IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons suggest

Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security.

Such a scenario is not a nightmare or an outtake from a remake of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove," but part of a serious recommendation made by two neoconservatives in case sanctions fail to persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment of uranium, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons or fuel for peaceful energy production.

In a July report titled "The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action Against Iran," and published by the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Studies, scholars Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt advocate military strategies that would ultimately discourage Tehran from pursuing any future non-civilian nuclear activities:

Because the ultimate goal of prevention is to influence Tehran to change course, effective strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure may play an important role in affecting Iran's decision calculus. Strikes that flatten its nuclear infrastructure could have a demoralizing effect, and could influence Tehran's assessment of the cost of rebuilding. But the most effective strikes may not necessarily be against nuclear facilities. Iran is extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks on its oil export infrastructure.... The political shock of losing the oil income could cause Iran to rethink its nuclear stance—in ways that attacks on its nuclear infrastructure might not.

And if an attack on the oil facilities of a country with some of the world's largest reserves leads to a huge spike in oil prices, sends gas prices up to 10 bucks a gallon and brings economic ruin in the rest of the world, the report continues, well, so be it:

To be sure, in a tight world oil market, attacking Iran's oil infrastructure carries an obvious risk of causing world oil prices to soar and hurting consumers in the United States and other oil-importing countries.... If the choice is between higher oil prices and a Middle East with several nuclear powers, higher oil prices and reduced economic growth are not clearly the greater evil.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a famous Beltway think tank. It was founded in 1985 by Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel.

The 45-page report reads like a manual on how to wage a successful preemptive war on Iran. It discusses "key political and contextual questions" pertaining to a preventive war outside the usual frame of strictly military-technical considerations.

The report assesses different scenarios of military action by stressing the importance of "favorable" international, regional and local political environments. An attack against Iran won't necessarily lead to a nationalist backlash if it's done at the right time and in the right way. They draw such conclusions from civilian reaction to bombing runs during World War II and the Iraq-Iran War:

After a few days of bombing, civilians realized that as long as they stayed away from military facilities or potential strategic targets, they could go about their business reasonably safely, even during air raids. That fact is likely to undercut the intensity of the reaction to any preventive strike.... The challenge, should the United States decide to go that route, would be to conduct military and information campaigns that mitigate a nationalist backlash and that undercut and isolate the regime, while at the same time signaling the Islamic Republic's leaders that the United States is prepared to make a deal if they abandon their nuclear program.

The authors go on to dismiss Iranian responses to a strike and present "remedies" to every one of these possible responses, from attacking U.S. assets in the Gulf to attacking Israel through Lebanon and sponsoring terror or even waging a full-scale war. They argue that the U.S. should strike Iran before Israel does because the Jewish state "would have many disadvantages to the United States."

The report concludes that no matter how costly, a policy of prevention remains a better option than deterrence:

If the potential risks, challenges and consequences of prevention (as previously outlined) are daunting, the risks and challenges of deterrence are even more so. Deterrence is not an easy, low-risk alternative. The cost/benefit calculus pertaining to prevention versus deterrence as a means of dealing with Iran's nuclear program may be one of the most complex and difficult policy choices facing U.S. policymakers today, given the uncertainties of the prospects for success and the possible price of failure for each.

— Raed Rafei in Beirut

Photos: Patrick Clawson, top, and Michael Eisenstadt. Credit: Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

P.S. The Los Angeles Times issues a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East. You can subscribe by registering at the website here.

Comments

[Jay]

I don't think anyone but a hand full of people know the facts about all of this. The over-simpleafaction of the issues can and will lead to more problems. The mid-east is not an evel place, nor is it full of nice careing people just like most of the world. Sometimes force is nessary, a sad fact of life on Earth. My hope is that the egos of the powerful can be put aside for the betterment of all.

[Charles]

We already were caught by the world "spewing" lies about WMD and opening a Pandora's Box which we cannot close in Iraq.
We have been the perpetrators of civilian deaths and general destruction, for our own means.
We backed up Sadaam against Iran and gave Sadaam WMD, when Rumsfeld went to visit the dictator on more than 2 times and we watched and took notes while he used WMD on the Iranian people.
Are we so blind that we believe the world does not know this?
Are we certain that Iran is making nuclear weapons ?
Maybe if they are, they are correct in trying to make them to deter the US presence of continuous warfare which is the only gospel that we speak, in the name of "democracy".

[Greg]

Israel is bound to go up in a puff from mushroom cloud... It's coming...And everyone knows it.....

And according to some liberals, just like $4 gas, Israel blowing up is good thing....Voting progrressive is a voting for destruction...

