(6 of 6)
The costs of a military strike would well outweigh the benefits. That would be no simple raid but a major military operation taking several weeks, akin to the opening onslaught on Iraq in 2003. Not just the nuclear sites but Iran's air defenses and retaliatory machinery as well would have to be destroyed. The collateral damage in Iranian casualties from the attacks or radioactive fallout could be severe, as could the political backlash against moderates and opponents of the existing regime. And then, how much would Iran's nuclear ambitions be set back? "You can't bomb know-how," says IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei. A U.S. analyst guesses "at best, two to four years." And, he adds, "while we went to war, Iran would not sit idle. It would strike back at a time and place of its own choosing"--including sponsoring attacks on U.S. and British troops in Iraq and perhaps even terrorist strikes inside the U.S. and Europe.
Is there a way out? The most encouraging fact about the standoff is that neither side has much to gain from precipitating a military confrontation. At the same time, it is unlikely that the major differences over Iran's nuclear intentions can be resolved in a way that is wholly satisfying to both Iran and the West. The most realistic hope for Washington and its allies may lie in using diplomatic measures to delay Tehran's nuclear development long enough to allow for the emergence of a more moderate Iranian leadership that could be persuaded to abandon its nuclear dreams. But if those efforts fail, this U.S. President, or the next one, may confront a sobering choice: live with the reality of a nuclear Iran, or take the risk of attacking it. All of which leads to another, simple proposition: get ready for the world to become a more dangerous place.