Iran has threatened once again that it can destroy Israel's nuclear reactor in Dimona. Is the threat serious? Dr. Uzi Arad of the Interdisciplinary Institute in Herzliya, a former chief of the Investigative Division in the Mossad, told Arutz-7 today that the "closer Iran gets to getting nuclear capabilities, the more it worries that at the last minute, someone will try to strike out against this possibility. This someone is not necessarily Israel, but rather the U.S., which has recently declared that it would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities. It's therefore natural that Iran will be making such threats in deterrence, and it's likely that these tensions will only increase."
Dr. Arad said that the "common assumption is that Iran is three years away from obtaining nuclear power, if it continues development at a normal pace. This doesn't mean that Israel feels constrained to take action in this period; on the contrary, Israel sees this as an international problem: Iran is in fact threatening the entire region - the Persian Gulf, and even Arab countries, and the West. In addition, Iran is in blatant violation of its international commitments. The U.S. is the one who has made recent threats against Iran - Condoleeza Rice last week, and before that it was President Bush - and so Israel need not take action on its own."
Asked what actions the US could take, Arad said that it could impose "international sanctions, accompanied by promises of benefits if Iran stops its nuclear program. But this is of course not enough, and therefore the US has to demonstrate that it can in fact hit Iranian targets and the like." Arad agreed that the recent events in Iraq encourage Iran to step up its nuclear development, "in the knowledge that the US did not attack Korea which has nuclear weapons, but did attack Iraq which does not. Furthermore, after the war in Iraq, the US is not currently of a political mindset that would allow it to attack another country. On the other hand, if Bush is re-elected, his entire legacy will be a total failure if he does not attack - in that he will have attacked the country that does not have weapons and did not attack the one that did. We may therefore assume that the Bush Administration, if re-elected, will genuinely intend to deal with this problem."
Dr. Arad said that the "common assumption is that Iran is three years away from obtaining nuclear power, if it continues development at a normal pace. This doesn't mean that Israel feels constrained to take action in this period; on the contrary, Israel sees this as an international problem: Iran is in fact threatening the entire region - the Persian Gulf, and even Arab countries, and the West. In addition, Iran is in blatant violation of its international commitments. The U.S. is the one who has made recent threats against Iran - Condoleeza Rice last week, and before that it was President Bush - and so Israel need not take action on its own."
Asked what actions the US could take, Arad said that it could impose "international sanctions, accompanied by promises of benefits if Iran stops its nuclear program. But this is of course not enough, and therefore the US has to demonstrate that it can in fact hit Iranian targets and the like." Arad agreed that the recent events in Iraq encourage Iran to step up its nuclear development, "in the knowledge that the US did not attack Korea which has nuclear weapons, but did attack Iraq which does not. Furthermore, after the war in Iraq, the US is not currently of a political mindset that would allow it to attack another country. On the other hand, if Bush is re-elected, his entire legacy will be a total failure if he does not attack - in that he will have attacked the country that does not have weapons and did not attack the one that did. We may therefore assume that the Bush Administration, if re-elected, will genuinely intend to deal with this problem."