|
    
                         Website in Spanish       Website in Portuguese coming soon
Member Area

Nonproliferation for Global Security Foundation - NPSGlobal

Saturday
May 25th
Home
Why Israel has not bombed Iran (yet)?, Bret Stephens
Share

Wall Street Journal, July 20th 2010. Seguridad Internacional

Bret Stephens

Why hasn't Israel bombed Iran yet? It's a question I often get from people who suppose I have a telepathic hotline to Benjamin Netanyahu's brain. I don't, but for a long time I was confident that an attack would happen in the first six months of this year. Since it didn't, it's worth thinking through why.

First, though, let me explain my previous thinking. In the spring of 2008, there was intense speculation that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, fresh from ordering an attack on a covert Syrian reactor, was giving serious thought to an Israeli strike on Iran. President Bush—who Israelis believed would give them the diplomatic cover and logistical support they would need for such a strike, especially if things went amiss—had only a few months left to go. The release of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claiming (erroneously, as we now know) that Iran had halted its nuclear weaponization effort meant it was highly unlikely that the U.S. would attack. Finally, Israeli planners understood that the longer they delayed a strike, the harder it would be to achieve meaningful effects. Iran would have more time to harden its facilities, improve its defenses, and disperse its nuclear materials.

So why didn't Israel act then? A variety of reasons, the most plausible of which was that Mr. Olmert believed an Israeli strike on Iran was a huge gamble, and that it would be rash to attack before every diplomatic, political or covert means to stop Iran's nuclear bid had been explored. Then came Barack Obama with his time-limited offer to negotiate with Tehran, followed by Iran's post-election unrest, which briefly aroused hopes that the regime might be toppled from within.

By the end of last year, it was clear that both hopes were misplaced. It was clear that the limited sanctions being contemplated by the Obama administration were not of a kind to deter Iran from its nuclear bids. It was clear that those bids were moving steadily closer to fruition. And it was clear that the administration was ill-inclined to take military action of its own.

All of which persuaded me that, having duly given Mr. Obama's diplomacy the benefit of the doubt, Israel—under the more hawkish leadership of Mr. Netanyahu—would strike, sooner rather than later. Plainly I was wrong.

What gives? Here are four theories in ascending order of significance and plausibility.

The first is that Israeli military planners have concluded that any attack would be unlikely to succeed (or succeed at a reasonable price). Maybe. But this analysis fails to appreciate the depth of Israeli fears of a nuclear Iran, and the lengths they are prepared to go to stop it. A successful strike on Iran may be at the outer periphery of Israel's capabilities, but senior Israeli military and political leaders insist it is not completely beyond it.

A second theory is that Israel is biding its time as it improves its military capabilities on both its offensive and defensive ends. Yesterday Israel completed tests of its "Iron Dome" missile defense shield, designed to guard against the kind of short-range rockets that Hamas and Hezbollah might use in retaliation against an Israeli strike on Iran. The system will begin coming on line in November. Israel is also mulling the purchase of a semi-stealthy variant of the F-15 as an alternative to the much more expensive F-35, delivery of which has been delayed till 2015. What Israel decides could be a telling indicator of what it intends.

The third theory concerns the internal dynamics of Israeli politics. Mr. Netanyahu may favor a strike, but he will not order one without the consent of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, President Shimon Peres, Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and perhaps also Mossad chief Meir Dagan. This inner cabinet is said to be uniformly against a strike, with the wavering exception of Mr. Barak. But Mr. Ashkenazi and Mr. Dagan are due to step down within a few months, and who Mr. Netanyahu chooses to replace them will have a material bearing on the government's attitude toward a strike.

Finally, Israeli leaders are mindful of history. Put aside the routine comparisons between a prospective military strike on Iran with Israel's quick and effective destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. As I'm reminded by Michael Doran, a Middle East scholar at NYU, Israel's leaders are probably no less alert to the lessons of the Suez War in 1956. Back then, a successful military operation by Britain, France and Israel to humiliate Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser (in many ways the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of his day) fell afoul of the determined political opposition of the Eisenhower administration, which mistakenly thought that it could curry favor with the Arabs by visibly distancing itself from Israel and its traditional European allies. Sound familiar?

There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let's hope so. Israel may ultimately be willing to attack Iran once it reckons that it has run out of other options, as it did prior to the Six Day War. But its tactical margin for error will be slim, particularly since an effective strike will require days not hours. And the political risks it runs will be monumental. As Mr. Doran notes, in 1956 it could at least count on the diplomatic support of two members of the U.N. Security Council. Today, the U.S. is its last significant friend.

This is an unenviable position, and Israel's friends abroad would do well to spare it easy lectures. Iran is not Israel's problem alone. It should not be Israel's problem alone to solve, to its own frightful peril.

 

Volver

 
Highlights
  • Pause
  • Previous
  • Next
1/10
Why sanctions on Iran are not working

Al Jazeera, 15 May 2013.

