Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Iran
Iran
Political & transportation map of the traditional Middle East today
Political & transportation map of the traditional Middle East today

As negotiations continue over the nuclear program of Iran, many press reports have revealed possible military plans for airstrikes by the Israeli and/or the US military against facilities connected to the program. There have also been reports of military steps being taken as preparation for any such strikes. Despite these preparations, other reports indicate that their purpose is only to increase confrontation, not precipitate armed conflict.[1] In addition, many news reports of planned attacks have been met with official denials by the US, Israeli, and British governments.[2][3]

Reports about the possible US or Israeli airstrikes have alarmed a number of independent observers and researchers. They have noted that the attacks could lead to an Iranian invasion of Iraq and attacks on US naval forces in the Persian Gulf, and could have severe, or even catastrophic, military, economic and strategic consequences.[4] Furthermore, some of the reports suggest that either the US or Israel could use nuclear weapons. In addition to the direct effects of such an attack (the possibility of mass casualties and huge environmental devastation), this would be the first time such weapons have been used since 1945. Breaking the "unwritten rule" against their use might both encourage other nuclear powers to do so more readily in the future and increase the perceived vulnerability of non-nuclear states, possibly persuading them to acquire an atomic deterrent.

Contents

[edit] Targets

For a full list, see Nuclear facilities in Iran.

The Iranian nuclear program is spread over an array of sites across Iran, and located both above and below ground. Most reported US plans would target hundreds of such sites, but Israel would likely only strike a key few, especially the fuel enrichment plant at Natanz.

[edit] US

[edit] Preparation

In April 2006, journalist Seymour Hersh said that American troops were already operating inside Iran with minority groups, "studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds."[5] Hersh also said that naval aircraft in the Arabian Sea have been flying mock nuclear weapon delivery missions since the summer of 2005, maneuvers which would be picked up by Iranian radar.

The USS John C. Stennis (left) holds eight to nine squadrons, a total of 90 aircraft.
The USS John C. Stennis (left) holds eight to nine squadrons, a total of 90 aircraft.

In January 2007, US President George W. Bush ordered a second carrier strike group to the Middle East, and pledged to deploy Patriot missile systems to defend US allies in the region. In addition, he said that intelligence-sharing would be expanded with them.[6] The second carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, will join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in late February,[7] making it the first time two US carriers were in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[8] Rumors of such a deployment began as early as mid-December 2006.[9] In addition to the carrier, more nuclear submarines were sent to the Persian Gulf. The US Air Force is also reported to be stationing more F-16 fighters at the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.[7] In January, Bush nominated Admiral William Fallon to replace General John Abizaid as commander of United States Central Command, which among other areas, is in charge of military operations in the Middle East. Fallon was a pilot in the US navy, and his appointment is seen as preparation in case of war with Iran.[10]

According to the Editor-in-Chief of the Arab Times, the Bush administration has decided that it must act against Iran before April 2007 because that is the last month UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is in office.[11] Other reports say that the choice to attack would only be limited by Bush's presidency.[12]

[edit] Plans

Most reports on US plans detail a sustained bombing campaign that would strike hundreds of targets: not only nuclear installations, but a variety of military facilities and infastructure. According to one US military official, there are 1500 separate "aim points" for airstrikes against nuclear related facilities.[13] A former State Department intelligence analyst, who saw some military contingency plans, said that they included "taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability."[14] This kind of broad campaign would likely require most major US military aircraft: B-1, B-2, F-117, and B-52 bombers, F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters operating from US navy carriers, and F-15, F-16, fighters launched from land bases.[13]

Targets would be attacked with bunker busting bombs guided by GPS or laser, and assisted with spotting by manned and unmanned aircraft.[13] Some targets may be marked by laser beams positioned by US troops, who are reported to be operating with Iranian minority groups such as the Azeris, Baluchis, and Kurds.[5] The US might also use bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons, like the B61-11. These would be used against undergroud sites, such as the centrifuge plant at Natanz.[5] Additional cruise missiles may be launched from US surface or submarine forces.[13]

After the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, another Hersh article stated that the Israeli air-war against Hezbollah in Lebanon was "the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran."[15]

