To bomb or not to bomb Iran?

In spite of the continuing negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program, the situation in the Near and Middle East remains tense. A heated debate is going on about the possibility of air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in order to destroy the uranium enrichment infrastructure and thus force Teheran to stop nuclear weapons development.

Since the Shah was overthrown, Iran’s theocratic leadership has never hidden its hostile attitude to Israel. This attitude increased many times over when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power. He has been repeatedly saying that “destroying Israel and the Zionist regime is no longer an illusory goal.” He and other leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran view Israel and Zionism as “foundation on which all the present-day evil rests.”

And they did not confine themselves to the informational war and public rhetoric. The Iranian leadership established an anti-Israeli terrorist organization, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Teheran funded until recently the Palestinian movement Hamas. It is only natural that the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons worries not only the leadership but practically all the population of Israel. But the unanimity of viewpoints ends right here. The answer to the question “What is to be done?” seriously splits Israeli society.

On the one hand, there are examples of quite successful Israeli air raids on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities, which in fact foiled those countries’ nuclear programs.

On the other hand, all, even the most diehard hawks, are aware that it will not be so simple in the case of Iran – for very many reasons.

Let us begin with the military and technical aspect. Syria is next door and within operational reach of the Israeli air force. It was far more difficult in the case of Iraq: a long distance to the target forced the aircraft to operate at the peak of their capabilities. As for the Iran raid, it will need either a stopover or midair refueling. The former is simply impossible because neither the Arab countries, including the ones most hostile to Iran, nor Turkey will ever allow this. The latter also presents a problem. The Israeli air force does not have a sufficient number of air refuellers. By force of the well-known circumstances, the Americans will supply no additional planes.

In principle, if the Israeli aircraft manage to solve the refueling problem, they can reach and bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. But it is rather difficult to do so without satellite navigation systems which only the Americans can furnish. It is rather unlikely so far.

One more thing: Iran has hidden its uranium enrichment installations either in mountainous caves or deep underground. They can only be destroyed with the most up-to-date bombs which only the US has at the moment. Even if we suppose that the Pentagon will share them with Israel, it will only be a half of the job. The Israeli Air Force has high-skilled and well-trained pilots, but it will take them time and effort to learn to use the new weapons. This will not remain unnoticed, which will considerably reduce the element of surprise on which the whole operation will be based.

Then political and economic factors come into play.

Israel’s largest economic research agency, BDI-Coface, has come to the conclusion that if the preemptive strike at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure results in a full-scale war, the economy will suffer a loss worth 42 billion dollars, or 20 percent of the country’s GDP. Add to this the direct budgetary military expenditures and the losses inflicted on the country’s infrastructure and private property of individuals. The agency forecasts that the Israeli economy will be unable to ride out the crisis within three to five years after the end of the conflict. The war against Iran will result in an annual loss of 6 billion dollars due to the outflow of foreign investments and the bankruptcy of 10 percent of all small-scale businesses. The governor of Israel’s Central Bank, Stanley Fischer, chose to announce no figures, but he made an unfavorable forecast: “If Israel allows itself to be drawn into a full-scale war, we will face a true crisis.”

The political journalist Nechemia Strassler says in the newspaper Haaretz (Country): “By contrast with the relatively belated and weak response of Iraq to the bombing of its nuclear reactor in 1981, Iran’s reaction will be far more serious and prompt. Tens, if not hundreds, of missiles will be launched on Israel as the first reaction to the attack. Besides, the ‘missile rain’ will keep on falling for quite a long time, almost every day… One strike will follow another.”

The crisis around the Iranian nuclear program has caused a split in Israel’s top leadership. President Shimon Peres and Shaul Mofaz, leader of the Kadima party that has the largest faction in the Knesset, have cautioned Premier Benjamin Netanyahu against taking a hard line. Both of them oppose the one-sided use of military force. Peres said it would only be right to launch the hostilities against Teheran together with the US – otherwise, the operation will be doomed to failure.

Netanyahu’s inner circle reacted very fast. The premier’s office reminded Peres that he “had forgotten what the president’s duty lies in.” The former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, now head of the Sochnut agency, also spoke in the same spirit. He reiterated that the president of Israel is a titular head of state, while all decisions are made by the prime minister and his cabinet.

A group of Israeli intellectuals have urged the prime minister not to decide to attack Iran without having a preliminary consultation with the government. The letter to this effect was signed by the well-known writers Amos Oz, Yoram Kaniuk, Sami Michael, Eshkol Nevo, et al. The writers fear that the premier may decide to attack Iran without consulting the government, as the law demands, which will, accordingly, run counter to the principles of democracy. As we see, passions are running high.

The former chairman of Israel’s National Security Council, Major-General Giora Eiland, is taking a more unworried approach to the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. He does not think that the Israeli military action will provoke a regional-scale war. Neither Egypt nor Syria will take part in this war. Iraq will also refrain from hostilities. And the likely involvement of the extremist Lebanese organization Hezbollah cannot be considered a regional war. Eiland thinks it is the right time now because it will be no longer possible to stop the Iranian nuclear program a few months later and the US will hardly risk taking a military action before and after the elections. Besides, one should not underestimate the Israeli antiaircraft and antimissile systems. They have so far shown high effectiveness in hitting various, including low-flying, targets.

The Israeli advocates of bombing Iran have unexpectedly found an ally in the person of the Islamic Republic’s top leaders. In a speech on the occasion of Palestine Solidarity Day, President Ahmadinejad called Israel a “cancerous tumor,” while Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Kamenei said that Israel is “a cancerous tumor implanted by the West into the heart of the Muslim world” which must be removed sooner or later. The Israeli hawks could not have even dreamed of a more precious gift.

The Israeli political establishment is not unanimous about the ways to minimize the strategic threats that are coming from Iran. The debate on the possibility of bombings means that a considerable part of the population does not believe that sanctions and diplomacy can be effective and will result in the termination of the Iranian nuclear program.