World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Opposition to military action against Iran

Article Id: WHEBN0007582561
Reproduction Date:

Title: Opposition to military action against Iran  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Peace movement, Operation Olympic Games, American Anti-Imperialist League, Direct Action to Stop the War, National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee
Collection: Anti-War, Anti-Zionism, Iran–israel Relations, Iran–united States Relations
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Opposition to military action against Iran

According to most U.S. news networks, a majority of International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei,[11] a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter,[8] Nobel Prize winners including Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams, Harold Pinter and Jody Williams,[12] Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,[12] Code Pink,[13] the Non-Aligned Movement[14] of 118 states, and the Arab League,[15] have publicly stated their opposition to an attack on Iran.


  • Reports of a potential military attack on Iran 1
    • 2007 1.1
    • 2008 1.2
    • 2011 1.3
  • Public opinion 2
    • Opposition to an attack 2.1
      • Polls with leading information 2.1.1
    • Support for an attack 2.2
      • Conditional support for an attack 2.2.1
  • Individuals and scholars 3
  • Groups and organizations 4
    • Grassroots and non-governmental organizations 4.1
    • Groups of elected politicians 4.2
      • United States 4.2.1
      • United Kingdom 4.2.2
    • International governmental organisations 4.3
      • Non-Aligned Movement 4.3.1
      • Arab League 4.3.2
      • International Atomic Energy Agency 4.3.3
  • Legal actions 5
    • International 5.1
  • Direct action 6
    • Street protests 6.1
    • Protests at public speeches by national politicians 6.2
  • Artistic interventions 7
    • Fiction as a campaign tool to warn against war with Iran 7.1
  • Internet actions 8
    • Reactions to UN Security Council Resolution 1737 by anti-war groups 8.1
  • See also 9
  • References 10
  • External links 11

Reports of a potential military attack on Iran

Opposition to a would-be military attack on Iran followed several claims that the United States and/or

  • Stop War on Iran Campaign, Stop War on Iran Campaign
  • Confronting Iran: Critical Perspectives on the Current Crisis, its Origins, and Implications, Project on Defense Alternatives

