2006年VOA标准英语-US Military Planners Examine Possible Iran

（单词翻译）

By Andre de Nesnera
Washington
20 April 2006
 
  
  
As Iran continues to defy the United Nations Security Council by enriching uranium -- a process that could lead to building nuclear weapons -- the international community is looking at ways to prevent Tehran from continuing its enrichment program.  The Security Council might consider sanctions when it meets April 28. André de Nesnera looks at another possible move, a U.S. military strike against Iran.

-----------------------------------------------

Last week, the Iranian government announced that it has successfully enriched uranium at its Natanz nuclear facility.  Enriching uranium is a process that can be used either for civilian¹ or military purposes.

Iranian officials have said for years their program is meant only for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity.  But the United States and Europe believe Tehran's ambitions are ultimately to build a nuclear arsenal².
 

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (l) and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki  
  
Iran's latest announcement came as the United Nations Security Council prepares to meet next week to decide what actions to take, if any, against Tehran.  Experts say the decision to enrich uranium is in clear defiance³ of the Security Council, which has called on Iran to suspend such activities.

The Iranian statements also coincide with a debate in Washington generated by recent news reports that the United States may be considering military attacks -- including possible nuclear strikes -- against Iranian facilities.

Senior U.S. administration officials have dismissed these reports and President Bush says diplomacy⁴ is the way to proceed. 

President Bush  
  
"We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so," Mr. Bush said.

At the same time, President Bush said "all options are on the table."  And at a recent White House briefing, spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush is "skeptical⁵" that the confrontation⁶ between the international community and Iran can be resolved peacefully.

Joseph Cirincione is a nuclear expert with the Council on Foreign Relations.  Citing Defense⁷ Department sources, Cirincione says some U.S. officials have already settled on the military option.

"Senior officials inside the administration have already decided⁸ that they want to hit Iran, that the whole point is to overthrow⁹ the regime in Iran," Cirincione said.  "The nuclear issue is just one of the issues for them, perhaps the issue they can use to justify¹⁰ the action.  But in their view, the object of the exercise is to continue the process of regime change that they believe they started with the war in Iraq.  I don't believe there is a consensus¹¹ in the administration over this.  I think there is a debate over this.  What I don't see is any senior official strongly arguing for the negotiation¹² path.  That's what worries me."

Cirincione says he hears the same rhetoric¹³ today as he did several years ago in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"That's why it worries me when I see this coordinated¹⁴ campaign with the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the vice-president, the president, the 'national security strategy' -- all coming out talking about the imminent¹⁵ threat from Iran:  that it's our central challenge, that it is the chief but state sponsor of terrorism, that we reinforce the notion of pre-emptive attacks, that we specifically keep targeting Iran as our major problem.  It is not our major problem," Cirincione said.  "Iraq is our major problem.  Iran isn't even our major nuclear problem.  That's North Korea.  They already have nuclear material."

A number of military analysts¹⁶ have written about a possible U.S. attack on Iran.  One of them is Paul Rogers from Bradford University in England [north-east of Manchester].  He says the military assault would come from the air.

"You would probably have anywhere between one and four days of raids," Rogers said. "The most intensive ones, coming at the start, would be the ones directed at the air defenses and the nuclear-related sites.  And it would be a combination, principally, of air strikes and the very considerable use of cruise missiles -- both [air-to-surface] standoff missiles launched from aircraft also sea-launched cruise missiles from cruisers, destroyers and submarines at sea.  One of the key components¹⁷ on the U.S. side would be the use of the B-2 stealth bomber¹⁸, because that has an extraordinary capability¹⁹ to deliver precision-guided munitions²⁰ with very little risk of any planes being shot down by the Iranian air defenses."

Rogers believes to cripple Iran's nuclear power program, the targets should not only be buildings or factories.

"There would be the need to try and kill as many as possible of the scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians²¹ who are involved in the process because, in some ways, one sets back a program much more by killing²² the personnel," Rogers said.

There is also a debate among military analysts whether or not the United States should consider using tactical nuclear weapons -- so-called 'bunker-busting bombs' - against Iran.  Some experts say that is one of the options considered by military planners.  But it doesn't automatically mean nuclear weapons will be used.

Ivan Oerlich, from the Federation²³ of American Scientists, says nuclear weapons shouldn't even be considered in the planning process.

"The argument always is:  'Well, you want to give the president options in a crisis.'  But in fact, there are some options we don't give the president.  We don't give the president the option to use chemical weapons," Oerlich said. "We've decided that we are not going to have chemical weapons.  And we don't give the president the option to use biological weapons.  And I think that we ought to not include nuclear weapons, even if these plans are hypothetical, 'what if' kinds of planning exercises."

Analysts say the military option should be considered as a last resor, when all diplomatic efforts have failed.