follow us like us subscribe contact us
Loading, please wait

Attacking Iran’s Nuclear Sites Would be Sheer Madness

By Claude Salhani | Tue, 14 May 2013 22:23 | 9

A timely article by Wade Stone for Global Research examines what would happen to the oil producing nations of the Gulf in the event that Israel would target Iran's nuclear reactors and facilities; the reply and the scenario given is nothing short of a nightmare. Most, if not all, the cities in the region of the Arabian Gulf – Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, Riyadh and others – would become uninhabitable for decades to come.

The article provides a good study of the ensuing catastrophe that would result. Though frightening as it is, the article looks at the issue mostly from a technical perspective and does not convey enough the hellish reality of the immediate panic that would befall the region and indeed the world, given the repercussions resulting from the inter-dependency of nations today.

In the event of an attack by Israel on the Iranian sites at Bushehr, Natanz, Arak and Isfahan in order to prevent the Islamic Republic’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, and if the fallout was to hit certain weather conditions prevalent in the Gulf region the result is that nearly the entire region would become uninhabitable for decades to come. And says the author, the disaster would not be limited to the region, but depending on the weather pattern, the fallout may very well hit Israel and even Turkey.

Much of what would happen depends largely on the climatic conditions at the time of the attacks.  Great desert storms known as the shamal and the sharqi, sweep down and blankets the entire region and would bring with it contaminated sand particles.

Related article: Two Years After Being Destroyed, Fukushima Hold Anti-Terrorism Drill

If you saw one of the Mission Impossible movies where Tom Cruise chases one of the bad guys through the streets of Dubai as a monstrous sand storm blows in, then you may have a better idea of what these storms refer to.  Now imagine that same sand storm blow through the region only this time each little particle of sand contaminated by nuclear fallout. A single particle is all that is needed to contaminate a human being.

The author of the article states that the storm travels in a semi-circular route, at a speed of 30 to 300 kilometers through the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In other words the major oil producing centers as well as a large number of refineries would become contaminated.

Aside from the ecological disaster of which there would be no precedent, there is also the human aspect of the tragedy. And then the economic fallout as oil production from the region would plummet overnight.

Think of the disaster that such an impact would have on the price of oil if suddenly more than 17 million barrels per day comprising the joint production form Saudi Arabia (10 million bbl/d), the UAE (3.087 million bbl/pd) Qatar (1.63 million bbl/pd) and Bahrain (44,800 bbl/pd). Not to mention the oil from Iraq and Iran, that would plunge the world into one of the greatest crisis ever experienced.

Consider the consequences:  the first tier would be ground zero, the immediate areas affected by the fall out. Here there would be sheer hysteria and pandemonium on a biblical scale as that area would witness a mass exodus by hundreds of thousands of residents, foreign and nationals, all trying to get out of the contaminated area as people in total panic would end up fighting each other for the last seats on airplanes out of the region.

Then imagine if you will the insanity as those who failed to secure air travel would get in their cars and start driving west.

Related article: Scientists must Study the Nuclear Weak Force to Better Understand LENR

The second tier of trouble would immediately be felt as an unprecedented oil shortage would create havoc on the world markets and stock exchanges. Wall Street, the FT100 and other international markets would crash, companies would collapse overnight.

The third tier of disaster would come from countries slightly removed from the front-line states as the after effects begin to settle in.

In terms of damages, said the author of the report “Think of the nuclear accident at Fukushima” in Japan says the author, “and multiply it by ten.” Fukushima was unquestionably the world’s worst nuclear disaster to date, surpassing Chernobyl in Ukraine, where the death from cancer reached a million.  

“Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would leave the entire Gulf State region virtually uninhabitable,” writes Stone.

Okay, those in favor of military action by Israel and/or the United States on Iran’s nuclear facilities may argue that this is a worst case scenario and that any strike by Israel would be “surgical and tactical and precise.” And they may well be right. But even a best-case scenario where minimum nuclear waste is released into the atmosphere and claims that the heat from the fires caused by the bombing would incinerate all nuclear particles, there would still be some contamination.

So after all perhaps the great cities of the region would not become uninhabitable as imagined by one writer. Indeed, it may be hyped in order to grab readers’ attention. Maybe in the best case scenario there would be “minimum collateral damage” where “only” a million or so people would die over the span of a decade from cancers brought about by the attacks.  What was it that Josef Stalin used to say about killing a million people? “It’s only a statistic.

By. Claude Salhani

Claude Salhani, a specialist in conflict resolution, is an independent journalist, political analyst and author of several books on the region. His latest book, 'Islam Without a Veil,' is published by Potomac Books. He tweets @claudesalhani.

