7 Reasons Why Israel Should Unilaterally Bomb Iran

Time is running out, says this author.

Dr. Joe Tuzara

OpEds Dr. Joe Tuzara
Dr. Joe Tuzara

As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, the Los Angeles Times reported that the latest U.S. intelligence report indicates Iran is pursuing research that could enable it to build a nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Until quite recently, an alarming new intelligence emerged from intercepted communications of Iranian officials discussing their nuclear program raised concerns that the country's leaders had decided to revive efforts to develop a weapon, the New York Times reports.

Earlier this month, Netanyahu and Obama agreed that the end goal must be to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and that there cannot be any containment of a nuclear Iran.

At the crucial White House meeting, Netanyahu made it clear Israel will go it alone if it decides military action is necessary.

Here are the seven reasons why Israel should preemptively attack Iran this year:

Iran as a de facto nuclear state

First, and foremost, a nuclear-armed capable Iran would drastically change the geopolitical landscape in the volatile Middle East immensely complicating the risks to Israel and the threat to U.S. national security. Why?

For better or worse, there is no doubt that the prospect of escalating tensions is heightened significantly in the cascade of nuclear proliferation to Iran's proxies, Hamas, Hizbullah, Venezuela and Arab Gulf states wanting to go nuclear.

In addition to its suspected nuclear-weapons program Iran owns vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, according to Iran Watch.

Israel and America are both far more concerned about Iran's stepped-up enrichment of high grade uranium in an underground bunker in Qom and Natanz, than the failure of the UN nuclear watchdog, in a setback likely to increase the risk of confrontation with the West.

"Israel must be wiped off the map"

Unless the consequences of inaction truly are existential, given the potentially disastrous outcome of the controversial remark by the Iranian president - a unilateral preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program in Israel's self-defense would be fully justified.

Longstanding economic sanctions - that doesn't bite

Despite an increasingly stringent U.S. and European Union's economic sanctions, Israel faces a dilemma. In the report by the Israeli-based news DEBKAfile, India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from U.S.-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran.

Adding insult to the injury, the U.S. government recently said Iran has purchased 180,000 tons of U.S. wheat, which reopened grain trade ties between the two countries embroiled in a stand-off over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, according to Reuters.

While Israel is confronting the uncertainties of containing and deterring a non-nuclear Iran, no one knows, however, whether sanctions will bite sufficiently to alter the course of Iran's nuclear program.

Emergence of Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah suicide states

According to the Middle East Quarterly publication of "Iran's Suicide Brigades", the Iranian regime continues to embrace suicide terrorism as an important component of its military doctrine. The goal of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah which Obama does not understand remains Jewish extermination.

As Israeli and American intelligence agencies have also warned, Iran has a network of agents and supporters surrounding Israel and inside the United States.

In Obama's worldview, an Israeli military strike against Iran is a test of his outreach to the Muslim world and a threat to his re-election campaign.

Pyongyang -style pattern of deceit

As the world powers agree on reopening talks with Iran in the coming weeks, the cautiously optimistic Obama administration conveyed its stern warning that this is Iran's last chance for a comprehensive, negotiated and long term resolution of its suspect nuclear program. Much will now depend on the Iranian response to come clean out of its nuclear program, which remains very unlikely.

Obviously, Iran is following North Korea's pattern of stalling, evading and negotiating, a diplomatic strategy that has served them well in the past. Henceforth, it would be a dangerous mistake for Israel to wait while its arch-enemy is racing toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"An attack in Iran will increase regional stability in the Middle East"

The possibility that in the event of an Israeli military action, Iran would decide to attack U.S. interests further destabilizing the Middle East is a flawed logic.

In an article written for the New York Times, Major General Amos Yadlin, the former Head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence and current head of the Institute for National Security Studies, believes that an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities will result in regional stability in the Middle East.

Once and for all, a successful military campaign must completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructures including the inner sanctum of the mullah-led regime and the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Taking into consideration the unintended consequences, a non-nuclear Iran is more vulnerable today than in the next year. So Israel must get it over with, by itself.

Trust deficit and loss of U.S. credibility

Early in his presidency, Obama sought a diplomatic engagement policy without any preconditions at the expense of Israel and he failed miserably.

Last year, Obama's keynote policy speech calling for a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 Israeli borders was detrimental to the elusive peace process.

Relying on some peculiar arguments, the lack of trust and the Obama administration's undermining of Israel's confidence in its military capabilities only emboldened Iran.

After years of sanctions and complacency, how much more time does Obama need to realize Iran's intention in acquiring a nuclear weapon?

To date, Iran's intransigence and lopsided shadow war has served to heighten the sanctions and increase confrontation.

From Israel's perspective, time is running out with Iran. The choice is clear - Tehran will get the atomic bomb or a preventive strike against Iran's deeply buried underground nuclear facilities is a better option than no option at all.

In retrospect, the trio of contending forces' divergent ambiguities could lead to serious miscalculation and dire consequences. Like it or not, a regime change would not prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future.

If President Franklin Delano Roosevelt were alive today, 2012 would be the year which "will live in infamy".