Thou Shall Not Attack Nuclear Sites

Is an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities legally defensible?


Thou Shall Not Attack Nuclear Sites
by Guive Mirfendereski

In 1977, a French company built for Iraq an above-ground light-water nuclear materials testing research reactor at Al Tuwaitha (“Osirak facility”), some eleven miles southeast of Baghdad. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), in September 1980, two Iranian warplanes attacked and damaged the facility. This constituted the world’s first attack on a nuclear site; it was also the first instance of a “preemptive” attack on a nuclear site arguably to forestall the suspected development of a nuclear weapon. However, France repaired the reactor.

On 7 June 1981, Israel conducted an air attack on the same facility based on the fear that Iraq would use the nuclear fuel for and from the reactor to produce weapons. The Operation Babylon was launched from Etzion Airbase, with eight F-16 multi-role fighters and six F-15 escorts. Ten Iraqi soldiers and one French civilian were killed in the bombing. In March and again November 1984, the Iraqi planes attacked Iran’s nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

When tensions in the Persian Gulf region flared up because of Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, beginning in August 1990, Iraq put its nuclear program into high gear in order to create a weapon by using radioactive fuel. On 17 January 1991, the United Nations’ coalition forces struck the facility in order to halt the weapons program. Three days into Operation Desert Storm air raids, 56 F-l6s attacked the facility, followed three days later with more raids with F117s. The facility, one of Iraq’s most fortified targets, was not fully destroyed until another raid, when 48 F-l6s targeted the facility seven more times for over a month, along with 17 F-l11s weeks later. After a total of nineteen days of strikes, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency declared the site to have been rendered severely degraded. This massive effort at the destruction of Osirak facility resulted in degradation, not elimination of the site. An Israeli aerial attack on Iran’s underground facilities from a thousand miles away – with flyover rights issues and refueling complications - has no guarantee of success. One cannot therefore rule out an Israeli missile attack on Iranian sites launched from land or the sea.

Neither the Iranian strike on Osirak in 1980 nor the coalition attack on the facility teased a rebuke from the international community. In fact, the Iraqi attacks on Bushehr in 1984 also failed to receive the opprobrium of the international community. Nor did the U.N. Security Council condemn Israel’s attack on Syria’s suspected nuclear facility al-Kibar on 6 September 2007: Only the head of the IAEA criticized the raid - saying that to bomb first and ask questions later - undermined the system and it did not lead to any solution to any suspicion.

The Israeli attack on Osirak facility was a different story, however. At the time Israel had claimed that it attacked the facility in self-defense, and that the reactor had less than a month to go before it might have become critical. On 19 June 1981, the United Nations Security Council, in resolution S/RES/487 (1981), noted that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iraq was in compliance with all IAEA safeguards. It noted also with deep concern the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations, which could have at any time exploded the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States. The resolution strongly condemned the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; called upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; called upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; and considered that that Iraq was entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it had suffered, responsibility for which had been acknowledged by Israel. Here is the text of the resolution in full:

Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,

Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;

2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;

3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;

4. Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.

Of the points made in the resolution – three bear discussion as they apply with equal vigor to the present situation:

1. Condemnation of the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct. Only the United Nations has the legal power to order use of force against a member State. To reach that point, there is apolitical process that must be exhausted first – in this through the IAEA and then the Security Council. The notion that the inability of the Security Council to authorize a forcible cessation of Iranian nuclear activity – because of Chinese or Russian veto – does not give Israel the alternative to act unilaterally unless an armed attack is occurred by Iran on Israel (under article 51 of the UN Charter) or there is a case in which the necessity of self-defense is instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation (under customary international law of preemptive self-defense). The requirements of neither of these two exceptions have been met in order to justify an Israeli attack on Iran. Paranoia is not cause to war.

2. U.N. Security Council’s calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof. This is an injunction against Israel by the Security Council of the United Nations to refrain in the future from any such acts of threats. The reason for this provision is clear – such acts are capable of generating radioactive fallout, collateral damage to civilians, and unnecessary destruction and suffering. But the preamble of the resolution cautions that the premeditated Israeli attack on nuclear site endangers international peace and security, “which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States.” Therefore, the premeditated Israeli threat or actual attack on Iranian facilities is a threat to international peace and security: therefore, Israel is already under an injunction by the Security Council not to attack nuclear sites – in Iraq, Iran or elsewhere for that matter.

