Avner Cohen is an Israeli political scientist, currently at the Monterey Institute of International Affairs. He is considered to be the world’s foremost expert on the Israeli nuclear program. His work is so accurate and authoritative, in fact, that he has come close to being arrested when returning to Israel.
Cohen has an extremely important column in the November 13 issue of Haaretz, in which he demolishes the myth that the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981 was a success, let alone that it should serve as a model for a similar attack on the Iranian nuclear program.
Cohen demonstrates that even the 1981 Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor was strongly opposed by many of Israel’s top military and intelligence officials, who in fact–despite the widespread view to the contrary–were proven right. That is, while the attack seemed at the time to be a “success,” in fact the consequence was that Saddam Hussein redoubled his efforts to get nuclear weapons, hid most of the program underground, and was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons until the 1991 Gulf war essentially ended the Iraqi program.
An Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program, even if the United States joined it–which seems (let us hope) inconceivable–would have even less chance of succeeding in disarming Iran, and would be far more likely to result in catastrophic consequences for Israel and perhaps the entire region; indeed it cannot be ruled out that Iran would find a way to attack our own country.
Almost certainly the primary purpose of the Iranian nuclear program is deterrence, not aggression–as has been the case for every other nuclear state. There is not the slightest evidence to support the supposed Israeli fear that, out of the blue, Iran would launch a nuclear strike against Israel–in the full knowledge that the entire country would be literally annihilated by Israeli nuclear retaliation.
The supposedly more worrisome problem is that Iran might covertly give nuclear weapons to terrorists, who might believe they could use them against Israel and escape retaliation, as it might not be clear who originated the attack and where it came from. However, that possibility is remote, since Iran would have to assume that it would be blamed for any nuclear attack on Israel and would be destroyed in retaliation–even if it hadn’t been the source of the attack.
No doubt in part for similar reasons, to the best of our knowledge no nuclear power has ever given nuclear weapons to terrorist groups–not even the most extremist or supposedly the least rational states, like North Korea and Pakistan. Still, however remote the possibility, it is sufficiently worrisome to make serious efforts to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, as in fact the world is doing now–but almost no military experts, including most of Israel’s own top intelligence and military officials, believe that a military attack has any chance of meaningful success.
In that light, one would assume–or would like to assume–that the current Israeli threats are bluffs, designed to induce the international community to step up economic sanctions against Iraq. Nonetheless, the level of Israeli irrationality, as demonstrated on an almost daily basis, is so deep that nothing can be taken for granted.
Obama must be told that no matter how far he is prepared to go in capitulating to Israeli madness, he cannot put at risk our own national security. A simple but blunt statement by the president that Israel must in no circumstances attack Iran would almost surely prevent it from doing so.
Obama has an absolute obligation to act–and right now.
This is a crosspost from Jerome Slater’s site.
Is this the bomb-in-a-suitecase scenario that Fox and Jack Bauer like to tout?
My problem with these types of explanations is that they are rarely supported by scientific fact.
Does anyone know of an unbiased, scholarly research that supports these claims? I know political pundits and alleged “experts” like to opine on such matters, but how much of this is actually based on fact?
The other question that needs to be asked is exactly which country will be investing billions in a nuclear weapons program and then simply selling a bomb to Terrrrrrists? And what kind of Terrrrrists will be able to afford to purchase such a weapon?
Again, how will these Terrrrrists deliver the nuclear weapon? Surely even Hizbollah’s rockets can’t carry such a nuclear warhead. Will they load it up into a van and drive it to the heart of Tel-Aviv? How exactly will they get there? I mean, nuclear bombs are supposed to be quite heavy, right? So, they’re just going to cross the border into Israel (somehow undetected) and then proceed to merrily drive to their destination?
You see, the problem is that people just don’t ask the important and relevant questions anymore. They just accept things as given and move on.
I agree with much of this post, except two points.
The first has to do with nuclear proliferation. Iran might not willingly give nuclear material to extremist groups, but parts of the military establishment might do so anyway, if there is a genuine crisis or somekind of non-nuclear conflict between Iran and the West in which Iran is severely bruised. Extremist groups within the Islamic world is not like within the Western world.
Remember that many of the Islamic terrorists were often upper-middle class and from the higher stratosphere of society.
There is incessant integration of extremists in the establishment and those outside of it. Pakistan is a case in point.
Also; just because Pakistan and North Korea has not done this yet(although I deem it much more likely in the case of Pakistan) does not mean it isn’t a significant risk. Remember that nuclear experts from Pakistan have helped both Korea and Iran to develop their nukes. This is, in a way, nuclear proliferation as well.
The second point is Obama’s way to proceed. It’s probably true that the recent drumbeating is mainly a way to pressure the (Western) world into going down on Iran much harder. But I do believe that Israel means it when they want to strike Iran. It’s not inevitable(nothing ever is) but the risk of a Israeli strike(which would instantly be joined by the U.S, which the Lobby would make sure of, whatever Obama wants or not) is real.
And if Obama went out and stated that under no consideration would Israel get it’s strike, then the credible threat of a military option would vanish, and so too would an important incentive for Iran to scale down or at the very least slow down it’s nuclear program(or be forced to by the fear of an Israeli-led strike).
Israel broke the Palestinians in 1948. It broke Nasser in 1967 . It broke Iraq in 2003 . But it is playing a geopolitical game of thwack the mole that it has no hope of winning on a population base of 5.5 million and a belief that Moshiach cares.
“will Obama capitulate to that as well?” Let us know when is the last time Obama did NOT capitulate to Israel.
Will Obama capitulate to that as well? Is the Pope a Catholic? If the attack is done before the 2012 election (and it bids fair to be done, if at all, early in January when the USA’s no-fly is ended in Iraq), and it Obama still lusts after AIPAC’s largesse (blood-money), then the USA’s attack-dog-for-hire will capitulate and quite possibly participate. The Republicans [I wish I were as sure of anything as they are sure of everything] will be shouting for it and making it a litmus test for presidential cojones.