In one variation published in May 2006, The Herald reported that the Pentagon planned on using B-2 bombers from Missouri, Guam, and Diego Garcia to launch the beginning of a five day bombing of Iran, focusing on 400 unique targets. These would include nuclear sites, military facilities, and the headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Bombers would be assisted by naval aircraft and cruise missiles launched by submarine.[16]

Conversely, a report from The Times said that the current US thinking is to attack the Natanz enrichment facility with a small number of aircraft from Diego Garcia.[12]

Based on such reports and current US capabilities, several non-governmental analysts have developed their own reviews of a possible US attack against Iran. John Pike, maintainer of the military-affairs web site GlobalSecurity.org, lists several possible strike options and and time windows.[17] The Pentagon and White House have also been in contact with "defense consultants and Middle East experts" in order to gather tactical advice for a strike.[12]

The BBC reported that there are two "triggers" that would cause any such airstrikes to be launched: a confirmation of Iran developing a nuclear weapon or a high-casualty attack on US troops in Iraq that is linked to Iran.[18] Another report said that the bombing campaign is being planned so that it can be implemented within 24 hours of an order to do so.[19]

Despite the planning, several American generals and admirals have said they will resign if they are ordered to launch an attack on Iran.[20]

[edit] Israel

[edit] Preparation

An Israeli F-15I Ra'am from the 69 Squadron, nicknamed The Hammers.
An Israeli F-15I Ra'am from the 69 Squadron, nicknamed The Hammers.

In 2005 the US sold Israel 30 long range F-15s for US$48 million each, in addition to later shipping 600 GBU-27 and GBU-28 laser-guided bunker-busters. Both aircraft and bunker-busters would likely be used in any strike against Iran.[21][22]

The commander of the Israeli Air Force, Aluf Elyezer Shkedy, was placed in charge of the new Iran Command as the GOC (General Officer Commanding) during the summer of 2006. This will put him in a position to coordinate all military and intelligence operations against Iran in event of a strike.[23]

Israeli Air Force pilots, especially at Hatserim and Tel Nof, are also reported to have begun training for such a strike. They reportedly flew test flights to Gibraltar in late 2006, in preparation for the round trip flight from Israel to Iran.[24] At Hatserim is the 69 Squadron, which flies F-15I strike fighters, and at Tel Nof is the 106 Squadron, which flies F-15C/D Eagles. Tel Nof is also rumored to be the location of some of Israel's nuclear weapons.

On January 21, Iranian reports announced the death of Ardeshir Hosseinpour, one of Iran's top nuclear scientists,[25] from gas poisoning six days earlier.[26] However, the private US intelligence company Stratfor said that "Hassanpour was in fact a Mossad target,"[27] and that he was killed by radioactive poisoning. Several other Iranian scientists may have been killed or injured in the incident as well.[28]

In February a British newspaper reported that Israel was negotiating with the United States to ensure that the US would provide Israel with an "air corridor" to overfly Iraq if Israel decided to bomb Iran.[29]

Diplomatically, Israel has entered into direct talks with Saudi Arabia in order to counter Iranian influence.[19]

[edit] Plans

[edit] Nuclear strike

On January 7, 2007, The Sunday Times, a British newspaper, reported[24] that Israel has developed plans to destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz[30] with a nuclear first strike.

Israel and Iran
Israel and Iran

The report said that:[24]

The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout. “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources...

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

The report claims that the Israeli plan is to use conventional weapons to dig a self-supporting "tunnel" into the Natanz uranium enrichment facility which will then be destroyed by air dropping approximately 1.33 kT mini nukes down the tunnel. According to the Sunday Times, detonating the nuclear bombs "deep underground" will "reduce the risk of radioactive fallout."[24] If the attack is successful, the Times says, and Natanz and two other sites are destroyed, Israel believes that Iran's nuclear program will be "indefinitely" delayed.

