I ran’s nuclear programme is set to dominate tomorrow’s meeting in Washington between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The meeting will not be easy and some analysts are describing it as probably the most important encounter ever between the two leaders.
Israel’s apprehension over Iran’s nuclear programme is perfectly understandable and one need not be a nuclear expert to fully comprehend just how devastating a nuclear attack on such a small country would be- Anthony Manduca
This is an election year for Barack Obama, and the Iranian nuclear programme has become an electoral issue, with Republican candidates accusing the President of being soft on Iran.
Obama cannot afford to look weak in dealing with Iran, but neither can he give the impression that he will unreservedly back an Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The consequences of such a strike could well cause global turmoil, which in turn will make it very difficult for Obama to be re-elected.
On the other hand, Netanyahu will want to know exactly where the US stands on this issue, at what point will Washington decide whether sanctions on Iran are having the desired effect or have been a failure, and how far is the US willing to support – or perhaps even participate in – a military strike against Iran.
One stumbling block to the US and Israel having a common position on Iran is that the two countries have probably positioned their red lines differently over the issue.
For Israel, it is Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons that should be stopped, and most experts believe Teheran could have this capacity in between one to three years.
For the US, it seems that it is the actual building of nuclear weapons that must be prevented. Such a position also gives the Obama administration some more time to pursue sanctions and diplomacy in dealing with the Iranian problem.
Israel’s apprehension over Iran’s nuclear programme is perfectly understandable and one need not be a nuclear expert to fully comprehend just how devastating a nuclear attack on such a small country would be.
Of course, such an attack would most likely be followed by a massive retaliatory nuclear strike, by Israel, if it still exists, and by the US, and Iran would be bombed back to the Stone Age, but nobody wants to arrive at that stage.
The question is what can be done to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, or if such weapons are produced, will the Iranian regime be able to be contained through the doctrine of MAD – mutually assured destruction – which worked (with some risks) in the Cold War.
The international community has negotiated with Iran over its nuclear programme and it has offered trade and economic incentives in return for Teheran’s co-operation over this issue. Unfortunately, Iran more or less played for time and deceived the world over its nuclear activities.
Sanctions have had an effect on Iran’s economy but in reality have done little to convince Teheran to change course over its nuclear enrichment programme. Nuclear experts seem convinced that it is only a matter of time before Iran acquires the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, which is why Israel is said to be seriously considering a military strike.
The consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons are indeed grave. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East would likely emerge, with Sunni Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey wanting a nuclear deterrent of their own.
Israel would feel particularly threatened – Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently called the Jewish state “a cancerous tumour that must be cut out” – and Iran’s allies such as Hisbollah would suddenly feel empowered and be tempted to act even more irresponsibly.
A pre-emptive strike against Iran is therefore certainly tempting, but unfortunately such a course of action is extremely risky and offers no guarantee of achieving its aim, namely preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons.
Iran’s response to being attacked would be hysterical. It would boost its hardline support domestically, attack Israel, either directly or through Hisbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, or both, instigate worldwide terrorist attacks against US, Israeli and Jewish targets, cause trouble in the Strait of Hormuz, thus causing the price of oil to rocket, possibly even attack some Sunni Arab countries, and make it more determined than ever acquire nuclear weapons.
From a strictly military point of view, destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities will be a very difficult task indeed.
Unlike Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 – when Israel destroyed these countries’ nuclear programmes – Iran’s nuclear sites are spread out throughout the country, many of them in secure underground bunkers, and some of them in secret sites nobody knows about.
Iran’s nuclear programme first started under the Shah, so it has had a long time to meticulously plan and be prepared for any outside attack. At best, a military strike could simply delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but would not convince it to abandon them.
There are no easy answers to the question about whether or not Iran should be bombed. Attacking Iran carries risks, and accepting the status quo also carries risks.
On balance, in the present circumstances, it would probably be more sensible to carry on imposing sanctions on Iran, conducting diplomacy – involving as many countries as possible – and hoping that the political change sweeping the Middle East will sooner or later bring about much needed change in the country.
Popular resistance already sprang up in 2009, and hopefully it will do so again soon. A democratically inclined Iran is more likely to co-operate over its nuclear programme than one that has been attacked by outside powers.