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

[Paul]

By this logic, the same effect could be achieved by bombing the crap out of the worlds biggest oil consumers, thus destroying Iran's major markets. Who is the world's biggest consumer of oil products? Thought not. Quicker solution would be to get the Israelis to dismantle their undeclared but well known nuclear arsenal, thus eliminating Iran's need for a deterrent against unprovoked attack from another of Israel's "defensive" operations.

[Brian]

Ya'll are pretty narrow-minded.

So the option is to let Iran have nuclear weapons? And what if they use them, on Israel or the US? Is that okay with you people? You think there wouldn't be a massive response, and that that response might involve other countries besides Iran? God, everything is so black and white for you people. Bomb or don't bomb. Religious, or not religious. High prices, or dirt cheap. Come on, the US can and will fair any economic hardship. Look around you. The US will not be blackmailed into an invasion of idealogy that is poisonous. Go hug a tree you people. And I have long hair, so stfu with your judgements. It is time we take preventative action, instead of multiplying our costs of deterring potential attacks by Iran. This is how this world works, get over it.

[Jack Phillps]

There are some really nonsensical posts on this board. Particularly laughable is the the claim by "joe johnson" that "Nazis" want a "Greater Israel" that incorporates Iran. Joe, if you knew anything about the Nazis, you'd know that they weren't exactly pro-Jewish. And for Iranian apologist/dimwit Bibijon, here is the Amnesty International report on human rights abuses in Iran.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/By_Country/Iran/page.do?id=1011172&n1=3&n2=30&n3=922

Theirs is hardly a 'humane' socieconomic system. If you really believe that it is, why don't you move there? I'll help you pack.

By the way folks, there is less than a year left in George Bush's term. If he hasn't invaded yet, he's not going to.

[Wafflehead]

US foreign policy is driven by domestic policy. Bombing Iran to spike oil prices will complete the conversion of US citizens to serfs. I hope they have internet in the gulag.

[eddy]

If attacked, Iran have the right to retailate. If that is the choice, then so be it, we the Iran people willing to die too to defend our country. That is the vary basic human right.

[Martin]

These idiots have no clue what they're talking about. If ever Iranian oil installations are bombed saudi, kuwaiti and UAE oil installation (which are considerably more vulnerable) will be bombed within minutes. The idea of gas jumping to $10 a gallon is completely understated it will be more accurate to predict $40 to $50 as immediately 30% of the oil will be taken off the market. This is just the economic impact . Other retaliatory actions which could follow could be loss of 5 or 6 major war ship in the gulf based on reported pentagon simulations. Second thing is why are all these guys called neo-conservatives? Nothing about these jacobians is new and nothing about them is conservative. They are pure-zionists, perfectly matched with paleo-zionist, they have their bullseye targeted on Iran for a while but this might be one bite too big for them to swollow. People have to wake up and call them what they are racist zionists, who should have no place in the American contemporary politics.

[kulak2]

These 2 neonazi pigs(Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt)starting to smooth the ground work to attack Iran by using U.S shoulder to fire the bullet on behalf of no good Israel.These neonazi among us are dagerous people.The best thing to do these kind of so called think tank is to push them in front of real tanks so that no other think tanker will dare to suggest invading other country which will kill thousands of innocent people and create an economic distruction on this planet.

[loanranger]

Hello!

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non_proliferation Treaty as is the US. Iran has every right under the treaty Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy.

On what grounds are the "crazies" suggesting bombing a soverign nation. What happened to rule of law?

[ironhead]

Fire the EPA. Then tap into our own oil and destroy the arrogant oil producers of the middle east.

[ellis turcanetti]

Under international treaties Iran has the recognized right to proceed with its existing nuclear program, for power generation purposes. The suggestion that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons is MADE UP, by the very same people who made up all the stories about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"! Unfortunately some commenters have apparently swallowed this lie without realizing it.

[James]

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is an AIPAC spin-off think tank.. Check out the following URL to see how AIPAC has been pushing for an attack on Iran (for Israel of course!) as the Scott Ritter youtubes linked at the top of the comments section there are very concerning as well:

Re: AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran for Israel:

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html

Hedges: It's Insane to Attack Iran, Devastating Consequences:

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/hedges-its-insane-to-attack-iran.html

--------------------------------------------------------

http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM

[dickbohanon]

never underestimate the willingness to go to war
of those who wont have to fight it.
neocons just dont make much sense much of the time
america is already in 2 wars it cant extricate itself from
why a third?
dreaming up boogy men to control the masses
is getting real old.
try spending time on solutions that help
your fellow americans,not get them killed or
economically crippled

[Dave Wolff]

I think for the WORLD that destroying any nation who threatens to destroy is the ONLY THING TO DO!!! These rats truly believe that for them to go to allah they MUST KILL and for that I say ENOUGH! SEND THEM ALL TO ALLAH and if we happen to be killed trying to kill this EVIL so be it.

[E Owens]

God help us all if the Eisenstadt and Clawson strategies are ever acted upon. It's hard to believe that people get paid to come up with hair-brain ideas that have the potential to negatively impact the lives of millions across this planet...Or should I say end the lives of millions. It should always be diplomacy first, and then action as a last resort. But, any action taken has to be that of a coalition of ALL the major nations...Not just one that wants to police the world.

