Think Tank: Israel 'should attack nuclear sites in Iran if diplomacy fails'

Times Online (U.K.) ^ | October 13, 2004 | Ian MacKinnon

[Stoat]

Israel 'should attack nuclear sites in Iran if diplomacy fails'
From Ian MacKinnon in Jerusalem
 

A PRE-EMPTIVE Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be fraught with risks and difficulties, but it would set back significantly Tehran’s development programme, a respected think-tank in Tel Aviv said yesterday.

However, the bombing of Iran’s facilities — a possibility that appeared to increase with the revelation last month that the United States had agreed to sell Israel “bunker buster” bombs — should be the last resort, said researchers from the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.

 

After news that Israel would take delivery of the precision-guided bombs capable of destroying underground targets, some analysts argued that the diversity of Iran’s facilities and poor intelligence would make a raid impossible.

Yet despite the problems of such an operation, Ephraim Kam, the Jaffee Centre’s deputy head, said that it would put the programme back for a year or more and should not be ruled out if diplomatic pressure failed to halt Iran’s research.

Israel regards Iran as its biggest strategic worry. Intelligence sources estimate that Tehran will acquire nuclear weapons by 2007 and defence chiefs have hinted at a first strike similar to the one on the Osirak facility in Iraq 23 years ago, which thwarted Saddam Hussein’s atomic designs.

Israel’s alarm has acquired new urgency after Major-General Giora Eiland, its National Security Adviser, said that Iran would reach the “point of no return” by late November, rather than next year, when it would require no further outside aid to bring the programme to fruition.

Meanwhile, Iran must decide whether to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and suspend the work or face sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council for failing to comply.

Last month Iran revealed that it had defied the IAEA’s demands to end all uranium enrichment activities. Among the nuclear facilities that it has declared are uranium mines near Yazd and a uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, incorporating large underground bunkers. Another facility at Parchin, near Tehran, was revealed by the United States, although its exact purpose remains unclear.

If Iran succeeds in putting its nuclear programme to military use, the Jaffee Centre says that it could dramatically destabilise the balance in the region, leading other countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, to develop their own atomic installations.

Because of the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose, Dr Kam argues that if the IAEA and the international community fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Washington should intervene militarily, a prospect that seems to be growing. However, if the US shirked the challenge, Israel might have no choice but to act.

Iran has learnt from Iraq. It has buried facilities underground, spread them around and may have kept some secret. “There is a logic to operating against Iran,” Dr Kam said. “Just taking out the facilities that are known would create a serious degradation of the Iranian potential.”

 

• Mohammad Ali Abtahi, the Iranian Vice-President, had his resignation accepted yesterday, after saying that he could not work with the conservative-dominated parliament. A close ally of the reformist President Khatami, he first tendered his resignation in February.

[alcuin]

Good post.

[konaice]

After news that Israel would take delivery of the precision-guided bombs capable of destroying underground targets, some analysts argued that the diversity of Iran’s facilities and poor intelligence would make a raid impossible.

The intelligence issue is not as insurmountable as it might appear to the Israelies. There is a significant amount of dis-satisfied Iranians, and an active internal resistance. Now they might not be willing to help the Israelies, but they are roumored to be pro-USA. They understand that if the islamofacists running Iran get the bomb, they will never be rid of them. The border between Iran and Iraq is porus. In both directions. And then there is Afganistan on the back door.

[Stoat]

Thank you for your kind words; I'm glad that you liked the article :-)

[Stoat]

You're quite right....there's a VERY strong pro-Western and Pro-US sentiment in Iran, particularly among the younger people. They don't like living in a repressive, dictatorial theocracy any more than the Afghanis did.
They are not stupid; they see the freedoms available in Israel, and they see democracy taking hold next door in Iraq. The mullahs are worried, and for good reason.

[F16Fighter]

Depends on an honest answer of the following questions:

Would Iran threaten to USE a nuclear bomb, and/or merely just go ahead do it?

Will they stop at creating ONE single nuclear device?

[PhilDragoo]

Sooner rather than later works for me--say, tomorrow.

MISSILE DEFENSE BRIEFING REPORT NO. 157, October 15, 2004
American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, DC

Editor: Ilan Berman

IRAN’S EXPANDING MISSILE MIGHT...
Amid mounting international pressure over its atomic ambitions, the Islamic Republic of Iran has launched a massive effort to upgrade its ballistic missile capabilities. The regime’s advances were outlined in early October by the country’s former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, during a forum on “Space and Stable National Security” at Tehran’s Aerospace Research Institute. In comments carried by Reuters on October 5th, Rafsanjani told the audience that the Iranian regime has successfully increased the range of its missiles to 2,000 kilometers – making it capable of targeting all of Israel, Turkey and southeastern Europe. The statement followed official announcements from the Iranian government that it had added a new “strategic missile” to its arsenal, and is moving forward with plans to deploy a space satellite in 2005.

