Time’s up on Iran

It's only fair to share...Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Email this to someone
email

Over the past few weeks evidence has piled up that Iran is not years away from being capable of building nuclear bombs at will. It is months away. As the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Teheran’s nuclear program makes clear, at its present rate of uranium enrichment, Iran will have sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to build two atomic bombs by February.

 

 

What is most notable about this IAEA finding is that it comes in a report that does everything possible to cover up Iran’s progress and intentions.

 

 

Israel responded angrily to the report, alleging that the agency’s outgoing director, Mohamed ElBaradei, suppressed information that confirms the military nature of Iran’s program. In a statement released last Saturday, the Foreign Ministry alleged that the report “does not reflect the entirety of the information the IAEA holds on Iran’s efforts to advance their military program, nor their continued efforts to conceal and deceive and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA and the international community.”

 

 

Two weeks before the IAEA released its report, the US State Department published its assessment that Iran won’t have the wherewithal to develop a bomb until 2013. According The Washington Post, this conclusion is based on the State Department’s analysis of Iran’s “technical capability.”

 

 

For all its failures, the latest IAEA report puts the lie to this State Department assessment.

 

 

Moreover, as a recent study by Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin shows, Iran already has several delivery options for its burgeoning nuclear arsenal. In a report published by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Rubin, who has been awarded the Israel Defense Prize and oversaw the development of Israel’s Arrow missile defense system, concludes that Iran today has the capacity to develop solid-fuel-based intermediate ballistic missiles with a range of 3,600 kilometers. That is, today, Iran has the capacity to attack not only Israel and other states in the Middle East. Since its successful test of its solid-fuel based Sejil missile in May, it has the demonstrated capacity to attack Europe as well.

 

 

Furthermore, Teheran’s successful upgrade of its ballistic missiles to satellite launchers has given it the capacity to launch nuclear weapons into the atmosphere. This renders Iran capable of launching an electromagnetic pulse attack from sea against just about any country. An EMP attack can destroy a state’s electromagnetic grid and thus take a 21st-century economy back to the pre-industrial era. Such an attack on the US, for instance, would cripple the American economy, and render the US government at all levels incapable of restoring order or preventing mass starvation.

 

 

THESE LATEST disclosures should focus the attention of Israel’s leaders on a singular question: What can Israel do to prevent Iran from further expanding its nuclear capacity and block it from emerging as a nuclear power?

 

 

The answer to this question is the same as it has been for the past six years, since the scale of Teheran’s nuclear program was first revealed. Israel can order the Israel Air Force to bomb Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities with the aim of denying Iran the ability to attack the Jewish state.

 

 

The necessity for Israel to exercise its one option grows daily in light of what the rest of the world is doing in regards to Iran. Following the release of the IAEA report and ahead of the UN General Assembly’s opening meeting later this month, this week US, German, British, French, Russian and Chinese diplomats met in Germany to discuss the possibility of ratcheting up Security Council sanctions against Iran. Ahead of the meeting, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both announced that they support stronger sanctions.

 

 

But right on schedule, as the representatives of these countries sat down with one another, the Iranians told the media they are interested in negotiating. Suddenly, after stonewalling for more than a year, Teheran is willing to think about telling us the terms under which it will discuss the West’s offer to provide the mullahs with all manner of rewards in exchange for an Iranian agreement to suspend the expansion of its of uranium enrichment, (which, as the IAEA report notes, is already great enough to produce two nuclear bombs by February).

 

 

Taking their cue from the mullahs, the Russians and the Chinese are now saying that there is no reason to be hasty. Far wiser, in their view, would be a decision to sit down and see what the Iranians would like to do. No doubt, the Russians and Chinese are arguing that it will take some time – perhaps until February – to arrange such a meeting. And then, there is the prospect that such a meeting could end inconclusively but keep the door open for further talks sometime in late-2010 or early 2011. In the meantime, as far as the Russians and the Chinese are concerned, further UN sanctions would be unfair in light of Iran’s willingness to engage diplomatically.

 

 

But then even if the Russians and the Chinese supported stronger sanctions, the measure now being debated will have no impact on either Iran’s ability or willingness to become a nuclear power. Today these leading nations are discussing the prospect of banning refined petroleum imports into Iran. Given that Iran, with its currently limited capacity to refine petroleum, is a net oil importer, for the past several years, the notion of banning the Iranian imports of refined petroleum products has been raised every time the IAEA submitted a report on Iran’s nuclear program and every time more information came out describing its spectacular progress in missile development and uranium enrichment. Inevitably, this talk was dismissed the moment a mullah approached a microphone and hinted that Iran might be interested in cutting a deal.

