OpEdNews – Article: Iran: Will She or Won’t She? | WarSclerotic

OpEdNews – Article: Iran: Will She or Won’t She?

OpEdNews – Article: Iran: Will She or Won’t She?.

By Sandy Shanks

Will Iran build a nuclear device or won’t she? The truthful answer is: No one knows. This is likely true of President Obama and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The signals from the Islamic republic are conflicting and change weekly, or even daily at times. This, however, does not preclude an examination of the issue.

Perhaps, a more accurate question is: Does Iran have the capability to build a nuclear device? Still another crucial question remains, a question that is vital to every person living on the planet. What are Israel’s contingency plans? To put it more plainly, will Israel attack Iran?

A little known factor in all of this, particularly in the West due to lack of media coverage, is that on August 9, 2005, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. The text of the fatwa has not been released although it was referenced in an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. I am one of but a handful of American writers who has mentioned this in past articles. Apparently, notwithstanding religious factors, the Supreme Leader is well aware that the construction and possible completion of a nuclear weapon will make Iran a target, a bull’s-eye for the Israeli Air Force, possibly even the American Air Force. However, the latter is extremely unlikely under current conditions.

//

On Feb. 18, the IAEA reported concerns over Iran’s intentions. Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers reports, “The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said Thursday that there are signs Iran is trying to develop a nuclear warhead that would fit atop a missile, its bluntest assertion to date questioning Tehran’s claims to have an exclusively peaceful nuclear program.”

Strobel continues, “In a report on Iran’s nuclear activities, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has collected ‘broadly consistent and credible information’ about Iran’s suspected military nuclear research. ‘Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,’ it said.”

Then comes a revealing statement. “The information in question comes from European, U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies …” These are not exactly disinterested parties, nor are they unbiased on the issue, particularly Israel. Actually, the IAEA’s report contained nothing new, only concern. Put a different way, the IAEA doesn’t know either.

Why is one reminded of another time and place? During the latter half of 2002 and the early part of 2003, the President of the United States, his National Security Advisor, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA Director, members of Congress, and others, including the press, were hammering home to the American public that another nation in the Middle East had Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was a blitzkrieg campaign and it was successful. When the U.S. and Bush’s coalition aggressively attacked Iraq, the majority of American public opinion was soundly behind the aggression. No WMD’s were ever found. The war started by the Bush administration will soon experience its seventh anniversary. The war still has no end game. The public has since learned that the term, pre-emptive war, so favored by Bush and his advisors, is not only an oxymoron but a very tragic event. America, heretofore a glimmering example of democracy and freedom, became a pariah. Hopefully, our current and future leaders will never allow this to happen again.

I bring all this up because if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. will be drawn in. Due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, if Israel attacks Iran, it will be assumed by Iran and nearly every nation on Earth, including our traditional allies, that the U.S. gave at least tacit approval to the attack. In other words, some may assume the U.S., forgetting or ignoring the lessons of wars past and present, launched an aggressive action upon another country by proxy. It is within the realm of possibility they may be right if such an attack occurs.

The issue of Israeli intentions will be covered in a moment, but first the question — does Iran have the capability to build a nuclear weapon? Once again, the answer to this question is mixed. Israeli intelligence is convinced that Iran is doing so. Iranian leaders, including Ahmadinejad, say they are not. They say their development of uranium is for peaceful purposes only. Despite all the conflicting reports, perhaps, some answers are out there.

Recently, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran, unable to get fuel rods from the West for its U.S.-built reactor, which makes medical isotopes, had begun to enrich its own uranium to 20%. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had a rather interesting reply to that bold statement. “He [Ahmadinejad] says many things, and many of them turn out to be untrue. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.”

Noting that the official U.S. position is that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, resulting in U.N. sanctions and urging more stringent sanctions, Gibbs’ comment begs a question. If Iran is incapable of enriching uranium to 20% commercial use, how can it possibly enrich uranium to 90%, or weapons grade?

More to the point, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) supports Gibbs’ viewpoint. According to a report recently issued by David Albright and Christina Walrond of the ISIS, “Iran’s problems in its centrifuge programme are greater than expected. … Iran is unlikely to deploy enough gas centrifuges to make enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power reactors (Iran’s stated nuclear goal) for a long time, if ever, particularly if (U.N.) sanctions remain in force.”

So,the White House press secretary and the ISIS seem to agree. Iran’s enrichment capabilities are not nearly as daunting as many are led to believe. Was Gibbs speaking on his own, giving his private opinions? That’s not the way it works. White House press secretaries are told what to present to the press and their personal opinions are immaterial and unknown to the press and the public.

The ISIS’ report continues in a rather interesting way. ISIS insists, however, that “Iran may still be able to build a bomb. Yet, to do that, Iran would have to divert nearly all of its low-enriched uranium at Natanz, now under U.N. watch, to a new cascade of centrifuges, enrich that to 90 percent, then explode a nuclear device. Should Iran do that, however, it would have burned up all its bomb-grade uranium, and would lack enough low-enriched uranium for a second test. And Tehran would be facing a stunned and shaken Israel with hundreds of nukes and an America with thousands, without a single nuke of its own.” There is little reason to elaborate on that analysis.

All this notwithstanding, the last I heard Israel is convinced that Iran is building a nuclear device to be mounted on one of her missiles capable of reaching every major city in Israel. The Jewish Republic is justified in its fear. Israel, the most powerful nation in the Middle East, is about the size of New Jersey, the U.S.’s fifth smallest state. The distance between Tel Aviv on the Mediterranean coast, one of the most vital of Israel’s cities, and Jerusalem on the West Bank is 63 kilometers, roughly 39 miles.

Tel Aviv is the main financial center of Israel. Its destruction via an Iranian nuclear device would dismantle Israeli society and economy. Picture a nuclear bomb descending upon New York, making 9/11 peanuts by comparison, and one can visualize the fears that Israelis have. On the other hand, due to the diminutive nature of Israel, she is quite vulnerable. The vast majority of her citizens live in her ten largest cities. In retaliation for Israel’s attack on nuclear sites, Iran may unleash her conventional missiles and ground attack aircraft on Israeli cities. Israel would be a target-rich environment, and cities can be devastated by conventional means; ask the elders of Berlin and Tokyo.

Will Israel launch on Iran? Again, no one can be certain, but the Council on Foreign Relations assessed this probability. There is little doubt that Israel views the stakes as very high. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s UN General Assembly speech emphasized the existential nature of the threat that he and others in the current government believe Iran represents. The CFR reported that “An Israeli attack would likely concentrate on three locations: Isfahan, where Iran produces uranium hexafluoride gas; Natanz, where the gas is enriched in approximately half of the 8,000 centrifuges located there; and Arak, where a heavy water research reactor, scheduled to come on line in 2012, would be ideal to produce weapons-grade plutonium. It is conceivable that Israel may attack other sites that it suspects to be part of a nuclear weapons program if targeting data were available, such as the recently disclosed Qom site, whose location is known, or centrifuge fabrication sites, the location(s) of which have not yet been identified. The latter would be compelling targets since their destruction would hobble Iran’s ability to reconstitute its program.”

After making it clear that Israel has the means for such an attack, CFR states, “The likelihood of this contingency depends on Israeli assessments of U.S. and international resolve to block Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability; the state of the Iranian program; the amount of time a successful strike would buy to be worth the expected risks and costs, a point on which there is a spectrum of Israeli views, from six months to five years; whether Israel believes there is a clandestine Iranian program, which would lead some Israelis to conclude that an attack would not buy any time at all; and the effect of a strike on the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Because none of these factors is constant, estimates about the likelihood of an Israeli strike within the coming year will vary. For example, Israel is probably somewhat less likely to attack now than it was before the Qom installation was disclosed, the P-3 took a firmer stance, and Russia appeared to concede that stronger sanctions had to be considered. If Iran were to agree to ship the bulk of its uranium to France and Russia for enrichment — a deal that has been agreed upon in working level negotiations but may never be consummated — Israel’s incentive to accept the risks of an attack against Iran would probably diminish. Should diplomatic initiatives run aground, the likelihood of an Israeli attack could be expected to increase accordingly.”

//

As some have pointed out, including CFR, there are problems with such an attack, problems that make the venture highly risky. The perils relate to the possible routes to the target. There are three plausible routes to Iran and they involve over-flight of third countries. The northern approach would likely follow the Syrian-Turkish border and risk violation of Turkey’s airspace. The central flight path would cross Jordan and Iraq. The southern route would transit the lower end of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and possibly Kuwait.