Besides Natanz, a uranium conversion facility in Isfahan and heavy water reactor at Arak would also be targeted, but with conventional weapons.[10]


[edit] Nuclear bunker buster

Main article: Nuclear bunker buster

Experts have previously criticised claims by proponents of nuclear bunker busters that their radioactive fallout potential is limited.[31][32][33][34][35][36] Experts have argued that nuclear bunker busters result in what are in effect surface detonations, with resultant significant radioactive fallout, due to:

  1. The practical depth of ground penetration by conventional bunker busters being limited (e.g. ± 30 feet for GBU-37) and that nuclear bunker busters share these depth limitations due to the need to maintain the integrity of their physics packages.
  2. Targets that proponents of nuclear bunker busters envisage for destruction being protected to a much greater extent than the limitations of (1) allow for. In relation to the currently purported Israeli plans, the Natanz uranium enrichment facility protection is reported to be:[30] "By mid-2004 the Natanz centrifuge facility was hardened with a roof of several meters of reinforced concrete and buried under a layer of earth some 75 feet deep."
  3. Past experience of radioactive fallout containment failure even with deeply buried mini nuclear weapons. For example, American 1.1 kT nuclear devices exploded at a depth of 135 feet during Operation Ploughshare: Blast video footage.[37] Required burial depths for radioactive fallout containment are considerable:[31] "Even a 0.1 KT burst must be buried at a depth of approximately 230 feet to be fully contained."

[edit] Reaction and Criticism

After the story's release, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the plans for a military intervention, saying that Israel prefers to use diplomatic means to resolve its dispute with Iran over that country's nuclear program.[38] According to Regev: "The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions and the expeditious and full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1737. If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably."

Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies and a former senior army intelligence officer, also dismissed the report. "No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times," Kam told the Associated Press.[citation needed] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "I think that even talk of such [plans] just shows how very serious it would be to have Iran continue its programs unabated."[39]

The reported plan also generated criticism. The private intelligence company Strategic Forecasting, Inc. writes that "the Israelis' ability to wipe out Iran's widely dispersed nuclear capability in a first-strike offensive is questionable."[40]

Others, including Louis Rene Beres, in The Jewish Press, mentioned that although the need for such a strike might arise rationally speaking, "this form of preemption would represent a serious violation of international law."[41]

In 2006 former UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter published Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change (ISBN 1-56025-936-1). In his book Ritter claims that certain Israelis and pro-Israel elements in the United States are trying to push the Bush administration into war with Iran [5]. He also accuses the U.S. pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and outright espionage (see Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal) [6], asserting that: "Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else."

In an interview with The Huffington Post on 4 January 2007, former U.S. General Wesley Clark chided certain Israeli and U.S. officials (including the Israeli press) of lobbying for a military confrontation with Iran and shunning all diplomacy. Clark said that "Bibi Netanyahu [is] leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal" and that "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers [to confront Iran]".[42][43]

Journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave writes that: "In today's Israel, the overwhelming majority is now convinced Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is synonymous with a 2nd holocaust." He also quotes Netanyahu as saying that: "[Israel] 'must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel.' " Borchgrave also writes that "...if Bush doesn't take on Iran, prominent Israelis are speculating that president Clinton 2 (Hillary) will do so".[44]

[edit] Iran

[edit] Iran's situation

Iranians collectively hold a self-perception of Iran as one of the world's historic powers and believe that high-technology is an essential part of its place in the world.[45] In the current political atmosphere, with hardliners controlling the state and major political councils retaining strong support from many of the poorer and marginalized elements within Iranian society, threats from abroad may serve to consolidate support of incumbent powers. [46]

[edit] Iran's response

On February 8, 2007, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned the United States that Iran would retaliate against American interests worldwide if it was attacked. He stated "Our enemies know very well that any aggression will have a response from all sides by Iranian people on their interests all over the world."[47]

Much of Iranian military planning since the 1991 Gulf War has focused on the response to a US attack.[48] While publicly declaring that they believe an imminent attack to be unlikely, Iran has conducted numerous war games since the announcement of the US military build-up in December 2006, including a simulation of an aerial attack on their country on February 20, 2007.[49]

Although Iran's air force would not be able to offer direct opposition to the U.S. air attacks and its nuclear plants would be damaged, Iran has many options to respond.[45]

[edit] Attacks on the US Navy

The last major US-Iran naval battle occurred in 1988. The sinking of a major Iranian warship convinced Iran of the vulnerability of these large vessels to a technologically advanced adversary. Iranian naval planning since then has focused on both asymmetrical naval warfare and on using their geography to give them maximum advantage in any future confrontation with the US.[48] They have purchased or developed hundreds of small fast-attack craft and a great variety of antiship missiles, which have been hidden along their mountainous 2000-kilometre coastline and on strategic islands.