3. U.N. Security Council’s calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Israel has not; while Iran is a member of the non-proliferation treaty and has adopted and accepted IAEA safeguards, cameras, and some level of inspection of its nuclear facilities. This recent mission by the IAEA was bound to fail because given the level belligerency toward Iran by the United States and Israel there was no sense in letting the representatives of an organization under Western influence to visit with Iranian nuclear scientists (whom the some can identify for termination with extreme prejudice), or visit and take measure of Iran’s missile technology, a component of conventional warfare.

If the nuclear issue was not bad enough – as to Israel - the recent rise in the price of oil in the United States surely would underwrite the popular support for war against Iran on its own merit. It is a declared policy of the United States to see to it that Persian Gulf oil flows uninterrupted and at reasonable prices to pumps in the Western world.


Recently by Guive MirfendereskiCommentsDate
Obama’s “Flexibility” Gaffe
Mar 28, 2012
Tale of Two Mahmouds
Sep 22, 2011
The Libya Adventure
Mar 30, 2011
more from Guive Mirfendereski

Major issues!

by Arj on

Although this article's main objective hinges on the legality (or lackthereof) of an attack on (any) nuclear installations, there are two major points in that regard that can not be overlooked. One is that Bushehr reactor, as opposed to those of Syria and Iraq, is already operational and an attack will have catastrophic consequences both in terms of environment and human life -- potential magnitude of reprisals and retributive reactions notwithstanding!

The second point is that evidently IRI most likely seeks weaponization capabilities with regards to its nuclear programme rather than being caught red-handed building one. Which would render "pre-emptive" strikes pointless due to the stealth nature of such programme that does not necessarily rely on Bushehr for its fissile material, for such material could be readily imported and utilized at the crucial moment!

However, Obama's latest political move to persuade N. Korea to roll back its nukes program towards disarmamant, is a smart move that could potentially deprive IRI of one of its main prospective sources! After all, IMO, there are no military solutions to this!


Dear ROTPC: We seem to share some concerns/views but not all...

by Bavafa on

It appears that we both have great concern for the loss of innocent lives but we diverge about the intention of IRI fueled by its rhetoric.


But in case of the IRI nuclear program I got the feeling that the war already started


While I agree with you and share the same feeling, I hardly believe that IRI intentions are to use nuclear weapon in wiping “the illegitimate Zionist entity” off the map, at least not literally but perhaps by diminishing their military superiority in ME and thru power sharing.


We need to keep in mind that:


  •     There is no concert evidence for IRI to have a military nuclear program [at least yet]
  •     Even Israelis officials believe and admitted that IRI will not use the nuclear weapon to attack Israel, as this will be the end of IRI and Iran for good without any doubt or sympathy as mutual destruction will be guaranteed and IRI has proven to be interested in survival and not suicidal.


Here is how I interpret the real concerns for Iranian nuclear weapon:

  •         A nuclear race in ME ( The race has already started by Israel and must be part of that end)
  •        Power sharing in ME ( this is more or less in place already and it can be delayed but not denied)
  •        IRI Arming Hezbollah without [real] impunity (A credible effort in creating peace in ME will nullify this concern)
  •        Prevent the thread of a credible military attack [read influence/control] by US and guarantee of flow of oil (This will serve the long term future/benefit of Iranian people (read not IRI)


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Dear Bavafa, I am in line with you

by radius-of-the-persian-cat on

concerning my hope that no innocennt people should be sacrificed in a military or political action (it has nothing to do with my family or my friends or my compatriots). I feel the same anger if innocent people all over the world are inflicted by criminal, stupid military actions. But in case of the IRI nuclear program I got the feeling that the war already started. The repeated acclamations of the regime to wipe out Israel ("the illegitime zionist entity") from the map leaves very little doubt about their intention, once they posses the right weapon. And a nuclear war in the ME would cause millions of death, virtually within hours, and the vast majority would be civillians. The horror of a nuclear war has been forgotten, for some reason. The consequences of a nuclear contamination as caused by an explosion in or an attack on a atomic installation (as happened in Tschernobyl or Fukushima), in contrast, will have absolutely neglectable health consequences. But the staff that works on the development of nuclear weapons wheresoever must know that they are part of the military infrastructure. Nobody has to work in the arms-industry. Just remember people like Joseph Rothblat, Oppenheimer, or Andrej Sacharov , key figures in the nuclear weapons industry of the US and USSR. They understoud that everybody who contribute its talent to the development of nuclear weapons sells its soul to the devil. They dropped out this machinery, and this is what I recommend anybody in Iran as well. There are better ways to build a future for your country. 

long live Iran

To the interest of the readers of this news and the author:

by long live Iran on

Please read what it has written in Australian Institute for National Strategic Studies websit before rushing into any conclusion.

