Israel in the Iran Fray, Too
January 22, 2005
By Ehsan Ahrari
Reporter Seymour Hersh's allegations that the United States may be penetrating Iranian territory in search of credible evidence of its nuclear activities, or even with a view to bringing about regime change, have somewhat overshadowed Israeli perspectives.
In general, no discussion of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions can be held without reference to what the government of Israel thinks. An important aspect of Tel Aviv's approach is to keep on ringing alarm bells, so that the attention of the international community remains focused on the issue. At the same time, it has made a point of remaining engaged with American officials. The fact that nuclear non-proliferation is one of the top national security issues of the Bush administration makes Israel's job on the latter point considerably easy.
Actually, Israel has nothing to worry about the possibility of this issue fading into oblivion, for two major reasons. First, speculation in and around Washington has never stopped circulating that the Bush administration has some sort of a plan about destabilizing, or even bringing about regime change, in Iran. What hasn't been clear, however, is whether it would follow the Afghan model of a military campaign, or the Iraqi version of it. Considering the fact that the US military is innovative and prolific about coming up with sui generis campaigns for different military operations, chances are that if Washington indeed has plans for regime change in Iran, it might not follow either of the two preceding operations. That is why the recently published essay of Hersh about a potential US military action against Iran is read with considerable interest and attention worldwide.
The second reason why the world's attention remains focused on the issue is the possibility that Israel, at some point, will take it on itself to carry out preemptive operations against Iran, from air and sea. Hersh mentions this possibility in his recent essay. He writes, "Israel has acquired three submarines capable of launching cruise missiles and has equipped some of its aircraft with additional fuel tanks, putting Israel's F-161 fighters within the range of most Iranian [nuclear and missile] targets."
It is interesting to examine Israel's own assessment of the Iranian nuclear issue. In a recent paper entitled "Europe and Iran's Nuclear Future", issued by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, an institution generally regarded as reflecting the official thinking of that country, it is clear that Israel remains dissatisfied with the basic approach of the EU-3 countries (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) toward Iran on the nuclear issue. It states: Iran's nuclear ambitions are clearly reflected in the extent of its program, its past record of concealment, its ongoing effort to hinder inspection, and its determination to continue with uranium enrichment-related activities. By contrast, the EU-3 have shown no similar determination. The European stance has been and remains to reach a "suspension" (which is, by definition, a temporary measure) of Iran's enrichment program, with some minor additions. The Europeans have never unreservedly condemned Iran's military nuclear ambitions, probably out of political considerations, ie, the desire to be seen by Iran as an "honest broker", rather than from any real confidence in Iran's innocence. But by failing to do so, they expose themselves to suspicions of acting from ulterior motives. It should not, therefore, surprise anyone that the US also remains unhappy with the EU-3 approach, which is described in Washington as characterized by too much carrot and not enough stick.
The most important aspect of Israel's perspectives on Iran's potential development of nuclear weapons is what could be called its alleged "cascading effect". The same paper states that if Iran "continues with its weapons development program and acquires or even comes close to acquiring a military nuclear capability, Saudi Arabia will probably feel compelled to seek a nuclear 'umbrella' from Pakistan, through an existing or new cooperation agreement. Others in the region, particularly Egypt and Turkey, will be similarly driven to obtain such a capability." It goes on to claim that even Iraq would be impelled "in the more distant future, to develop a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] capability."
Thus, the essential aspect of Israel's position on the subject is that no Middle Eastern country, save itself, has the right to possess nuclear weapons. Two realities should be kept in mind regarding Israel's position. First, the US government has absolutely no problem with Israel having a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Second, the Israeli position regarding nuclear non-proliferation is a virtual carbon copy of the long-standing US position on the subject. Washington originally did not want the Soviet Union to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, the capabilities of the former communist superpower to do so radically changed the rules of the game underlying the Cold War. During that period, US foreign policy, along with that of the Soviet Union, was constantly driven by the notion of nuclear deterrence. It was only after the implosion of the Soviet Union that US foreign policy was liberated from any thought regarding how Moscow would respond or react to its own maneuvers worldwide.
In the same manner, Israel is afraid that if a Middle Eastern country becomes a nuclear power, it could forever lose its freedom of action in the Middle East. The specifics of such a scenario are not important because Israel will do everything in its power, including preemptive attacks, to make sure that no Middle Eastern country ever develops nuclear weapons. The US, regardless of who is sitting in the White House, has no problem with such a frame of mind. Such a reality makes it difficult for Iran to realistically think about becoming a nuclear power any time soon.
Source: Asia Times