Iran has again indulged in its favourite pasttime of thumbing its nose towards the West with the announcement (unverified) that it has used domestically-made nuclear fuel in a reactor for the first time and produced more efficient enrichment centrifuges. The elaborately staged ceremony to unveil the developments barely concealed Iran's two-finger salute in the direction of the EU and US in particular, who have both recently imposed sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Their concern? That Iran is covertly developing a nuclear weapons programme.
Neither of these technological developments, which are largely unremarkable, heralds the imminent production of a nuclear weapon. What the announcement does do, however, is ratchet up the tension between Iran on one side, and Israel, America, and the EU on the other. The most recent IAEA report (November 2011) on Iran's nuclear programme was unable to definitively prove that Tehran is developing a nuclear weapon. But neither could it conclude that all of Iran's nuclear material was intended for civil, peaceful purposes, as the Islamic Republic has repeatedly claimed.
The prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran for international security are deeply concerning. It would spark a nuclear-arms race in one of the most volatile regions on earth; it would embolden Iran's terrorist proxies, particularly Hezbollah and to a lesser extent Hamas; and it would cause huge volatility in the oil and energy markets. This is predicated on the interpretation that Iran seeks a nuclear weapon to support its aspirations of regional hegemony and to deter the continued presence of the 'Great Satan', the US, in the Gulf. There are many who don't see Tehran's intentions in such a 'benign' light. Others stress we shouldn't assume Iran even has fixed plans or a coherent strategy for the use of a nuclear weapon.
To the Israeli government a nuclear-armed Iran is perceived to be a genuine and viable existential threat. Earlier this year Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu equated the Nazi genocide with the current Iranian nuclear threat and stressed that Israel had an obligation to prevent another annihilation of the Jewish people. Speculation has been rising about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran following comments from Israeli officials and some have forecast a strike is likely sometime this year. Relations between the two countries have been hostile since the Iranian revolution of 1979. Senior figures within Iran, including the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, have repeatedly made reference to wiping Israel off the map, describing the state (which it doesn't formally recognise) as a "cancerous tumour."
The arguments are stacked in favour, however, of Iran not intending to strike Israel, despite the bellicose rhetoric. For starters, it would be the largest mass suicide note in history. Israel almost certainly possesses a submarine-based nuclear second-strike capability, which presumably has its cross hairs already set on Tehran. And it is almost guaranteed that the US, with its historically close relationship with Israel and massive military might, would support any retaliatory campaign. It would mean the certain end of the Islamic Republic: mass casualties, a crippled infrastructure, an economy in ruins, and swathes of contaminated land uninhabitable for decades.
It is easy to sit here, however, thousands of miles away, pontificating in peace and safety about the (un)likeliness of an Iranian nuclear attack on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. But if you were the leader of a nation surrounded by hostile neighbours, with a short history characterised by war and conflict, faced with the possibility of a nuclear-armed rival who has repeatedly called for you to cease to exist, could you take the risk?
An Israeli pre-emptive strike is not without its dangers. Iran could retaliate against Israeli and American forces in the region or attack 'soft targets' such as embassies, commercial centres, and diplomats. Tehran could continue to stir sectarian tension in Iraq and intensify its support for the Afghan insurgency in addition to providing greater financial and arms support to Hezbollah and Hamas. Long-term, a strike may embolden the Islamic Republic to reconstitute their efforts to pursue an even greater clandestine nuclear program.
Both a pre-emptive air strike and a nuclear-armed Iran pose significant risks for regional security in the Gulf. To Israeli authorities the former option presents the lesser of two evils and despite the unlikely possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, perception, as history has repeatedly shown us, is equally as important as reality.
Follow Chris McCarthy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/castortroy6
Benjamin Halfpenny: Diplomacy is More Than a Positive Intention
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Fact Checking the Media: Iran
Jayshree Bajoria: The Iran Deterrence Debate
Paul Heroux: Bombing Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Shortsighted or Resolute?
BBC News - Iran loads 'first domestically-made nuclear fuel'
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israel has been at least as violent and done as many crimes against humanity as ANY of the other Middle Eastern nations. Just ask the REFUGEES how much Justice for ALL Israel has shown THEM!
Like so many others, Israel only wants to steal land from less powerful civilians.
The worst part is that America, the HOME of Justice for ALL is supporting this inhumanity to man.
Would a nuclear Iran really trigger a Middle Eastern Arms race? Other than the one between Israel and Iran, with Iran doing most of the racing since Israel has been sitting on the finish line for roughly 40 years.
Who exactly is likely to get into the race? Turkey? It's under the NATO umbrella, and they faced off against the USSR for years without feeling the need to build their own nukes.
Egypt? Basically protected by its close links to the USA.
Syria? Protected by close links to Russia.
As McCarthy points out, Israel almost certainly has a credible 2nd strike capability, it might want to build a few more subs, maybe even some blue water nuclear subs for longer patrols.
I just wish everybody would unlearn the term "existential threat." All countries face existential threats, and not just from external nuclear threats. No state lives for ever. The Mullahs of Iran probably feel an existential threat from a counter revolution. Netanyahu ought not to equate the Jewish people with the State of Israel, even if there is a close linkage.
Research more about the Middle East if you want to write articles about this region. I suspect you are on AIPAC payroll.
For a more intelligent and insightful article see MJ Rosenberg at:
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0e7994932b5c293ad6e9e40d8&id=3693ca3432&e=1649b3f94c
They do have to right to proceed with nuclear energy, and even if they did get the bomb that wouldn't mean they would have the fire power to go head to head on a catastrophic nuclear exchange.