External links

  1. ^ "War on Iran? Discussion Forum". Retrieved 12 February 2014. 
  2. ^ "Most Americans would back U.S. strike over Iran nuclear weapon: poll". Reuters. March 13, 2012. Retrieved September 7, 2012. 
  3. ^ "Poll: Most Americans support US strike on Iran". The Jerusalem Post. Reuters. March 14, 2012. Retrieved September 7, 2012. 
  4. ^ Madison, Lucy (March 12, 2012). "Poll: Most support U.S. military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons". CBS News. Retrieved September 7, 2012. 
  5. ^ "Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: poll". Reuters. November 26, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2014. 
  6. ^ a b  
  7. ^ a b The Iran plans, Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker Mag., April 8, 2006
  8. ^ a b c Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 1, 2005, Scott Ritter
  9. ^ a b Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy
  10. ^ a b Hirsch, Jorge (November 1, 2005). "The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda". 
  11. ^ a b Heinrich, Mark; Karin Strohecker (June 14, 2007). "IAEA urges Iran compromise to avert conflict". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-06-21. 
  12. ^ a b c "For a Middle East free of all Weapons of Mass Destruction".  
  13. ^ a b Knowlton, Brian (September 21, 2007). "Kouchner, French foreign minister, draws antiwar protesters in Washington". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-11-01. 
  14. ^ a b Non-Aligned Movement (May 30, 2006). "NAM Coordinating Bureau's statement on Iran's nuclear issue". Retrieved 2006-10-23. 
  15. ^ a b "Arab states against military action on Iran". June 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-21. 
  16. ^  
  17. ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet
  18. ^ Deep Background, August 1, 2005, Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative
  19. ^ A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran, Jorge Hirsch, November 12, 2005
  20. ^ America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss, Jorge Hirsch, February 20, 2006
  21. ^ Klare, Michael T. "Bush's Future Iran War Speech: Three Charges in the Case for War".  
  22. ^ Michael Smith|SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners|The Times|October 21, 2007| | Retrieved 21/10/07
  23. ^ Junod, Tom (2010-06-23). "Admiral William Fox Fallon - US Central Command - Fallon's Military Strategies". Esquire. Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  24. ^ Reid, Tim (March 12, 2008). "Admiral William Fallon quits over Iran policy". The Times (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  25. ^ "Cheney to make Middle East tour". USA Today. March 10, 2008. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  26. ^ Rosenkrantz, Holly (2008-03-22). "Africa". Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  27. ^ "Google Translate". Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  28. ^ "'"Press TV - The Kingdom 'braces for nuclear war. Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  29. ^ "Israel plans drills in face of nuke threat". 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  30. ^ PM declares 'emergency' in drill | Israel | Jerusalem Post
  31. ^ Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill (2008-04-25). "Israel's War Drill Offers Lessons for Guard". Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  32. ^ 'We'll destroy the Iranians if they attack us' | The Iranian Threat | Jerusalem Post
  33. ^ Harel, Amos. "Arrow's radar system successfully intercepts missile simulating Shihab". Haaretz. Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  34. ^ Conyers Tells Bush Iran Attack = Impeachment; Ask Your Representative to Co-Sign |
  35. ^ Ravid, Barak. "Olmert to U.S.: Impose naval blockade on Iran - Haaretz - Israel News". Haaretz. Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  36. ^
  37. ^
  38. ^ NIAC - National Iranian American Council - Update: Is a New Congressional Resolution Declaring War with Iran?
  39. ^ Ron Paul (2008-07-03). "'"Congress's 'Virtual Iran War Resolution. Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  40. ^ Siddique, Haroon (June 6, 2008). Unavoidable' attack on Iran looms, says Israeli minister"'". The Guardian (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  41. ^ [2]
  42. ^ Aljazeera. "alJazeera Magazine". Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  43. ^ "Press TV - Israel launches 'Iran Command' for war". Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  44. ^ Gordon, Michael R.; Schmitt, Eric (June 20, 2008). "U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  45. ^ (AFP) – Jun 20, 2008 (2008-06-20). "AFP: Israel trains for possible strike on Iran: reports". Retrieved 2010-11-07. 
  46. ^ Beaumont, Peter (June 29, 2008). "Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle". The Guardian (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  47. ^ / World - Olmert weighs cost of any attack
  48. ^ AFP: 'Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief
  49. ^ "Bahrain wants early warning of any move on Iran". Reuters. June 25, 2008. 
  50. ^ Report: Olmert met with Osirak attack planner | Israel | Jerusalem Post
  51. ^ alJazeera Magazine
  52. ^ Mahnaimi, Uzi (June 29, 2008). "Iran ready to strike at Israels nuclear heart". The Times (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  53. ^ Can the Arrow thwart Iran's Shihab 3? |Israel |Jerusalem Post
  54. ^ Arrow successfully simulates intercept of mock Shihab missile - Haaretz - Israel News
  55. ^ "Israel's Iron Dome system said successful". UPI. July 15, 2009. 
  56. ^ U.S. military chief visits Israel for high level defense update - International Herald Tribune
  57. ^ Iran to ready thousands of graves for enemy soldiers - Yahoo! News
  58. ^ Proceedings Story - U.S. Naval Institute
  59. ^ AFP: Military strike on Iran would be 'catastrophic:' Russian ministry
  60. ^ Press TV - Chavez to US: Stop your Iran threats
  61. ^ [3]
  62. ^ MacIntyre, Donald; Penketh, Anne; Sengupta, Kim (July 5, 2008). "Strike and we'll strike you back, warns Tehran". The Independent (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  63. ^ a b Strait front line in attack on Iran
  64. ^ a b My Way News - Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf
