[TheBaldyMan]

32. could backfire? undoubtably will backfire, seriously backfire. n/t

[Lisa]

33. based on how Iranians reacted to Iraqi airstrikes ...

I think bombing Iran would be the stupidest thing since ... well, Bush's invasion of Iraq. Satrapi's "Persepolis" books show how everyday citizens, who had not been that hostile to Iraq before, were outraged when the bombs started falling. America would alienate many potential friends (and despite all the events of the past half-century, there are lots of Iranians who like and respect the American people, if not the policies of the US government).