|
    
                         Website in Spanish       Website in Portuguese coming soon
Member Area

Nonproliferation for Global Security Foundation - NPSGlobal

Friday
May 18th
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
1/6
Japan's 50 Nuclear Reactors Offline for Maintenance

Nuclear power plant in Japan - APThe Guardian, by David Batty, with comments by NPSGlobal, Link to source, 5 May 2012.

Japan is shutting down its last working nuclear reactor as part of the safety drive imposed after the March 2011 tsunami and meltdown at the Fukushima plant. Nuclear reactors produce a significant 30% of the country electricity. A part of population is requesting a permanent shut down. Would it be sustainable, being Japan so scarce of natural sources? Would Japan refrain of powering its industries and/or of lighting its over populated cities...? What would it mean in terms of its energy security?

Read more
 
Global Security
NPT Preparatory Committee meets in Vienna NPT Preparatory Committee meets in Vienna

IAEA, NPSGlobal, 29 Apr 2012.

The Preparatory Committee - PrepCom for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference starts in Vienna next Monday 30 Apr, and it will last until May 11.

Ambassador Peter Woolcott, Australia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva will be the Chairman of the meeting.

Nuclear & Radiological Weapons
Obama Seeks More Money For Nuclear Arms and Non-proliferation Obama Seeks More Money For Nuclear Arms and Non-proliferation

Global Security Newswire, Chris Schneidmiller, 8 Feb 2012.

The Obama administration is seeking a bump in funding for programs to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to prevent the spread of atomic arms around the world, according to budget figures released on Monday. The White House spending plan calls for the Energy Department's semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration to receive $11.5 billion in fiscal 2013, which begins on Oct. 1.

 
Chem & Bio Weapons
Is Biosecurity the Low-Hanging Fruit? Is Biosecurity the Low-Hanging Fruit?

Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 3 Feb 2012.

The Seventh Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) took place in December 2011 in Geneva, Switzerland. The conference focused transparency in bio-industry and biodefense and on confidence-building measures. But the review conference might also contribute to the incremental approach to banning all weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the Middle East—an approach that will be promoted at a conference later this year in Finland.

Delivery Systems
Russia Expects Next Nuclear Bomber by 2030 Russia Expects Next Nuclear Bomber by 2030

Global Security Newswire, 14 Feb 2012.

Russia has announced plans to prepare within two decades a next-generation bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons to targets, Interfax reported on Monday.

"We are developing an advanced long-range aviation system and we have entered the stage of project tender. I think we will inform the General Staff chief and defense minister in February about the advanced aircraft which is to be developed and to join the new and upgraded air force in the 2030s," Russian air force commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said.

 
Conventional Arms
Largest city evacuation since WWII Largest city evacuation since WWII

Cnn.com, by Rick Noack with comments by NPSGlobal, 4 Dec 2011.

Bomb squads in Germany successfully defused on Sunday two bombs and disposed of an additional air-dropped military device that had caused an evacuation of historic proportions in a city in the country's west. "It's the largest German evacuation since the end of the war," fire brigade spokesman Ronald Eppelsheim said Sunday.

Non-state Actors
Pentagon Adviser: Taliban Think They Can Outlast U.S. Troops Pentagon Adviser: Taliban Think They Can Outlast U.S. Troops

US News, 13 feb 2012.

A report based on interrogations of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan shows the U.S.-led war effort is failing to meet Washington's goals, says a Pentagon adviser.

 
Nuclear Energy
The Problem with Nuclear Power in Germany The Problem with Nuclear Power in Germany

Il Post- Italy, 26 Apr 2012 (based on an article published in the Los Angeles Times, 20 Apr 2012).

The abandonment of nuclear power plants has increased the use of fossil fuels and consequent pollution: after gloating, environmentalists complain and accuse the government of having made a hasty decision. 

Sensitive Materials
Additional Nations Expected to Vow to Eradicate Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium Stocks Additional Nations Expected to Vow to Eradicate Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium Stocks

Global Security Newswire, 16 Feb 2012.

A minimum of 10 additional countries are anticipated to promise at the upcoming Global Nuclear Security Summit in South Korea to relinquish their holdings of nuclear weapon-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the Yonhap News Agency reported on Thursday.

 
Strategic Trade
Turkey, Japan to Resume Atomic Trade Dialogue Turkey, Japan to Resume Atomic Trade Dialogue

Global Security Newswire, 10 Jan 2012.

Turkey and Japan have jointly decided to focus on relaunching formal talks for an atomic trade deal, Kyodo News reported on Sunday (see GSN, June 15, 2010).

Prevention & Response
New WMD Response Center Planned in India New WMD Response Center Planned in India

Global Security Newswire, 17 Feb 2012.

The Indian government has approved the establishment of a new education center in Panipat in Haryana state that will be used to prepare military personnel and civilians to respond to potential weapons of mass destruction attacks, the Press Trust of India reported on Thursday.

 
 

COURSES

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

Registration Open (Spanish)

It starts on April 10, 2012
Informative Reunion: 23 Feb, 18.30 (confirm assistance)
Av. Córdoba 883, 10° - Buenos Aires


banner posgrado 2

 

 

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