  65. ^ tehran times : Maliki: Iraq no launch pad for Iran strike
  66. ^ Cockburn, Patrick (July 5, 2008). "'"Military action 'would destabilise Iraq. The Independent (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  67. ^ Cowell, Alan (July 9, 2008). "Tehran Warns West Against Attack". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  68. ^ Defiant Iran angers US with missile test
  69. ^ "Pentagon Plumbing Iran's Missile Tests for Clues". Associated Press. July 9, 2008. 
  70. ^ "Reports: Iran test-fires more missiles". CNN. July 10, 2008. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  71. ^ OPEC warns against military conflict with Iran - International Herald Tribune
  72. ^
  73. ^ Avionews
  74. ^ Bataan Completes 'Operation Brimstone'
  75. ^ Iwo Jima Marks First for US, Brazil
  76. ^ Forecasters afloat support multinational training exercise
  77. ^ Reuters AlertNet - Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 -Israel
  78. ^ Jahn, George (2008-07-24). "Iran May End Cooperation With Nuclear Investigation". New York Sun. Retrieved 2008-08-09. 
  79. ^ Iran ends cooperation on nuke probe - Iran -
  80. ^ Jahn, George (2008-07-25). "Iran to increase cooperation with IAEA". Retrieved 2008-08-09. 
  81. ^ "Call on AP to retract false reporting on Iran".  
  82. ^
  83. ^ Richter, Paul; Barnes, Julian E. (July 30, 2008). "Strike on Iran is not off the table, U.S. tells Israeli". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  84. ^ Press TV - Nader: Axis of evil talk means Iran war
  85. ^ Press TV - Paul: US would back Israeli strike on Iran
  86. ^ Karimi, Nasser (August 4, 2008). "Iran tests 'new weapon' for use at sea". The Boston Globe. 
  87. ^ Fathi, Nazila (August 5, 2008). "Iran Issues New Warnings After Defying a Deadline". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  88. ^ Govt finalizing war emergency plan » Kuwait Times Website
  89. ^ '2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf' | The Iranian Threat | Jerusalem Post
  90. ^ The Associated Press: Israel considers military option for Iran nukes
  91. ^ "Poll shows Israelis evenly divided over military attack against Iranian nuclear program".  
  92. ^ "Americans favor diplomacy on Iran: Reuters poll".  
  93. ^ a b "Iran (Polls listed chronologically. Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.)". Polling Report, Inc. Retrieved 2007-02-27. 
  94. ^ a b "Iran (Polls listed chronologically. Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.)". Polling Report, Inc. Retrieved 2007-11-19. 
  95. ^
  96. ^ "FOX News Poll FOX287 - 2010 Feb 23-24 - National Security". March 2, 2010. Archived from the original on April 4, 2014. Retrieved April 4, 2014. 
  97. ^ "Reuters/Zogby Poll (survey was conducted September 22–25, 2006)". Reuters/ 
  98. ^ "Most Americans would back U.S. strike over Iran nuclear weapon: poll". Reuters. 13 March 2012. Retrieved October 4, 2012. 
  99. ^ "Poll: 62% of Americans Support use of Force to Stop Nuclear Iran". The Algemeiner. 30 September 2012. Retrieved October 4, 2012. 
  100. ^ "FPI National Survey: Foreign Policy Matters in 2012". The Foreign Policy Initiative. 27 September 2012. Retrieved October 4, 2012. 
  101. ^ "European poll findings on globalisation and foreign policy: Majority of UK and EU citizens would back military action against Iran" (Press release).  
  102. ^ "Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran"| Zogby International|29/10/07||Retrieved 29/10/07
  103. ^ a b Sagan, Scott D. (September–October 2006). "How to Keep the Bomb From Iran". Foreign Affairs. 
  104. ^ Ritter, Scott (November 3, 2006). "The Case for Engagement". The Nation. Retrieved 2006-11-05. 
  105. ^ Bolton, John (2009-07-02). "Time for an Israeli Strike?". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-07-11. 
  106. ^ a b c d Kroenig, Matthew (January–February 2012). "Time to Attack Iran". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 23 October 2012. 
  107. ^ a b c Kahl, Colin (March–April 2012). "Not Time to Attack Iran". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 23 October 2012. 
  108. ^ Stephen M. Walt, 'Another reason the U.S. shouldn't go to war with Iran,' at Foreign Policy, 16 August 2012.
  109. ^ "Declaration of International Peace Conference, London, 2005". Stop the War Coalition. December 10, 2005. Retrieved 2006-10-23. 
  110. ^ Shafie of Action Iran Speaks in Manchester (2006)
  111. ^ "Iran Solidarity". End of Empire. Retrieved 2006-11-07. 
  112. ^ """UK peace groups consolidate under "Campaign Iran. Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. November 7, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-07. 
  113. ^ "Don't Attack Iran".  
  114. ^ "Iranian NGOs express opposition to sanctions, military intervention and foreign interference in Iran".  
  115. ^ "Iranian NGO's against sanctions & military intervention against Iran". Organization for Defending Victims of Violence. Retrieved 2007-07-01. 
  116. ^ Campaign Against War in Iran
  117. ^ King, Stuart (10 December 2007). "Hands Off People of Iran: launch conference".  
  118. ^ "Founding statement".  
  119. ^ ">"Supporters".  
  120. ^ Webb, Jim (2007-11-02). "(letter to President George W. Bush)" (PDF).  
  121. ^ Saeidi, Shirin (June 17, 2007). "Muffled Voices: ElBaradei's Unheard Assessments".  
  122. ^ Gelken, Chris (2008-07-22). "US lawyer seeks to sue US over Iran threats". Press TV. Retrieved 2008-08-09. 
  123. ^ "Worldwide Anti-War Protests - March 2006".  
  124. ^ Massoumi, Nariman (September 24, 2006). "Action Iran and CASMII march together against war".  
  125. ^ "Photos from the 24th February London Anti-War Demo".  
  126. ^ "'"Tens of Thousands Say 'NO to Trident, NO to War.  
  127. ^ Kayakbiker, Bert (28 October 2007). "Anti-war Rally in Minneapolis: Don't Bomb Iran edition". Indymedia. Archived from the original on 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2007-11-01. 
  128. ^ Slavin, Barbara (September 25, 2007). "Tough welcome at Columbia for Iran's Ahmadinejad". USA Today. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  129. ^ Bollinger went too far in pre-empting Ahmadinejad
  130. ^ [4]
  131. ^ The Jordan Rich Show, 03-07-08
  132. ^  
  133. ^ "" at the Huffington Post
  134. ^ "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy".  