Iran has acquired both Silkworm and modern C-803 missiles from China. They have reverse-engineered these and developed their own versions, extending their range to up to 300 kilometers, enabling them to strike ships anywhere in the Persian Gulf.[50] They also have at least some supersonic Russian Kh missiles. In a confrontation with the US Navy, Iran would first try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the 42-kilometer-wide gateway to the Persian Gulf.[51] They would then focus on sinking any major warships or aircraft carrier groups within the Gulf. Their naval doctrine is based on a technique known as dispersed swarming, in which large numbers of small attack craft would "swarm" a warship from many directions, firing missiles at it simultaneously.

Modern warfare has shown that even advanced ships are vulnerable to missiles. For example, in the Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006, a technologically-advanced Israeli Saar-5 class ship was disabled by a C-803 missile[citation needed]. In the Falklands War, a British destroyer was sunk by an Exocet missile[citation needed]. Since the loss of even one American supercarrier would be a calamity for the US, plans for an attack on Iran include a focus on trying to eliminate Iran's anti-ship batteries.

General John Abizaid, the former top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said in a written statement to the House Armed Services Committee on March 15, 2006 that Iran is expanding naval bases along its shoreline and now has large quantities of small, fast-attack ships, many armed with torpedoes and Chinese-made high-speed missiles capable of firing from 10,000 yards.[52]

[edit] Oil Shock

Map of the Persian Gulf. The Gulf of Oman leads to the Arabian Sea. Detail from larger map of the Middle East.
Map of the Persian Gulf. The Gulf of Oman leads to the Arabian Sea. Detail from larger map of the Middle East.
Satellite image showing the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz is the dramatic constriction on the right third.
Satellite image showing the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz is the dramatic constriction on the right third.

Iran can use the "Oil Shock" strategy like many Arab states did during the 1973 oil crisis. This can be effected by disrupting oil production or exportation in the Persian Gulf.

It would be possible for paramilitary units linked to Iran to sabotage oil export facilities in western Persian Gulf states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.[45] Iran may try to disrupt oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz if attacked. Oil from Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is shipped through the Strait. About 17 million barrels of oil, representing one-fifth of the world's consumption, is shipped through the strait every day. Furthermore, Iran can disrupt oil flow inside Iraq and Azerbaijan by targeting oil pipelines.

Threat of such action may lead oil-consuming nations such as European countries, India, China and Japan to pressure the U.S. to resolve the dispute short of a military confrontation.[53]

[edit] Attacks on US Forces in Iraq

Leading figures in the current government of Iraq and the majority of its armed forces share a common faith with Shi'a Iran.[4]They also have extensive Iranian ties that go back to the 1980s. Any attack on Iran by the US would likely enrage much of Iraq's Shi'a population – currently America's allies. The United States might find itself facing a new Shi'a rebellion in addition to the current Sunni insurgency. In light of the current relative peace in Shi' southern Iraq, American and coalition forces in that part of the country are sparse and could be highly vulnerable to a spontaneous rebellion.[4] Furthermore, coalition troops throughout the country might find themselves being attacked by the very people who they had previously trusted.

This scenario is possible even if Iran does not take any actions in Iraq. But Iran could aid any rebellion by sending in weapons or forces of its own.[54] Strategic cities in southern Iraq, like Basra, are extremely close to Iran, and the Iranian forces might try to overwhelm coalition bases in the region with sudden large-scale attacks. Such a move would pit a massive supply of Iranian artillery (which likely exceeds coalition artillery in Iraq[54]) against American aerial superiority. Alternatively, Iran could send in small groups of commandos to attack American supply lines, which run through southern Iraq to Kuwait. This kind of warfare would probably resemble the 2006 battles between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, on a vastly larger scale.[citation needed]

[edit] Paramilitary attacks

Iran can wage asymmetric warfare against the U.S. army in Iraq and Afghanistan by using Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Iraqi proxies. Iran might not attack American troops, but it can use its alliances to retaliate in Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance aiding Hezbollah to attack Haifa and Tel Aviv. Also, an attack on Iran may cause waning international support for the U.S. from Shiite Islamists. An attack could cause rival Sunni and Shi'a Islamists to unite against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.[45] According to Oxford research group's study

"A U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west gulf states being involved as well."[45]


[edit] Financial markets

A report leaked from the European banking giant ING Group dated January 9, 2007 described to subscribers the predicted effects on the financial markets of an attack on Iran by the US or Israel.[55]

In the two reports,[56][57] Charles Robertson, ING Group's Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa, described an attack on Iran as "high impact, if low probability" and reasoned that Israel was "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country. ... So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point."