  "Whether by coincidence or design, nine days into the war, on September 30, 1980, two Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad also bombed the Osirak reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported, although the reactor was up and running again a short time thereafter. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.

It is not clear whether this attack was consciously designed as a strategic strike to deny Saddam Hussein an atomic bomb or whether this raid was an afterthought of two Iranian pilots who had weapons and fuel left to bomb a target of opportunity after their group had attacked the electric power plant."

Long Live IRAN for EVER.

Reference:  //

Guive Mirfendereski

Response to some of the comments

by Guive Mirfendereski on

The intent of my article was to begin a conversation on the legality in international law of an attack on nuclear installations – indeed on any installation with potentially wide-reaching consequences to human life –Iranian or other. I want to respond to a few of the comments.


I want to thank Mohammad Alireza for his valuable contribution to the conversation – which was to highlight the environmental impact of an attack on Iranian nuclear sites – and would like to add that the infliction of that kind of impact on human life and the environment is prohibited under every Hague and Geneva conventions (and protocols) that regulate conduct of warfare and infliction of damage on civilians.


I am not very impressed by the shrill opinion that subjects the discussion of a right-based subject to political vitriol – the elimination of IRI is not the subject of this thread. That goes for the comments made by Artificial Intelligence – Iran is still and will in the end wining the nuke game against the “international community” on this issue, no matter the cost – especially if it is not developing a nuclear weapon.  


I wan to thank Masoud Kazemzadeh for offering thoughtful and informed observations (“counterpoints”) – filling the gap in my argument; although gaps are not “flaws” – they are shortcomings due to the nature of the post, for which nevertheless I take full responsibility.

 As for long live Iran – he/she asked about my reference and yet saw it fit in a sanctimonious flare to declare that my “information is not correct!” This from a person who then proceeded to inform the world that he/she questioned my information on the basis of his/her Googling (whatever query term) and coming up with the following sources:  //  and // . Please try the following links instead:

Re Iranian attack on Osirak - //

Re Iraqi attacks on Bushehr: //

But most importantly: // and



I reserve the last of my response for one Midwesty who concluded that my “article and the weight of [my] introduction as a green light to a preemptive attack to Iranian nuclear facilities as the rest of [my] article fails to seriously oppose such an action.” I am no more responsible for the cockeyed self-serving conclusion that a reader draws from the article. Bavafa, on the other hand, wrote: “I still applaud Mr. Guive Mirfendereski to speak against an illegal attack by Israel.” (Emphasis added).


Bavafa also wrote:  “[A]s a point of compare and contrast between Israel and Iran internal affairs, we can see an ex-Iranian living in Israel can write clearly in opposition to their government’s potential plan against an adversary and could only imagine if a Jewish person in Iran was going to write such article in opposition to IRI plan and how he would be received [in Evin].” For the record, I do not live in Israel. I am familiar with Evin only because a relative or two spent time there before the Overthrow and my father served time there after the Overthrow!


It is a curious matter that people who speak truth to power shall have no sleep in the light of day or the dark of night.


Atom for Peace!

G. Rahmanian

The Only Solution!

by G. Rahmanian on

For Iranians The Only Solution to this issue is the removal of the Islamist terrorists in Tehran from power. Otherwise, they will sacrifice millions more lives.

These criminal Islamists are adamant  to provoke yet another war because they stubbornly believe their survival depends on one.

Without IR and with the establishment of a democracy, Iranians will not have to worry about wars, sanctions, abuse of human rights, executions of Iran's citizens in cold blood, destruction of their cultural heritage, devastation of their natural resources, depletion of their country's coffers, educational and gender apartheid and countless other problems they are currently dealing with.