[Brian]

Striking Irans nuclear and oil infrastructure is more than a "strike" its the ultimate act of war. Wars run their course over time to a conclusion of some sort even if its an armistice as with North Korea. Its not going to be simply settled the morning after the initial air attacks end. If we "start a war" we will be in it for a long time. Clearly Iran cannot invade the US, but it can use asymmetric warfare and terrorism at unexpected nodes across the world to attack US interests as it attacked Israel in Argetina. The large US Iranian population likely holds some hezbollah cells that could also be called into action. And the attack will cememt the Iranian regiemes demonization of the US as its cause for being. The farily unique combination of religious and secular power centers in the same people gives it certain advantagges. The evolution of the revolutionary gaurds into industry, finance, and trade give its business entities a dual use capability for all sorts of occult purposes. If the US or Israel attack Iran they must be prepared for a long conflict especially in light of the wide spread of various Iranian nuclear centers of interest. Also given Lebananon and Hizbollah, the former horrendously costly Iran Iraq war you can bet they have maximized their site hardening as much as possible. This will require a longer more intense air campaign and a lot of careful intelligence monitoring. Plus with oil at a new high, possibly with their help, they will likely terrorize the gulf shipping lanes just enough to really push the price up even if they cannot hold territory. The swarming effect of their small boats would require prolonged naval action on our part and if we are smart we would attack those very early in the game so as to significantly degrade and demoralize their capability. All of this wouod take some weeks at minimum while we would also have to deal with missile attacks for months on our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel may be targeted out of lebanon and with mid range missles. All I can conclude is we must be prepared to do a long term devestating campaing on each of these issues and keep it going if we are to accomplish our goals. There is no effective quick fix plan other than a war of attrition over time.

[parviz A. Koupai]

I am an Iranian-American who has lived in the USA for over four decades and visited Iran several times and still have family there. No Iranians want to destroy Israel or the USA. In fact most Iranians do like Americans culturally and want their children be educated in American universities. The negative propaganda about Iran is unblievably outragaeous and totally baseless. Iranians want a secular type of government. If a secular government comes to rule Iran there would be nothing to worry about, Remember that the same USA supported development of nuclear reactor in Iran during the Shah's adminidtration. Iran was one of the first signatories of the establishment of the country of Israel in Palestine.
The US and its allies should puersue a change in theocracy in Iran and elsewhere. Bombing Iran, destroying her infrastructures, and killing innocent civilians would be a blunder in World history that cannot be corrected any time. PK

[Lou]

I recommend that everyone read the brief but very informative article by Sam Sedaei, "The Anatomy of Neoconservative Propaganda" --http://gnn.tv/articles/3666/The_Anatomy_of_Neoconservative_Propaganda -- in which he explains how neocons deliberately mistranslated, and therefore misquoted, Iran's President Ahmadinejad (and even misattributed the quote), claiming that he has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."

Awful thing to say, and quite ominous if we follow along with the neocon image of mad Iranian scientists tinkering away night and day to make nuclear bombs so they can wipe Israel off the map. The problem is that's not what he said, and they don't have nuclear bombs.

Israel, however, does have plenty of nukes, and Israel's leaders--face it--and a lot of its hot-headed supporters (like "sick in the head," above, and Bush and Cheney. . .) make me a lot more nervous about having nukes than Iran. If you think Americans are safe from Israel's mischief, just look up the USS Liberty, and ask yourself what kind of criminal regimes would order and participate in such terrorist activities.

No, like it or not, Israel has done and continues to do a lot of nasty things in the world, and to say so is not anti-Semitic, no matter how many times its supporters say so. There are a lot of Israelis and Jewish people who agree, just as a growing number of people know that Bush and Cheney are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, including war crimes and treason, and that the other neocons in the Bush administration and Congress are also guilty of war crimes for approving a "pre-emptive" war against Iraq, allowing white phosphorus to be used, causing genocide from the use of depleted uranium weapons and the displacement of millions of Iraqis. . .

Make no mistake about it. Regardless of what they think of themselves, Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt are not honest scholars but are murderous neocon propagandists. They base a 45-page recommendation to commit yet another huge war crime -- making unprovoked war against a sovereign country, justifying it as a defensive war-- on about ten threatening words that came not out of the mouth of President Ahmadinejad but out of the mouths of neocons and their fellow travelers in the media. So Bush and Cheney and Israel would like to bomb Iran because of words its president never said and nuclear weapons that do not exist. I feel so much safer already, don't you?

What is most interesting about "The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action Against Iran" is that Clawson and Eisenstadt focus on oil. With but a little more refinement they will recommend that there is yet another way to seize Iran without harming the oil wells, which are, after all, what the US is really after--that and preventing Iran from converting from petro-dollars to petro-euros. That is the most devastating weapon Iran has in its arsenal. What do you think the funding sources are for this report and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. My money's on Western oil companies.

