The folly of military action against Iran


Via National Security Network:

Security experts across the political spectrum have concluded that attacks serve neither U.S. nor Israeli goals. There is much talk about the need to strike before Iran crosses a point after which its facilities will be immune from Israeli attack – the so called "zone of immunity." However, an Israeli strike will only embolden Iran to rebuild in the very facilities Israel supposedly can't destroy. As Michael Hayden, CIA Director in the Bush administration said, “When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.” [See: Michael Hayden via the Cable, 6/20/12. Meir Dagan via the Atlantic, 6/13/12]


"Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the Pentagon news conference today that an Israeli strike on Iran “could delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” based on his review of Israel’s military arsenal." [Source:]

"Gates on several occasions, starting in April 2009, said 'a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert.' It would at best set back Iran’s nuclear program by two or three years, he said." [Source:]

"Mullen in a Feb. 10, 2010, press conference said it was safe to assume “they’re pretty close” to developing a bomb and a strike might “delay it for one to three years.”" [Ibid.]


“bombing would at most delay that program or derail it up to two or three years at most,”


STAHL: You said, “There’s no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it.”

DAGAN: Yes, I agree.

Dagan again:

A strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb. An attack isn’t enough to stop the project.