05 February 2007

Military action against Iran would have disastrous consequences, according to a report released on Monday by a coalition of British-based think tanks, faith groups and others who urged a new diplomatic push to avert conflict. The report came a day after three former high-ranking US military officers called on Britain to help defuse the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, saying a military strike would be a disaster for the region.

The joint report by 15 organizations, including the Foreign Policy Center, Oxfam and the Muslim Council of Britain, said an attack on Iran would, among other things, strengthen Iran's atomic ambitions, undermine hopes for stability in Iraq and damage global economic growth through higher oil prices.

"The consequences of military action against Iran are not only unpalatable, they are unthinkable," said Stephen Twigg, director of the Foreign Policy Center. "Iran is still years away from having a nuclear weapon. There is still time to talk."

Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador to Tehran from 2002 to 2006 said it was "vital that the US becomes fully involved in creative diplomacy."

"Recourse to military action - other than in legitimate self-defense - is not only unlikely to work but would be a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world," he said.

Among the unintended consequences of an attack on Iran, the report said, would be to bolster the position of hard-liners within Iran's political system and set back the chances of reform. It could also inspire terrorist attacks in Western countries.

"I think our decision-makers have yet to appreciate the full consequences of a military attack against Iran," said Ali Ansari, director of the Institute of Iranian Studies at St Andrews University. "The view held by some in Washington that all diplomatic and political options have been exhausted is palpable nonsense that needs to be challenged," he added.

The report's recommendations include removing or finding a compromise on preconditions to talks, such as the insistence Iran suspend uranium enrichment; seeking direct talks between Iran and the US; and developing a "grand bargain" package of incentives made by major world powers to Iran last June in return for its suspension of sensitive nuclear work.

"Only through direct US-Iranian engagement can an agreement be found and the potentially devastating consequences of military action be avoided," it concluded.

In a letter to the Sunday Times newspaper, the three former officers also urged US President George W. Bush to open talks, "without preconditions," with the Iranian government in a bid to find a diplomatic solution.

The signatories were retired Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, a senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation in Washington; retired Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, former head of US Central Command; and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, former director of the Center for Defense Information.

They said Britain "has a vital role to play in securing a renewed diplomatic push" and urged Prime Minister Tony Blair to make it clear he would oppose any military attack on Iran.

They said an attack "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions." - Reuters, AP