 

 

But while the West has consistently postponed imposing such sanctions, the Islamic republic has taken the prospect seriously. Over the past four years, Iran moved to reduce its vulnerability to such a ban. It has required citizens to adapt their cars to run on natural gas, which Iran has in abundance. Furthermore, in a joint venture with China, Teheran has launched a crash program to expand its domestic oil refining capabilities. With Chinese assistance, Iran is expected to have the refining capacity to meet its domestic needs by 2012.

 

 

Beyond that, as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton noted this week in The Wall Street Journal, even if the West were to impose such sanctions on Iran today, they would not impact the Iranian military’s ability to operate. The only people who would be impacted by such sanctions are Iranian civilians.

 

 

Here, too, it should be noted that the entire rationale of the ban on refined oil imports to Iran is that oil shortages will turn the public against the regime and the regime in turn will be forced to stand down against the international community in order to placate its gasoline-starved constituents. But if the regime’s brutal repression of its opponents in the wake of the stolen June 12 presidential elections tells us anything, it tells us that the regime doesn’t care about what the Iranian public thinks of it. Indeed, in the face of rising domestic opposition to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the regime’s best bet may be to launch a war against the hated Jews in order to unify the clerical leadership – which is now split between those supporting the regime and those supporting the opposition – behind the regime.

 

 

Finally, the discussion of sanctions is irrelevant because every move that Iran is making shows that the regime is determined to go to war. Its massive diversion of resources to its nuclear and ballistic missile programs shows that the regime is absolutely committed to becoming a nuclear power. Its move to build an open military alliance with the Lebanese government, together with its expansion of its military ties to Syria throug
h the financing of the sale of advanced Russian aircraft to Damascus and the proliferation of nuclear technology, shows that it is building up the capabilities of its underlings. Then, too, this week’s report that the Hizbullah weapons cache in southern Lebanon which exploded in July contained chemical weapons indicates that Iran is already providing its terror proxies with nonconventional arsenals to expand its war-making capabilities against Israel and the West.

 

 

ALL IN all, the totality of Iran’s moves make clear that it is not interested in using its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to gain all manner of goodies from the West. It is planning to use its nuclear program as a means of becoming a nuclear power. And it wishes to become a nuclear power because it wishes to wage war against its enemies.

 

 

And all in all, the totality of the UN-led international community’s responses to Teheran’s moves make clear that the world will take no effective action to prevent Iran from gaining the capacity to wage nuclear war. The world today will again do nothing to prevent the genocide of Jewry.

 

 

And that’s the thing of it. So long as the mullahs continue to signal that the Jews are their first target, the world will be content to allow them to build their nuclear weapons and to use them. As US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s contention that the US will retaliate against Iran if it launches a nuclear attack against Israel makes clear, Washington will only consider acting against Teheran after the US moves to the top of Teheran’s target list.

 

 

The question then is whether Israel has the ability to effectively attack Iran even if the US opposes such a strike. Based on open source material, the answer to this central question is yes, Israel can launch an effective strike against Iran.

 

 

Over the past several years, the IAF has demonstrated that it has the power-projection capability to reach Iran’s nuclear installations, strike and return home. The key nuclear installations have been visited by IAEA inspectors. They are not hundreds of meters underground. They are not invulnerable to ordnance Israel already possesses. They can be destroyed or at least severely impaired.

 

 

The route to Iran is also open. Various leaked reports indicate that Saudi Arabia has given Israel a green light to overfly its airspace en route to Iran.

 

 

Finally, consistent polling data show that the Israeli public understands the need for a strike and would be willing to accept whatever consequences flow in its wake. The public will support a government decision to strike even if the strike is not a one-off like the 1981 IAF strike that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor. The public will support the government even if the strike precipitates a condemnation by the US and a resumption of hostilities with Lebanon and even with Syria.

 

 

With each passing day, Iran moves closer to the bomb and closer to initiating war on its terms. The international community will do nothing to preempt this danger. Israel must act. Fighting a war on our terms is eminently preferable to fighting one on Iran’s.

