Israel On Iran's Bomb.

Zeev Schiff, defence editor of Israel's Haaretz daily, wrote on Jan. 16 that Israel cannot live with Iran having an atomic bomb. But he said Israel could not stop it. Expert in strategic defence matters, Schiff noted: "Israel was perhaps the only country that detected what was happening in Iran at an early stage, and it had repeatedly claimed that Iran was deceiving the IAEA. We can recall that regarding Iraq, too, it was Israel that argued in the late 1970s and early 1980s that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Washington initially rejected the reports, and ultimately Israel was obliged to invoke a military solution and bomb the Iraqi reactor in [June] 1981 - but only after Iran tried first, and failed".

Israel appears to possess extensive intelligence information on Iranian nuclear activities. While those activities have suffered a variety of delays, Schiff said "there can be no doubt that military nuclear development is the objective" of the Tehran regime. Israel views this as a serious threat, frequently defining it as existential in nature.

Schiff wrote: "Iran's diplomatic maneuvers - one step back, two steps forward - are intended to play for time until it achieves the status of regional nuclear power... The Iranian nuclearization issue should be understood as being not restricted to Iran alone. The problem is far more comprehensive and dangerous because it is obvious that after Iran, additional Middle East states will seek to develop their own nuclear weapons. Why, for example, shouldn't Egypt try? Why shouldn't Saudi Arabia attempt to acquire nuclear weaponry or know-how from Pakistan? Why won't Sunni Arab states fear an extremist Shiite Iran that has acquired nuclear weapons?"

Israeli concern over Iran is particularly great because of the "nature and behavior of its regime". Schiff said: "The negative ramifications are doubled when the finger on the nuclear trigger is that of an extremist Shiite ayatollah. Iran finances organizations like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah and supports the use of violence against Israel and Israelis. Washington had good reason to define Iran as a member of the 'axis of evil'".

The commentator said "Israel was doubly worried" when Ahmadi-Nejad called for its destruction and claimed the Holocaust never took place. He added: "This combination of a nuclear weapons program, calls for the annihilation of Israel and funding for terrorism requires an aggressive response against Iran. Obviously, Israel has good reason to prepare itself for every contingency, and this it is doing. It refrains from threatening Iran while preparing for the worst.

"Israel understands that Iran is not like Iraq. It is bigger and its rulers have drawn lessons from the fate of Saddam Hussein. Israel's basic approach holds that the problem of a nuclear Iran is not its problem alone, but that of the broader international community. Iran projects a threat to the entire Middle East and to global stability. The surface-to-surface missiles it is developing reach far beyond Israel. Already they cover Saudi Arabia as well as Turkey, a member of NATO; the next generation of Iranian missiles will cover most of the European subcontinent".

Is there a military option for stopping Iran's military nuclear project? Schiff gave this answer: "If the question refers only to Israel, the answer is no. If Israel senses a direct threat from the extremist regime in Tehran and feels the need to do so, it can severely punish Iran and cause a significant delay in its military nuclear development project. But I do not believe it can put a complete stop to the project by military means. Undoubtedly, the US has a far greater military capability.

"Experts argue that it is not necessary to destroy all nuclear targets in Iran in order to achieve this outcome. But for Washington the issue is not only military; it is political as well, particularly in view of the war in Iraq. In other words, any American response would have to be a military and political option for stopping Iran's military nuclear project.

"At a broader level the international community, if it shows the determination, possesses a military option for stopping the Iranian nuclear scheme. This could be the outcome if Iran, under the leadership of extremist ayatollahs, violates its international commitments and threatens its neighbors. Yet it is important to note that diplomatic and political maneuvers on this issue have not been exhausted. The Russian proposal that Iran exercise its 'right' to enrich uranium on Russian territory is a good opening for an agreement - on condition that Tehran honor it in all respects".

Israel On Iran's Bomb.

Zeev Schiff, defence editor of Israel's Haaretz daily, wrote on Jan. 16 that Israel cannot live with Iran having an atomic bomb. But he said Israel could not stop it. Expert in strategic defence matters, Schiff noted: "Israel was perhaps the only country that detected what was happening in Iran at an early stage, and it had repeatedly claimed that Iran was deceiving the IAEA. We can recall that regarding Iraq, too, it was Israel that argued in the late 1970s and early 1980s that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Washington initially rejected the reports, and ultimately Israel was obliged to invoke a military solution and bomb the Iraqi reactor in [June] 1981 - but only after Iran tried first, and failed".

Israel appears to possess extensive intelligence information on Iranian nuclear activities. While those activities have suffered a variety of delays, Schiff said "there can be no doubt that military nuclear development is the objective" of the Tehran regime. Israel views this as a serious threat, frequently defining it as existential in nature.

Schiff wrote: "Iran's diplomatic maneuvers - one step back, two steps forward - are intended to play for time until it achieves the status of regional nuclear power... The Iranian nuclearization issue should be understood as being not restricted to Iran alone. The problem is far more comprehensive and dangerous because it is obvious that after Iran, additional Middle East states will seek to develop their own nuclear weapons. Why, for example, shouldn't Egypt try? Why shouldn't Saudi Arabia attempt to acquire nuclear weaponry or know-how from Pakistan? Why won't Sunni Arab states fear an extremist Shiite Iran that has acquired nuclear weapons?"

Israeli concern over Iran is particularly great because of the "nature and behavior of its regime". Schiff said: "The negative ramifications are doubled when the finger on the nuclear trigger is that of an extremist Shiite ayatollah. Iran finances organizations like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah and supports the use of violence against Israel and Israelis. Washington had good reason to define Iran as a member of the 'axis of evil'".

