Antiwar target-iran-map

Published on March 1st, 2012 | by Marsha B. Cohen

14

Consequences of an Attack on Iran are no Joke

Print Friendly and PDF

by Marsha B. Cohen

A grim joke made the rounds in late 2002 and early 2003, in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq. The version I recall went something like this:

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney go into a Texas bar. Over a couple of beers they plan the invasion of Iraq, taking out Saddam Hussein and taking control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves. The big question, though, is how Americans might react to their starting another war, with victory still elusive in Afghanistan. They decide to do an impromptu sampling of public opinion, and invite an average, all-American looking guy standing at the bar to join them for a friendly drink.

“What would you think of us invading Iraq and taking over their oil fields, if you knew that 30,000 Iraqis and one American bicycle mechanic would be killed if we do it?” Bush asks.

The fellow slowly sips his beer, his brow furrowed. He mulls the question and looks troubled. Finally he asks, “Why should an American bicycle mechanic have to die?”

Cheney slaps the table and grins triumphantly at Bush. “I told you no one would give a damn about the 30,000 Iraqis!”

A decade later, no one seems to give a damn about Iranian lives either.

The U.S. legacy in Iraq

As we now know, far more than 30,000 Iraqis and one American have died since the US invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. The number of documented Iraqi civilian deaths from violence since the onset of the “Second Iraq War” now totals between 105,000-115,000, according to the continuously updated Iraq Body Count database. It also notes that according to the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs, the figure may be 13,750 higher still.  Official Department of Defense statistics as of mid-December, as compiled by Margaret Griffis at Antiwar.com, reveal that 4484 members of the US military deaths and 1487 private military contractors have lost their lives since the war began, as well as 319 “Coalition” troops, 348 journalists and 448 academics. Estimates of the number of Americans wounded range from an official count of 33,000 to estimates of over 100,000.

Iraqi physicians are seeing an upsurge in cancers and birth defects, which they blame on the usage of depleted uranium in the shells and bombs used by US and British forces in the 1991 Iraq war and the 2003 invasion. An estimated 300 tons of depleted uranium were used to attack Iraq in the First Gulf War. Abdulhaq Al-Ani, co-author of Uranium in Iraq: The Poisonous Legacy of the Iraq Wars, has been researching the health effects of depleted uranium weaponry on Iraq’s civilian population since 1991 and explained in an interview with Al Jazeera that the effects of depleted uranium on the human body don’t even begin to manifest until 5-6 years after exposure. Al-Ani points to a spike in Iraqi cancer rates in Iraq in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009.

Dr. Ahmad Hardan, who has served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Health Ministry, has been monitoring the effects of depleted uranium exposure on adults and children, which include multiple cancers and serious birth defects. He told reporter Lawrence Smallman that “Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years and that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come.” Leukemia has become the third most common cancer throughout Iraq, with children under 15 especially vulnerable. “This is what I call terrorism,” he said.

The BBC reports that babies born in Fallujah now have 13 times the rate of congenital heart deformities than European-born infants. While visiting Iraq, World Affairs editor John Simpson was told many times that women in Fallujah have been advised not to bear children. The director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, Dr. Daud Miraki, has found that increasing numbers of infants in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan are being born without eyes or limbs, and have tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes. The Pentagon denies any connection with the US military’s use of depleted uranium, even though (or perhaps because) these same effects are endangering veterans returning to the US from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, whether from the right, left or the center, the potential “consequences” of military strikes (a euphemism for war) against Iran are being assessed almost exclusively on the basis of the potential impact on Israel, the US and Europe: a spike in the price of oil wreaking havoc in the global economy–Hezbollah launching missile strikes from Lebanon into Israel and carrying out acts of terrorism against “soft western targets”–rather than the disastrous consequences for Iran, its neighbors and the global ecosystem.

One exception is a 114 page “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities,” produced in 2009 for the Center for International and Strategic Studies. It devotes all of two pages (90-91) to the human and environmental human catastrophe that would result just from an attack on the Iranian nuclear power plant in Bushehr:

Any strike on the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population density along the contamination plume.

The authors also warn that “Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides.” (Are the Arab states of the Gulf who supposedly are so eager for Israel to contain Iran’s regional ambitions aware of this?)

The ever-smirking Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, has calculated that the casualties of a war with Iran could be limited to fewer than 500. “There won’t be 100,000 dead, not 10,000 dead nor 1,000 dead. Israel will not be destroyed,” Barak said reassuringly during  a November radio interview quoted by the Washington Post. “If everyone just goes into their houses, there won’t be 500 dead, either,” he said.

Barak means Israelis. As for Iranians, who’s counting? Who cares?