Jeesh Daram

بترکه چشم حسود و بخیل، اسفند دود کنید برای ایران عزیز

Jeesh Daram



اقلیم پارس را غم از آسیب دهر نیست

تا بر سرش بود چو تویی سایه خدا

امروز کس نشان ندهد در بسیط خاک

مانند آستان درت مأمن رضا

بر تست پاس خاطر بیچارگان و شکر

بر ما و بر خدای جهان آفرین جزا

یا رب ز باد فتنه نگهدار خاک پارس

چندان که خاک را بود و باد را بقا


بترکد چشم حسود بخیل، اسفند دود کنید برای بقا و سلامتی ایران عزیز،  تا کور شود هرآنکه نتوان دید 



IRI should stick with Cuban stem cell technology, instead of ...

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

N.Korean Nuclear technology.

This Nuclear thing is bad, bad, bad for their bassiji "scientists" well being, and their tight passages. Mo. Gaddafi would tell them so...

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."


Dear ROTPC: Unless we, including you, are willing….

by Bavafa on

To accept the consequences of a military attack on the nuclear facility as if our family members and loved ones are affected as equally, we (including you) have no right to wish them on others.  In another word, think about it as if your son, daughter, wife or husband works there.  Will you wish for it to be bombed?

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 


Joe L.

Masoud Kazemzadeh

by Joe L. on

In this comment, there was nowhere that I said anything "Against" homosexuals. You are therefore accusing me for something I didn't do. I don't know why you are so mad, I have NOTHING AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, and you should not feel hurt.


real numbers

by radius-of-the-persian-cat on

I know I will cause a lot of anger by this, but let me just tell you some numbers:

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki A-bomb blasts killed about 200 000 people, mainly by the thermal/mechanical effects. The radiation itself was responsible for a very smal number of casualities. In particular, the risk to die from cancer is fundamentally overrated. The A-bomb radiation caused about 600 extra cancer cases among the survivors, as compared to 20 000 cancer cases which appeared by natural causes. You can find these numbers at UNSCEAR (UN scientific council on the effect of atomic radiation), ICRP (International Commission for Radiation Protection) and RERF (Japanese-US Radiation Effects Research Foundation). An "accident" at a nuclear facility (like Chernobyl, Harrisburg, Fukushima, or Quom) without any doubt will cause much less victims than the blast of a nuclear bomb. Dont forget, a weapon is a weapon, it is designed to kill as many people as possible.

And if there is no other way to stop the development of nuclear weapons and its potential use, I would therefore opt for an attack on the production facilities. If I could turn back time, and would have the power to do so, I would also bomb Los Alamos this could have prevented  the development of the two US bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945.

Joe L.

Who cares?

by Joe L. on

"Unrelated to the article, I am strongly opposed to Israeli attacks on the fundamentalist regime's nuke facilities. My preferred option is to overthrow the fundamentalist terrorist regime. In other words, the solution is REGIME CHANGE. "

Who cares what you want?

long live Iran

Could we follow referring to correct references.

by long live Iran on

Dear All,

If we would like to write news. Could we respect the readers and stick to the base of jurnalism which is refereing to a correct reference? It will save readers time and bring more credit and trust to the Author.

Long Live IRAN for EVER, 

long live Iran

What is your reference? It seems information is not correct!

by long live Iran on

Dear Guive,

What is your reference when you wrote" in September 1980, two Iranian warplanes attacked and damaged the facility."

I just googled in Wikipedia aand it was written"...nuclear reactors bombed by Israel in 1981 and the United States in 1991." There is no single word about Iranian attack to this facilities!!


And in Wikipedia about Bushehr power plant it is mentioned "The reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes from 1984 to 1988, during the Iran–Iraq War"


Long Live IRAN for EVER. 


Arash Kamangir

Left has become IR's lawyer!

by Arash Kamangir on

The left does not need to meddle in issues such as"legality of Israel's attack against IR"!!! Israel has the right to defend himself against any tyranny in Middle East and does not need any legal basis for its act!

Masoud Kazemzadeh

Dear Guive

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Guive,

Thank you for the article. I liked reading the precedents. It appears to me that there are several "flaws" or "counter-points" to your arguments.

1. You are right to state that the UNSC harshly condemned Israel for the Osirak attacks. However, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, UNSCOM inspectors discovered that Saddam was able to hide vast amounts of his nuclear WEAPONS programs from the earlier IAEA inspectors. In 1992, it was said that Iraq was about 1 year from developing its nuclear weapons program. It appears to me that the lesson of the discovery of this was that in actual fact, then Israel was right to pre-emptively attack Osiraq and the UNSC was WRONG in condemning Israel’s pre-emptive attacks of Iraq’s nuclear facilities.