[Wilbur Varela]

How come Israel can have hundreds of nuclear weapons, all hidden away from the world, and yet Iran can't, unless they do exactly what we say, and account for every last ounce of plutonium? Any school kid will say thats unfair.

No one likes the shiite theocracy that runs Iran, including many Iranians. But what has Israel become? A war like society that has lost much of the moral high ground they once enjoyed.

Why should americans die for Israel, or Iran, Iraq, or Syria, or any other country in the middle east? We have a bigger problem. Our think tanks.

[Blaze]

Im sorry. I couldn't even finish reading this load of turd. The whole concept of bombing Iran's oil wells and sending the world into economic caos is off the wall. By bombing the oil you will make the global trade and everyday life change as we know it. Everything from gas to everyday groceries will go up in price, as evident every week when you go to the supermarket. If you have a product for the market, you have to ship it.

So.... let us recount this.

1. Bomb their nuclear facilities throwing their nuclear progress off line. Causing war between the allies and Iran. (probably happening anyway)

or

2. Bomb their oil wells & reserves throwing the whole world into an economic caos that will take more than our lifetime to fix. (that makes Iran and other terrorist win anyway.)

or

3. Don't bomb them...

There's an idea. I didnt have to go to Harvard to figure out that we have a choice not to bomb them. Continue diplomatic talks and keep a close eye on their nuclear progress.

Lets use our minds, not our weapons to fix this. It is our duty to preseve this world for future generations, economically and environmentally. Please, dont f*ck it all up for the rest of us.

[mike]

why should the U.S. sacrifice so much for the sake of Israel.... what has that gotten us? the transparent motives of these pro-Israeli think thanks is shameful.

[Saint Michael Traveler]

Foreign Policy of President Bush and Iran

President Bush has repeated the hallow statement that he will give diplomacy a chance to resolve the dispute with Iran on their nuclear fuel cycle. In the same time he has sabotaged the basic premise of diplomacy by under cutting the actions of European Union foreign policy Chief Javier Solana.
Iran submitted a package to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in mid-May 2008 as well as to world powers, including Russia and the United States. The proposal suggests "the creation of uranium enrichment consortiums in various countries, including Iran." It also requires that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) step up its supervision of nuclear sites around the world and asserts that more should be done to ensure nuclear programs would not diverted materials for fabrication of nuclear bomb.
"Thomas Pickering, the US ambassador to the United Nations under President George H.W. Bush, endorsed the idea of such a consortium in a March article in the New York Review of Books." And the plan is "getting increased interest from senior members of both parties in Congress and nonproliferation specialists"[Boston Globe June 10].
Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, have said publicly that the consortium plan should be explored. Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, went further, calling the plan "a creative, thoughtful, and productive potential solution."
Robert Naiman, Tue Jun 17, 3:08 PM ET, NYT Exposes Fraud of "Generous Offer" to Iran reported:
“The same PIPA poll found that 58% of Iranians support the idea of making a deal with the UN Security Council that would allow Iran to have a full-cycle nuclear program while giving the International Atomic Energy Agency "permanent and full access throughout Iran to ensure that its nuclear program is limited to energy production" and not producing nuclear weapons. PIPA notes that in a March 2008 poll for the BBC World Service 55% of Americans approved of such a deal.”
“In April, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland published a poll of Iranian public opinion. PIPA found that 81% of Iranians consider it "very important" for "Iran to have a full-fuel-cycle nuclear program" which would give Iran the capacity to produce nuclear fuel for energy production. Four out of five. Only 5% think Iran should not pursue a full-fuel-cycle program.”
If the basis for the 6-nation negotiation with Iran over her nuclear fuel cycle is enforcement of the United Nations Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), then the Iranian proposal has fully achieved the objective.
President Bush often stated that everything is on the table unless Iran stops nuclear fuel cycle activities. He further has asserted that his administration would only talk with Iran after the nuclear fuel cycle activities had been verifiably been stopped. Iranian people have consistently rejected his precondition for diplomatic negotiation. He is using the 6-nation as a fake diplomacy knowing that Iran will not stop her nuclear fuel cycle activity; the activity is a part of her energy independence.
Israel and the United States advocate that Iran would be dangerous learning about nuclear technology; what if they use this knowledge sometimes in the future and make nuclear bombs. Israel, whose nuclear arsenals and airplane to deliverer the devices were subsidized mostly by USA, has been assured by both Republican and Democratic candidates that if Iranians would ever develop any nuclear bomb and if she would use the bomb on Israel, USA will obliterate Iran to dust.
Israel and USA are insisting that unless Iran stops their nuclear fuel cycle, jointly they will destroy their country. It is reported that President Bush may not allow Western-made technology required for Iran's oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran's oil production. This action will result in increase of price of gas to a $10 per gallon and disruption of the International market. Also it is reported that President Bush may consider a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf. This action is declaration of war and attacking Iran, the beginning of the World War III.
What is alternative to President Bush policy leading to War, hurting Iranian and American people? USA must support International Nuclear Fuel Consortium concept and work to develop procedure for different regions of the world.

[gordong 156]

Curtailing oil supplies in this way sounds like another device for making Big Oil extra profitable at the public's expense.

[Reggie]

It might be somewhat easier for us to promote this strategy if we first forcably annex Israel and make it a US protectorate. At least then, all of our middle east meddling would make sense.