It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran:Consequences of a War - Oxford Research Group

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 03:36 AM
A great article on the net, on some research done if there is a war.

This briefing paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive.

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

The article is quite long, hence I havnt copied it but it is a worthwhile read for those who are interested....thoughts????

[edit on 13-3-2006 by knowledge23]

[edit on 13-3-2006 by knowledge23]

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 05:13 AM
I think the article makes some good points, but also makes a lot of assumptions. And of course just how accurate their assumptions are remains to be seen, relative to the quality of the sources they have. Who really knows what our military's (or Israel's) planners REALLY have in store? That is secret. No way to tell, and they can only guess. Granted, they appear to be well-educated guesses.

And the main assumption I am not so sure of is that the US will necessarily be involved, or even that the attack will happen at all. While it would seem so on the surface, and especially because of the imminent fueling of Busheir, it may not be in our best interests to upset that region at all, that is, if we want to continue to drive...i.e. oil. That's probably the best point made in the entire article, IMO, and in their conclusion.

At this point I really feel that both Israel and the US need to take a defensive, not pre-emptive postion, and pursue diplomacy until the very day that Iran announces they have nuclear weapons. Even then, with all of the advanced warning capabilities available, if Iran ever tried to launch on Israel, they would have to do it knowing that they will be annihilated in return. That is still a pretty powerful deterrent, even for mullahs.

I would rather see us take a chance on that ultimate posture, putting any offensive action in Iran's court first. But of course this is where Israel vehemently disagrees, and has vowed action. I think they need to strongly reconsider. Just because the Iranian ruler spouts off at the mouth doesn't necessarily mean they are going to most certainly die, along with 95% of their countrymen, to fulfill their dream. I think that may be the least evil ledge Israel may just have to settle to teeter on.

It is certainly better than the pre-emptive option. That just has too many drawbacks. It is just so damn risky, especially when you consider the implications of a more widespread, escalating conflict involving China or Russia. I just cannot see those two countries allowing the US much further a foothold in the middle east before they say "enough." You saw what happened when Russia tried to put missiles in Cuba. How is this much different? I am amazed they have allowed us to get THIS close, frankly.

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 05:19 AM
Thankyou True American, for your feedback, trying to investigate this more on the internet. Hope to get some more information.
Hope peace and democracy prevails in the region that needs it the most...

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 05:38 AM
Adding some info to the previous,

Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global arms race - if the US flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes nuclear, there would be little incentive for other countries to abide by global disarmament agreements either. Besides, the Bush administration’s message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you’re safe, and if you don’t, you’re fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn’t as well and risks attack, yet that other “Axis of Evil” country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. It’s also hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) did the same thing and remain on good terms with Washington.

The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating “bunker buster” bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.

Given what’s at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it’s doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council.

I think it is a great article and deserves a careful read...



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:48 AM
Thank you for sharing the article. I would have put more emphasize on the Iranian alliance with HAMAS* and the militias in Iraq, of note the Mahdi Army* and the Badr Brigades, and the alliance of Iran with the Northern Alliance army of Afghanistan. Also, I would have given a lot attention to the possible attacks of Iranian navy and their development of rather advanced mines. The close relationship between the elected Iraqi government and Iran should also be taken into account.

Overall an alright analysis, much better than other ones that I have read in the previous months.

Relationship with HAMAS:

Relationship with Mahdi army:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:55 AM

Thankyou for the information. There is so much information out there, and it is tough to collate all the information is one section. However great addition from yourself. Will try to get more information and a bit more detail


posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:11 AM
Adding to the information, there was this interesting article, which gives a fair bit of information,

Resistance Movement of Palestine defeated by region's reactionary forces

The Revolutionary Movement of Palestine, which during the past decades was the guidance light for majority of revolutionaries in Middle-East eventually has been defeated by Hamas fundamentalist organization.

Since the formation of Liberation Organization of Palestine by Yaser Arafat in1965 till now that it is defeated by Islamic Reactionary Group it has been through a roller coaster of events. For revolutionary and democratic forces, exploration of causes of this defeat and gaining valuable experiences from this event are very important. Apart from some compromising polices of Liberation Organization of Palestine and its leaders, the internal contradictions between old and new generations of the organization made them weak. However, we should not forget the destructive policies of the imperialist countries after the announcement of autonomy by Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Continued at link provided.

[Mod Edit - Formatting. Please review this thread: Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** - Jak]

[edit on 13/3/06 by JAK]

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:25 AM
A thread on this was started back in feb here -

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:52 AM
TrueAmerican... although it is a decidedly unpopular position I agree with you. I, too, feel there is a much bigger cost associated with a preemptive attack on Iran than allowing them to take the offensive position. Since virtually all analysts agree that any attack on Iran would be very unlikely to destroy their nuclear facilities and that since many of their defensive and leadership facilities have been moved well underground in populated areas and locations that carry significant religious importance for the whole region, the repercussions of any attack would be disastrous for the west (and Israel). Any aggressor country --- for any reason --- will be at a disadvantage.

The best course of action, IMHO, is to let Iran continue as the threatening, boisterous, arrogant aggressor and let the world know that if they ever should launch an agressive move the response would be swift and cataclysmic.

The West and the US in particular cannot afford another debacle in the Middle East. Our grandchildren will be feeling the effects of the last one. The very best thing we could do would be to develop, as quickly as is humanly possible, alternatives to oil. If we can divorce ourselves from having to rely on the Middle East for oil we can begin to minimize their control over us and the rest of the world and their political power would wane quickly.

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:56 PM
Very interesting article. I'm reading it right now.

Btw, does anyone know if the F-22 Raptor would be ready for when the war starts?


posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 01:06 PM
As Sminkeypinkey has said, thre is already a thread on this topic here: Please add any further thoughts to the older thread.

Thank you. Closing...


[edit on 13/3/06 by JAK]

new topics

top topics


log in