Has The Countdown Begun?

An Israeli air strike on Natanz and Isfahan is very likely sooner than later. Things have started moving in that direction. The accumulation of US forces in the region is meant to deter any Iranian retaliation.

B. RAMAN

The US and Israel—acting separately and in tandem—have started stepping up psychological pressure on Iran. This PSYWAR campaign is directed at countering Iran's exploitation of the difficulties faced by the US in Iraq in order to advance its own agenda and to prevent any US intervention in Iran and to convey a message to the Iranian public that Iran will pay a heavy price if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to defy the international community over its concerns regarding the real purpose of its acquiring an uranium enrichment capability.
This PSYWAR campaign has so far taken the following forms:

• The recent US detention and questioning of two Iranian diplomats posted in Iraq on their role in assisting the Shia extremist groups.
  
  
• The stepped-up US rhetoric on the devious game being played by the Iranian intelligence in Iraq by assisting the illegal Shia militias as well as pro-Al Qaeda Sunni extremist elements.
  
  
• The well-publicised authorisation by President George Bush of covert action against Iranians posing a threat to American lives and interests in Iraq.
  
  
• The beginning of an operation mounted by MOSSAD, the Israeli external intelligence agency, to eliminate senior Iranian nuclear scientists. The Sunday Times of London reported on February 4, 2007, as follows: "A prize-winning Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran. An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service. Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour's death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as "gas poisoning". The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned, but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce next Sunday — the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution — that 3,000 centrifuges have been installed at Natanz, enabling Iran to move closer to industrial scale uranium enrichment. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency say that hundreds of technicians and labourers have been "working feverishly" to assemble equipment at the plant."
  
  
• Stepping up of broadcasts and telecasts to Iran by radio stations and TV channels funded by the US and run by Iranian exiles.
  
  
• The movement of additional US naval ships, including another aircraft-carrier, to the Gulf and the designation by Bush of a senior naval officer (Admiral William Fallon) to head the US Central Command, which is responsible for operations in West Asia. In the past, a US Army officer had headed the Central Command.

The US had seen in North Korea what happens if it avoids action in response to pressure from other countries co-operating with the US. North Korea has carried out a nuclear test and is now insisting that any agreement it signs with the US and other powers would be as a nuclear power and not as a non-nuclear power.It is reportedly prepared to discuss a freezing of its military nuclear capability at its present level, but not its winding-up. The US and Israel—Israel even more than the US—are determined to prevent a similar scenario in Iran. The price of inaction will be prohibitively high for Israel, endangering its future.

The US Congressional opinion—now dominated by the Democrats—is strongly opposed to Bush's Iraq policy. Its views on his Iran policy are much more nuanced. The likely opinion of the Jewish voters in the US on the Iraq policy at the time of next year's Presidential elections would not be that important for the Presidential aspirants, but it would be in the case of Iran's nuclear designs. One could see evidence of it in the recent statements of Senator Hillary Clinton. She is not in favour of direct US military intervention in Iran, but at the same time she does not want to rule out the military option, should the worst comes to the worst.
After a visit to the US in February last year, I had reported that there were three groups there—one group was totally opposed to any intervention in Iran. A second group urged intervention by the US before it became too late. The third group favoured intervention by Israel with a US wink, without Washington getting directly involved. The third group seems to have won the debate.
Action to stop the acquisition of a military nuclear capability by Iran is vital for Israel's security and very survival. The repeated anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements of President Ahmadinejad make it all the more important for Israel to disrupt, if not destroy, Iran's nuclear plans. For Israel, the question is not whether Iran has the intention to acquire a military nuclear capability. The question is should Iran be allowed to have an infrastructure capable of being used for military nuclear purposes even if it does not have the intention at present to use it for military purposes. Once it is allowed to have the infrastructure, any time—clandestinely and at short notice—it would be able to acquire a military nuclear capability and confront Israel with a nuclear fait accompli.
Israel is determined not to allow this scenario to develop. Two elements of Iran's existing infrastructure are key in this regard— the uranium hexafluoride plant at Isfahan and the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Raiding and destroying or seriously damaging them would be a more complex operation than the Israeli raid on the French-aided Osirak reactor in Iraq in the early 1980s. Osirak had not yet been commissioned. The French engineers collaborated with Israel by keeping away from the reactor site at the time of the raid.
Natanz and Isfahan are facilities, which have already been completed and are already in the production mode. There is a greater risk of heavy human casualties and possible environmental damage than there was in Osirak. Iran is a strong military power, with an ability to retaliate against Israel. Iraq of Saddam Hussein was not in the early 1980s. Moreover, it had got involved in a military confrontation with Iran. Israel did not have to pay a price for the Osirak raid. There is a risk that it may have to if it raids Isfahan and Natanz.
Israelis have a reputation of not allowing fears of likely consequences deter any action by them which they consider necessary for their security and survival. An Israeli air strike on Natanz and Isfahan is very likely sooner than later. Things have started moving in that direction. The accumulation of US forces in the region is meant to deter any Iranian retaliation. Israel hopes Iran will not be unwise enough to retaliate. If it does, Israel is prepared for it. Israel is confident of its ability to take on Iran—even if Teheran instigates the Hezbollah to step up attacks on Israel from the Lebanon.
It would be suicidal for Iran to think that the painful experience of the US in Iraq and of Israel in the Lebanon in July last year has weakened their will to resort to military action, if they consider it necessary in their national interests. It has not.

---

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.