See also

In reaction to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran issued a statement titled "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy"[134] dated December 24, 2006. In the statement CASMII expresses grave concern over the UN resolution. It characterizes the unanimous verdict as having been engineered by the US stating "As the Observer reported last Sunday, the US is giving up to 270% more foreign aid to Security Council members as incentive for them to support US positions." The statement further argues that the resolution could be abused and taken as a justification for war, just like the 2002 resolution—also unanimously passed—was used as an eventual justification for the US/UK invasion of Iraq. The statement also "notes" that "there may actually be no way for Iran to comply with the UN demands," saying "Just as the repeated American demands for more and more intrusive inspections, for opening up of Saddam’s palaces and interviewing Iraqi scientists did not satisfy America’s suspicions; neither will Iran’s 'compliance' with these demands be ever sufficient to 'prove' the non-existence of a WMD program."

Reactions to UN Security Council Resolution 1737 by anti-war groups

In February 2007, ex-supreme NATO Commander, US General and 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark founded the website, which advocates against an attack on Iran.[133]

On April 12, 2006, the nuclear weapons.[132]

Internet actions

The political CODEPINK, Global Exchange and the Campus Antiwar Network have co-sponsored his author’s tour.[131]

Fiction as a campaign tool to warn against war with Iran

Artistic interventions

On September 24, 2007, during the event at Columbia University with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Columbia University President Lee Bollinger many students protested outside. One student carried a sign proclaiming "No war on Iran".[128] The event was highly controversial. Bollinger's introduction before Ahmadinejad's speech and the subsequent response by Ahmadinejad were considered controversial by some journalists.[129] Some thought that the event would lead to war with Iran.[130]

On September 21, 2007 at a speech by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in Washington, D.C., protestors from Code Pink displayed banners with the slogan "Bush + Kouchner = Warmongers!", one of them tried to climb onto the stage, and they shouted, "No war with Iran! No war with Iran!"[13] The protestors were removed from the room by security forces, but returned after Kouchner requested that they be allowed to return. He stated, "I'm not in favor of war with Iran, I want to prevent the war—so they were right!"

Protests at public speeches by national politicians

During antiwar demonstrations in the United States on October 27, 2007, demonstrators in some cities, including Minneapolis, protested against military action against Iran.[127]

Antiwar demonstrations by tens of thousands of citizens in London and some other cities in the United Kingdom on February 24, 2007 included opposition to a military attack against Iran, including protestors carrying posters with the statements "Don't attack Iran" and "Hands off Iran".[125][126]

On September 23, 2006, one of the main slogans and themes of speakers at a demonstration of about 50,000 people criticising British prime minister Tony Blair at the Labour Party Annual Conference in Manchester was the call "Don't attack Iran".[124]

During global anti-war protests on March 18, 2006, in addition to protests against the Iraq War, many of the protests were directed against the perceived threat to attack Iran.[123]

Stop the War Coalition protests in London on 24 February 2007.

Street protests

Direct action by citizens in opposition to military action against Iran is known to have started by March 2006. It included both street protests and interventions at speeches by national politicians.

Direct action

In late July 2008, human rights lawyer Francis Boyle recommended that the Iranian government should sue the United States and Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to get an Order of Provisional Measures of Protection (the equivalent of a temporary restraining order in national or local law), against military action against Iran by these two states. Boyle previously aided Bosnia in filing a similar lawsuit at the ICJ against Serbia on 19 March 1993, and obtained this on 8 April 1993. Boyle points out that he also helped file a lawsuit of this type against the United States in early 1992, and claims that this helped to provide a diplomatic solution to threats of a United States military attack on Libya in relation to the Lockerbie dispute.[122]


Legal actions

On Thursday June 14, 2007, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking at a meeting of the IAEA, said that war against Iran "would be catastrophic, it would be an act of madness, and it would not solve the issue."[11] During the preceding several weeks, ElBaradei had several times expressed his opposition to a military attack on Iran by the United States or Israel. He made these statements as part of what he saw as his role as Director General of the IAEA, stating "I have no brief other than to make sure we do not go into another war, or that we go crazy into killing each other."[121]

International Atomic Energy Agency

Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, stated in June 2007 that the states of the Arab League are "unanimous in their opposition to military attack on Iran".[15]

Arab League

On September 16, 2006, representatives of the 118 states of the Non-Aligned Movement made a statement, at the summit level, supporting Iran's civilian nuclear program and opposing military attacks against nuclear facilities, stating "The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction, poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and regulations of the IAEA. They recognized the need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument, prohibiting attacks, or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy."[14]

Non-Aligned Movement

International governmental organisations

Founded in London in 2006 the Westminster Committee on Iran aims to increase dialogue and understanding between Tehran and British parliamentarians with a view to avoiding military intervention against Iran. The Committee holds regular meetings and roundtable discussions both inside and outside of Parliament. The Committee advocates for balanced and objective reporting on Iran and genuine international diplomacy in all dealings with Tehran.