 

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

 

 

It's only fair to share...Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Email this to someone
email

11 Comments

  • Marcel 09/04/2009 at 14:52

    I sure hope Israel has moved away from trusting the world community to do the right thing when it comes to not just Iran but the Palestinian’s.
    It must come as a jolt to the senses to understand what the(US)Hillary Option really is related to Israel.
    I’ll spell it out for the gullible who looked to the fair and balanced superpower to save Israel.
    ‘No Israel No Problem’
    The only thing which has changed since the gas chambers of Germany is that the world has become more evil.
    The silence of the world to the introduction of outlawed chemical and biological weapons in Lebanon aimed at Israel by Iran’s proxy Hizbollah says it all.
    We know if Israel had these weapons pointed at the Arab/islamic world that the earth would be shaking from the global firestorm raging againt Israel.
    The fact that we do not hear a peep should awaken Israel to the coming events which are of Biblical proportions.
    It’s time to get back to your roots starting with the ancient Jewish prophets who wrote about this day.
    Isaiah 17:1 will soon be fulfilled.

    Reply
  • Ted Moran 09/04/2009 at 23:45

    Caroline,
    You wrote, “Fighting a war on our terms is eminently preferable to fighting one on Iran’s.”
    I say, “Amen.”

    Reply
  • Tomer Elias 09/05/2009 at 3:08

    Do you really believe there is a chance that we will strike?
    I have recently started reading your book and after going through the first pages its easy to understand that you have a great way of “predicting” the bad things that will happen from the events going on around the world through a very realistic uncerstanding of how things are.
    But the chance that Israel will actually go through with this and really take the military option in an offensive way just feels a little to optimistic to ever possibly happen.
    We all know exactly whats going to happen if the world lets a nuclear Iran exist but for some reason by looking back and how we and the world have dealt with all the recent threats to our freedom how can we actually believe that there is a chance that we will do things differently now? what makes this different then the past events? Nothing since for so long we have only retaliated against those who have provoked us it feels like we have lost the ability to actually make an offensive move in order to prevent us from getting into a future conflict that will always be deadlier since our leaders believed that somehow the other side might chance and not act as we know it will but will become reasonable and play nice games with us and let us live in peace.
    Will there actually need to be a nuclear holocaust before we gain the will to be the firsts to act against our enemies To diminish there power while they are still waiting for the perfect time for them to attack, to get them when they least expect it and to keep hitting them until they are truly gone?
    It doesn’t matter if we are left or right we all want to live in peace. But the recent years have proven over and over again to Israel that the only time we have been able to gain peace was when we showed the world who had the power and who most dominant. We know that only when we show our true power only then our enemies become reasonable people and wish to “talk” and even then we always end up as the “loser” we all our history we have done to much in order to gain peace just giving and giving and giving but there is nothing left to give and we are still asked to give up more. How can we end this situation? When will the world and the people of it see that all the time Israel was the first that went for peace no matter what government and Israel was always the first to give up in order to gain even the slightest of improvement in relationships between the countries.
    Is it really posible that now will be the time when we will take what is rightfully ours,the freedom to live as we choose and show our enemies what happens when our freedom to live peacefully in our own homes is taken from us?

    Reply
  • getzel 09/05/2009 at 9:13

    I think there is one glaring error in your analysis that should give us all a constant reminder for: clarity and avoiding “political correctness” in out writings/comments. Caroline wrote: “Finally, the discussion of sanctions is irrelevant because every move that Iran is making shows that the regime is determined to go to war…the Hizbullah weapons cache in southern Lebanon which exploded in July contained chemical weapons indicates that Iran is already providing its terror proxies with nonconventional arsenals to expand its war-making capabilities against Israel and the West”.
    I would say that Iran has been at war with the “West” since Jimmy Carter accommodated their replacement of the pro-West Shaw. Hizbully, an Iranian proxy army, trained, funded, armed and manned by Iranian Revolutionary Guards have already attacked us; we may call it the 2006 Lebanon war, Iran views it as a battle in the ongoing war. Even Argentina has indicted the Iranian leadership that staged a battle against the Jews in Argentina. Et al: my point made.
    Thank You Caroline for your outstanding work and commitment to our survival. Getzel

