Published April 2nd, 2006 by Future Atlas
Attacking Iran: possibilities and consequences
Cirincione at Carnegie is warning that the Bush administration may be seriously considering attacking Iran, changing his view in light of ominous signs.
I used to think that the Bush administration wasn’t seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. But what we’re seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.
Ground is being prepared, he suggests:
The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war. It is now trying to link Iran to the 9/11 attacks by repeatedly claiming that Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world (though this suggestion is highly questionable). It is also attempting to make the threat urgent by arguing that Iran might soon pass a “point of no return” if it can perfect the technology of enriching uranium, even though many other nations have gone far beyond Iran’s capabilities and stopped their programs short of weapons. And, of course, it is now publicly linking Iran to the Iraqi insurgency and the improvised explosive devices used to kill and maim U.S. troops in Iraq, though Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace admitted there is no evidence to support this claim.
He and others have already outlined likely consequences of such a strike.
The WP today explores in more detail one such consequence: that Iran could retaliate against US forces in Iraq, and strike American targets elsewhere — though the article offers little in the way of solid evidence.
Experts in the article reiterate some of the consequences, saying “airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.”