About the author

More recent articles by Claude Salhani

Wed 23 July 2014
Are Civilian Flights Over War Zones Safe?
Tue 15 July 2014
The Islamic State: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Tue 08 July 2014
Obama Fiddles While Iraq Burns
Mon 23 June 2014
ISIS: Is It All About The Oil?
Tue 17 June 2014
Why ISIS Won't Stop With Iraq

Leave a comment

  • Wade Stone on May 15 2013 said:
    Nice follow-up to my article, Claude. You are certainly right regarding the immediate crash of oil output and the consequences to global markets should Iran's nuclear facilities be attacked. However, your "science" regarding the surgical strikes and "incineration" of nuclear particles is dead wrong, unfortunately. If anything, such high temperatures result in more, not less, radiation being emitted. Radiation is released by heat, not incinerated. The only thing "surgical" strikes would do (in reality no such thing exists anyway) is hit the desired targets and not the civilian populations, which would lead to exactly the scenario I described. Yes, a certain amount of the larger particles of uranium would be broken down, but the "fallout" (think of the amount of radiation fallout from any nuclear bomb detonation, which obviously is not incinerated) would be as extreme and possibly more so than any of us like to imagine.

    best regards,
    Wade
  • Crocodile Chuck on May 15 2013 said:
    This article is shallow and misleading. Is it about Israel itself using nukes to attack Iran's sites for uranium enrichment?

    Or does it pretend to forecast the results of using conventional weapons? And why and how would the dire effects cited occur?

    More health physics, less 'conflict resolution'. Why was this published?
  • I don't get it on May 15 2013 said:
    Just for my edification, what would happen if Israel did NOT blow up Iran's nuclear sites, and Iran launched a nuclear missile at Tel Aviv? From the tenor of your article, it seems as though all of that nuclear fallout would either disappear or only kill the Israelis, who don't (yet) have any oil anyway. Is that a better result?
  • Joe on May 15 2013 said:
    A conventional (explosives) attack on Iran would be a disaster. However, I read an analysis that explored other options. Since there are so many dispersed sites in the country, there is no way to hit them all hard enough to set back or stop their weapons program... except one. EMP the entire country. I found that analysis frighteningly possible. The weapons needed have been around for some time now.
  • claude salhani on May 15 2013 said:
    Wade,
    I was being sarcastic in my comments about the fire killing the nuclear particles given that some people believe this may be the case. You're absolutely right. it would not prevent the fallout.


    thanks for your comments and for the excellent piece you did; claude
  • claude salhani on May 15 2013 said:
    Thank you very much for your comments I think you may have missed the point. The topic being discussed is what would happen in the worst case scenario if Israel, or anybody else for that matter, were to attack nuclear facilities in the Gulf region. You can also transpose the location and say what would happen if nuclear facilities were attacked the United States, in France, or anywhere else for that matter.
    best
    claude salhani
  • 2Sun on May 18 2013 said:
    Claude Selhani

    The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

    You have not addressed the context that some in power in Iran have publicly committed to destroying Israel and the USA as an unbending religious obligation supreme above all, to bring back the Mahdi (or 12th Imam).
    The seriousness of their intent is demonstrated by their proven efforts to develop nuclear weapons to achieve that end. That would cause far greater havoc, probably exceeding the Holocaust.

    Study the Mahdi. e.g. see books by Joel Rosenberg e.g. The Twelfth Imam
  • Josh Fellman on July 18 2013 said:
    The only problem is the Fukushima did not even come close to the world's worst nuclear disaster, seeing that the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) held a press conference on 31 May 2013 to announce the preliminary results of their report on exposures caused by the Fukushima accident. The key point of the report is that radiation exposure of the Japanese population did not cause any immediate radiation-related health effects and is unlikely to cause any in the future to either the general population or workers at the nuclear plant.

    SO WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?!
  • Timothy Benton on November 03 2013 said:
    The problem with the article is it fails to mention what would happen if the world sits back and allows Iran to become a nuclear power. We have seen that they have no issue with training, arming, and supporting terrorist organizations around the world. I love how they say they have not attacked any nation in a couple of hundred years, but then they go and support all these terrorist that do the attacking for them. In any court of law, you are less guilty if you attack through proxy then if you do it yourself. Also, we see Israel going in to Syria and destroying again and again advanced arms being shipped to Hezbollah. One needs to question what would happen if Iran snuck a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas. Both groups would have no problem finding volunteers to make a suicide run to destroy Tel Aviv, and if this happened, how exactly do you think Israel would react to such an attack. They would most likely wipe Hezbollah out, then go into Gaza and do the same, it could be argued that they would also go into the West Bank too. At the same time they would blow Damascus off the face of this planet along with every Arab city in a line to Tehran. The death toll would be small compared to them attacking and stopping Iran going nuclear. I remember history has shown us that to make keep the peace we have in both world wars tried to appease a nation that in the end set the world in a path of destruction that resulted in millions upon millions lost each time. So do we sit on our hands and wait for this nation who has shown that they would push their religious ideology regardless of if it could cost them their nation, or do we stop this radical Islamist regime before they become a monster that sets off WW3?

Leave a comment