Attacking Iran to Backfire: Report

"Right now in Iran, there are different opinions about all this, but after an attack you would have a united people and a united scientific community," said Barnaby.

"It is a mistake to believe that Iran can be deterred from attaining a nuclear weapons capability by bombing its facilities," the report said.

"In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time: some months rather than years."

The report suggested that it would be easy for Iran to salvage enough material for a bomb.

"This process would be hastened if Iran had a secret supply of uranium exafluoride or if it had constructed a small primitive reactor, fuelled with natural uranium, to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons," it said.

"It is also possible that, post-attack, Iran could purchase additional needed materials from sympathetic states or on the black-market."

The report further said a military aggression would prompt Tehran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"Iran has threatened to withdraw from the NPT and, should it do so post-attack, would build a clandestine program free of international inspection and control," it warned.

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran insists that its program is for peaceful civilian use, vowing repeatedly never to yield to the West's demand to freeze uranium enrichment.

Washington has been upping the ante against Tehran recently, restoring to the same aggressive rhetoric that preceded its invasion of Iraq.

Award-winning American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has revealed that the Pentagon recently formed a special group to plan an attack against Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the president, within 24 hours.

He believes the Bush administration is intent on striking Iran and would do that with or without the UN authorization as was the case with Iraq in 2003.

Ironically, the origins of Iran’s nuclear program date back to under the Shah when, in 1959, Iran purchased a research reactor from the United States.

Having established Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Shah Mohammad Pahlavi planned to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across Iran by 2000 with American assistance.

False Targets

The report also questioned the precision of any military strikes against Iran, saying the Islamic state is surely having one or two cards up its sleeves.

"It is also conceivable that Iran has built false targets, installations that appear to hold nuclear facilities but in fact act as decoys," it said.

"With inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that it would be possible to identify and subsequently destroy the number of targets needed to set back Iran’s nuclear program for a significant period."

Furthermore, it added, with the probable survival of key scientific personnel, it would only be a matter of time before Iran could rebuild its nuclear program.

"The argument that military strikes would buy time is flawed. It does not take into account the time already available to pursue diplomacy; it inflates the likelihood of military success and underplays the possibility of hardened Iranian determination leading to a crash nuclear program," it warned.

Chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday that negotiation remains the key to resolving the crisis.

ElBaradei was reporting to the IAEA's governing board about Iran's defiance of UN demands to rein in its nuclear program.

Western states are this week seeking even tougher sanctions at the UN Security Council against Iran.

Intentions

The report further said a war cannot be fought on "intentions."

"In the case of Iraq, the armed action launched aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction — that did not exist. It led to tragedy and regional turmoil," it said.

"In the case of Iran armed action would be aimed at intentions — that may or may not exist. However, the same result — tragedy and regional turmoil — would inevitably follow."

The IAEA protested last year to the Bush administration over an "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated" Congressional report on Iran's nuclear program.

The UN nuclear watchdog has not so far found any hard evidence that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons.

"It is inconceivable that the Security Council would authorise armed action against alleged intentions. Such action would therefore present another contravention of the UN Charter," the report said.

The report also said even targeting Iran's nuclear facilities would be illegal.

"If Iranian nuclear power plants at Bushehr were to be targeted, when they have begun to operate, such attacks would also violate the 1977 Additional Geneva Protocol (Art.56), which protects such plants," it said.

Unity

The report also argued that air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities would strengthen the Iranian regime and unite the Iranians from all walks of life behind the nuclear option.

"In the aftermath of an attack, it is likely that popular support for an Iranian nuclear weapon capability would increase; bolstering the position of hardliners and strengthening arguments that Iran must possess a nuclear deterrent," it said.

Leading British nuclear scientist Frank Barnaby, one of the report's authors, agreed.

"As soon as you start bombing you unite the population behind the government," Barnaby told The Guardian on Monday.

"Right now in Iran, there are different opinions about all this, but after an attack you would have a united people and a united scientific community."

The report concluded that diplomacy is the best way to "persuade Iran at least to suspend its enrichment program for a prolonged period of time."

"The conclusion is clear: diplomacy must be used. However, it is illogical to ask Iran to suspend its enrichment program before any diplomatic negotiations take place about the conditions for the suspension. It is time for serious talk - not for humiliating preconditions," it said.

Click here to read the full report.