2. Perhaps, this also explains that there was no UNSC resolution condemning Israel for the 2007 attack on Syria’s nuclear facility. Yes, Mohammad Al Baradei criticized Israel. But many no longer consider El Baradei as an honest neutral person. The facts about the IRI’s nuclear programs which have been released confirm the great lack of objectivity of El Baradei. El Baradei himself said that due to POLITICAL and partisan reasons, he changed the wording like 80 times so as not to state bluntly the weapons nature of the IRI’s nuclear program. He said that if he wrote bluntly about the data, that would provide ammunition for the Bush administration to attack the IRI. Therefore, El Baradei distorted and undermined the professional nature of the IAEA reports to undermine the Bush administration and help the fundamentalist terrorist regime. And subsequently, the IAEA found traces of nuclear materials in Syria. And the Assad regime then BANNED the IAEA from further inspections of Syria.


3. As you mention that UNSC did not condemn Iran for making the Sept 1980 attacks on Osiraq because there existed a condition of war between IRI and Iraq. Could Israel claim that there exists a state of war between the IRI and Israel now. For example, the IRI is believed to have carried out terrorist attacks against Israelis in Georgia, India, and Thailand. Can Israel consider these acts as casus belli?


4. There are at numerous IAEA Board of Governors and 4 UNSC resolutions against the IRI demanding an immediate suspension of uranium enrichment. The IRI is thus is violation of the UNSC, thus is violating international law.

5. Could Israel argue that not only it is in a state of war with the IRI, but that the IAEA and UNSC means were already exhausted in a long period from 2002? That all the sanctions of the UNSC failed to compel the IRI to follow the IAEA and UNSC mandates.

6. Could Israel claim that its attacks on the IRI’s nuclear facilities were legitimate and legal pre-emptive attacks?

7. Could Israel argue that such attacks were actually the least violent means to stop the far greater violence that nuclear weapons in the hands of a genocidal fanatic terrorist regime like the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran would have caused? In other words, considering the martyrdom ideology of the Shia fundamentalist regime, deterrence and containment would not work with the fundamentalist regime. That possession of nukes by IRI might, in all likelihood, lead to nuclear exchange, which could cause the deaths of 70 million Iranians, and about 7 million Israelis, and about 4 million Palestinians.


8. In conclusion, it appears to me that the IAEA FAILED to compel the fundamentalist regime to abide by its Board of Governors decisions. That the UNSC failed to compel the fundamentalist regime to abide by the UNSC resolutions. And that due to the Russian and Chinese veto, the UNSC could not pass real strong resolutions imposing real strong economic sanctions on the fundamentalist regime similar to those imposed on the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. Therefore, there is NO other method to stop the fundamentalist regime but the military strikes. And considering the state of war between the IRI and Israel, couldn’t Israel argue that it has the right under the doctrine of pre-emption of imminent threat to use military strikes against the IRI?


Again, I thank you for this article. It appears to me (as a political scientist and not as an expert of international law), that your arguments do NOT convince me that the UNSC would take a vote and condemn Israel for attacking the IRI’s nuclear facilities. In other words, it appears to me that the Israelis could make an argument that their attacks are legitimate self-defense against a genocidal fanatic regime whose slogan has been "Marg bar Israel" from possessing the means to carry out their genocidal official slogans. Thus, I am not convinced that the UNSC would condemn an Israeli attack on the fundamentalist regime’s nuke facilities as against international law.





P.S.  Unrelated to the article, I am strongly opposed to Israeli attacks on the fundamentalist regime's nuke facilities.  My preferred option is to overthrow the fundamentalist terrorist regime.  In other words, the solution is REGIME CHANGE.



The supplemented and counter arguments given ….

by Bavafa on

By Mr. Mohammad Alireza, in my opinion, are very valid points that gives another dimension to such adventure, the potential unforeseen disaster that could affect large number of civilian.   This somehow resembles like the [infamous] comment by Tucker Carlson recently where he first advocated the annihilation of Iran and then in back tracking move, he was rejecting it due to the [negative] effect it will have on the US economy.

  However, I still applaud Mr. Guive Mirfendereski to speak against an illegal attack by Israel.  And as a point of compare and contrast between Israel and Iran internal affairs, we can see an ex-Iranian living in Israel can write clearly in opposition to their government’s potential plan against an adversary and could only imagine if a Jewish person in Iran was going to write such article in opposition to IRI plan and how he would be received [in Evin]


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 


Artificial Intelligence

Dear Mr. Mirfendereski

by Artificial Intelligence on

Aren't you the same person who was keeping score between the US & IRI re the nuclear issue and proudly proclaiming the IRI ahead in the score?