Rafsanjani’s remarks also come amid news that Iran is moving forward with a new basing mode for its ballistic missile arsenal. Citing government sources, Middle East Newsline (October 14) reports that the U.S. believes Tehran has now mounted a range of short- and medium-range missiles aboard cargo vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. According to the news agency, this new deployment – in the works since the late 1990s – is intended to increase deterrence and force projection capabilities in the region, and has received growing attention from the Iranian regime amid an expanding American military presence in the Gulf. A similar development is also believed to be underway in the Caspian, where Iran is said to have tested a ship-launched missile several years ago.

...AND THE RUSSIAN ANGLE
Iran’s recent test of its “Shahab-3” has provided worrying new signs of Russian assistance to the Islamic Republic’s premier ballistic missile project, a top expert has warned. In a September 24th analysis for the Middle East Missiles Monitor (www.me-monitor.com), Uzi Rubin, the former Director of Israel’s vaunted Arrow program, provides an overview of the publicly-available technological data from Iran’s early August test of the medium-range missile. According to Rubin, the missile’s design – including the reconfiguration of the warhead into a “baby bottle” shape previously used on Soviet missiles – has been greatly improved “with the aid of Russian missile expertise.” “The August 11 event premiered the definitive ballistic missile – perhaps the long advertised Shihab 4? - with which Iran hopes to deter Israel and the United States in the near future, and which will serve as a basis for Iran’s first ventures into space next year,” Rubin concludes.

[A Jovial Cad]

Excellent article.

We should keep in mind also that had Israel not acted "unilaterally" in 1981 when it bombed Saddam's nuclear facility (then under construction), Iraq might well have had nuclear weapons by the time of the first Gulf War.

Israel did the world a favor with that strike, but all it got for years over it was grief from the "world community."

[Lord Nelson]

I have no doubt the moment Israel perceives its now time they will strike.

In fact Israel already trades technology with India - I think this is a good development for both to work together against common terrorist enemies.

[PhilDragoo]

"No good deed goes unpunished."

Imagine a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

Saddam at left, Chirac at right, at Osirak.

[SAMWolf]

If we had just given Iran the fissionable material we wouldn't be in this spot now. < /sarcasm>

[ApesForEvolution]

I believe that time is of the essence...Islamocommunists are often enough (once is too many times) at least a step or two further in their sickness and development of WMDs than we anticipate...Iran could produce a nuke faster than we know.

[PhilDragoo]

[SAMWolf]

Based on his "military" career and his time in the Senate, not ours.

[BigBobber]

I read Raid on the Sun recently, a book about the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor. Israel's F16s just barely made the round trip to Iraq, and were heavily laden with fuel. I don't know where the Iranian facilities are, but Iran is a huge country and farther from Israel than Iraq. I don't think they can reach Iran without midair refueling over Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

[Duaine]

Hmmm...seem to remember article in Kansas City Star in the past concerning Isreali Navy taking delivery of some French
"Daphne??) Class Diesel Submarines which are cruise missile capable.

Cruise missile + Nuclear Warhead = Big Boom...

[NY Attitude]

For the last 35 years the Iranian Isalimic regime and its Revolutionary Guard has become more and more fanatic as time goes on. During the Iran - Iraq war, the Iranian government had no shame by sending children on bicycles across minefields. During that instance approximately 5,000 died. Life magazine had a picture of the goings on. If I remember correctly, the Iraqi soldiers looked on in disbelief.
So to answer the first part of question 1 No and the second part of question 1 Yes.

I would surmise that they would not stop at just makling one device.

[ProudVet77]

Refueling won't be a problem, we'll probably do it.
I actually expect we will be in on the raid in several ways. Since the Israelis have many of our systems, particularly bombs the forensic evidence can still point to them even if a B2/F117 dropped it. We will almost certain mess with Iranian air defense systems, jam communications and be an overall impediment to the Iranians. Iran is effectively surrounded.

[glorgau]

Israel is just passing time for the Arrow anti-missile system to get in place. This looks 1-2 years out. Once that and the US system is in place, The Euros get Iranian nukes within range. And so do the Russians, but they possess a deterrent. The Chinese get the North Koreans, but they can't deal with them unilaterally, because it would ruin their economy.

[nuconvert]

"Would Iran threaten to USE a nuclear bomb, and/or merely just go ahead do it?"

Both.


"Arrow anti-missile system to get in place. This looks 1-2 years out"

2 years is too long to wait and do nothing. The generous prediction in this article of Iranian nuclear weapons by 2007, seems overly optimistic with almost every other prediction I've read. Something must be done next year; a regime change will avoid bombing facilities altogether.