On the matter of Israel's bomb and Iran

(?) Israel is the most unusual of nuclear armed nations. Unlike others, it never mentions, publically plans, parades or visibly deploys the arsenal. It doesn?t acknowledge testing a device ? despite reports that it detonated at least one weapon in the Indian Ocean off South Africa. Nor does it disclose the number of weapons it possesses.

Israel?s nuclear behavior (or nonbehavior) adds to the puzzle. Consider that when the country faced the most dire circumstances? the 1967 and more challenging 1973 wars ? it never even issued a threatening peep to intimidate or deter.

Applying secrecy to discourage regional copycats dictated Israel?s use of force, rather than deterrence to stem nuclear rivals. The results: the 1981 attack on Iraq?s Osirak reactor and the 2007 strike on Syria?s secret Al Kibar plant.

However, Israel responded differently to Iran. Despite its repeated statements that ?all options are on the table? and posturing in military exercises, timidity substituted for action. The international community stepped into the void. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly sought to coax Iran to ?fess up and halt suspect nuclear activities.

The European Union offered economic and diplomatic incentives. The United Nations Security Council applied multiple rounds of political and economic sanctions. All failed.

Israel, possibly in coordination with the U.S. and others, decided to tear a page from the run-up to its bombing of Osirak. It applied assassination of scientists and disruption of nuclear exports to stop Baghdad. Along with allies, it seems to have added computer viruses and, possibly, sabotage of Iranian nuclear and missile development plants.

But success would buck history. In Iraq, international inspectors with authority to destroy weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War shut down Baghdad?s program. In South Africa. peaceful regime change proved the key. In South Korea and Taiwan, Washington exercised overwhelming political and military leverage.

Only with Libya, in 2003, did we see isolation, sanctions and, in the end, diplomacy move a regime then worried about its own survival after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

In contrast, North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan overcame impediments. And Iran appears to be on the way.

This pessimistic backdrop suggests international efforts to stop Iran?s nuclear effort are on a treadmill. Yes, we can still hope new sanctions and covert action will move Tehran?s mullahs. But it remains a slim bet.

This leaves the Osirak template ? a conventional military strike on Iran?s nuclear program. But unlike the Iraqi or Syrian reactors that Israel destroyed, Iran has multiple key sites, some presumably undisclosed and others, like the recently opened Fordo nuclear-enrichment plant, hardened in the interior of a mountain. Without international inspectors with authority to ferret out remaining nuclear contraband and prevent reconstruction, these facts suggest an assault would delay but not terminate Iran?s efforts.

Conventional attack raises other complications. Were the international economy to slip into dramatic decline ? as a result of possible oil shocks ? Israel could find itself a global pariah. Gingrich?s nuclear scenario becomes more compelling ? especially if Israel were to fear its conventional strikes wouldn?t stop nuclear reconstruction by a vindictive Iran.

Bennett Ramberg served as a policy analyst on the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs during the George H.W. Bush administration. His books include, ?Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy.?

The above article was published in politico.com on January 6th, 2012.
Continue reading

Source: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=349947

kevin durant katy perry russell brand mark hurd rutgers new ipad 3 baylor jodie fisher