[Perplexed]

I read an interesting post today:

http://gaspass.wordpress.com

The obscene price of oil can be fixed today, if our gorvernment wanted to.

Many posters here haved truly perplexed me, with these naiive comparisons between current day Iran and the former USSR.

The Russians never used the bomb because they are not into suicide. Has anyone ever heard of a suicide bomber that was not either from or realted to the Middle East? Of course most people there are good people, but all of the SB's come from there. The world will never allow such a fanatical bunch to have the ability to destroy a city or a country with a flick of a switch, quite simply because unlike the Russians, the nuts in charge over there would do it.

Another thing. While I'm not supporting the flattening of Iran, does anyone know just how much oil we get from Iran currently? I hear all this talk about ruining our economy and the world's economy (which relies on the USA economy, by the way). We get absolutely zero oil from Iran. That's right, zero.

Iran can't even sell their oil to India and China these days, because those countries no longer want the expense of refining the lousy oil that Iran produces. If you do just a little research, you will find that Iran is currenly leasing hundreds of oil freighters (at a cost of hundres of thousands of dollars EVERY WEEK, for each one) and stockpiling the oil at sea, because they can no longer sell it to anyone. Hundreds of oil freighters just sitting there full of garbage oil that no one wants. The number is growing every day; and this has been going on for some time now.

I am not convinced that a disruption to Iran's ability to pump oil would have an effect on the US or the rest of the world at all.

I may be wrong, but it is certainly not as clear-cut as many partisan blowhards here have decreed.

I would be interested though to hear what you all think should be done with Iran. Why would a country with so much oil need nuclear power? Does that make sense to anyone? I've never heard a intelligent reason offered by anyone. I believe the reason why no one can give a reason is simply because one does not exist. Oil technology is cheap, and they have enough to last them thousands of years.

Nuclear power on the other hand is extremely expensive and technically difficult, let alone catastrophically dangerous. Now compared to easy, cheap, and safe why would a rational government persue it?

The only reason is because the same technical hurdles require to make nuclear power work also let you build bombs.

[Kermit Roosevelt]

Most Americans, because of pro-Israel propaganda, do not realize that Iran has stated clearly and repeatedly since the early 1980's that nuclear weapons are against Islam, and that the country will not seek to obtain them. Further, Iran has not attacked another country in hundreds of years. I know many Iranians, and have been to the country. I have never heard any Iranian say that Iran ought to attack Israel or even say that Jews are evil. Yet I hear American Jews say all the time that they think Iran should be nuked to make Israel feel more comfortable. Israel, far from being a weak defenseless victim, is one of the most heavily armed and aggressive countries in the world, possessing hundreds of nuclear weapons. Iranians don't want war, Israel seems to think it can only hold itself together through war. Just say no to stupid wars for Israel.

[Archie1954]

The problem in the Middle East is centred on Israel. There would be no problem if the U.S. hadn't allowed Israel to get the bomb and to resist accomodation with the Palestinians. The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran many years ago and has never been a friend to Iran except when their puppet dictator, the Shah was in charge. Iran on the other hand has never outright attacked anyone unlike the U.S. and Iraq. Verbal threats from Iran, once properly interpreted end up being rather polite desires for a renewed Israel peopled and controlled by both Zionists and Palestinians. Look at the history of the problems in the Middle East and you will find international oil companies stirring the pot with the U.S. and the U.K. behind them pushing.

[Tom Mariner]

This is what I call a dilemma.

Iran's leadership will have a nuclear weapon in two years and already has the ability to send it into Israel. They have repeatedly said that they are absolutely going to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel is a tiny, but powerful nation who could not recover from even a single nuclear attack.

If Iran is just posturing the way that Saddam did, now would be a great time to say that even though they gain prestige by having a country killing weapon, they really have no intentions of using it. Or better that they really are not building on, come look and see.

Iran will not back down and Israel cannot or they will absolutely be incinerated. The attack will come on the Iranian nuke factories, probably sooner than later. I just hope that China and Russia do not turn it into a planet busting war.

Better move that doomsday clock back to 5 minutes to midnight.

The price of oil will be the least of our worries when major cities of the world are covered in green glass.

[mo]

The neocons are insane. Do we need more evidence??? These people are dangerous lunatics. Disabling oil production would destroy our economy, nevermind the consequences of attacking a sovereign nation (again!)-- you think they won't get fight back-- let me guess... they will welcome the bombers as liberators. Meanwhile, our economy will totally collapse.

