New Yorker correspondent Seymour Hersh has reported that US intelligence teams have been operating within Iran since summer 2004, seeking to identify the sites of the Iranian nuclear program. Hersh also claims that Israel is helping the US in this project. Hersh says that the US is skeptical about IAEA and European negotiations with Iran, and that the Defense Department considers Iran one of the principal targets in the Administration's worldwide war against terror, to be conducted in the next four years. Hersh talked to a number of experts, some of whom disclaim the possibility that a military option is viable, and others who suggest that the real US aim will be regime change in Tehran.
There was immediate White House response to the Hersh report. President Bush said that the military option could not be ruled out. The White House spokesman said, however, that Hersh's report, which also deals extensively with the rivalry on control of covert operations between the CIA and the Defense Department, was filled with inaccuracies.
The Hersh report may do damage to the US effort, and put the lives of its operatives in the field in greater danger. It also might seem to give a new hope to many who had despaired over the US Administration's seeming shilly-shallying over the issue. It now appears that the US is totally serious about Iran, understands fully the danger of a nuclear Iran and is determined to prevent it. Further evidence of this was given on January 16, 2005, when the US imposed trade sanctions against nine major Chinese companies who have been providing missile and military technology to Iran.
This seems to be, but is not necessarily, good news for Israel. One question that no one has yet answered conclusively is the real extent of the Iranian capacity to retaliate against a preemptive strike. The Tehran Times, the official organ of the Iranians, reacted to the Hersh story in a way that would probably surprise any Westerner. They did not plead their own innocence, claim that they had no interest in nuclear weapons, ask for international defense against the Yankee aggressor. Instead, they boldly bragged that the US covert operations show how the US has failed in its effort to gather real intelligence against Iran. They boasted of their secret weapons programs and, in a separate piece, their Defense Minister Shamkhani threatened a terrible retaliation with the worst possible weapons against anyone who dared to strike Iran. Parenthetically, were Mohammed El-Baradei and IAEA inspectors to do something so simple as to click on to the Tehran Times and read it, they would discover more about Iran's true intentions than they will through hours of mendacious talk with its nuclear negotiators.
The US might be able to take Iranian boasting and threats in stride, but for Israel, which Iran has totally demonized, the matter is more problematic. Israel would probably be the first target of any Iranian retaliation. The Iranian missile program, thanks to generous North Korean and Chinese help, continues to advance. Most experts now concede that Israel is well in the range of Iranian missiles. Iran also has control over the Hizbullah drones that in September of 2004 penetrated Israeli airspace and over the hundreds of missiles in Lebanon aimed at northern Israel. Thus, there is the question of the price Israel would have to pay for an American preemptive strike. And there is, too, the operational question of whether such a strike would be able to, first and above all, take out Iran's missile capability.
Hersh in his article claims that Israel has three submarines armed with cruise missiles that can hit anywhere in Iran. He also claims that the Israeli F-16's can be refueled and reach Iran and return. And there is a curious bit in his article wherein one American official tells him that not only has the US not targeted Iran, but it has been restraining Israel from doing so. And this when, time and again, Israeli officials, the latest of whom being Silvan Shalom, have said that a nuclear Iran is a 'Western', and not simply Israeli, problem.
In this regard, the IAEA effort to stop Iran by diplomatic means continues to go nowhere. The IAEA inspectors at Parchin were allowed to take some dirt samples from outside the facility. They were not allowed to enter. Nuclear proliferation researchers David Albright and Corey Hindenstein have indicated that Parchin may be a major secret facility, the one in which a nuclear prototype would be tested underground. They provide a detailed description of the facility. If the IAEA inspectors cannot even get in the door here, then there is a question of whether their inspection means anything. And it only confirms the US and Israeli attitudes that the IAEA essentially is buying time for Iran and will not prevent it from going nuclear.
The real questions then seem to be those of intelligence and capability. Can Iran be stopped without the Iranian retaliation making the destruction of its facilities a Pyrrhic victory? In this regard, it is interesting to note that one of the foremost experts on nuclear weapons in Israel, outgoing Jaffe Center head Shai Feldman, gave an interview to the January 14, 2005, weekend edition of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot in which he seemed to concede the nuclear option to Iran. Feldman talked about an Israeli strategy based on deterrence, but then immediately contradicted himself by pointing out that a nuclear Iran would lead to a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia would quite rapidly become nuclear powers. This would make deterrence impossibly difficult. Feldman underplayed Iranian hostility to Israel and seemed to suggest that Iran would act cautiously as a nuclear power. He did not really discuss or take seriously the possibility of preempting the nuclear program. He almost sounded as if he were a member of the IAEA and not a senior Israeli strategist.
In any case, the major development of the past month on the Iranian nuclear threat issue is the clear signal that the US is taking the Iranian nuclear threat with tremendous seriousness. Further evidence of this is the fact that the major military training exercise which US ground forces have undertaken in the past couple of years has involved the taking of a mock Teheran.