Iran may not be the best place in the World, but she hasn't instigated a war in the last 150 years, a nuclear war would have no winners, if Israel does attack it would only seek to strengthen the resolve of Iran.
Iran instigated a war in 2007, in Lebanon with Israel. (2)
Arguing that Iran has the right to nuclear weapons is like arguing your crazy neighbor (3) should have the right to own machine guns and hand grenades. The rights of the individual must be balanced against the best interests of the community.
References:
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/18/iran-nuclear-ambitions-middle-east?newsfeed=true
2. http://www.meforum.org/1686/how-israel-bungled-the-second-lebanon-war
3. http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/08/israel-targeting-iranian-nukes/
And as it is possible another Middle Eastern power already has nuclear arms, and Irans neighbour Pakistan is already a nuclear power, they wouldn't be alone in the region, if they did go on in the future to become an atomic nation.
Might there be a rational reason therefor? Such as, the regime of Iran - a much more open society than many "friendly" countries in the region - could welcome an aerial attack and the rally-around-the-flag effect thereof? Not to mention the possibility of getting a much higher price for their oil.
This is a typical situation where the country that loses the battle will win the war.
really? and what about Bibi, Olmert and Knesset member threatening Iran with nukes? considering the fact whenever Israel does something is considered Kosher while if Iran does something 'hyped' as stated by the author it changes into 'oh my god'....Bibi is on record calling Iranians as Amaleks...guess author as a historian knows what this reference implies...
now please deflect or dismiss to void
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-04.htm that's through british news
-----------------------------
As far as Iran is concerned the region includes South Asia. Iran has Israel, India and Pakistan as regional neighbors with nuclear weapons. Russia (that friend that took territory from them in the 19th Century) is to their North and the USA surrounds them with bases and fleets.
So, tell us historian why Iran is STARTING this nuclear arms race when it would become the SIXTH nuclear weapons power in the region (including USA)? Please explain!
You then say:
''An Israeli pre-emptive strike is not without its dangers.'' Then you talk of these dangers in terms of Iranian retaliatory action. You know why. Because you have already dehumanized the Iranians that the Israeli strike could kill. They are the enemy. They are discounted.
Be careful about producing blogs which talk so casually of killing when war or no war is in the balance.
Israel has never threatened, nor shown any animosity to Iran, its people, or its government. That all started with the Iranian government, 5 minutes after Khomeini effectively took power.
You also try to elicit sympathy for "poor Israelis who feel so threatened, so let's see things from their viewpoint". How about how threatened Iran is right now? Do they even have the right to be human and have the same fears? Have some balance.
After which you go on to soft sell an attack like it's the only real choice.You're quite clueless for a historian. Fail...
To you, perhaps. To the Israelis, not at all. And THAT, after all, is what counts.
"how threatened Iran is right now"
How threatened IS Iran? Who threatens it? Any threats against that regime are all defensive and retaliatory, in response to its UNPROVOKED aggressive position against Israel (perhaps less "unprovoked" against the U.S. given the history of American intervention in the area), and the existential threat posed by its search for nuclear weapon capability.
“http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-nuclear-iran-not-necessarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227
http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-barak-says-iran-is-not-existential-threat-to-israel-1.7710
http://warincontext.org/2012/01/24/iran-is-not-an-existential-threat/
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2012/01/guess-who-says-iran-is-not-existential.html
Let's throw in Efraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad:
http://amirmizroch.com/2012/01/11/israels-existential-threat-crisis/
NBC reports US officials confirmed Mossad behind Iran scientist killing,
MOAB being developed specifically for Iran, Israel openly planning attack-- These are facts.
Defensive and retaliatory for which Iranian actions? Can you name one?
Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal is a secret stockpile in the desert built with the assistance of an American government under the influence of the American Israel lobby. It is the only such nuclear weapons arsenal that is totally outside of the IAEA inspectorate under an astonishing public relations trick known as 'nuclear ambiguity'. A political and military smokescreen designed to allow Israel to build one of the most dangerous nuclear weapons stockpiles anywhere on the globe. Why?
The reasons are complex but are essentially to allow Israel to maintain a strategic military superiority over the entire Middle East region, and its oilfields, for the benefit of its mentor, the United States. To this end, successive US governments, under the influence of the Israel lobby, have colluded in this trick that is exclusive to Israel.
The result is that both the UK and the EU have been placed at a severe military disadvantage that if and when Israel deploys its secret weapons against Iran or anyone else. The answer is for the UNSC to declare the entire ME including both Israel and Iran as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, immediately. Failing which, the UK is at severe risk.
Absolutely false. IF Israel developed a nuclear weapons option, it was done with French assistance.
"one of the most dangerous nuclear weapons stockpiles anywhere on the globe."
Besides the fact that it "exists", even if it does, (since 1957) what makes it "most dangerous"?
"to allow Israel to maintain a strategic military superiority over the entire Middle East region, and its oilfields, for the benefit of its mentor, the United States."
Could it be that, given its tiny size in population and physical area, and the unrelenting animosity of its neighbours that have repeatedly threatened, and tried to exterminate the state and its people, that it needs the "strategic military superiority" to guarantee its survival?
Is it possible that you are concerned not about the U.S., Britain, the E.U., Iran, or the Arabs, but more with seeing the nation state of the Jewish People in a militarily indefensible position?
This is not to do with Israel's security or defense but to do with territorial expansion as per the published agenda of the Likud party which is now in government.