What is the score today Mr. Mirfenderski? I wonder how the following have effected the score:

1) Sham elections of 2009

2) Sanctions and their effects on the IRI economy

3) Constant attacks on IRI scientists 

4) IRI terror agents getting caught in Asia with bomb making material 

5) Israelis getting X radar & F35s

6) IRI about to lose its main evil axis ally Syria

What is the score? 

I understand that many Iranians have an oghdeh and really want Iran to win. 

I have an oghdeh and I want Iran to win as well. I  want Iran to win very much Mr. Mirfenderski. 

However, the IRI is not Iran and it does not represent Iranians. The nuclear power produced and the potential weaponization of such power is not for the benefit Iranians. Its only for the benefit of the Mullahs and their crazy ideology which I am sure you do not share.

Once you realize this and accept that the IRI is not Iran, you will  realize how you have been miscalculating the score between the US & the IRI. You are also miscalculating on the parties who desire the destruction of this potential nuclear power in the hands of the IRI. 


Oon Yaroo

Ostaad Guive M. for the very well-researched reasons articulated

by Oon Yaroo on

above military strikes on the IRR nuclease sites for an effective, ultimate and disabling blow may require at least 100,000,000 sorties by the entire US, Brits, French, and Israeli Air Forces!

Even then, who really cares as to who was recognized/blamed as the perpetrator of the assault in the eyes of the International communities.

That's why the only viable and practical solution to the IRR predicament is a sustained level of massive and I mean massive military strikes on its targets such as Khamenei's headquarters, Ahmadinejad's headquarters, IRR Majles when in full session, IRGC, Basiji, and every and each of its centers of power, finance, support and logistics.

Of course, all these should be followed by an invasion of at least 500,000 soldiers on the ground. The estimate of the number of soldiers on the ground is very close to the estimate the late Shah of Iran quoted during the 1980 interview with David Frost.

This would hopefully secure the nuclear stuff from getting in the hands of the bad guys (I know, it is sort of oxymoron since it is already in the hands of the bad guys!)

Dear Dr. Guive M. I am a Dentist. In this position, I have to apply sound, practical, and seeing-the-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel solutions to my patients. If a tooth can not be treated with filling, root canal, or other remedies one must yank it out once and for all!

In summary, yes to military strikes on IRR centers of power except the nuclear facilities!

Thank you sir for your attention!



by Midwesty on

Your introduction is flawed so much that it overshadows the rest of your article:

The Iranian attack on Osirak was not technically a preemptive attack as in weeks earlier many Iranian infrastructures been indiscriminately and preemptively bombed by Iraqis leaving many Iranian civilian casualties. Iran's most humane reaction to the attack was to attack the military and industrial sites rather than targeting the civilians.

I see your article and the weight of your introduction as a green light to a preemptive attack to Iranian nuclear facilities as the rest of your article fails to seriously oppose such an action.

I say, nice try bud! 


Maryam Hojjat

Mr. Alireza, Thank you

by Maryam Hojjat on

for scaring Information. 

Mohammad Alireza

Focus on present not past....

by Mohammad Alireza on

The title of your scholarly article refers to Iran but the text focuses entirely on Iraq. Why?

Here are some links and excerpts for why Iranian nuclear sites should not be bombed:

"Fallout from the use of RNEP against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran would spread for thousands of miles across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. It would kill 3 million people within 2 weeks of the explosion and expose 35 million to cancer causing radiation."


"Reactors and enrichment facilities are built of extra strong concrete, often with multiple layers of containment domes, often built underground. Bombing such facilities will require powerful explosives, earth penetrator war heads, maybe nuclear warheads. The explosions will blow the contamination high into the atmosphere. Where will it go is a question that is difficult to predict."

"The nuclear fallout from bombing Iran will have a half life of 700 million years."


“My calculations are that up to 9 or 10 million people could be killed with that type bomb.”


“However, the number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million.”


Even though some of these studies refer to RNEP's modern "bunker busters" that have been sold to Israel will have a similar outcome but with less fallout.

Finally, the question, "is attacking Iran legally defensible" is not an issue that would concern a country threatening a war crime. More to the point would be if the attack would be morally and environmentally defensible.