TEL AVIV — An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would
pose greater risks than benefits, a new report concluded.
The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies said an Israeli attack on Iran
would fail to either destroy all of its nuclear facilities or halt the
program. The report said Teheran could retaliate by launching massive rocket
and missile strikes on the Jewish state — from either Iran or Lebanon, Middle East Newsline reported.
In 1981, Israeli F-16 multi-role fighters destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor
in a single bombing mission, said to have set back Baghdad's weapons program
about a decade.
"An overall assessment suggests that risks involved in an Israeli attack
on the Iranian nuclear facilities outweigh the opportunities," the report,
authored by Ephraim Kam, said. "An attack would have to take into
consideration operational and other problems that are liable to impede
success, while at the same time may spark an Iranian and international
response, if only a limited one."
Kam, a reserve intelligence officer and regarded as a leading analyst on
Teheran's strategic weapons programs, said a military operation to destroy
Iran's nuclear facilities could exceed Israel's capabilities. He said such a
mission could be conducted only by a superpower such as the United States.
[On Tuesday, Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aharon
Zeevi-Farkash said Iran would need another six months to acquire full
capability to enrich uranium, a major component in the assembly of nuclear
weapons. Addressing a seminar at Haifa University, the military intelligence
chief said Iran could produce nuclear warheads as early as 2007.]
Entitled "Curbing the Iranian Nuclear Threat: The Military Option," the
report asserted that Israel has failed to locate all of Iran's nuclear
facilities. In contrast to Iraq, Iran has built numerous underground
facilities and could quickly reconstitute its nuclear program, the report
said.
Israel must fulfill a range of requirements before considering a strike
on Iran, the report said. The requirements include an "accurate intelligence
estimate of the state of the Iranian nuclear program" and a determination
that any attack would set back Iran's nuclear program for many years.
"Consequently, the conclusion is that Israel must permit the
international community to make every possible effort to halt Iran's nuclear
program by diplomatic means and to consign military steps to a last resort,"
the report added.
"If it transpires that following the attack the completion of the
program is delayed by one or two years only, it is possible that the result
does not justify the risks," the report said. "It will also be necessary to
take into account that the circumstances will not permit a repeated attack
on major facilities that were not damaged in the first attack or that were
discovered later."
The report said any Israeli attack would also require coordination with
the United States. Israeli warplanes on their way to Iran would probably
enter U.S. military operation zones in the Gulf or Iraq.
"Coordination with the U.S. is itself problematic: there is no certainty
that the American administration would agree to such coordination, which
brings with it its own set of risks, and it is not certain it would favor a
military operation against Iran," the report said. "Nevertheless, the
possibility cannot be excluded that the administration would be interested
in Israel doing the dirty work, in order to present it as an independent
Israeli operation and thereby reduce the risks of association with this
operation."
The report — in contrast to the assessment by Israeli military
intelligence — said Iran appears to no longer depend on foreign suppliers
for the acquisition of nuclear technology. Iran was also believed to employ
engineers and scientists who could produce enriched uranium and plutonium.
"This means that even if several major Iranian nuclear facilities were
attacked, such as the centrifuges facility for uranium enrichment in Natanz,
Iran would be capable of constructing replacement facilities in a short
time," the report said. "Furthermore, the possibility cannot be ignored that
Iran has already secretly constructed additional nuclear facilities that
have not yet been identified to back up those discovered."
The retaliatory options for Iran include the launching of its
intermediate-range Shihab-3 missile and massive rocket attacks by Hizbullah
from Lebanon. The report said Iran could also order mass-casualty strikes
against targets outside Israel.
"Given the difficulties and risks involved in implementation of the
military option, Israel must adopt the position that the major burden of
dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat — by both diplomatic and military
means — must be borne by the U.S. administration, and not by Israel," the
report said. "In the final analysis, the handling of a problem of this
magnitude must be the responsibility of a superpower and not a local
country."