United Kingdom

On November 2, 2007, [120]

United States

Groups of elected politicians

In December 2007, the founding conference of Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI) was held in London.[117] HOPI opposes military action against Iran whilst criticising the current Iranian government as "reactionary".[118] HOPI is supported by a number of prominent figures on the left in Britain and around the world, including Tony Benn, John McDonnell, Tommy Sheridan, Peter Tatchell, Naomi Klein, Ken Loach, Michael Mansfield QC, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky, among others.[119]

In November 2007, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a non partisan arms control advocacy group in Washington, D.C., launched a campaign aimed at gaining support for a diplomatic, not military, solution to growing tension in U.S.–Iran relations, which including blog and newspaper ads in efforts to gain 1 million signatures urging Congress to promote diplomacy.[116]

In June 2007, on the 20th anniversary of the June 28, 1987 chemical weapons attack on the Iranian town of Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran opposing both sanctions and a military attack against Iran,[114] as well as asking the Iranian government to "pay more attention to human rights and social and political freedoms, so as to create the grounds for a stronger and greater unity of the people of Iran in the face of foreign pressures and threats."[115]

In November 2006, several peace organisations in the [113]

In March 2005, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, British MP George Galloway, former UN Assistant Secretary-General Dennis Halliday, former First Lady of Greece Margarita Papandreou, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and others launched an international grassroots campaign called Stop War on Iran.[1]

The organisation Campaign Iran, which remains part of the international CASMII.[112]

Grassroots and non-governmental organizations

Groups and organizations

In August 2012 Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, argued that the collective sabre rattling from Israel's politicians, and repeated assertions about "closing windows," "red lines," and "zones of immunity," with regard to an imminent Israeli attack against Iran, was bluff. In his analysis Israel lacks the military means alone to cause sufficient damage to Iran's nuclear facilities. The wave of public declarations constitutes a campaign, he continues, whose purpose is to pressure the Obama administration to impose both stricter sanctions and extract a public undertaking by President Obama that he is willing to use force. In his view, this ploy intends to inch the U.S. closer to declaring a war that Israel on its own itself cannot undertake.[108]

In a direct response to Matthew Kroenig, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, argues that war with Iran should be a last resort. Kahl notes that while the IAEA has "documented Iranian efforts to achieve the capacity to develop nuclear weapons at some point…there is no hard evidence that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet made the final decision to develop them,"[107] making Kroenig’s claim of the urgent need to bomb Iran dubious. Kahl also notes that Kroenig conflates the supposed timelines to produce weapons-grade uranium and the actual construction of a nuclear bomb. He also takes serious issue with Kroenig's contention that the United States could manage the escalation in a war with Iran: "[Kroenig's] picture of a clean, calibrated conflict is a mirage. Any war with Iran would be a messy and extraordinarily violent affair, with significant casualties and consequences."[107] Kahl says that Kroenig's argument—that a nuclear-armed Iran would behave in a deeply irrational manner but remain cool and decide not to fully escalate in the face of U.S. airstrike—is ironic. The lack of direct lines of communication between Tehran and Washington, coupled with the usual fog of war, makes Kroenig's "proscribed limits exceedingly difficult."[107] Kroenig’s biggest mistake, Kahl maintains, is harboring the same mindset of Iraq war advocates who ignored all postwar scenarios. Therefore, given the myriad of uncertainties, Kahl argues that war should be the last resort.

Matthew Kroenig, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Special Adviser in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense from July 2010 to July 2011, argues that skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the threats posed by a nuclear Iran. If managed carefully, Kroenig believes that a surgical military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities "could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States."[106] A nuclear-armed Iran would not only limit U.S. leverage in the Middle East, but Iran's rivals like Saudi Arabia would probably seek nuclear weapons and subsequently spark an arms race. Once Iran had a nuclear device, Tehran could "choose to spur proliferation by transferring nuclear technology to its allies—other countries and terrorist groups alike" in order to contain its regional rivals.[106] In the midst of a global economic downturn, Kroenig believes that containing a nuclear-armed Iran would be a massive financial, political, and military burden for the United States. A surgical strike would be less costly. Kroenig notes that airstrike skeptics are concerned that military planners will not know the location of some key facilities. Kroenig thinks this concern is overblown: "U.S. intelligence agencies, the IAEA, and opposition groups within Iran have provided timely warning of Tehran's nuclear activities in the past—exposing, for example, Iran's secret construction at Natanz and Qom before those facilities ever became operational."[106] In other words, Kroenig believes there is a high chance of Washington catching Iran before the latter hypothetically brings a nuclear facility online. To mitigate the global economic fallout from a military strike, Washington could "offset any disruption of oil supplies by opening its Strategic Petroleum Reserve and quietly encouraging some Gulf states to increase their production in the run-up to the attack."[106] He also believes the United States could manage war-time escalation levels by indicating to the Iranians that they are not interested in government change. Finally, Kroenig addresses the skeptics who claim that even if a surgical strike against Iran were successful, it would only prolong the inevitable of Iran seeking nuclear weapons down the road. Kroenig believes that if a surgical strike was successful, the devastation could be so significant that Iran would jettison its nuclear ambitions for good.