The human cost of attacking Iran

No one is talking about the harm that “surgical air strikes” against “suspected Iranian nuclear facilities” with GBU-28 “bunker-buster” bombs, which derive their ability to penetrate concrete and earth from depleted uranium, would inflict on 74 million Iranians, nearly a quarter of whom are under the age of 14 and under and half of whom are under the age of 30. (Where are those self-designated “pro-life” voices that should be expressing outrage? Or does “the right to life” evaporate as soon as a fetus exits the womb?)

No worries are being expressed about the release of radioactive materials into the biosphere of  Central Asia (and by eventual extension, the entire earth). If the depleted uranium in the bombs comes into contact with radioactive nuclear materials present in the targeted nuclear research sites–nearly all of which operate under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision–the potential for disaster would be magnified exponentially.

Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi grimly told the hawkish Herziliya Conference recently that Iran possesses more than 4 tons of low-grade enriched uranium as well as almost 100 kilograms of uranium enriched at 20%. If true, is it really a good idea to send these radioactive materials spewing into the air and water of Central Asia and beyond? Is it any wonder that Russia, China and India–all whom are much closer geographically to Iran, as well as downwind of the direction in which radiation and toxin-tainted winds would initially blow–are the UN Security Council members most opposed to attacking Iran?

Nor is anyone questioning the wisdom of dropping unprecedented numbers of 5000 lb. “bunker busters” capable of penetrating 100 feet of earth or 20 feet of concrete into the bowels of an already earthquake-prone region. No one seems to care about the irreparable and uncontainable environmental damage that could be done to miles of Iranian coastline: the adjacent Caspian Sea to the north, the Arabian Sea to the south, and the Persian Gulf to the west. What about the permanent damage to the underground aquifers of Central Asia, where water is already scarce? If fracking for natural gas can render US drinking water flammable, imagine what pounding some of the most plentiful natural gas fields with bombs could do.

The unforeseeable consequences

Prognosticating the full extent of the damage that could and would be inflicted upon Iran and upon Iranians is difficult to impossible. No one outside of top security circles can even guess the number of targets of an Israeli and/or US attack (the BBC suggests five in addition to Bushehr). Other variables include the quantity or capacity of the weaponry that would be employed, whether Israel plans on using nuclear weapons, whether so-called “precision surgical strikes” reached or missed their intended targets, all of which would affect the scale of “collateral damage” to human beings, infrastructure, homes and apartments, schools, mosques and World Heritage sites as a consequence of “bomb-bomb-bombing” Iran’s suspected nuclear research facilities.

Almost assuredly an attack on facilities buried deep within the earth would utilize “bunker busting” guided  bomb units (GBUs) that gain their power to penetrate from depleted uranium. The cost in lives, injuries, and long-term dangers to the health of civilians, including genetic damage to unborn future generations from toxins and radioactive materials in the depleted uranium bombs dropped and nuclear materials leaked is also incalculable.

Is war worth it?

Contrary to misleading media reports, there is no evidence that Iran is presently attempting or even planning to build a bomb. But even if there were, an Israeli and/or US attack would merely postpone its development for a few years, and perhaps even spur and speed up nuclear weapons research for deterrence.

Returning to public opinion polling, a recent Pew Research Center telephone survey (Feb. 8-12) asked a sampling of 1500 adults in all 50 states, “How much, if anything, have you read or heard about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program?”

38% said “A lot”

39% said “A little”

23% said “Nothing at all”

Yet asked whether it was more important “to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action” or “to avoid a military conflict with Iran even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons,” 30% of respondents prioritized avoiding a military conflict, while 58% said military action might be necessary (20% more than the number who had said they “knew a lot” about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program). This isn’t a fluke: the same Pew survey asking the same question of different respondents Sept. 30-Oct. 4, 2009 found that only 41% said they “knew a lot” while 61% would approve of military action–the same 20% differential.

(In the most recent survey, respondents were also asked whether the US should support or oppose an attack on Iran by Israel “to stop its nuclear weapons program.” 39% said the US should support Israeli military action, 5% said the US should oppose Israeli military action, and just over half (51%) said the US should “stay neutral.”)

But what if the questions were framed differently? What if the pollster were to ask, “Would you approve or disapprove of Israel or the US delaying progress in Iranian nuclear research (not necessarily in pursuit of a nuclear weapon) by 3-5 years at most, by dropping spent uranium bunker-busting bombs on a country of 74 million people, a quarter of them younger than 14, if tens or even hundreds of thousands might die and perhaps millions more might suffer from genetic damage causing birth defects and cancers for generations to come?

And what if the follow-up question was, “If depleted uranium bunker busters were unable to penetrate Iranian underground facilities where nuclear research was allegedly taking place, much of it under the supervision of the IAEA, would you approve of Israel using nuclear weapons that would magnify death and destruction a hundredfold and result in what some might call ‘a holocaust’”?

