Nuclear Issues

Nuclear Iran, the US and Israel
By Tayyab Siddiqui
In an interview with ABC’s This Week on July 3, US vice president Joe Biden, talking of Iran’s nuclear programme and Israel’s threat to destroy it, appeared to be giving a green signal to Israel. He ominously stated, "Israel can determine for itself – it is a sovereign nation – what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."
"Whether we agree or not. They’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice," Biden said.
Iran’s nuclear program had been declared "a threat to global security" by former president George W Bush, who repeatedly vowed that Iran will not be allowed to become a nuclear power and that the US will employ "all options" to frustrate Iranian ambitions.
The US declared Iran a member of the "axis of evil" and "an outpost of tyranny." A number of economic sanctions have been imposed unilaterally, as well as through the manipulation of the Security Council. Not content with these punitive measures, the Bush administration continually kept Iran under pressure with threats of use of force. The sabre rattling has continued despite growing evidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is not weapons-oriented. Both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the National Intelligence Estimate have confirmed in their reports that US allegations about Iran’s atomic goals have been overblown.
The reports state that Iran appeared "less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Iran would be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon some time during the 2010-2015 timeframe." Iran’s repeated assertions that its nuclear ambitions are not weapon-oriented and that it has the right under NPT, which it signed in 1968, to follow a peaceful nuclear programme, have been countered with the argument that Iran has consistently failed to provide the assurances and transparency necessary for international acceptance and verification.
Former Israeli defence minister Shaul Mofaz is on record as stating: "if Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it." Israel has been encouraged in making its intentions so explicit. A proxy attack on Iran by Israel would not particularly upset the United States, even if that is not a joint US-Israeli agenda.
Both the US and Israel have in the past been warned by their own allies against such a venture. The European Union, however, shares their view that Iran’s pursuit of enrichment poses a potentially great threat to international peace and security. But it is opposed to any military strike which will inevitably destabilise the Middle East, disrupt oil flows or at the least lead to a massive increase in oil prices.
President Obama hurried to contain the damage and strongly denied that the US has given a green signal to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. He stressed that he wanted first to see progress on diplomatic outreach.
There have been frequent intelligence reports of Israel planning an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, with the blessings of the US, as it did in June 1981 against Iraq. In Israel’s reckoning, the current international climate provides it with an ideal environment to strike against Iran with limited and acceptable consequences. The current political turmoil following controversial presidential elections in Iran, the general impatience of the West with Ahmedinijad, the continuing, uncritical US support to Israel and the impotence of the Muslim countries in evidence particularly since Israel’s carnage and economic blockade in Gaza, provide Israel a useful backdrop to carry out its aggressive designs. Media reports that Saudi Arabia has provided its airspace to Israel are particularly worrisome.
For Israel, the June 6, 1981, aerial attack that destroyed Baghdad’s Osirak nuclear reactor provides an ideal precedence. The Israeli government had launched a sustained campaign to publicise its fears of Iraqi nuclear programme. After the attack, Israel declared that under no circumstances would it "allow the enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our nation." Ariel Sharon, then defence minister, later explained Israel’s doctrine of strategic deterrence: "We cannot afford the introduction of the nuclear weapon. For us, it is not a question of balance of terror, but a question of survival. We shall therefore have to prevent such a threat at its inception."
Israel is likely to repeat the same strategy in case of Iran. The Iranian rhetoric of "eliminating Israel from the global arena" and that "Israel is doomed to disappear" and must be "wiped off the map" have provided Israel an opportunity to portray Iran as a threat to Israel’s very existence and hence a legitimate target for any preemptive strike.
To justify its Osirak attack, Israel had cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which grants each member state the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack." The attack did invite international condemnation and the UN Security Council, through Resolution 487, condemned the Israeli action as a violation of the UN Charter but refrained from imposing sanctions against Israel. The scenario may not be different this time around.
Israel may not be wrong in its assessment that the circumstances will never be more propitious. It is time that the Iranian leadership learns that discretion is the better part of valour. It should not get carried away by revolutionary rhetoric, eschew provocative statements against Israel providing an excuse, however contrived and contentious, to launch aggression against Iran and achieve yet another success in stunting technological progress of Islamic nations.
Courtesy: The News
------------------------------