The commentator said "Israel was doubly worried" when Ahmadi-Nejad called for its destruction and claimed the Holocaust never took place. He added: "This combination of a nuclear weapons program, calls for the annihilation of Israel and funding for terrorism requires an aggressive response against Iran. Obviously, Israel has good reason to prepare itself for every contingency, and this it is doing. It refrains from threatening Iran while preparing for the worst.

"Israel understands that Iran is not like Iraq. It is bigger and its rulers have drawn lessons from the fate of Saddam Hussein. Israel's basic approach holds that the problem of a nuclear Iran is not its problem alone, but that of the broader international community. Iran projects a threat to the entire Middle East and to global stability. The surface-to-surface missiles it is developing reach far beyond Israel. Already they cover Saudi Arabia as well as Turkey, a member of NATO; the next generation of Iranian missiles will cover most of the European subcontinent".

Is there a military option for stopping Iran's military nuclear project? Schiff gave this answer: "If the question refers only to Israel, the answer is no. If Israel senses a direct threat from the extremist regime in Tehran and feels the need to do so, it can severely punish Iran and cause a significant delay in its military nuclear development project. But I do not believe it can put a complete stop to the project by military means. Undoubtedly, the US has a far greater military capability.

"Experts argue that it is not necessary to destroy all nuclear targets in Iran in order to achieve this outcome. But for Washington the issue is not only military; it is political as well, particularly in view of the war in Iraq. In other words, any American response would have to be a military and political option for stopping Iran's military nuclear project.

"At a broader level the international community, if it shows the determination, possesses a military option for stopping the Iranian nuclear scheme. This could be the outcome if Iran, under the leadership of extremist ayatollahs, violates its international commitments and threatens its neighbors. Yet it is important to note that diplomatic and political maneuvers on this issue have not been exhausted. The Russian proposal that Iran exercise its 'right' to enrich uranium on Russian territory is a good opening for an agreement - on condition that Tehran honor it in all respects".

Israel On Iran's Bomb.

Zeev Schiff, defence editor of Israel's Haaretz daily, wrote on Jan. 16 that Israel cannot live with Iran having an atomic bomb. But he said Israel could not stop it. Expert in strategic defence matters, Schiff noted: "Israel was perhaps the only country that detected what was happening in Iran at an early stage, and it had repeatedly claimed that Iran was deceiving the IAEA. We can recall that regarding Iraq, too, it was Israel that argued in the late 1970s and early 1980s that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Washington initially rejected the reports, and ultimately Israel was obliged to invoke a military solution and bomb the Iraqi reactor in [June] 1981 - but only after Iran tried first, and failed".

Israel appears to possess extensive intelligence information on Iranian nuclear activities. While those activities have suffered a variety of delays, Schiff said "there can be no doubt that military nuclear development is the objective" of the Tehran regime. Israel views this as a serious threat, frequently defining it as existential in nature.

Schiff wrote: "Iran's diplomatic maneuvers - one step back, two steps forward - are intended to play for time until it achieves the status of regional nuclear power... The Iranian nuclearization issue should be understood as being not restricted to Iran alone. The problem is far more comprehensive and dangerous because it is obvious that after Iran, additional Middle East states will seek to develop their own nuclear weapons. Why, for example, shouldn't Egypt try? Why shouldn't Saudi Arabia attempt to acquire nuclear weaponry or know-how from Pakistan? Why won't Sunni Arab states fear an extremist Shiite Iran that has acquired nuclear weapons?"

Israeli concern over Iran is particularly great because of the "nature and behavior of its regime". Schiff said: "The negative ramifications are doubled when the finger on the nuclear trigger is that of an extremist Shiite ayatollah. Iran finances organizations like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah and supports the use of violence against Israel and Israelis. Washington had good reason to define Iran as a member of the 'axis of evil'".

The commentator said "Israel was doubly worried" when Ahmadi-Nejad called for its destruction and claimed the Holocaust never took place. He added: "This combination of a nuclear weapons program, calls for the annihilation of Israel and funding for terrorism requires an aggressive response against Iran. Obviously, Israel has good reason to prepare itself for every contingency, and this it is doing. It refrains from threatening Iran while preparing for the worst.

"Israel understands that Iran is not like Iraq. It is bigger and its rulers have drawn lessons from the fate of Saddam Hussein. Israel's basic approach holds that the problem of a nuclear Iran is not its problem alone, but that of the broader international community. Iran projects a threat to the entire Middle East and to global stability. The surface-to-surface missiles it is developing reach far beyond Israel. Already they cover Saudi Arabia as well as Turkey, a member of NATO; the next generation of Iranian missiles will cover most of the European subcontinent".

Is there a military option for stopping Iran's military nuclear project? Schiff gave this answer: "If the question refers only to Israel, the answer is no. If Israel senses a direct threat from the extremist regime in Tehran and feels the need to do so, it can severely punish Iran and cause a significant delay in its military nuclear development project. But I do not believe it can put a complete stop to the project by military means. Undoubtedly, the US has a far greater military capability.

"Experts argue that it is not necessary to destroy all nuclear targets in Iran in order to achieve this outcome. But for Washington the issue is not only military; it is political as well, particularly in view of the war in Iraq. In other words, any American response would have to be a military and political option for stopping Iran's military nuclear project.

"At a broader level the international community, if it shows the determination, possesses a military option for stopping the Iranian nuclear scheme. This could be the outcome if Iran, under the leadership of extremist ayatollahs, violates its international commitments and threatens its neighbors. Yet it is important to note that diplomatic and political maneuvers on this issue have not been exhausted. The Russian proposal that Iran exercise its 'right' to enrich uranium on Russian territory is a good opening for an agreement - on condition that Tehran honor it in all respects".