    Reply
  • beniyyar 09/05/2009 at 16:02

    Most of the criticism of the use of military force to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat rests on the dangers of the possible Iranian military and terror responses to any attack, whether Israeli or anybody else. These dangers all boil down to the disruption of the international petroleum supplies. Whether by Iranian terror or missile attacks on other Persian Gulf oil producers, terror attacks on oil tankers on the high seas, or by blocking the Straits of Hormuz. Of course Iran encourages these fears and states, terror movements, or just individuals aligned with Iran, for either ideological or economic reasons, routinely inflate these threats in order to diminish the chances of any state attacking Iran’s nuclear program.
    But Israel does not have to take any of these dangers into account since unlike any other state in the world, only Israel suffers an existential danger from Iran. Besides even if, as is unlikely, the worst of these Iranian threats were to materialize as the result of an Israeli attack, Israel would suffer no less than any other state, and yet Israel would still have the logical and moral right to self preservation and self defence.
    As an Israeli I hope and pray that our political leadership will have the courage and determination to take the hard and potentially lethal decision to defend the Jewish State and not be cowed into inaction by a cowardly and appeasing international community.

    Reply
  • Marc Handelsman, USA 09/05/2009 at 19:42

    When the IAF inevitably bombs Iran’s nuclear installations, it will unleash retaliation by Iran and its proxies against Israeli and American targets. The scope of that retaliation is unknown, and Israel will take the blame for whatever happens. The international community is reluctant to take on Iran because it is afraid of igniting Muslim extremism against the West. It is wiser to deal with Iran now, than wait for it to transfer nuclear technology to its proxies, and global terrorist groups. And Islamic nuclear proliferation cannot be tolerated.

    Reply
  • Marcel 09/05/2009 at 22:14

    ‘The scope of that retaliation is unknown, and Israel will take the blame for whatever happens.’
    Yes Israel will be blamed for the fallout,literal and physical,
    but if we listen to the ancient Jewish prophets we can know what is about to unfold.
    Iran will ambush the coming Obama naval blockade of the Perisan Gulf.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CMd2_XaCLU&feature=channel_page

    Reply
  • Elisha 09/06/2009 at 10:32

    Dear Caroline,
    While I like your analysis I’m afraid this is a dead end. Obama represents US interests not Israeli, Palestinian, or Iranian. That translates into a US engineered dependence. Why no one has commented on this yet astounds me. Either it is a pink elephant or there is some cultural blinder at play. Bibi and his staff know that it is a strategic US interest to seek a complete settlement freeze just as it is an US interest for any Palestinian state to be financially dependent upon the US and it is a US interest for a nuclear Iran. This is a bait and switch tactic where Israeli settlements are the bait and Iran is the switch. If Arab countries in the Middle East are threatened by Iran they become dependent on US security. If Israeli settlements are frozen Israel becomes dependent on US security. If Palestinians have no economy or credible institutions for stahood they become dependent on US security, just like in Kosovo. If Arab states baulk at US pressure then Obama can loosen his leash on Iran and allow some destabilizing activity against neighboring arab states. A crippled Iran with nuclear weapons is the boogeyman of the Middle East. Your analysis fails to address two critical challenges for a successful Iranian initiative.
    First is that Israel can not go it alone this time with out a credible risk of Iran collasping the global transportation infrastructure. If Iran destroys Saudi and GCC oilwells the time it will take to redrill exceeds global oil reserves. Likewise, if Iran sees that the nations are becoming oil independent it is likely they will launch a preemptive strike to collaspe the sector themselves. The pricewave generated by an Iranian strike on these oilwells will outstrip the available income of citizens to pay for oil, gas, and derivative products. What that means is that billions of people (including Israelis) will physically starve to death in the interim. Reliance on the US is not a viable option as described above unless you wish an existential Israeli dependence upon the US. Israel needs another state actor to support its campaign against Iran. The more the better, but at the very least it needs Egyptian cooperation.
    Egyptian cooperation is essential for eliminating and/or reducing Hamas, PA, and Hezbollah initiatives that are certain to be a result to an Israeli offensive against Iran. You must recognize that unless Egypt is brought on board Israel is unlikely to survive even if it is successful. There is also the possibility that the US will shoot down Israeli bombers and fighters which it detects if Obama is against such an attack. While I feel such measures are remote they must also be a consideration. Obtaining Egyptian cooperation requires that Israel embrace pularism, especially with jewish-arab-egyptians who are held hostage by Islamic militancy. If Israel can present credible evidence to Mubarak of a non-PA, non-Hamas, non-Hezbollah brokered peace then he will eventually realize the Egyptian cost of supporting the PLO (which Egypt created as an extreme branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) and seek to neutralize it. He can not accomplish this with the resources of Egypt alone and will require external assistence. The ILA is also a necessary component of Israeli pluralism and will be needed if Egypt comes onboard. Radical jewish revisionists such as THE NEW SANHEDRIN are obstacles to Egyptian and Palestinian cooperation. You need to recognize that what is essential here is to reengineer Israeli dependence upon the US into US dependence upon Egypt and Israel. If Obama feels he will not be reelected next term then the kid gloves will come off and he will approach Israel like a tyrannt. Egypt is essential to Israel’s survival just as freeing the oppressed segment of forced jewish assimilation in Palestine is essential to collasping radical Islam. The Iranian Reform Movement is the proof of this.
    Second is that muslim perceived openess by Israel will place it on the backburner if the Syrian border to Iraq is plugged. That means that Sunni militants will focus upon Syria instead of Israel. While Israel will always be a target to these militants their combined efforts are capable of a successful regime change in Syria, particularly if aided and abetted. Having an Egyptian influence in the establishment of a new regime in Syria and Iran would be both beneficial and useful to Israel if Palestinian hostility can be replaced with a jewish-arab alyia. Egypt remains the key. The question is whether Israel and Egypt will work together.

