Israeli attack on Iran 'would not stop nuclear programme'

Israeli attack on Iran 'would not stop nuclear programme' America's top military chief, General Martin Dempsey, reinforces Washington's opposition to unilateral Israeli action Share 112 Email Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 August 2012 18.21 BST US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said sanctions on Iran should be given a chance to succeed. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA An Israeli attack on Iran would delay but probably not stop its nuclear programme, the most senior US military officer has claimed. General Martin Dempsey reinforced Washington's opposition to unilateral Israel military action as he made clear that US military chiefs were equally wary of getting ensnared in Syria. In common with Nato's supreme commander, US admiral James Stavridis, who wrote about Afghanistan for the Guardian on Thursday, Dempsey put a brave face on the situation there. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was speaking to journalists in London, where he attended the opening ceremony of the Paralympic Games as head of the US delegation. Distancing himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran, Dempsey said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme". He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it." Dempsey said he did not know Iran's nuclear intentions, as intelligence did not reveal intentions. What was clear, he said, was that the "international coalition" applying pressure on Iran "could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely". Sanctions against Iran were having an effect, and they should be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed. On Syria, he said, Washington was collaborating with the country's neighbours, sharing intelligence and helping with military planning. The US was supplying humanitarian aid to Turkey. But Dempsey warned of the implications of establishing a "humanitarian zone" inside Syria, as suggested by others, including France, have suggested. Syria was not Libya, he said, there was no comparison. Those who established a humanitarian zone would be obliged to assume responsibility for protecting it, Dempsey said. That would mean not merely establishing a no-fly zone but providing protection against Syrian missiles. The US, like the UK, was supplying "non-lethal" aid to Syrian rebels. What he described as "any broader activities inside Syria" would have to be discussed and conducted within the Nato framework, Dempsey said. The worst-case scenario would be Syria ending up as a failed state, he said. He was reflecting growing concern in the west and elsewhere, including Russia, about the crisis allowing armed extreme jihadists and al-Qaida sympathisers with the opportunity to increase their influence and expand control across Syria. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were using young men in "green on blue" attacks – attacks by Afghans in army uniform – as part of a new asymmetric weapon, as improvised explosive devices had been in the past, Dempsey suggested. A rapid expansion of Afghan security forces from some about 200,000 to more than 300,000 in two years had "exposed vulnerabilities in vetting practices", he said. Nato had to help develop Afghan forces to ensure Nato troops ended their combat role by the target date of the end of 2014, "and we will", Dempsey said. Stavridis wrote that "measurable and substantial progress" has been made in Afghanistan in three specific areas. Firstly, Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists, he said. Secondly, Afghan national forces have improved markedly over the past 18 months, "to the point where they are making significant gains in the fight against the Taliban". As a result, "this has been a particularly difficult summer for the insurgency, which has seen the elimination of two top-level commanders in the past few days alone". Thirdly, the international community has made specific pledges on long-term partnerships with Afghanistan. Stavridis said Afghan society was changing for the better every day, but acknowledged that the Nato-led coalition faced formidable challenges over the next few years. "I have no doubt that there will still be difficult days ahead."