Print version Email to a friend

Iran raid likely to drag in US, hurt global economy=2

Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:38 GMT

Source: reuters // Reuters

indication of a divergence in Israeli and Western views, a senior former British intelligence official wrote in a private analysis in 2011 that the West had two objectives: prevent the Iranian bomb, and also "prevent Iran being bombed".

"Both outcomes would be potentially disastrous for our national security," he wrote.

Referring to a strike, he went on, "the likely damage (to Iran's programme) would outweigh the benefits."

"There would be problems between the U.S. and Israel, and probably tensions between the U.S. and European allies as well."

U.S. POSITION IN THE MIDDLE EAST CONSTRAINED

Simon's CFR study states that since the United States would be viewed as having assisted Israel, U.S. efforts to foster better relations with Muslims would almost certainly suffer.

Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

"If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools' paradise," said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.

He said a raid would create "huge anti-Israeli feeling" and an "Islamic backlash" in the region.

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in a January interview with The Real News website a strike would be a "disaster for us more than for Israel in the short run, and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run."

Neither the Russians or Europeans would side with America in any resulting conflict. He said that the United States could be "forced out of the region", a development he suggested would imperil Israel's existence.

WILL IRANIANS RALLY TO THEIR GOVERNMENT?

A RAND Corporation report in 2011 noted that the use or threat of force to compel Iran to halt its nuclear programme would probably strengthen domestic support for the government.

But an analyst in Iran who asked not to be identified as the subject was sensitive said he doubted whether there would be an uptick in popularity for the government, as there was during the country's war with Iraq in the 1980s.

"The Iran-Iraq wartime public allegiance to the regime has diminished because of various factors. Public dissatisfaction is on increase over failing economy, hostile foreign policy and political infighting among the elites," said the analyst.

Michael Axworthy, director of the Centre for Persian and Iranian Studies at Britain's Exeter University, told Reuters that while Iranians might not rally to their rulers, they would tend to "go along with the statements that are produced".

"This is a regime that expects to be isolated and to some extent thrives on isolation," he said.

POSSIBLE SPUR TO PROLIFERATION BY OTHERS

Former U.S. negotiator Burt said some aspirant nuclear weapons powers might respond to a strike on Iran by redoubling efforts to get the bomb as a deterrent. But it was difficult to generalize and not all countries would take that view.

Ayalon said it would be the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran that would be the real spur to proliferation. (Additional reporting by Peter Apps in London, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, Tabassum Zakaria in Washington) (Reporting by William Maclean)