The first half of The New York Times report that Israeli aerial maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean earlier this month were intended to demonstrate the seriousness of Tel Aviv’s concern over Iran’s nuclear activities is indeed cause for concern. But should the second half also prove true — that the exercise was conducted to show Israel’s willingness to act unilaterally — that would be an entirely different story.
So far, there is nothing to prove there were Israeli maneuvers specifically designed for the purpose of attacking an Iranian nuclear facility. But the fact that in 1981 Israeli jets bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility and last September bombed a similar facility in Syria shows there is precedent for unilateral Israeli action in such circumstances.
The buildup to an attack on Iran is just as stark. The warnings of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that drastic measures were needed to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, that military strikes to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons looked unavoidable — both made just this month alone — sound dangerously close to serious preparations for a strike. And President Bush’s mantra, pronounced whenever the subject is broached, that all options are still on the table adds an ominous cadence to the war drums.
Of course, talk and action about a possible hit on Iran are both undercutting the diplomacy needed to reach a solution. How can Iran truly consider the offer from the six world powers for preliminary negotiations that would be used to agree on a framework for formal negotiations and incentives when facing a possible military assault? That Iran is being asked to freeze its current levels of enrichment for six weeks in exchange for the six powers putting a halt on their push for new sanctions and that the they are ready to fully recognize Iran’s right to have a civilian nuclear energy program could conceivably pave the way for a settlement. If, on the other hand, Iran’s back is to the wall, it will find it extremely difficult, even ludicrous, to talk peace.
None of what has been written, said or done so far means an attack on Iran is coming, and talk of one faded out after US intelligence reported at the end of 2007 that Iran had given up its nuclear weapons program. But now the talk is back and that is significant.
A military attack on an Iranian nuclear facility would have repercussions far beyond the borders of the intended target. The scenarios put forth by the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, Mohamed El-Baradei, that an attack would put Iran on a “crash course” to building nuclear weapons and would turn the region “into a fireball” are apt descriptions for a post-strike scenario. On personal terms, El-Baradei says any military action taken against Iran would force him to resign. That final step by El-Baradei would be taken because his credibility and that of the International Atomic Energy Agency would have been damaged beyond repair. That basically would be the same harm done to the international community. This would no longer be a world governed by laws, but ruled by countries taking the law into their own hands.
