Israel Plans to Nuke Iran?

The story currently making the rounds apparently originated in the Times of London

If Israel is seriously considering using nuclear weapons to decimate nuclear infrastructure in Iran a necessary preemptive strike, this rogue nation knows no bounds. That would top the destruction of Lebanon on its war crimes list. Talk about a slippery slope. If depleted uranium is acceptable for bombing Iraq and Lebanon, why not mini-nukes for Iran? What next, a city blown off the map in Iran if it retaliates? The plan to limit fallout is a joke.

Israel has denied the story. Israel has lost plausible deniability on this issue, since it also denies having nuclear weapons. These tactical bunker buster warheads were a rare defense department request denied by Congress, but apparently they are part of the arsenal regardless. The estimate of the danger is downplayed, but this mini Bomb will spread plenty of fallout. If the wind blows the wrong way, Israel is not so far away that it could not taste the bitter fruit of this act of reckless aggression that would not even be in its own best interests, let alone the rest of the world. Israel knows this would not be self-defense, but it desperately wants to remain the only nuclear power in the region. If Israel cannot be trusted not to use nuclear weapons in such an aggressive unprovoked manner as this plan suggests, it should not be entitled to possess them.

Neither Israel nor USA has been appointed enforcer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel never signed, possesses nuclear weaponry in defiance of the treaty, while USA thinks it only applies to its enemies. That treaty binds its signatories who had nuclear weaponry to pursue disarmament. The treaty, besides being twisted to suit the ends of nations with these weapons, also suffers from a false dichotomy between peaceful and warlike uses of nuclear energy. It grants nations one in exchange for forsaking the other, yet nuclear energy yields plutonium suitable for the Bomb, and wastes suitable for dirty bombs. Not to mention the technology is dangerous and wasteful beyond belief. Iran is foolish to desire nuclear technology or the Bomb, but no more so than supposedly wiser nations still promoting this colossal boondoggle.

6 Responses to “Israel Plans to Nuke Iran?”

  1. Aletha Says:

    Israel is getting impatient, perhaps concerned Obama would not be so quick to support its plan to stop Iranian nuclear development. Shaul Mofaz, a cabinet minister and contender to replace Ehud Olmert, promised to attack Iran if it does not stop its nuclear program. Olmert has just met with Bush, announcing plans for a coordinated attack before Bush leaves office. This may be partly to blame for the record shattering spike in oil. This story is from the Guardian

    Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weapons
    Ian Black, Middle East editor
    The Guardian,
    Saturday June 7 2008

    Israel “will attack” Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert’s deputies warned yesterday. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a contender to replace the scandal-battered Olmert, said military action would be “unavoidable” if Tehran proved able to acquire the technology to manufacture atomic bombs.

    Mofaz is Israel’s transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. “If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it,” he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. “The UN sanctions are ineffective.”

    Mofaz was born in Iran, giving his remarks extra edge after repeated threats against Israel from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has also denied the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad “would disappear before Israel does”, Mofaz said.

    Mofaz’s remarks came at the end of a week of intense US-Israeli talks on Iran. They were also the most explicit threat yet against the Islamic Republic from a member of the Israeli government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should UN sanctions be deemed to have failed.

    Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, told pro-Israeli lobbyists this week that the military option against Iran remained on the table, though he also offered “meaningful concessions” if it bowed to international demands.

    Ehud Barak, the defence minister and Labour party leader, said Israel needed to do everything possible to ensure that the Iranians did not obtain nuclear power.

    Obama this week also promised AIPAC that Israel could keep Jerusalem undivided, though apparently he has backtracked on that position, which would seal the doom of any possible deal with the Palestinians.

    This is from Israel National News

    Olmert Hints U.S. Action on Iran Nukes is Near
    by Gil Ronen

    (IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted after his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush Wednesday that U.S. action against Iran is imminent. While he avoided saying anything clear and specific on the matter, Olmert did mention a “timetable” and said action would take place before Bush leaves the White House.

    “We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat,” Olmert said after the meeting. “I left with a lot less question marks [than I had entered with] regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America’s resoluteness to deal with the problem.”

    “George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House,” Olmert reportedly said after his 90 minute long one-on-one meeting with the American Commander in Chief.