Frankly, I have no idea what the pro and con percentages would be to questions asked in this way. But it’s time for the pollsters gauging public opinion to speak more forthrightly about what the real options–and the real consequences–of attacking Iran are. They can start by shedding the sanitized references to “military action” and “surgical strikes” and calling them what they are–acts of war that will inflict death and destruction on tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iranians. Iranians like the characters in the Oscar-winning film “A Separation,” who love their children and want the best for them, who worry about their aging parents, who struggle to make ends meet in the face of high unemployment and economic stress. As the film’s director Asghar Farhadi stated in his acceptance speech for 2011′s Best Foreign Language Film:

At a time of talk of war, intimidation and aggression is exchanged between politicians, the name of their county, Iran, is spoken here through her glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics.

Should that heavy dust be poisoned with toxic radioactive contaminants from depleted uranium and perhaps even nuclear fallout? War on Iran is no joke.

.  Dr Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization In an interview with  Al Jazeera English,,
Print Friendly and PDF

About the Author

avatar

Marsha B. Cohen is an analyst specializing in Israeli-Iranian relations and US foreign policy towards Iran and Israel. Her articles have been published by PBS/Frontline's Tehran Bureau. IPS, Alternet, Payvand and Global Dialogue. She earned her PhD in International Relations from Florida International University, and her BA in Political Philosophy from Hebrew University in Jerusalem.



14 Responses to Consequences of an Attack on Iran are no Joke

  1. avatar Gator says:

    “They can start by shedding the sanitized references to “military action” and “surgical strikes” and calling them what they are–acts of war that will inflict death and destruction on tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iranians.”
    ===
    Of course that will never happen. As you say “who cares?” Not the brain dead corporate media. Not the self-absorbed and unaware American people. And certainly not the political class, Ron Paul excepted. We’re dealing with willful ignorance on a mass scale. Things will only begin to change after the American people suffer terrible pain as a result of our government’s actions. In other words – after it’s too late.

  2. avatar A. Benway says:

    The consequences of war against Iran are plausibly far larger than the article suggests. Yes, Iran will probably be obliterated, but it doesn’t end there – ask Xerxes about Salamis…

    Of course, after Salamis it still took 150 years for that empire to be defeated..but the outcome in this case risks a nearly immediate collapse of empire on the double-down’d bet of snatching victory after a long trail of defeats beginning in ‘nam and running true through afraqnamistan…

  3. Most government bureaucrats – American, Israeli, British, etc. – are just psychopaths, and they like war, especially when they themselves don’t have to participate and risk their own lives and limbs (and their own children’s, e.g. the Romneys). They get off on causing destruction, destroying lives, people, property. It’s a power trip.

  4. avatar Duglarri says:

    Good that you point out that little detail about the Bushehr reactor, and the fact that the Israelis are proposing to turn it into a man-made Chernobyl. Except that this time, there’d be no rescue team to try and put out the fires and contain the radioactivity. They’d all be dead.

    Another little detail that seems lost in all of this is the lack of any scrap of a pretext that would be defensible under international law. Even the Iraq war was covered, however disingenuously, by the assertion that Iraq actually had WMD’s. This time there is not even a fig leaf.

    This means that Netanyahu is simply proposing a war on a par with the war Hitler initiated against Poland, and later against Russia: the highest crime, it was called at Nuremberg.

    Didn’t we hang quite a number of Germans and Japanese for that crime in 1946?

  5. avatar delia ruhe says:

    I think Chernus is correct to remind us of the historical context that gave rise to Israel’s belligerence and need for “existential threats.” It’s also necessary to combine that with the current context — namely, it’s relationships with those from whom it demands unconditional support.

    That Israel has ended up as an oppressive ethnic cleanser and an aggressive neighbour is a consequence of peaceful, “feminized” European Jewry’s struggle to masculinize, militarize, colonize, and establish their own patriarchal state in order to be recognized as “normal” — i.e., as human beings — by all the other patriarchal states.

    But, alas, Israel is not a “normal” state. It has no settled borders. It receives a vast amount of foreign aid, even though it is a wealthy First-World country. Unlike other countries, it is not subject to International Law and can break those laws with impunity. It is free to ignore United Nations resolutions without fear of consequences. It can occupy the territory of another nation, imprison its population, assassinate its leaders, torture its citizens, steal their land, and otherwise deny them the rights considered “inalienable” under international law. It is free to slaughter hundreds of defenceless people in the name of “national security” and “self-defense.” It can do all these things — and more — with the blessing of virtually all of our governments in the Western world. In sum, Israel is an abnormal state; its foreign policy is dysfunctional, and much of its population is delusional in the belief that antisemitism is the only reason why anyone would question Israel’s special privileges.