[sick in the head]

WOW. To read all these post, so many iran sympathizers. ITS ALL ISRAELS FAULT!!! Blame the JEWS!!! This is the same BS partyline that you all fall in to.Its called scape goating. Israel has just as much right to exist as anyone else. When Iran calls for the destruction os Israel, thats allright. YOU ARE ALL WEAK

[VISHNUDESTROYED]

0) SATANZ reactor is coming online soon. Oh it's NATANZ? Are you sure? kinda like SATAN
Serial ATA Networks. Wow 2 NOT funny names in a short time frame. I'm sure it's just coincidece. No worries.

1) Do nothing and Iran sneeks in Nukes all around the world.
2) Do nothing and nothing happens for a few years anyway.
3) Why does it always have to include Israel. They don't run the world and never have.
4) It's US or Iran. Who should die? They are forcing our hand. Who is the real agitator? Iran GOVT deaths YES civilians NO.
5) Is it about greed and money...MAYBE
6) Which costs more WARS or more at the pump? WARS cost more period so I say pay more at the pump and save lives.
7) GO GREEN
8) "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" canadian rock group RUSH
9) Get right with J E S U S because somethings comming.

[Iqbal Halani]

The Iranians have never been colonised (like the Arabs) and are very intelligent and astute (just look at the 2m Iranians in the US). They are probably thinking further ahead than the neo-cons, their real aim is to dethrone all the Arab puppets (of the US) in the Gulf before any real confrontation can take place with Israel. Any atack on them will give them the chance they are ready for - an outright invasion of the Gulf States with the new kind of warfare - millions of civilians !! Centcom in Qatar will have cheap labour in plenty after the Iranian invasion!Why even the Arabs on the ground in Iraq will join in, bcause in all honesty (as every Arab on the ground knows) Israel's first line of defense is actually these fake sheikh rulers who are in the pockets of Uncle Sam.

[john]

I lived in former USSR for 20 years before moving to the USA. When I read old USA newspapers about the threat of "crazy communists who want to destroy the USA at any cost" it very much reminds me of the rhetorics used about Iran right now. In fact, if you replace "communits" with "aytollas" and "USSR" with "Iran", the only difference between the two countries is that Iran has no nuclear weapons yet. And that is what saved the Russians from being bombed to oblivion.
It is ironic that the threat of nuclear prolifiration is talked most by the only country who used nuclear weapons twice on civilian population in Japan.

[sam]

where were these idiots when israel was making this nuclear bombs, plz stop this double standard and dont try to screw the world economy

[michael mazur]

I am of a group of 10 and each of us have a rifle and we see some distance away a group of 400 guys, each also with a rifle, and they can also see us.

What would happen to us if we fired at them ? Do i need even ask ?

So, why would Iran lob a nuke, or several, at Israel which has 400 to launch in return, plus thousands more from an over eager America ?

It gets worse for Iran because they don't even have one nuke. If they did, it would give the proponents of war pause, as that one bomb could get through to Tel Aviv.

The sobering fact is that had the old Soviet Union no nukes at all rather than the thousands that it did, it would have got obliterated in a pre emptive strike by the United States of Israel because it was `thinking` about building a nuclear power station.

Tens of millions of Russian civilians dead in that scenario.

So i conclude that the intent here is to deny the world Iranian crude through the destruction of their facilities in order to jack up the price at the pump for you and me. That about it ?

Would Messrs Clawson & Eisenstadt please tell us how many millions of dead Iranian civilians constitutes acceptable `collateral damage` so that the price of crude can double ?

[bill payne]

Settlement is hopefully the best idea.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4138/359968

[utopico24]

Hahaha american and israelis are better than muslims? Again the neocon word. Nobody call americans to Irak and Afghanistan. If american casualties were only 10% of the irakis they killed allready the troops will be back home. For sure the israelies give a lot of troops to help america? not even one. OHHHH yes all muslims are corrupt, just like Olemert, this jews are all nice people. Stupid things said by neocons like Mike and all us goverment are the ones that make people think that the evangelical fundamentealist are more dangerous than muslims. But the ayatollhas like Bush an Cheney and compay were never exposed to a bullet. We know that Bush deserted Vietnam with political help. Coward

[utopico24]

The best of this "think tank" is that with only ones strike you can get all out of this sin world. Bring them on and mission acommplished with only one blow in the tank. For sure that will no cost billion of dollars, just will be a good investmen with high return in less neocons avaiable for do stupid and expensive thigs. May be this guyse are paid by the Israleli lobby. Laundry their dirty stuff and pay whate ever needed to protect the zionists, that allredy Israel got billions of us tax payerd dollar used to kill palestinian civilians. So far so good. Today oil is $134 a barrel. Tomorrow nobody knoes. Sell yoru SUV, if you can, and buy a bycicle.