    ‘It is not good to publicize everything’

    “With every day that goes by we get closer to stopping the Iranian nuclear plan,” Olmert said. He said that meaningful steps were being taken to handle Iran “more effectively” and told reporters: “The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new President in the White House seven and a half months from now.”

    “The U.S. is a leading element in dealing with Iran,” Olmert said. “These are serious matters; I am not just saying this… It is not good to publicize everything.”

    Olmert reportedly told Bush: “From a personal point of view, I must say that I admire the patience and the strong emotion that you show the State of Israel as a person of your stature. Israel loves you very much, and your wife Laura.”

    American National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley dodged reporters’ questions Wednesday on whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert directly urged American President George W. Bush to take military action against Iran. He said the United States is using a diplomatic strategy but added: “All options are on the table.”

    Olmert, in a speech earlier this week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy forum, said that the Iranian threat “must be stopped by all possible means.” He said sanctions are “only an initial step” and that there is “no doubt as to the urgent need for more drastic and robust measures.”

    John Conyers has threatened to impeach Bush if he attacks Iran without the approval of Congress. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are in a fine pickle, going out of their way to prove they are better friends of Israel than George Bush or John McCain. Will they support this madness? I call on Obama to denounce this plan in no uncertain terms. I expect him to instead reiterate his unflinching support for Israel. Israel has once again proven itself to be a dubious ally at best. If its people love George Bush as its leader has just professed, what kind of ally is Israel? Fortunately not all its people are so foolish. Olmert and his ministers have thrown down the gauntlet. It is up to the Israeli people to reject this reckless folly, to show their country is worthy of support, instead of the rogue state international scofflaw its leaders have made of it.

  2. Aletha Says:

    Israel National News apparently is an extreme pro-Zionist publication, so I am taking its claims about what Olmert reportedly said with a grain of salt. Both Bush and Olmert have since distanced their policy from the remarks of the minister. I would not say an attack on Iran is unlikely, but it may not be true that Olmert has predicted it. I also found an earlier similar report from May 20 about US intentions to attack Iran. Saber rattling, perhaps, but I think Israel has come to a crossroads. Its leaders have often been scornful of the UN and considered it ineffective and biased against Israel. Olmert is disgraced, on his way out, but his replacement may not be any less belligerent.

  3. Aletha Says:

    The New York Times reported Saturday that President Bush turned down an Israeli request for help bombing the major nuclear complex at Natanz. This AP story is from Yahoo News

    Bush reportedly rejected Israeli plea to raid Iran
    Sun Jan 11, 6:51 am ET

    WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran’s main nuclear complex, opting instead to authorize a new U.S. covert action aimed at sabotaging Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported.

    Israel’s request was for specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for an attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the Times reported Saturday in its online edition. The White House deflected requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S. efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.

    The covert efforts, which began in early 2008, involved plans to penetrate Iran’s nuclear supply chain abroad and undermine electrical systems and other networks on which Iran relies, the Times said, citing interviews with current and former U.S. officials, outside experts and international nuclear inspectors who spoke on condition of anonymity. The covert program will be handed off to President-elect Barack Obama, who will deciding whether to continue it.

    According to the Times, Bush decided against an overt attack based on input from top administration officials such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who believed that doing so would likely prove ineffective and could ignite a broader Middle East war.

    Israel made the push for permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran following its anger over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier. Israel sought to rebut the report, providing evidence to U.S. intelligence officials that they said indicated the Iranians were still working on a weapon.

    So it appears Israel fully intended to attack Iran, but Warmonger in Chief President Bush refused to cooperate! Cooler heads prevailed, so Israel may now try to persuade Obama. Israel thinks it has some right to be the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the region, so that allowing any other nation to develop nuclear weapons is tantamount to suicide. This is just part of Israeli paranoia. Israel has made many enemies, but it has the strongest military in the region, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia. The leaders of Iran are not stupid enough to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, because they know that would be suicide. Iran may or may not be working on such weapons, but if they are, it is far more likely for purposes of deterring an attack from USA than attacking Israel. The leaders of Israel should realize this, but their sense of insecurity and victimhood knows no bounds.