In July, 2009, writing for the Washington Post, former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said that a targeted military strike against Iran's weapons facilities was the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He said that such strike should be launched urgently before it was too late.[105]

Journalist Stephen Kinzer, author of All the Shah's Men, a history of the CIA-sponsored coup d'état that toppled the Iranian government in 1953, has spoken out widely and frequently against what he considers the folly of a U.S. attack on Iran, which he says would destroy all of the pro-American sentiment that has developed among the Iranian populace under the repressive Islamic government.

On August 6, 2007, the 62nd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, several Nobel Prize winners, Shirin Ebadi (Nobel Peace Prize 2003), Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams (joint Nobel Peace Prize 1976), Harold Pinter (Nobel Prize for Literature 2005) and Jody Williams (Nobel Peace Prize 1997), along with several anti-war groups, including The Israeli Committee for a Middle East Free from Atomic, Biological and Chemical Weapons, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CASMII, Code Pink and many others, warned about what they believed was the imminent risk of a "war of an unprecedented scale, this time against Iran", especially expressing concern that an attack on Iran using nuclear weapons had "not been ruled out". They quoted Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein's July 1955 statement ending "The question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military conflict of which the issue must be disastrous to all species?" They listed specific steps which they judged would reduce the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East, including a call for "the dispute about Iran's nuclear programme, to be resolved through peaceful means" and a call for Israel, "as the only Middle Eastern state suspected of possession of nuclear weapons", to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[12]

Bush is based on fear, and arises from a combination of ignorance and ideological inflexibility." and referred to what he called "numerous unconfirmed reports that the United States has already begun covert military operations inside Iran, including overflights by drones and recruitment and training of MEK, Kurdish and Azeri guerrillas."[104]

Scott Sagan, professor of political science and senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, argues that threatening Iran with government change would not stop Iran from perusing a uranium enrichment program. To the contrary, Iran would to continue moving the program forward as a reaction to a military threat. Sagan goes on to say that the United States should jettison the military option and offer Iran limited security guarantees. By keeping the guarantees limited, the U.S. maintains a credible deterrent, which Sagan recognizes as important because Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. "Given the need for Washington to have a credible deterrent against, say, terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, it would be ill advised to offer Tehran a blanket security guarantee. But more limited guarantees, such as a commitment not to use nuclear weapons and other commitments of the type offered to North Korea under the Agreed Framework, could be effective today."[103] Such a framework, Sagan maintains, could help to convince Tehran that a nuclear bomb is not the "be all and end all of security."[103]

Individuals and scholars

According to a Zogby Poll in the United States in late October 2007, 52% of respondents said they would support a US strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon and 53% said they believed it was likely that the US would attack Iran before the next presidential election in 2008.[102]

In a TNS survey conducted in March 2007 among 17,443 people in 27 European Union member states, a majority of 52% agreed with the statement "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action". A majority agreed with the statement in 18 member states, while a majority were against in 9 member states.[101]

Conditional support for an attack

A poll conducted in September 2012 by Basswood Research for The Foreign Policy Initiative revealed that Iran was cited as the most dangerous threat to American national security interests, with 45.1% of respondents choosing Iran. In addition, 62% of Americans favored preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, even if this requires the use of military force, as opposed to avoiding a conflict and accepting the prospects of Iranian nuclear weapons.[99][100]

In March 2012, a Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that a majority of Americans, 56%, would support military action against Iran, even if it led to increased gas prices, if there was evidence demonstrating that Tehran was building nuclear weapons. 39% said that they opposed a military strike, while 62% of Americans said that they'd support Israel striking Iran over its nuclear program.[98]

A majority (56 percent) in a Reuters/Zogby poll conducted in the USA during September 22–25, 2006 was in favour of a joint US-European attack on Iran.[97]

In 2010, a poll conducted Feb. 23–24, by Fox News and Opinion Dynamics found 60% of Americans believed military force will be necessary to stop Iran from working on nuclear weapons[96]

Support for an attack

In 2012, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs surveyed American citizens about foreign policy issues, while also looking at previous polls. They note "When it comes to Iran, far more Americans endorse diplomatic rather than military solutions to deal with the nuclear threat...majorities generally oppose the use of force to deal with Iran as well as U.S. involvement in a potential war between Israel and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program. The experience of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely related to this declining desire to use force."[95] Still as the report notes later 64% say Iran's nuclear problem is a critical threat to the United States and that "Americans are...willing to take measures to counter the nuclear threat in both Iran and North Korea, but are much more guarded, stopping short of supporting military strikes."

