A Partial Attack Would Set Back Iran's Nukes - Jaffee Center Head

Oct. 13, 2004
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

The Natanz nuclear facility in Iran is seen in this Aug. 29, 2002, satellite image taken by DigitalGlobe's high-resolution imaging satellite QuickBird.

Even a partial strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set back Teheran's efforts to get nuclear weapons, the head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies said Monday.

Presenting the center's annual Middle East Strategic Balance, Prof. Shai Feldman also said the US-led war in Iraq "has become a major distraction from the global war on terrorism."

"Iraq has now become a convenient arena for jihad, which has helped al-Qaida to recover," the annual report said. "The US presence in Iraq now demands more and more assets that might have otherwise been deployed against various dimensions of the global terrorist threat such as the kind we saw this past weekend."

He was referring to the two bombing attacks in the Sinai that killed at least 32 people, including 12 Israelis.

Still, the think tank based at Tel Aviv University held that Israel's overall strategic situation has improved. It said, though, that despite tactical success in quashing Palestinian terror, there is currently no resolution of that conflict in sight and growing extremism on both sides.

The threat of conventional war is low and the qualitative gap, even between Israel and Egypt, is increasing.

Feldman also pointed out that Israel did not reach out to the extended Syrian overtures to resume peace talks, thus losing an opportunity to reap considerable positive strategic benefits.

Iran is said to be "closer than ever before" to producing fissile material essential for making nuclear bombs. Consequently, the US "seems closer to the possible use of force to prevent Iran from completing its nuclear program."

Ephraim Kam, deputy head of the center, said any military strike would be very complicated and not at all resemble the surprise 1981 IAF strike on the Iraqi reactor at Osirak. Iran learned from that and has spread out its installations.

Feldman said this should not prevent the option of military strike.

"There is a logic to operating against Iran even if the location of every facility is not known, because just taking out the facilities that are known, especially if they include the enrichment and heavy water plants, would in itself create a serious degradation of the Iranian potential," he said.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom, a senior researcher at the center, said that theoretically a nuclear balance could be forged between Israel and Iran. But he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would likely set off a chain reaction, with nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia seeking to obtain atomic bombs, further destabilizing the Middle East. He also said it was "wishful thinking" to believe that the mullahs in Teheran would become more responsible leaders once they obtained nuclear weapons.

He said an Israeli military option exists, but is highly problematic and requires a sustainable operation beyond the IDF's capability.

"Iran is far away and to reach it you have to pass over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or other Persian Gulf states. You can get entangled along the way. It is hard for me to imagine that the Americans would coordinate or cooperate with us, because if that was ever published it would greatly harm their position, which is already at a low point in the Middle East," said Brom, a former air force intelligence officer.

The think tank's annual report marked Israel's impressive achievements in the war on Palestinian terror. This is particularly impressive, it said, in contrast with experiences elsewhere, especially in Iraq.

But the experts said the virtue of this tactical "success" in defeating Palestinian terror is also its major flaw since it creates extremism on both sides.

"We did not succeed in breaking, halting, or even significantly reducing the Palestinian motivation against Israel, maybe the contrary," said Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Meir Elran, an expert on national security. "The situation actually feeds the hatred and opposition to the occupation."

On the other hand, he said, the four-year conflict also shows that Israeli society is not crumbling in the face of terror but rather displaying amazing normality.

"But the situation in 2004, even though it is better tactically, is not much better than in the past. We cannot point at anything that says we are headed toward stability and calm," he said.

Feldman said Israel's failure to take up peace talks with Damascus was unfortunate because it could have led to considerable strategic benefits, such as restricting Hizbullah.

"A peace treaty with Syria would also diminish the political context of continuation of tension with Iran," Feldman said. "I'm not sure people on our side take into account the full array of implications of a peace treaty with Syria."

But he added that there is no certainty a peace treaty with Syria can be achieved.

He said that this situation was created by the government which feels it cannot hold negotiations on two fronts. The public, too, is not free of blame as they have not taken to the streets pushing to renew talks with Damascus.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1097468034377&p=1078027574121