Sunday, January 07, 2007

Israel's planned Nuclear attack on Iran

The Sunday Times carries this story claiming that Israel is planning a tactical nuclear strike on Iran if something is not done about Iran's nuclear program.

As the article suggests this may be a bit of brinkmanship or bluff on the part of Israel, however it is also seriously deranged.

I think most people would agree that Iran getting nuclear weapons would not be a good thing, but it is precisely this sort of threat that makes it politically justifiable in Iran to strive for a nuclear weapon. Further more nuclear weapons have not been used since World War two, and for good reason, they are an unacceptable escalation. lastly of course Israel does not admit to having nuclear weapons, and has rightly maintained "ambiguity" on the issue as a matter of policy for decades. Undoubtedly this was the right course as they could not be criticised for having something no one could prove they had, but would not be attacked as they might have it. The policy did have the issue of legitimising others in the area trying to go nuclear though. However recently Ehud Olmert in a casual slip of the tongue admitted having nuclear weapons. That clearly was a mistake.

A nuclear attack on Iran would also have much wider and more serious implications. There is already an Islamic bomb, in Pakistan, who's government would come under severe pressure in the event of a nuclear strike. It would also justify North Korea's position on nuclear weapons as well.

Interestingly Syria realised long ago that it could get away with building up chemical and biological weapons to threaten Israel with almost unnoticed until it was too late, thereby assuring that across the Golan Heights there is Mutually assured destruction. In some ways that looks positive.

Clearly what is needed is a comprehensive peace in the Middle East and a nuclear umbrella over it provided by the USA and UK. Unfortunately our record in stopping genocide since World War two probably means that won't be trusted.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

As long as the EU, including the UK, systematically supports the Arabs, there can be no peace whatsoever in the Middle East. Furthermore, if the international community does not stop Iran, Israel will be entirely justified in resorting to nuclear weapons. It is arguable that the re-birth of European anti-semitism has rendered European opinion irrelevant in any case.

Timothy said...

Benedict, it's not so much the West's failure to stop genocide that is the problem, but our failure to act in any way except in our short-term "national interest", rather than as an independent honest broker.

It's no surprise then that the Israeli's believe we'd be willing to abandon them to another holocaust, whilst the Arabs believe we collude with the Israelis, and their own dictators, to keep them poor and weak.

Benedict White said...

Anonymous, What are you talking about systematicaly supporting the "Arabs"?

The EU has a preferential trade agreement with Israel, and as far as I am aware this is not extended to all Arab countries if any.

It is the job of the international community to deal with these problems, but it would be a damn sight easier to deal with if Israel did not have nuclear weapons, and indeed making so obvious they have and they might use them.

Timothy, Yes I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Jeremy Jacobs said...

It would be a damn sight easier if British governments stood up to Pan-Arabism. Of course they can't, there are too many defence contracts to be concerned with.

BTW, you mention "Israeli brinkmanship". The "Israeli" who co-authored that vile article is on a par with Mordechai Vanunu