In a USA Today/Gallup poll on November 2–4, 2007 with leading information in the question "What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran, or rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts?", a large majority (73 percent) preferred economic/diplomatic efforts, with 18 percent favouring military action. In the following poll question, an absolute majority (55 percent) directly opposed military action against Iran even if "U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work."[94]

Polls with leading information, such as a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll taken June 24–27, 2006, asking "If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?", mostly gave minority opposition to an attack on Iran. This Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave minority (about 40 percent) opposition to an attack. A Newsweek Poll taken on October 19–20, 2006 with the leading information "if that country [Iran] continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons" gave a large majority (76 percent) opposed to an a land attack and a small majority (54 percent) opposed to an air attack, conditional on the claim in the leading information.[93]

Polls with leading information

During 2007, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls in January, June and October 12–14, 2007, found an approximately stable, roughly 2/3 majority (68 percent, 63 percent and 68 percent respectively) opposed to a US military attack against Iran.[94]

A Reuters/Zogby opinion poll taken in the United States and published on September 28, 2006 found 70 percent opposed any attack on Iran, 9 percent in favor of "air strikes on selected military targets," and 26 percent supporting the use of ground forces. Opposition to Israeli intervention weighed in at 47 (to 42) percent.[92] A compilation of polls regarding the opinion of US adults about an attack Iran also suggested majority opposition to an attack on Iran among US adults during 2006 and early 2007, for questions where no leading information was supplied to those polled: a CBS February 2007 poll indicated about 10-20% of US citizens supported a USA attack on Iran at the time of taking the poll between June 2006 and early February 2007; a CNN poll on January 19–21, 2007 indicated 70% opposition to an attack on Iran; a Newsweek Poll taken on October 19–20, 2006 indicated about 76% opposition to a land attack and 54% opposition to an air attack.[93]

Opposition to an attack

Public opinion

In November 2011, Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly tried to persuade his cabinet ministers to authorize an attack on Iran. Israeli air force also conducted drills at Sardinia, and it successfully tested a long-range missile capable of striking Iran.[91]


On September 26, The Guardian newspaper reported that President Bush had vetoed a plan developed by the Israelis to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. The precise motivation for the veto was not explored.

On August 7, the Associated Press reported that Israel had purchased 90 additional F-16l fighters and two additional Dolphin class ballistic missile submarines.[90]

On August 7, the Kuwait Times reported the Kuwaiti government "is finalizing its emergency plan" and that two more United States aircraft carriers are en route to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.[88] Currently the Nimitz-class USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is operating in the Persian Gulf. The Jerusalem Post believes that the two carriers en route may be the Nimitz-class USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and the Nimitz-class USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)[89]

On August 4, Revolutionary Guards Commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari claimed that Iran had tested a new anti-ship missile with a range of 186 miles.[86] On August 5, he threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz.[87]

On July 28, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul warned that the United States may be preparing to invade or attack Iran.[84][85]

On July 27, Israeli Defense minister Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.[82] Gates told Barak that he is considering providing Israel with early warning radars and missile defenses.[83]

On July 24, [80] A press release by Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran a few days later published an English translation of the words stated by Aghazadeh: "The two sides were conscious that the so-called alleged studies is a side issue and does not affect our ongoing and bilateral cooperation with the Agency. Iran has done whatever it could in connection with the alleged studies case and the IAEA will draw necessary conclusion on the issue at an appropriate time." [81]

On July 23, Israeli officials reported that Iran could acquire Russian SA-20/S-300 surface to air missiles as early as September.[77]

From July 21 to July 31, Brazil, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States participated in Joint Task Force Exercise 08-4/Operation Brimstone, a "a graduate-level exercise for strike groups who are preparing to forward deploy."[73][74][75] The exercise involved 15,000 service members.[76]

On July 12, Iranian official Mojtaba Zolnour said that, if attacked, Iran would destroy Israel and 32 United States bases.[72]

On July 10, OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri warned that if Iran is attacked, oil prices "would go unlimited."[71]

On July 8, Ali Shirazi, a representative of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Iran would respond to an attack by attacking Tel Aviv and the United States Fifth Fleet.[67] On July 9, as part of an exercise dubbed Great Prophet III or 'Noble Prophet', Iran test fired nine ballistic missiles, including Shahab-3s, Zelzals, and Fatehs.[68][69] Speaking of the tests, General Hossein Salami, Air Force Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, said "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch."[64] On July 10, Iran launched a second round of missile tests.[70]

