View

US, Israel and the Iran question

By Gong Shaopeng (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-08-10 14:42

Speculation has been rife for some time now over a possible US and/or Israel attack on Iran to stop its nuclear program. But an attack on Iran will certainly not be a simple mission.

For one, too many targets in Iran have to be attacked to stop its nuclear program. An Oxford Research Group (ORG) report, issued in July, classifies the targets into six categories: uranium enrichment plants, the Esfahan uranium conversion facility, nuclear research and development sites, factories making supportive equipment, military bases with missiles, and physics, engineering and related university departments and their employees.

Since the targets are spread over Teheran, Natanz, Tabriz and Esfahan, it would be very difficult to carry out military strikes on them simultaneously. And even if attacks are carried out simultaneously, the US or Isarel cannot avoid deaths and injuries to a huge number of civilians.

ORG has also said that if attacked, Iran would respond in every which way it could, including withdrawing from the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty under the provisions of Article X, that is, "extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty that have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country". It could make Iran accord greater priority to nuclear weapons' development, too, to deter future attacks.

Among other options, ORG says, Iran could launch counterattacks on Israel and the US forces in Iraq, block the Straits of Hormuz to disrupt oil shipments which would shoot up oil prices, egg Lebanon's Hezbollah to attack Israel and provide help to Iraqi and Afghan resistance fighters.

ORG concludes that such an attack would lead to a sustained conflict and regional instability. Hence, military action against Iran should be ruled out as a means of dashing its nuclear ambitions, if any.

The fact, however, is that even though the parties in the current Israeli coalition government differ on many major domestic and international issues, they are unanimous over launching an attack on Iran, especially its nuclear facilities.

Israel destroyed Iraq's experimental Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981, preventing it from taking the "plutonium route to nuclear weapons". Hawkish Israeli leaders may use this example as a precedent for "denuclearizing" Iran by force. And though Israeli planes have to cross Iraq to reach Iran, Tel-Aviv can use F-15I Ra'am (Thunder), F-16I Sufa (Storm) strike aircraft and KC-707 Re'em refueling planes to attack all the Iranian nuclear facilities.

But even if Israel chooses to attack Iran, its planes have to cross the airspace over northeast Iraq, which is controlled by the US.

True, the Barack Obama administration reportedly has no plans to use military force against Iran and has stopped Israel from doing so, its policy has been challenged recently. Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Aug 1 that the US had drawn up a plan to prevent Iran from making or acquiring nuclear weapons. The military options have been on the table and will remain on the table, he asserted.

Addressing the Disabled American Veterans' national convention on Aug 2, Obama reiterated that US combat mission in Iraq would end on schedule, that is, on Aug 31, and the remaining US troops would be engaged only in diplomatic-led efforts.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003, and its troops there once grew to 140,000. But after taking office, President Obama shifted US focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and gradually reduced the number of American troops in the Middle East country.

At present, there are 80,000 US troops in Iraq but their number will be reduced to 50,000 by the end of this month. The remaining troops will continue to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counter-terrorism operations and protect supplies.

This has made many analysts say that Obama wants to use the progress he has made in Iraq to regain support for the Democrats in the November mid-term election. But he fears that Iran could seize the chance to fill the "vacuum" created by the US troop pullout from Iraq.

The political situation in Iraq is fluid. A new Iraqi government is yet to be formed, even though the parliamentary election was held on March 7. If Iran were get to more deeply involved in Iraq, the situation there could only worsen.

Therefore, it seems Obama might have sounded out Mullen to issue a warning to Iran (a deliberate act to warn his opponents, too) and only after that he reiterated that US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq on schedule.

Analyzing US policy on Iran, the ORG report says that "while the Obama administration seems unlikely at present to consider military action, its rhetoric has certainly become far tougher". This in effect means despite issuing a strong warning to Iran, the US won't launch a military strike against it in the immediate future. The new sanctions on Iran, declared by the US on Aug 3, targeting senior officials of three organizations and 21 companies, partly conform to ORG's conclusion.

The US is not likely to attack Iran for now, but can the same be said about Israel? On Aug 3, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity submitted a memorandum to Obama, reminding him of the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran without consulting the US. The memo said that Israeli leaders were confident that the Jewish lobby would influence the outcome of the US mid-term election and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might be compelled to believe that if Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Iran, the US would have no option but to support it.

Such a development may get the US bogged down in an even bigger war with dimmer prospects. So, Obama should condemn such a move before it becomes reality. So, the Obama administration may not upgrade its warning against Iran further, or else the situation would spiral out of its control.

The author is a professor at China Foreign Affairs University.