Israeli attack on Iran would spurn rationality
- By Jin Liangxiang
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, October 2, 2012
It has become a hot topic recently in the international media whether Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Some analysts predict that it is highly likely that Israel will launch such an attack before the U.S. general elections in November, due to the political sensitivities of U.S. interference on the issue during an election year. As such, Israeli politicians are actively talking about potential action.
|
|
|
A pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would not only violate international law but also do nothing to ensure Israel's security or curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions. |
By and large, the international community considers Israel's concern for its own national security, judging from its history of prior victimization, as reasonable. But if Israel is rational enough, it should not conduct any aggressive unilateral solution to attempt to disrupt Iran's nuclear program.
Before Iran has been proven to have substantially breached the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), any military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities should not be considered legitimate nor legal. Though Iran has not cooperated with the IAEA sufficiently, it is still too early to judge whether Iran's nuclear program is being used strictly for peaceful purposes. Iran has neither conducted any tests of nuclear weapons nor refused inspections of the IAEA. These two criteria should be crucial in making judgments about the nature of its nuclear program.
According to a recent IAEA report, Iran has produced approximately 5000 kg of enriched uranium with a purity of 5 percent and 100 kg with purity of 20 percent. Thus, it is far from being able to produce a nuclear bomb, which requires uranium or plutonium with a purity of nearly 90 percent to be effective though it is not difficult to master the technology to create weapons-grade fission material.
Iran's foreign ministry has openly declared that it only wants enriched uranium with purity of 5 percent, which can be used for power plants, and will produce uranium with purity of 20 percent, which can be used for medical purposes, if Iran cannot buy such materials from the international market. No substantial evidence thus far has indicated that Iran will pursue a nuclear weapons program.
Military action should only be considered legal when authorized by a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution. It is very unlikely that the five permanent members of the UNSC (the U.S., Britain, China, Russia, and France) will allow a resolution granting military action to pass. It is true that the US, Britain and France share the same threat perceptions about Iran. But currently no evidence indicates that they support Israel's unilateral military action on the issue. Likewise, China and Russia equally do not want to see Iran weaponize its nuclear program, and both countries advocate for a peaceful solution to the problem through diplomacy.
Additionally, a military strike (or series of strikes) would not necessarily eliminate the threat or ensure Israel's security. Many Israelis firmly believe that a strike would succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. Their confidence actually comes from the successful Operation Opera in 1981. In that action, Israeli air forces swiftly bombed and destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.
Today's Iran, however, is a totally different story, albeit some minimal similarities. In 1981, Iraq only had one unfortified nuclear reactor, built by French contractors above ground. But today's Iran has scores of nuclear facilities situated in a wide range of places throughout its territory, both near the Persian Gulf and in the country's interior. Most of these facilities are located deep underground, making them immune to conventional bombs and even bunker busters. This makes it highly improbable that Israeli air forces would destroy all the facilities in one or several actions.
What's more, Iran's nuclear capability lies in not only its infrastructure but also its knowledge. Iran has educated quite a number of nuclear physicists and technicians, who know how to produce centrifuges, how to enrich uranium with the centrifuges and how to build nuclear reactors. Assassinations in last several years have not significantly hurt the country's capabilities in this regard. Therefore, it is believed that even if its nuclear facilities are destroyed, Iran can very easily rebuild its program in a period of two or three years.
Other constraints include whether the Israeli air force could fly long distances at an altitude low enough to escape the radar systems of Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq on its way to Iran, and whether Israel is ready and able to shoulder the responsibility in case nuclear fallout spreads to Iran's neighboring countries as a result of an attack on Iranian reactors.
A military strike on its facilities will also provide legality for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons program, if it doesn't already have one. According to the NPT, any signatory can withdraw from the treaty if its national security is under threat.
Worthy of special mention is that Israel would have to prepare for retaliations from Iran if it initiates an attack. Iran might not be able to wipe Israel off the map as its president Ahmadinejad frequently claims, yet, if attacked, Iran will definitely fight back with its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, which can reach any part of Israel's territory. And Iran's regional protégés, including Hezbollah and Hamas would also likely attack Israel's territories. If such a scenario occurs, Israeli citizens will have to live in terror once again.
Thus, rational calculation by Israeli policymakers should result in Israel's strategic restraint. However, the history of Israel's sixty years since its founding has provided very few cases that can prove Israel's rationality and respect for international law. None of Israel's 1956, 1967 and 1982 military actions against its Arab neighbors was the result of the authorization from the UNSC.
The tragedies the Jews have suffered throughout history have made Israelis extremely sensitive to external threats, greatly distorting Israel's geostrategic worldview. The ire Israel has for its neighbors can partly be attributed to the hostile regional environment, but also should be attributed more to its habitual over-exaggeration of perceived external threats.
The world still has reason to expect Israel to act prudently. However, despite the poor viability, feasibility and legality of unilateral action, it is still possible that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities. As such, the Middle East region and the world should prepare for the worst.
Last but not the least, taking military action off the table does not mean the two sides cannot find a peaceful solution to the issue. Diplomacy is still an effective way to prevent Iran's nuclear activities from crossing so-called red lines.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visithttp://m.formacion-profesional-a-distancia.com/opinion/jinliangxiang.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