There is, moreover, another encouraging sign. It is not clear to what degree, but there is definite US and Israeli cooperation on this matter. This hopefully will mean that if action is taken against the Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel will know about this and be prepared in the best way possible. Again, stopping Iran is necessary, but the real question is the capability and the cost. Whether the price is too high to pay or not is something that Israeli leaders have to know, and make convincingly clear to Washington.
There was immediate White House response to the Hersh report. President Bush said that the military option could not be ruled out. The White House spokesman said, however, that Hersh's report, which also deals extensively with the rivalry on control of covert operations between the CIA and the Defense Department, was filled with inaccuracies.
The Hersh report may do damage to the US effort, and put the lives of its operatives in the field in greater danger. It also might seem to give a new hope to many who had despaired over the US Administration's seeming shilly-shallying over the issue. It now appears that the US is totally serious about Iran, understands fully the danger of a nuclear Iran and is determined to prevent it. Further evidence of this was given on January 16, 2005, when the US imposed trade sanctions against nine major Chinese companies who have been providing missile and military technology to Iran.
This seems to be, but is not necessarily, good news for Israel. One question that no one has yet answered conclusively is the real extent of the Iranian capacity to retaliate against a preemptive strike. The Tehran Times, the official organ of the Iranians, reacted to the Hersh story in a way that would probably surprise any Westerner. They did not plead their own innocence, claim that they had no interest in nuclear weapons, ask for international defense against the Yankee aggressor. Instead, they boldly bragged that the US covert operations show how the US has failed in its effort to gather real intelligence against Iran. They boasted of their secret weapons programs and, in a separate piece, their Defense Minister Shamkhani threatened a terrible retaliation with the worst possible weapons against anyone who dared to strike Iran. Parenthetically, were Mohammed El-Baradei and IAEA inspectors to do something so simple as to click on to the Tehran Times and read it, they would discover more about Iran's true intentions than they will through hours of mendacious talk with its nuclear negotiators.
The US might be able to take Iranian boasting and threats in stride, but for Israel, which Iran has totally demonized, the matter is more problematic. Israel would probably be the first target of any Iranian retaliation. The Iranian missile program, thanks to generous North Korean and Chinese help, continues to advance. Most experts now concede that Israel is well in the range of Iranian missiles. Iran also has control over the Hizbullah drones that in September of 2004 penetrated Israeli airspace and over the hundreds of missiles in Lebanon aimed at northern Israel. Thus, there is the question of the price Israel would have to pay for an American preemptive strike. And there is, too, the operational question of whether such a strike would be able to, first and above all, take out Iran's missile capability.
Hersh in his article claims that Israel has three submarines armed with cruise missiles that can hit anywhere in Iran. He also claims that the Israeli F-16's can be refueled and reach Iran and return. And there is a curious bit in his article wherein one American official tells him that not only has the US not targeted Iran, but it has been restraining Israel from doing so. And this when, time and again, Israeli officials, the latest of whom being Silvan Shalom, have said that a nuclear Iran is a 'Western', and not simply Israeli, problem.
In this regard, the IAEA effort to stop Iran by diplomatic means continues to go nowhere. The IAEA inspectors at Parchin were allowed to take some dirt samples from outside the facility. They were not allowed to enter. Nuclear proliferation researchers David Albright and Corey Hindenstein have indicated that Parchin may be a major secret facility, the one in which a nuclear prototype would be tested underground. They provide a detailed description of the facility. If the IAEA inspectors cannot even get in the door here, then there is a question of whether their inspection means anything. And it only confirms the US and Israeli attitudes that the IAEA essentially is buying time for Iran and will not prevent it from going nuclear.
The real questions then seem to be those of intelligence and capability. Can Iran be stopped without the Iranian retaliation making the destruction of its facilities a Pyrrhic victory? In this regard, it is interesting to note that one of the foremost experts on nuclear weapons in Israel, outgoing Jaffe Center head Shai Feldman, gave an interview to the January 14, 2005, weekend edition of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot in which he seemed to concede the nuclear option to Iran. Feldman talked about an Israeli strategy based on deterrence, but then immediately contradicted himself by pointing out that a nuclear Iran would lead to a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia would quite rapidly become nuclear powers. This would make deterrence impossibly difficult. Feldman underplayed Iranian hostility to Israel and seemed to suggest that Iran would act cautiously as a nuclear power. He did not really discuss or take seriously the possibility of preempting the nuclear program. He almost sounded as if he were a member of the IAEA and not a senior Israeli strategist.
In any case, the major development of the past month on the Iranian nuclear threat issue is the clear signal that the US is taking the Iranian nuclear threat with tremendous seriousness. Further evidence of this is the fact that the major military training exercise which US ground forces have undertaken in the past couple of years has involved the taking of a mock Teheran.
There is, moreover, another encouraging sign. It is not clear to what degree, but there is definite US and Israeli cooperation on this matter. This hopefully will mean that if action is taken against the Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel will know about this and be prepared in the best way possible. Again, stopping Iran is necessary, but the real question is the capability and the cost. Whether the price is too high to pay or not is something that Israeli leaders have to know, and make convincingly clear to Washington.