    Reply
  • CKMacLeod 09/08/2009 at 4:24

    A very disappointing article that nearly destroys Ms. Glick’s credibility for me.
    The EMP attack scenario is hogwash (see, e.g., Stephen Younger’s THE BOMB, published this year). It also does nothing to serve the article’s main idea: It’s sole purpose appears to be make non-Israelis feel threatened.
    The notion that having material for two bombs equates with a strategic capacity – vis-a-vis Israel or against the more distant potential targets mentioned – is also hogwash. Turning a bomb capacity into a reliable and accurate (sea-launchable transatmospheric!) missile warhead is a lot easier said than done. Look at all of the problems the North Koreans have been having with their somewhat more modest efforts, and they’ve been working on the components for years and years.
    There probably is, or may be, a very good case to make for Israel pre-empting Iran. I’m doubting now that I’ll ever be able to accept it from Ms. Glick.

    Reply
  • BigB 09/09/2009 at 10:18

    Approximately one year ago I spoke with a prominent MK, member of the Security and foreign-relations commitee, who asseted categorically that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear targets will occur within 2 years. (this was an open forum, with the Press present) This info was personnaly confirmed by a person who is now in the Inner Cabinet. The capabilities are delineated in open-source in this link (Hebrew) http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=1504646&forum_id=8997 referrencing the foreign source. Those ecapapbilities wwere confirmed and augmented by the said cabinet member (he was not then a cabinet member) and a former F-15 co-pilot who had already flown such missiles.
    Some weeks ago the MOD announced an experiment of an 80 ton bomb, which might give rise to earth-quake sesmic activity. anyone heard of an 80 ton bomb? Only ifs a tactical Nuke. Draw your own conclusions.

    Reply
  • David Basch 09/09/2009 at 20:10

    Caroline Glick’s demonstrated understanding of Israel’s plight and her impressive background on the workings of the political and military
    factors involving Israel enables her to have a realistic picture of what is happening in the Middle East and what alternatives Israel faces. Her credibility is unmatched.
    Her analysis of the stituation with Iran leads her to conclude that Israel must destroy the Iranian capability to insure her own survival.
    As she explains it, who can deny the stakes facing Israel or Israel’s right to defend itself? When ones life is in danger, you come out swinging, despite carping critics that counsel passivity.
    The reader comments on her article presented on her web site are also interesting. I must say that I share the view of one commentator who
    finds that it boggles the mind to believe that, at long last Israel, will take constructive action on her own behalf. I pray that this will
    be the case, hopefully made possible by the change in Israeli leadership from that of obsessed, leftist ideologues to those of more
    clear-eyed vision coming from the political right.
    I was encouraged to find that, except for two commentator (Elisha and CKMacLeod), all seven of the others supported Israel’s action against
    Iran.
    Elisha seems to be hallucinating, fancying such things as an Egypt that would cooperate to save Israel and that the West, if Israel acted
    unilaterally, will sit passively by to permit its oil resources and infrastructure to be destroyed by Iran and its proxies.
    CKMacLeod pits his alleged knowledge against that of Ms. Glick. I don’t know where he gets his certainty from and will take Ms. Glick’s account far more seriously than anything CKMacLeod can muster.

    Reply

Leave a Comment