• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Attacking Iran`s nuclear facilities `dangerous,` says UK magazine

IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

London, Oct 14, IRNA -- Any attempt by the US or Israel to attack 
Iran`s nuclear facilities would not only be more difficult but much 
more highly perilous than the 1981 bombing of Iraq`s unfinished 
plant by Israel, according to Britain`s New Statesman magazine. 
"Destroying Iran`s nuclear facilities would be a totally 
different affair from destroying Osirak: it would be both harder and 
much more dangerous," it warns in next week`s issue. 
"For a start, Iran has many installations scattered over its huge 
territory, and they are protected. The main military site, at Natanz 
in central Iran, is buried deep underground," the British weekly 
said in its main cover story. 
It suggested that even if bombing Bushehr, one plant on the verge 
of completion, were feasible (with Russian technicians working there 
moved out of the way), "it would bring about huge retaliation while 
chalking up only limited military gains." 
"And Iran, unlike Iraq, has many means of retaliation, directly 
against Israel and indirectly against US interests in Iraq and 
elsewhere," the New Statesman further warned. 
It also believed that America`s onslaught against with Iraq and 
Afghanistan have put Iran at the "heart of the world`s most sensitive 
region, giving it ample opportunity for good or for mischief." 
The News Statesman was considering whether the US and Iran were 
playing a game of bluff or double bluff in a dangerous game that was 
keeping the rest of the world guessing. 
With regard to the question on whether Iran would develop its 
nuclear industry for military means, it said that there was "one 
very good reason why it should, exemplified by North Korea." 
"By acquiring the bomb, North Korea had put itself on a higher 
level. Equally, there would be no better way for the Iranian regime 
to protect itself from overthrow from outside than by having the 
bomb," the magazine said, 
It also referred to Iran being surrounded, and in some cases 
threatened, by nuclear countries and forces, including the US in 
Iraq as well as Israel and suggested having its own bomb would would 
"provide a safety net for Tehran`s leaders." 
On the other hand, the weekly believed as long as Iran did not go 
nuclear, there was the possibility of a trade-off for some grand 
international deal. 
With the notion of the US and Iran developing a new relationship 
remaining a "forlorn, if not surreal, hope," it believed that the 
most likely outcome was that Washington would in the end getting the 
case referred to the UN Security Council. 
The New Statesman said that the US would then press the UN to 
punish Iran with some form of sanctions, but which was unlikely to 
go as far as oil "for no other reason than the precipitous effect 
this would have on oil prices." 
There was also questions on whether other Security Council 
members, like Russia and China, would allow any resolution on sanction
be passed. 
The result, it concluded, was likely to be another stalemate. "It 
looks as if the perilous brinkmanship will continue - until one side 
or the other steps over the edge," it said. 
HC/2324/1432