In February, Khamenei signed a decree highlighting 23 new benefits to Iran's private sector - all pertaining to an improved investment and production environment, none related to Tehran's nuclear strategy [AP]

While sanctions are having a devastating effect on Iran's economy, they have not changed Tehran's nuclear calculus.

As EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Iran’s lead envoy Saeed Jalili meet in Istanbul on May 15, the six global powers negotiating with Tehran face an increasingly inconvenient truth: while sanctions are having a devastating effect on Iran’s economy, they have not changed Tehran’s nuclear calculus. Although some policymakers and pundits privately concede this point, there is no consensus as to why. Hardliners tend to argue that sanctions are not tough enough and must be intensified. Elements on the left argue that sanctions must be given time to make an impact.

Read more
 
Global Security
Second Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference Second Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference

NPSGlobal, 9 May 2013.

During the period between 22 April and 3 May 2013 is being held, at the United Nations Office in Geneva, the Second Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Nonproliferation Treaty – NPT.

Nuclear & Radiological Weapons
France Affirms Nuclear Arms Despite Military Cuts France Affirms Nuclear Arms Despite Military Cuts

By Jamey Keaten, abc NEWS, 9 Jan 2013.

France's president says the country will maintain its costly nuclear arsenal despite looming military budget cuts, saying the weapons are essential for national defense.

 
Chem & Bio Weapons
Construction Complete at Pueblo Chemical Arms Disposal Facility Construction Complete at Pueblo Chemical Arms Disposal Facility

Global Security Newswire, 1 Feb 2013.

A chemical weapons disposal plant in Colorado has been fully built and is now undergoing an extended check of its technology.

"The government officially declared completion of the facility on Dec. 12," according to Sandra Romero, spokeswoman for contractor Bechtel, which is charged with building and operating the facility at the Pueblo Chemical Depot that will eliminate 780,000 munitions and 2,611 tons of mustard blister agent.

Delivery Systems
N. Korea internally promoting latest long-range rocket as ballistic missile N. Korea internally promoting latest long-range rocket as ballistic missile

Yonhap News, 4 Feb 2013.

North Korea exhibited the fuselage of what is presumed to be the long-range rocket it launched in December, and explicitly called it a ballistic missile, despite its claims to the outside world that the Unha-3 was part of its peaceful space development program, a report said Monday.

 
Conventional Arms
Guns don't kill dictatorships, people do Guns don't kill dictatorships, people do

By Joshua Keating, Foreign Policy, 9 Jan 2013.

As he's wont to do, Matt Drudge has kicked up a fuss today by plastering photos of Hitler and Stalin above the headline "White House Threatens 'Executive Orders' on Guns." FP contributor Michael Moynihan has a good piece at Tablet looking into what's accurate and inaccurate in the commonly cited narrative that Nazi laws curtailing Jewish gun ownership were a prelude to the Holocaust.

Non-state Actors
Paris court convicts 9 mostly Turkish-speaking defendants in terror trial linked to Uzbekistan Paris court convicts 9 mostly Turkish-speaking defendants in terror trial linked to Uzbekistan

The Washington Post, 8 Jan 2013.

PARIS — A Paris court has convicted nine people for links to a militant group that the U.N. Security Council has described as an al-Qaida affiliate.

 
Nuclear Energy
Are Mini-Reactors The Future Of Nuclear Power? Are Mini-Reactors The Future Of Nuclear Power?

By Ben Bradford, NPR, 1 Feb 2013. 

The U.S. government is investing millions of dollars in what it considers a promising new industry for American manufacturing: nuclear reactors. The plan is to build hundreds of mini-reactors, dot them around the U.S. and export them overseas.

Developments of these reactors are already in the works, and at one office park in Lynchburg, Va., where one of these reactors is being assembled, the traditional signs of nuclear reactors are nowhere to be found. There are no cooling towers that look like smoke stacks, no clouds of steam over the buildings — just a research building and a tower about nine stories tall.

Sensitive Materials
Syrian uranium worrying nations, IAEA Syrian uranium worrying nations, IAEA

UPI, 8 Jan 2013.

DAMASCUS, Syria -- Nuclear experts said they are worried about a potential stockpile of as much as 50 tons of unenriched uranium the Assad government has in Syria.

 
Strategic Trade
Russia to Buy 7 AW139 Helicopters Russia to Buy 7 AW139 Helicopters

Ria Novosti, 28 Jan 2013.

MOSCOW - Russia’s Defense Ministry is planning to buy seven multirole AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters for 630 million rubles (about $20 million) this year, the Federal Agency for Arms Procurements said Monday.

Prevention & Response
Second cover assembly underway at Fukushima Second cover assembly underway at Fukushima

World Nuclear News, 9 Jan 2013.

The installation of steel columns next to Fukushima Daiichi unit 4 marks the start of construction of a cover that will aid in the removal of fuel. This is the second cover to get underway at the site.

 
 

Happy New Year!





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

COURSES

Regional Postgraduate Course in International Security, Disarmament and Non-proliferation

Registration Open

It starts on April 2013


banner posgrado 2

 

 

"Our vision: A World Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction"