WarSclerotic

An Israeli air campaign aimed at rolling back Iran’s nuclear activities is likely to miss at least some crucial components of the nation’s atomic infrastructure, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control head Gary Milhollin wrote in an Atlantic magazine commentary published today (see GSN, Aug. 17).

Milhollin wrote in response to an Atlantic report, published last week, in which sources in Israel and other nations indicated that Jerusalem by July 2011 could conduct attacks on Iranian nuclear installations. The United States, Israel and other nations suspect Iran’s nuclear program is geared toward weapons development; Tehran has insisted its efforts are strictly peaceful.

Israeli airstrikes would be likely to eliminate Iran’s Arak heavy-water reactor, Isfahan uranium conversion plant and the uranium enrichment centrifuges at the nation’s Natanz complex, Milhollin wrote. In addition, Israel could destroy the Bushehr nuclear power plant — slated to receive its first nuclear fuel within days — if Jerusalem were willing to weather the possible diplomatic fallout of potential Russian deaths at the site, he said.

However, an attack would be unlikely to eliminate Iran’s stocks of low-enriched uranium, centrifuges not yet installed at Natanz or material prepared for the machines, the expert warned. In addition, the Persian Gulf nation would retain any expertise it has obtained to date on nuclear-weapon design, he said. “All these essentials of nuclear-weapon breakout capability seem likely to remain,” Milhollin wrote.

An attack would enable Tehran to expel International Atomic Energy Agency officials from its nuclear sites by arguing the U.N. audits had provided its longtime foe with information for the assault, he said.

In addition, a strike could prompt Iran’s populace and a number of governments to rally around the country’s leadership, Milhollin suggested.

“Israel can’t destroy enough of Iran’s nuclear capability through airstrikes, nor can Israel invade,” the expert said. “Only the United States can do those things. Whether it might ever do either is the big question, and one to which absolutely no one has the answer” (Gary Milhollin, The Atlantic I, Aug. 18).

The United States is more likely than Israel to launch an attack on Iran, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk wrote in comments published Monday.

After his first year in office, U.S. President Barack Obama increasingly hinted at military options for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, said Indyk, who served during the Clinton administration. The Obama administration’s more forceful rhetoric — combined with technical problems in Iran’s enrichment program and rising economic pressure on Tehran — have partially eased Jerusalem’s fear’s about the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, he said in a response to Jeffrey Goldberg, author of last week’s article.

“My interpretation doesn’t change your bottom line that if all these efforts fail and Obama doesn’t take action then the Israelis likely will.,” Indyk stated. “But it does lower the odds of Israeli action in the next year substantially below your ‘better than 50 percent’ estimate. Indeed, I would argue that, if current trends continue, it’s actually more likely that the United States will bomb Iran than Israel” (Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic II, Aug. 16).

Another expert suggested world powers would wait longer than 11 months before weighing an attack.

“The United States and the many other parties now consumed with Iran’s controversial nuclear program have at least a year of intense diplomacy — and possibly much longer — before they even consider military options. And that assumes diplomacy totally collapses, the Iranians can be clearly blamed, and reliable intelligence proves Tehran’s program has crossed a critical threshold,” wrote Robin Wright, a senior fellow with the U.S. Institute of Peace (Robin Wright, The Atlantic III, Aug. 16).

Iranian armed forces operations chief Ali Shadmani said his country could retaliate against “any possible aggression” by blocking off the Strait of Hormuz — a vital waterway for petroleum shipments from the Gulf — by “paralyzing” U.S. forces at bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and by attacking Israel, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported today (Golnaz Esfandiari, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Aug. 18).

Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey yesterday traveled to Beirut for talks with Lebanese Finance Ministry and Central Bank officials on enforcing U.N. Security Council penalties against Iran, the Daily Star reported.

“Lebanese banks are fully complying with Security Council resolutions. This is a sensitive subject,” one banker said, noting Tehran has sought to transfer large amounts of money into Lebanese financial institutions (Daily Star, Aug. 18).

Elsewhere, Russia today stood by its decision to complete work on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, Agence France-Presse reported.

“It is a most important anchor which keeps Iran within the regime of nonproliferation,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. “It is fully protected from any proliferation risks whatsoever. This idea is shared by all the leaders of Western countries” (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Aug. 18).

Tehran yesterday urged world powers to join new negotiations on a potential deal for exchanging Iranian nuclear fuel, RIA Novosti reported. One plan — negotiated by Iran, Brazil and Turkey — calls for the Middle Eastern state to store 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium in Turkey for one year; other countries would be expected within that period to provide nuclear material refined for use at a Tehran medical research reactor in exchange for the Iranian material.

The arrangement appeared similar to another proposal, formulated in October by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that was intended to defer the Iran’s enrichment activities long enough to more fully address U.S. and European concerns about its potential nuclear bomb-making capability. Tehran ultimately rejected the IAEA proposal worked out with France, Russia and the United States. Those nations, known as the “Vienna group,” subsequently expressed concerns about the later agreement.

“We are fully ready to deal with details of fuel swap, and talks on the issue can be held without pause as soon as the group declares its readiness,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said (RIA Novosti, Aug. 17).