The case against attacking Iran
Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said recently that the possibility of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities is still on the table. “I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort,” he said. Don’t consider it at all, Mr. Ephraim. It won’t work and the United States ...
Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said recently that the possibility of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities is still on the table. "I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort," he said. Don't consider it at all, Mr. Ephraim. It won't work and the United States can't help.
Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said recently that the possibility of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities is still on the table. “I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort,” he said. Don’t consider it at all, Mr. Ephraim. It won’t work and the United States can’t help.
A summer 2004 Center for Nonproliferation Studies article explains the difficulties in attacking Iran, comparing it to Israel’s 1981 surprise attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facilities. First, conducting what would optimally be a simultaneous air strike against nuclear facilities that are separated by hundreds of miles would be nearly impossible. Second, reaching the nuclear sites requires gaining permission from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and/or Jordan to use their air space—a difficult task indeed. Third, some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are underground, insulating them from bombardment, even from U.S. forces. Fourth, the Iraqi government did not pursue nuclear weapons in earnest until after the strikes on Osirak, meaning that a successful attack could turn Iran’s currently “suspected” nuclear weapons ambitions into an overt reality. Fifth, such an attack by Israel or the United States would spark popular outrage around the Middle East, perhaps resulting in a regional war. I would like to add a sixth: the U.S. military’s experiences in Iraq, a country that is much smaller both in terms of population and geography than Iran, show that occupying Iran is an impossiblity.
Make no mistake, I consider a nuclear-armed Iran to be an untenable prospect. But if diplomacy fails, there is no military solution.
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