RawStory points out that Robertson believes that if the attack was to take place, "we can be fairly sure that if Israel is going to act, it will be keen to do so while Bush and Cheney are in the White House."[55]

According to the report, the biggest financial impact would be felt by the currencies of Turkey, then followed by the United States, though the euro would benefit. Gold and oil prices would spike, and the stock markets in Israel and Egypt would fall.[58] The extent and duration of the financial effects would depend on the extent of Iranian retaliation according to the report.

[edit] See also

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Sources and notes

  1. ^ Rozen, Laura. "The Nonwar War Against Iran", National Journal, January 18, 2007. Retrieved January 24, 2007.
  2. ^ Luce, Edward. "Bush denies preparing attack against Iran", Financial Times, January 26, 2007. Retrieved January 28, 2007.
  3. ^ "No plans to attack Iran - Blair", BBC News, February 6, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
  4. ^ a b c Monty Rohde. "Opinion and Editorial: Iran invasion would bring fatal consequences", The Badger Herald, April 28, 2006. Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  5. ^ a b c Hersh, Seymour M. "The Iran Plans", The New Yorker, April 8, 2006. Retrieved January 15, 2007.
  6. ^ President's Address to the Nation, White House. Retrieved January 16, 2007.
  7. ^ a b Dareini, Ali Akbar. "Iran Prepares Public for Possible Clash", The Guardian, January 22, 2007. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
  8. ^ "U.S. bringing second carrier to Mideast for first time since Iraq invasion", The Sierra Times, January 17, 2007. Retrieved January 17, 2007.
  9. ^ "US Navy to warn to Iran: CBS", Ninemsn, December 19, 2006. Retrieved January 17, 2007.
  10. ^ a b "Focus: Mission Iran", The Sunday Times, January 7, 2007. Retrieved January 18, 2007.
  11. ^ Al-Jarallah, Ahmed. "US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites", Arab Times, January 18, 2007. Retrieved January 20, 2007.
  12. ^ a b c "Report: US plans strike against Iran", The Jerusalem Post, January 31, 2007. Retrieved February 1, 2007.
  13. ^ a b c d Duffy, Michael. "What Would War Look Like?", Time Magazine, September 17, 2006. Retrieved January 16, 2007.
  14. ^ "U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst", Reuters, January 19, 2007. Retrieved January 20, 2007.
  15. ^ Hersh, Seymour M. "Watching Lebanon", August 14, 2006. Retrieved January 15, 2007.
  16. ^ Bruce, Ian. "US Spells Out Plan to Bomb Iran", The Herald, May 16, 2006. Retrieved January 17, 2007.
  17. ^ Pike, Jonh. "Target Iran". Retrieved January 18, 2007
  18. ^ "US 'Iran attack plans' revealed", BBC News, February 19, 2007. Retrieved February 19, 2007.
  19. ^ a b Hersh, Seymour M. "The Redirection", The New Yorker, February 25, 2007. Retrieved February 25, 2007.
  20. ^ "Report: Generals might quit over Iran", United Press International, February 25, 2007. Retrieved February 26, 2007.
  21. ^ Zunes, Stephen. "The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran", Foreign Policy in Focus, May 2, 2006. Retrieved January 16, 2007.
  22. ^ Pike, John. "Target Iran - Air Strikes" Retrieved January 18, 2007.
  23. ^ Benn, Aluf. "IAF chief to head 'Iranian command'", Haaretz, August 25, 2006. Accessed January 27, 2007.
  24. ^ a b c d Mahnaimi, Uzi and Baxter, Sarah. "Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran", The Sunday Times, January 7, 2007. Retrieved January 15, 2007.
  25. ^ "IRAN: NUCLEAR SCIENTIST DIES UNDER MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES", Adnkronos International, January 25, 2007. Retrieved February 2, 2007.
  26. ^ Baxter, Sarah. "Iranian nuclear scientist ‘assassinated by Mossad’", The Sunday Times, February 4, 2007. Retrieved February 4, 2007.
  27. ^ "Geopolitical Diary: Israeli Covert Operations in Iran", Stratfor, February 2, 2007. Retrieved February 2, 2007.
