Prof Paul Rogers, the author of the Oxford Research Group’s report on Iran: The Sunday Telegraph
“There is a real probability of military conflict. The immediate consequence could do serious damage to Iran’s nuclear programme, but that would be deceptive. The Americans do not have the troops for a regime change and an attack would strengthen the Iranian regime, spark another oil crisis and could encourage the Iranians to go hell for leather for nuclear weapons.”
Dr Rosemary Hollis, the research director at the Chatham House think-tank:
“There is so much opposition that I don’t see an attack as imminent.”
Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board from 2001 to 2003:
“Whether Iran’s nuclear weapons programme ends with a whimper or a bang is up to the Iranians. If the UN does its job, by blocking Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, it may be possible to avoid a more kinetic solution.”
Dr Olivia Bosch, a former weapons inspector in Iraq:
“The rhetoric is disproportionate to the capability that Iran has.”
Alex Vatanka, the US security editor for Jane’s Information Group:
“The situation is not urgent.”
Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran:
“I do not agree with foreign military intervention. However, if the international community and the Security Council hesitate in adopting a firm policy on Iran, the regime would obtain the only thing it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, namely time. Then we would be facing an Islamic fundamentalist regime, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, armed with nuclear weapons. This would make war inevitable.”
