GlobalSecurity.org In the News

CNN: YOUR WORLD TODAY March 9, 2006

Iran

(...)

VERJEE: We want to go back, now, though, to the nuclear standoff with Iran. And the United States, of course, weighing its options as the dispute with Iran appears to be escalating. One path its already pursued involves pressuring the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions. A travel ban or asset freeze against top officials in Iran could greatly isolate Tehran. Another option is air strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Analysts point out that that would be highly unpopular with many U.S. allies. And, of course, full-scale military action is always a powerful theft, but is it really a viable option? We want to get some perspective and some answers from John Pike. He's the director of GlobalSecurity.org and he joins us now from Washington.

Thanks for being with us.

We always hear military option. It's always on the table. But is it really a realistic option? JOHN PIKE, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: Well, the Israelis, for the last 15 years, has been modernizing their air force in order to give them the ability to strike targets in Iran. The primary requirement for all of their new airplanes that they've been buying is that they be able to fly unrefueled to the distance of these targets in Iran and return safely to Israel.

Certainly, the United States has been looking at new munitions that would be able to penetrate even the most deeply buried of the targets in Iran. We're basically looking at half a dozen major targets that are isolated from population centers, for the most part above ground. It would be far more difficult than Israel's strike against Iraq in 1981. But I think that both the United States and Israel regard air strikes as being a very realistic option.

VERJEE: It would be hugely unpopular with U.S. allies.

PIKE: Well, it would be tremendously unpopular at a lot of places and it would probably get more unpopular once Iran starts retaliating. I don't think that Iran would cut off its nose to spite its face with cutting off oil exports, but you could certainly imagine terrorists strikes against American troops in Iraq, possibly, quite possibly even terrorist strikes against civilian targets here in the United States. Yes, it could be quite unpopular.

VERJEE: Iran could also create more trouble for the U.S. in Iraq.

PIKE: Well, absolutely. I mean I think that that would be a substantial risk that the American project in Iraq would founder over Iran's retaliation and it certainly has a number of ways of influencing the situation in Iraq. That's a very real risk that they're going to have to weigh carefully. Balanced against it, however, is the opportunity for Iranian mischief making given a credible nuclear capability. They have to worry about that as well.

VERJEE: The U.N. Security Council's expected to take up the issue on Iran's nuclear program next week. Do you think that anything that happens over at the U.N. Security Council will be effective?

PIKE: I don't think so.

VERJEE: Why?

PIKE: The Security Council took up the North Korean nuclear question three years ago and basically has done nothing. The only things that I think would be really effective are going to be blanket sanctions on Iran and China has already said that they're simply not going to go along with that. With China's dependency on Iranian gas exports, as we heard in that previous piece, it's just not going to happen.

VERJEE: What about the Russians? They have a veto at the U.N. Security Council as well and they're playing an increasingly influential role with Iran. PIKE: Well, the Russians are trying to come up with some sort of deal that would satisfactory western concerns, as well as Iranian interests. I think that it's unlikely, at the end of the day, to satisfy American concerns, which basically are that Iran simply can't be trusted with this technology.

VERJEE: John Pike with some good perspective, with GlobalSecurity.org. Thanks so much for being with us.

PIKE: Thank you.

VERJEE: We're going to take a short break. YOUR WORLD TODAY will continue in just a moment.

(...)