On July 4, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that he will not allow Iraqi land, sea, or airspace to be used for an attack on Iran.[65] On July 5, Iraqi representative Mahmoud Othman warned that military action against Iran would destabilize Iraq.[66]

On July 3, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, Head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, said that "[a]ny action against Iran is regarded as the beginning of war" and that Iran would respond to an attack by closing the Strait of Hormuz.[61][62] Forty percent of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz.[63] On July 7, Commander of the United States Fifth Fleet Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff said that the US Navy "will not allow" Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.[63] Last month Vice Admiral Cosgriff warned that any attempt to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be an act of war.[64]

On July 2, a Russian Foreign Ministry official said that "[i]f force is used it will be catastrophic for the whole Middle East."[59] On July 3, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called on the United States to stop threatening Iran.[60]

In the July issue of Proceedings Magazine of the United States Naval Institute, Vice Admiral Sandy Winnefeld, Commander of the United States Sixth Fleet, wrote that an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel is "by far the most likely employment of ballistic missiles in the world today."[58] He went on to write that there may be "a need for a U.S. or NATO response."

On June 29, Iranian General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh said that Iran will dig 320,000 graves "to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers."[57]

On June 28, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen met with Israeli Armed Forces Chief Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, in part to discuss Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.[56]

On June 27, Iran moved its Shihab-3 ballistic missiles into launch positions within striking range of the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona.[52] On April 15, the Israeli Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system successfully intercepted a simulated Iranian Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile.[53][54] On July 6, Israel tested Iron Dome, a missile defense system that is under development.[55]

In June the United States completed construction of four advance bases on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq border.[51]

On June 20, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with retired Colonel Aviam Sela, the planner of Operation Opera, the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reaction at Osirik in 1981, to discuss the possibility of an attack on Iran.[50]

In June, Israel set up an Iran Command within the Israeli Air Force.[42][43] Early that month, Israel carried out a training exerceise, dubbed Glorious Spartan 08, for an attack, supposedly on Iran, with over 100 F-15s and F-16s along with refueling tankers and rescue helicopters.[44][45] In an interview with The Observer, Shmuel Bar, Director of Studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy at Herzliya, said of public support for war with Iran that "The support is almost unanimous for this in Israel. One hundred percent."[46][47] On June 20, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Israel not to attack Iran. On June 21, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei threatened to resign if Iran is attacked, saying that such an attack would turn the Middle East into a "ball of fire."[48] On June 25, Bahraini Major General Abdul Latif bin Rashid Al Zayani asked the United States to provide early warning to Bahrain before attacking Iran.[49]

On June 6, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said that "[a]ttacking Iran in order to stop its nuclear plans will be unavoidable."[40] On June 9, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said that if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will attack Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona.[41]

On May 19, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with several members of the United States House of Representatives, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and asked the United States to impose a naval blockade on Iran.[35] On May 22, Representative Gary Ackerman introduced H.Con. Res. 362, part of which reads "Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program."[36] The bill has 261 cosponsors.[37] [38] On June 28, on the floor of the House, Representative Ron Paul labeled the resolution a "virtual war resolution."[39]

[34] On May 8, United States Representative

Israel conducted the largest emergency and evacuation drill in its history from April 6 to April 10. The drill, dubbed Turning Point 2, simulated conventional, chemical, and biological attacks from the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria.[29][30][31] During the drill, on April 7, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said that if Iran attacked Israel, Israel would "destroy the Iranian nation."[32] On April 15, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Mohammed Rada Ashtiani responded by saying that if Israel attacked Iran, Iran would "eliminate Israel from the universe."[33]

In March, United States Vice President Dick Cheney went on a tour of the Middle East.[25] On March 22, Cheney visited with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.[26] On the next day, the Saudi Arabian government began preparing for nuclear and radiological emergencies.[27][28]

In an interview with Esquire magazine in March, Admiral William Fallon, then head of United States Central Command, expressed opposition to war with Iran.[23] On March 11, Fallon resigned in part because of his opposition.[24]


BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed. There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi'ite militiamen. The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq. UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra airport.[22]

In October 2007, The Times reported that the UK had already begun attacking Iran with the SAS launching a series of limited ground invasions:

In early April 2007, casus belli in order to prepare public opinion for an attack, focussed on three reasons: claims that Iran supports attacks on US troops in Iraq, claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and claims that Iran could become a dominant power in the region and destabilise pro-US governments in Israel, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.[21]


which was revised in March 2005. Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, in line with the US nuclear weapons claimed that the attack could be expected to use [7] and Seymour Hersh [20][19]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.