Sun 5 Sep 2004
ANNETTE YOUNG
ISRAELI defence officials watched in dismay as the small blip disappeared from the radar, short of its target.
Off the Californian coast, the Jewish states key Arrow-2 missile defence system was undergoing tests under the auspices of the Americans.
While one missile had successfully downed an incoming Scud, the second test against a new type of weapon being developed by the Iranians had failed to meet its target. The Israelis explained away the failure as a small technical hitch, but 3,000 miles away, at a secret location in the Iranian desert, the radical Islamic Republic had successfully test fired the upgraded Shihab-3 missile, now capable of striking at the heart of the Jewish state.
The brinksmanship and the rhetoric between the two states has intensified amid increasing speculation that Israel might attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
Yadollah Javani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards political bureau, warned: "The entire Zionist territory... is currently within range of Irans advanced missiles."
As both Israel and Iran lined up their missiles for test firings, the Israeli chief of staff, General Moshe Yaalon, said Irans nuclear development had to be halted before it went much further. He told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper: "Iran is striving for nuclear capability and I suggest that in this matter [Israel should] not rely on others."
In Tehran, Irans defence minister, Ali Shamkhani, warned that should Israel do so, his country would "wipe out" Israel.
Tensions between the two nations rose as the United States urged the United Nations Security Council to take action against Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons programme.
The test launch of the Iranian Shihab-3 missile last month revealed the warhead had been considerably upgraded, probably thanks to assistance from foreign experts from the former Soviet Union or North Korea.
The improvements will permit slower entry into the atmosphere so that the warhead, which could be chemical, will be more durable and its contents better protected.
Currently, the Shihab-3 has a range of about 800 miles and can reach as far as Turkey, Israel and most Saudi Arabian cities, but the Iranians are also believed to be working on the Shihab-5 whose range could be up to 1,600 miles, which would put most of central Europe within reach.
While it still carries conventional warheads, the Shihab-3 presents a low threat to the region. "But Irans missile programme is an integral part of its nuclear programme," said Dr Shmuel Bar, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Israel. "Only nuclear capability would make this weapon an effective deterrent."
Israeli officials were quick to play down the failure of the Arrow-2 test, describing it as a technical glitch, and said Washington had approved $153m for further testing in 2005 of its missile defence system.
With a growing number of experts claiming Iran is only two to three years away from producing the bomb, international diplomatic focus will now turn to the September 13 board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that is expected to discuss Irans nuclear ambitions.
The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, this week urged the nuclear watchdog to refer the issue to the Security Council following a leaked report that Iran plans to turn tons of uranium into the substance used to make enriched uranium.
Powells concerns were echoed on Friday by Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who said the report contained "clear reservations" about the nature of Irans programme and past concealment efforts. He said Britain would work with Germany and France to review their faltering diplomatic initiative in coaxing Iran to stop uranium enrichment and complying fully with its treaty obligations.
The confidential report said the agency had been informed that the Islamic Republic planned to process 37 tonnes of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride. Uranium hexafluoride is spun in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which can be used to generate power or make nuclear warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment.
However, while the report said 37 tonnes could give Iran enough material for five bombs, the agency said it found no conclusive evidence of an Iranian arms programme.
As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is entitled build a nuclear facility, including one for uranium enrichment, so long as it is intended for peaceful purposes - which is what Tehran has stated.
But the Bush administration has opposed the activation of Irans nuclear power plant in the Gulf port of Bushehr, arguing that Iran - one of the worlds largest oil suppliers - has no need for such a plant. It has accused Tehran of hiding a nuclear weapons development programme under the guise of a civilian atomic energy programme.
Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment programme last year, in an effort to build international trust. But in July, it confirmed reports that it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges.
Andrew Koch, of Janes Defence Weekly, said the IAEA has been successful in opening up Irans nuclear programme to international scrutiny. "There is no indication that they have been ordered to build a bomb," he said. "Whereas the American security system is focused solely on the capability and not on the intention, both the IAEA and the Europeans take the line of looking at a countrys intentions: not could they but would they?"
But other defence analysts say Irans technological advances along with their nuclear weapons ambitions, given their drive to be seen as a regional leader in the Gulf region, were still a major cause for concern.
"There is no way that if Iran gets the bomb that Egypt or Saudi Arabia would just sit back and declare no interest in becoming nuclear powers," Bar said, adding it would have serious implications for the NPT.
"It is a big worry," a former adviser on non-proliferation to the Clinton Administration, Robert Einhorn, told the Scotland on Sunday. "Both the US and the Europeans need to try and alter Irans calculations of costs and benefits."
Now a senior adviser at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Einhorn added that the Europeans were less likely to lean on Iran because of growing commercial ties, whereas the Americans "currently use all sticks and no carrots in their approach."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1045432004