  28. ^ Melman, Yossi. "U.S. website: Mossad killed Iranian nuclear physicis", Haaretz, February 4, 2007. Retrieved February 4, 2007.
  29. ^ Coughlin, Con. "Israel seeks all clear for Iran air strike", The Telegraph, February 24, 2007. Retrieved February 24, 2007.
  30. ^ a b Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility. www.GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved on 2007-01-08.
  31. ^ a b Robert W. Nelson. Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons. www.fas.org. Retrieved on 2007-01-08.
  32. ^ David Hambling (2002). Bunker-busters set to go nuclear. New Scientist. Retrieved on 2007-01-08.
  33. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists (2005). The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved on 2007-02-10.
  34. ^ Nelson, R.W. (2002). Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons. Science & Global Security, 2002. 10(1): p. 1-20.. Retrieved on 2007-02-10.
  35. ^ Nelson, R.W. (2004). Nuclear "Bunker Busters" Would More Likely Disperse than Destroy Buried Stockpiles of Biological and Chemical Agents. Science & Global Security, 2004. 12(1-2): p. 69-89.. Retrieved on 2007-02-10.
  36. ^ Physicians for Social Responsibility (2005). Projected Casualties Among U.S. Military Personnel and Civilian Populations from the Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Hard and Deeply Buried Targets. Physicians for Social Responsibility. Retrieved on 2007-02-10.
  37. ^ Peter Kuran (1995). Trinity and Beyond. Retrieved on 2007-02-25.
  38. ^ "Israel denies plan to hit Iran enrichment plant with tactical nukes", Haaretz, 2007-01-07. Retrieved on 2007-01-20.
  39. ^ "Rice: Talk of possible strike on Iran nuke sites highlights risks", Reuters, 2007-01-15. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
  40. ^ Geopolitical Diary: Israel's Options Against Iran. Stratfor (3-01-2007). Retrieved on 2007-01-3.
  41. ^ Louis Rene Beres (10-01-2007). Iran's Nuclear Program And Planned Genocide Against Israel. Jewish Press. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
  42. ^ [1]
  43. ^ [2] [3]
  44. ^ [4]
  45. ^ a b c d e Iran:Consequences of a War. Oxford Research Group.
  46. ^ The next Iran war
  47. ^ Iran’s Leader Warns the U.S. About Carrying Out Any Attack
  48. ^ a b Fariborz Haghshenass. "Iran's Doctrine of Asymmetrical Naval Warfare", PolicyWatch #1179, . Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  49. ^ AFP "Iran repels simulated air attack", February 20, 2007, . Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  50. ^ Monty Rohde. "Opinion and Editorial: Iran invasion would bring fatal consequences", The Badger Herald, April 28, 2006. Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  51. ^ Fariborz Haghshenass. "Iran's Doctrine of Asymmetrical Naval Warfare", PolicyWatch #1179, . Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  52. ^ Iran Might Try to Disrupt Hormuz Oil Flow If Attacked by U.S.
  53. ^ Iran Might Try to Disrupt Hormuz Oil Flow If Attacked by U.S.
  54. ^ a b William Kay. "War: Here's what they'll find in Iraq", The Republic of East Vancouver, September 16 to September 29 2004. Retrieved February 20, 2007.
  55. ^ a b Michael Roston (15-01-2007). Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran. Raw Story. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
  56. ^ Charles Robertson (09-01-2007). Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.. ING Group. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
  57. ^ Global Economics and Strategy Team (15-01-2007). Prophet Newsletter. ING Group. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
  58. ^ Heath, Allister and Lauria, Joe. "Iran attack would cause market chaos", The Business, January 24, 2007. Retrieved January 25, 2007.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/a/Plans_for_strikes_against_the_Iranian_nuclear_program_c6aa.html"