  4. Aletha Says:

    Israel is still keeping all its options on the table. Defense Minister Barak made sure Iran does not get the idea Obama might keep Israel on a leash. This AP story is from Yahoo News

    Israel on Iran: Anything it takes to stop nukes
    By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer
    Mon Jul 27, 9:32 pm ET

    JERUSALEM – Israel hardened its insistence Monday that it would do anything it felt necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, just the ultimatum the United States hoped not to hear as it tried to nudge Iran to the bargaining table.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reassured Israel that the new Obama administration was not naive about Iran’s intentions, and that Washington would press for new, tougher sanctions against the Iranians if they balk. He didn’t say what those might include.

    Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak used a brief news conference with Gates to insist three times that Israel would not rule out any response — an implied warning that it would consider a pre-emptive strike to thwart Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    “We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table,” Barak said. “This is our policy. We mean it. We recommend to others to take the same position, but we cannot dictate it to anyone.”

    Small comfort that inability to dictate to others will be if Israel carries out this threat. Obama will certainly feel obliged to defend Israel against the retaliation from Iran, which might kick off the next world war. Israel should be told in no uncertain terms that it has no right to attack Iran to prevent it from constructing nuclear weapons. Israel wants to preserve its monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. It has no more right to those weapons than Iran or any other nation, and given the rich history of Israeli war crimes, Israel is one nation that cannot be trusted not to use those weapons. Since Israel would ignore any mild warning not to attack Iran, perhaps it would get their attention to state any use of their nuclear weapons would result in international cooperation to destroy their nuclear arsenal. That may sound drastic, but Free Soil has long called for a Treaty to Ban Nuclear Aggression. Obama could also threaten to cut off aid, but Israel would probably correctly dismiss that as a bluff.

  5. Dave Levin Says:

    As an Israeli.. I realize a lot of people would get hurt and I am probably going to lose a member of my family or a friend. I also pity the Iranian people who I grew to like as smart and advanced.
    But if we don’t stop the nutcase that took power in Iran it will only get worse as time passes. Better to attack now and acknowledge the retributions to come than to wait for their capabilities to grow. It is coming whichever the case is.

  6. Aletha Says:

    Which nutcase? I presume the man who speaks for Iran, not the powers behind the scenes, who are far more rational than commonly presumed around here, or in Israel. They do not want to start a nuclear war by attacking Israel with a nuclear bomb. They are unabashedly sexist and fanatical, but not stupid. I wonder if the same can be said about the government of Israel. What, do you have any respect for the UN charter or international law whatsoever? You are aware you are recommending blatant aggression in indisputable violation of that charter and international law? What right does Israel have to take that action? None at all, especially considering it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is in violation of it. Israel can claim it is self-defense until doomsday, it will not make that claim true one iota, and can you even imagine the utter chaos that would reign if other nations used that kind of reasoning to justify aggression against other unfriendly nations?

    I suppose it does not matter; Israel is quite capable of starting a world war without any help. It appears, according to your reasoning and I would suspect most Israelis, including Netanyahu, Israel will act on its paranoia and the hell with the consequences for everyone else. You are only concerned about retributions? How convenient for you. How could Israel make a dent in those “capabilities” without using nuclear weapons? The reactor in Iraq was an easy target. The nuclear facilities in Iran are not such easy targets. Israel cannot keep its nuclear monopoly in the region for much longer anyway. What makes its people think it has any right to interfere with another nation which wants to develop nuclear power? Unless nuclear power and weapons are forbidden and dismantled worldwide, which I would think is the only reasonable solution, it is none of the business of Israel or USA who develops nuclear power. As long as one nation has nuclear technology, it makes no sense to try to stop others from following that madness. It is madness, first because it is one of the worst ways imaginable to produce energy, and second, because the weapons technology follows so easily from the energy technology. I really do not know what the framers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty expected, especially since it was obvious USA had no intention of honoring its obligations under that treaty. The treaty was a flimsy compromise from the beginning, doomed to fail, and Israel ought to acknowledge it cannot keep all its hostile neighbors from developing nuclear technology; any effort to prevent that by force is bound to rebound on Israel with far worse consequences than whatever damage it may inflict on the target. The time when Israel could intimidate its enemies into submission is over. Israel must learn to live with its enemies, stop trying to impose its will.

Leave a Reply