    Now, tell me: Is it possible to reason with a state that takes all those privileges for granted — privileges denied to every other state, including Iran? The US is going to war on Israel’s behalf because Israel demands and expects it. Get used to it.

    Not until Israel is made to understand that in order to get support from other nations, it will have to be subject to the same laws as other nations. That project may take years, even decades, because the rest of the world must be made to understand that too.

  6. avatar Donald says:

    The Iraq Body Count figure of 100,000 is almost certainly low. Even if you ignore the Johns Hopkins paper which came out in 2006 and estimated the death toll at 600,000 then (about 12 times the IBC number at the time), there is the more conservative estimate put out in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found somewhere between 100-225,000 deaths by 2006 (or between 2 to 4.5 times the IBC number for that period). Again, that was in 2006. Assuming the same ratios now, the death toll could be anywhere from 200-500,000. The Johns Hopkins number, if correct, would mean 1 million deaths.

    One reason it’s important to point this out is that our press generally uses the high estimates for the crimes of our enemies and low estimates for the death tolls that we cause. It artificially biases the argument in favor of US military intervention. Another reason is simply that we owe it to the dead.

  7. avatar Dillon says:

    Your poll question should be put in context. You would have to explain to the sample that an Iranian leadership with a nuclear weapon makes them invulnerable to outside pressure. If the Green Wave raises up again, the atom-bomb backed Iranian military can crack down without fear of an outside nation helping out (and without an outside nation helping out, there is little chance the Green Wave could overthrow the government. It could happen but it is very, very unlikely.) In other words, the US or some other world power, could not do for the Iranians what the US, France and Britain did for the people in Libya – they would not risk it if Iran had a nuclear weapon.

    “So, if you knew this,” a pollster could ask, “if you knew that Iran with a nuclear bomb potentially puts the average Iranian citizen under a sort of timeless oppression, …

    would you approve or disapprove of Israel or the US delaying progress in Iranian nuclear research (not necessarily in pursuit of a nuclear weapon) by 3-5 years at most, by dropping spent uranium bunker-busting bombs on a country of 74 million people, a quarter of them younger than 14, if tens or even hundreds of thousands might die and perhaps millions more might suffer from genetic damage causing birth defects and cancers for generations to come?”

    You see, if you put exactly why some people think bombing Iran is a good idea, instead of assuming they are all less intelligent and moral than yourself, then perhaps, your “polling” would be more accurate as well.

  8. avatar dickerson3870 says:

    RE: “The ever-smirking Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, has calculated that the casualties of a war with Iran could be limited to fewer than 500.” ~ Marsha Cohen

    ALSO SEE: Israel’s Defense Chief OK’s Hundreds of Israeli Deaths, By Ira Chernus, CommonDreams.org, 11/11/11

    (excerpt)…An essential motive of Zionism from its beginning was a fierce desire to end the centuries of Jewish weakness, to show the world that Jews would no longer be pushed around, that they’d fight back and prove themselves tougher than their enemies. There was more to Zionism than that. But the “pride through strength” piece came to dominate the whole project. Hence the massive Israeli military machine with its nuclear arsenal.
    But you can’t prove that you’re stronger than your enemies unless you’ve also got enemies — or at least believe you’ve got enemies — to fight against. So there has to be a myth of Israel’s insecurity, fueled by an image of vicious anti-semites lurking somewhere out there, for Zionism to work. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran has gradually risen to the top of Israel oh-so-necessary enemies list. Iranophobia is rampant in Israel, as one Israeli scholar writes, because “Israel needs an existential threat.”
    Anyone who has grown up in Israel, or in the U.S. Jewish community (as I did), and paid attention knows all this…

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-2

  9. avatar P.hD Candidate says:

    good words. given your reasoning you may wish to read the following piece which was assigned to us last year, however long and older it is:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/VAVhVDeGEHaKM7dEVYwe/full

  10. avatar Anar Green says:

    Dehumanization is what you do before you begin bombing.

    I have written elsewhere on the nature of Americans’ methodical disregard for Iraqi deaths–not just of those in positions of authority, but of most average people. As for Iranians, it digs even deeper. There is a venomous under-current which even _progressive_ Americans would not realize about themselves without deep introspection.

    The truth is in the details. Sometimes, it takes light shone on the minutiae to come to a realization about the true nature of one’s beliefs. Over the years, one such has been the tacit (no, _absent_) response of North Americans to Saddam’s use of chemical weapons on Iranians. In 2003, when much was made of his chemical weapons, there was barely any mention of their use on Iranians. When it was stumbled upon, it was never addressed. To an informed observer, the omission was glaring. Persistent. Widespread. It takes years of observation, and, at the end, the conclusion is inescapable: They think that Iranians deserved it! Given this, the slaughter will be even more wilful (“For god and country! Geronimo,…!”) and wilfully ignored than was Iraq’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Back to Top ↑