Analysis: Would Iran retaliate to bombing?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) -- Although U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military would likely overwhelm their forces, Tehran could still rely on a host of weapons, from covert terror campaigns to long-range missiles, to retaliate against an American attack.

While Iran’s aging conventional military forces have little hope of successfully maintaining combat against U.S. forces in the Gulf in the case of U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, a quick attack by Tehran on ships in the Persian Gulf, and support of anti-American militias in Iraq and Afghanistan, could prove a real threat.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday warned that an attack on Iran would be a catastrophe, but reports on Aug. 14 that the Bush administration may designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group renewed fears that Washington may be seriously considering military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The guard is a military group within the Iranian government, but separate from the regular armed forces, and is widely believed to control Tehran’s nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran recently agreed to a timeline for more negotiations on convincing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but the Bush administration dismissed the agreement as nothing more than further delay by Iran.

The United States, as well as its allies in the United Nations, feels Iran is trying to develop nuclear technology and know-how in order to build a nuclear bomb, but Iran denies this, saying it only wants peaceful but independent nuclear power.

Some analysts see bombing as a possible approach if negotiations fail, but many think it would do little to eliminate the threat of Iran’s nuclear program, and at worst could rally support behind Tehran at a time when government economic policies are blamed for high unemployment and fuel shortages have led to violent protest.

But if Iran is attacked, Tehran has a wide variety of options to use in retaliating against the United States, analysts say.

Iran has “a whole host of things, from the conventional, to the irregular, to missiles to terrorism, that they could use to retaliate,” according to Peter Brookes, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation who has written extensively on U.S. relations with Iran, as well as Iran’s ambitions in the region.

“We could see some attacks against our forces in the Persian Gulf. They have anti-ship cruise missiles, highly capable Chinese anti-tank cruise missiles; they also could do suicide attacks against our ships,” Brookes said.

Not only could Iran act against naval forces, but its 1,500-kilometer-range Shahab-3 missile is within striking distance of Israel’s largest city, Tel-Aviv.

Anthony Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic & International Studies who wrote several reports earlier this year about Iran’s military and its capacity to retaliate against the United States, also concluded that Iran could attack the United States with anti-ship missiles and mines.

Aside from attacks on U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, both analysts suggested Iran would likely pursue unconventional attacks on the United States and its interests in the Middle East, whether by attacking U.S. territory through Hezbollah sympathizers in the United States or through increased support of insurgent activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Iran has close relations with many Iraqi Shiites, particularly Shiite political parties and militias. Some Iraqi groups have warned against U.S. military strikes against their neighbors,” Cordesman wrote in a March report.

The Strait of Hormuz, at the base of the Persian Gulf and through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flows, has also been mentioned as a possible target of Iran, although Iran’s dependency on oil revenue would make that a problem for the country.

“The economy is in terrible shape in Iran, so if they don’t mind cutting their nose off to spite their face, they could certainly try. I don’t think they could cut off the Strait of Hormuz, but they could certainly sink a tanker,” Brookes said.

Cordesman’s assessment falls along the same lines.

“It could not close the Strait of Hormuz, or halt tanker traffic, but it could threaten and disrupt it,” and it “can create a high-risk premium and potential panic in oil markets,” he said.

Despite how it chooses to retaliate if attacked, Brookes does not doubt Iran would act.

“I believe there would be some retaliation against U.S. forces in the region, U.S. interests in the region, and potentially the United States, and I think potentially Israel as well. And anybody who supported them probably would also become targets as well,” he said.

Iran’s outdated conventional military would likely pose little long-term threat to American forces, although it is currently modernizing its forces in an attempt to gain regional clout.

“They are trying to increase the capability of their conventional forces. Iran sees itself as a rising power in the region, it wants to be the most powerful country in the region, and it wants to be the regional hegemon, and to do that, it’s going to have to improve its military strength,” Brookes said.