It’s unclear whether the new IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program has anything new. But even before its release, Israel has stoked speculation of a military strike.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is set to release a new report this week that, by all accounts, will provide more detailed information than ever before about alleged Iranian work to militarize its nuclear research program. Iran has for its part dismissed the report even before it was issued as “forgeries similar to faked notes,” and warning that it’s all just a rehash of the so-called Green Salt documents that have been behind IAEA reports for the past several years. But others say that the November IAEA report could be a game-changer that ratchets up international pressure on Iran. And, even if there’s nothing new, the rumors have still triggered yet another round of reports that Israel is planning to launch a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The IAEA report is certain to cause a storm of controversy. It isn’t clear, however, if the IAEA has genuinely new information to report, or whether it simply plans to elaborate on evidence it’s had since 2004. At least one new wrinkle, though, is almost guaranteed to revive memories of the flawed and fabricated intelligence about what turned out to be a nonexistent weapons of mass destruction program, namely, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 testimony to the United Nations Security Council, in which he revealed photographs of what he said were mobile biological weapons labs that turned out to be bogus. In this case, according to the Washington Post, the IAEA has “acquired satellite photos of a bus-size steel container” used to field test “the kinds of high-precision conventional explosives used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.”
In Washington, there’s a moderately heightened level of worry that Israel, this time, might actually be ready to carry out an attack, but most analysts believe that the saber-rattling in Jerusalem is yet another effort by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take advantage of the new IAEA report by creating conditions for yet tougher sanctions on Iran. For two decades, the whole issue has been a propaganda gold mine. Like clockwork, each year since 2004, there have been regular predictions that Iran was just a year or so removed from deploying an atomic bomb, yet no bomb exists. Similarly, there has been a steady drumbeat of reports over the same period that either Israel or the United States was just months away from a military strike against Iran.
Is it different this time? At least one report, by CNN, quoted a senior U.S. Pentagon official saying that the United States is “absolutely” concerned that Israel might be preparing to go to war against Iran, and previously ironclad assurances by Israel that it wouldn’t carry out such an attack without informing the United States are being questioned. “Now that doesn’t seem so ironclad,” a Department of Defense official told CNN.
Over the past four years, both the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have told the Israelis, in no uncertain terms, that an attack on Iran is unacceptable to Washington. Top U.S. military leaders, including most notably just-retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, have personally delivered the same message to Israeli military commanders. That’s because an attack by Israel against Iran would inevitably draw the United States into the war, and the conflict would likely spread as Iran struck back against the United States, Israel, and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, either directly or through proxies in Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Presumably, those warnings to Israel still stand, and it’s likely they’ve been reiterated this month, although the White House spokesman last week refused to comment one way or the other when asked if the United States had communicated to Israel on the issue.
The question gained new urgency at the end of October when Nahum Barnea, a veteran writer at the daily Yediot Aharanot, wrote a column suggesting that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have agreed among themselves that Israel must take action against Iran. “Have the prime minister and defense minister settled on a decision, just between the two of them, to launch a military attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran?” he asked. Days later, the liberal daily Haaretz reported that Netanyahu and Barak had taken the issue to Israel’s cabinet to rally support. “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said,” reported Haaretz. “According to the official, there’s a ‘small advantage’ in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack.” Soon, Israel was abuzz with rumors and counter-rumors that something was in the offing.
Photo Credit: Daniella Zalcman
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Duglarri
Israel’s real concern is unfortunately unanswerable. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, or even the breakout capability to make one, Israel will be seen to be a dangerous place, and tourists will avoid it, and the best and brightest- those who can afford to- will continue to leave.
If Israel strikes Iran it will be the first war since the Mongols to be primarily motivated by tourism.
Augustbrhm
america/israel knows that Iran is no pushover and both of them will get their asses broken should they try that stunt.It will be the end of both agressors.
fixdeluxe1
What I don’t understand is even if Iran had nuclear weapons,they would not pose a threat to anyone important in the region because countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel have the backing of the U.S,which would bring it’s full weight to bear if Iran tried anything.The United States is also hypocritical because it posses the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world,and is the only country have employed Nuclear Weapons TWICE in armed conflict,killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese Civilians.
The problem is that Iran doesn’t come under U.S hegemony and thus is a threat to U.S dominance in Middle eastern politics and affairs.That is why there is rhetoric,mainly on the far-right, about a hypothetical “surgical strike”. They want regime change,political power and the economic benefits of regional “overlordship”.