All but two of these countries are to a greater or lesser degree hostile to Israel. The exceptions, Jordan and Turkey, would not wish their airspace to be used for an Israeli attack against Iran. Turkey recently canceled an annual trilateral exercise involving Israel, in part to signal its opposition to an Israeli strike. In any case, over-flight would jeopardize Israeli diplomatic relations with both countries.

CFR states, “With respect to Syria and Saudi Arabia, operational concerns would trump diplomatic ones. If either country detects Israeli aircraft and chooses to challenge the over-flight using surface-to-air missiles or intercepting aircraft, Israel’s intricate attack plan, which would have a razor-thin margin for error to begin with, could well be derailed.”

The most advantageous route is the central route. It is the shortest route as opposed to the round-about nature of the northern and southern routes, saving valuable fuel. Also, the route takes it over friendly nations, Jordan and American-controlled skies over Iraq. It is also the most dangerous for the U.S., Israel, and possibly, the Israeli attack aircraft. Over-flight of Iraq, would be diplomatically awkward for Israel and would risk a deadly clash with American air defenses since the intruding aircraft would not have the appropriate Identification, Friend, or Foe (IFF) codes.

Israel would have to carefully weigh the operational risk and most of all the cost of a strike to its most vital bilateral relationship, especially since President Barack Obama has explicitly asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to order an attack. There are very serious doubts that American forces would engage an Israeli strike force bound for Iran’s nuclear facilities. Both countries share the same fear: Iran is building a nuclear bomb.

Therein lies the danger. If Iran were attacked via the skies over Iraq, would there be any doubt of American complicity? The reader is reminded that the U.S. has permanent military bases and airfields on Iran’s western border, Iraq, and eastern border, Afghanistan.

In addition, CFR points out that “The sheer distances involved pose a challenge, as well. The targets lie at the outermost 1,750- kilometer range limits of Israeli tactical aircraft. Diplomatic and military factors would confine Israeli refueling operations to international airspace where tankers could orbit safely for long periods. These locations, while usable, are suboptimal. They would yield the attackers little leeway to loiter in their target areas, or engage in the fuel-intensive maneuvering typical of dogfights and evasion of surface-to-air missiles.”

None of the above describes the economic impact of an Israeli attack on Iran. The impact can be illustrated by one of CFR’s recommendations for the U.S. — Ensure the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is sufficient to offset shortages if necessary. Unlike Israel’s attack on the Osirak facility in Iraq in 1981 and her attack on the al-Kibar facility in Syria in 2007, Israel was relatively certain that neither Iraq nor Syria would retaliate. Both were bloodied and weak at the time. Today, Iran is neither bloodied nor weak. It does not take a genius to figure out that, if attacked by the Jewish nation, Iran will retaliate.

Second only to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a huge source of the world’s oil. Due to a quirk in geography, she also sits astride an oil choke point, the 29-mile wide Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil shipments pass. She also possesses some of the most sophisticated mine-layer technology in the world, and she does not possess these weapons by accident, but for a very distinct purpose — to close the strait when she wishes.

On June 29, 2008, the commander of

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Ali Mohammed Jafari, said that if Iran were attacked by Israel or the United States, it would seal off the Strait of Hormuz, to wreak havoc in oil markets. This statement followed other more ambiguous threats from Iran’s oil minister and other government officials that an attack on Iran would result in turmoil in oil supply.

For every action there is a reaction. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate. That is known. What will be the nature of that retaliation? Will she attack American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will she close the strait? Will Iran be satisfied by merely attacking Israel? Can Israel withstand the onslaught? What will be the nature of Israel’s and America’s reaction to Iran’s reaction? And, so, on it goes. No one, of course, knows.

I offer no conclusions to this report. The possibilities are endless, and I forgot to take my prophesy pill this morning. I can only hope the reader is more aware of the issues. Oh, and, by the way, we can all hope that cooler heads will prevail. If not, I can offer this conclusion. If Israel attacks Iran, 9/11, the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be child’s play in comparison.

Explore posts in the same categories: Iran / Israel War

This entry was posted on March 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM and is filed under Iran / Israel War. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a comment Cancel reply