SUMMARY: “Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran”
On September 13, a new paper on “Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran,” signed by over thirty senior security experts from the ranks of the military, diplomatic service and elected office, was released by The Iran Project. The paper provides a fact-based analysis of the inputs likely to be involved in an American military strike against Iran and its nuclear program, and the results such a campaign might achieve.
The signatories believe that the public discussion so far has been conducted without sufficient attention to the costs and benefits of military action against Iran and its nuclear program. Having identified this gap, the paper seeks to provide an analytical basis for such a serious discussion. It does not present conclusions or recommendations but aims to provide an accessible, fact-based foundation for discussion and debate.
Benefits of US military action with the objective to delay Iran’s nuclear program for up to four years could include:
Costs of U.S. military action could include:
Abramowitz, Morton, Amb.
Burns, Nicholas, Amb.
Cheney, Stephen A., BrigGen.
Djerejian, Edward, Amb.
Fallon, William, Adm.
Hagel, Chuck, Sen.
Kearney, Frank, LTG
Kurtzer, Daniel, Amb.
Luers, William, Amb.
The Iran Project is a non-governmental organization that seeks to resolve differences between the United States and Iran. Founded in 2002, for nearly a decade the Project has aimed to reduce mistrust and misunderstandings by establishing ongoing informal dialogues with Iranian counterparts, and to inform senior U.S. Government officials and members of Congress on the content and results of the Project’s work.