N.B. AN OFFICIAL UNCLE WALLY DISCLAIMER: The following article is for
eschatological research purposes only to illustrate the extreme danger
that the Parasites would pose to this
world if they were to attack Iran. Your dearest old lovable cuddly
Uncle Wally does not necessarily endorse the contents of or the
political viewpoints expressed within this article..... HOOROO !
=================================================================
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1386052
Published: January 4, 2008
Iran's Dangerous Nuke Game: Why Israel Might Rush to Strike
Peter Brookes
Iran turned up the heat this week on still-simmering concerns about
its atomic aspirations. It crowed that its 1,000-megawatt Bushehr
nuclear power plant would be "online" as early as this spring, putting
in place another important building block of its nuclear program.
That sort of news can't help but rattle the steadiest of nerves, no
matter what the (narrowly focused) US National Intelligence Estimate
on Iran's nuclear-weapons program said about the current state of
affairs.
Seemingly not swayed one iota by the NIE's conclusions, you have to
wonder if Israel - the country most threatened by an Iranian nuclear
(weapons) breakout - might take matters into its own hands.
It has done so twice before - and the time may be here again.
In a 1981 dawn raid lasting less than 90 seconds, Israeli Defense
Force fighters attacked the nearly completed 40-megawatt Iraqi Osirak
nuclear-reactor complex, setting back Saddam's ability to produce
fissile material for nukes.
And again last September, the IDF allegedly struck a nascent Syrian
nuclear program, which possibly was benefiting from outside help, in a
preventive air strike that may have also been meant as a warning to
Iran of unpleasant things to come.
But why strike now?
Well, within about a year of Bushehr becoming operational, some of its
spent nuclear fuel could be stripped of enough plutonium to produce a
handful of nuclear weapons if the rods aren't returned to their owner/
provider, Russia.
Because the production of fissile material is the long pole in the
nuclear-weapons tent, the diversion of material at Bushehr is
potentially as big a problem as the 3,000 centrifuges that Iran has
whirring at supersonic speeds, enriching uranium.
Attacking Bushehr - like Osirak - before it comes online would not
only stop it from being used to produce bomb material, but would also
prevent radiation from the reactor being spewed into the atmosphere
after a strike.
Also possibly spurring Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to put the
IDF into action is other recent news: Iran is reportedly buying the
highly capable Russian S-300 air-defense system to bolster the Tor-M1
surface-air missile systems Moscow supplied last year.
The Iranians purchased the Tor-M1 to prevent a modern-day Iranian
version of Israel's successful Osirak strike. The lethal S-300s -
likely a response to the Syrian strike - will enhance Iran's ability
to protect its nuclear sites scattered around the country.
(Curious the extent to which Iran is willing to go to protect its so-
called "peaceful" nuclear program, isn't it?)
But despite these reasons for giving a go-ahead for an attack on
Bushehr before it's up and running, dealing militarily with Iran's
nuclear program is a lot more complex than just that.
While Bushehr is a key element of the program because of its ability
to produce large amounts of bomb-worthy fissile material (i.e.,
plutonium) for weapons use, it isn't the be-all and end-all of that
program.
To cripple Iran's nuclear program, the IDF would have to hit other
major nuclear sites: The Natanz uranium-enrichment plant, the Arak
heavy-water facility and the Isfahan uranium-conversion complex - plus
possibly tens of other nuclear-related sites.
But while some facilities like Natanz are "hardened," well-protected
by air defenses and often buried as deep as 70 feet down, IDF fighters
could hammer them using GPS/laser-guided and penetration weapons such
as the American JDAM.
There's also the tyranny of distance. Iran is a lot farther from
Israel than Iraq - and the targets aren't clustered like they were at
Osirak. They're spread across Iran - a country nearly four times
California's size.
Even a surprise IDF air raid would likely be known to others such as
the United States, which "owns" the airspace in the Middle East and
the Persian Gulf with its vast array of land, sea and air sensors.
(Of course, it is always possible Israel's small fleet of cruise-
missile-capable, Dolphin-class diesel submarines, deployed to the
Persian Gulf, could play a role in a strike, especially against
Bushehr in southern Iran.)
A strike would bring Iranian retaliation, including terrorist attacks
by Tehran's allies, such as Hezbollah, as well as missile strikes
against large Israeli cities. By association, US interests could come
into Iran's crosshairs.
The new year will likely bring more unwelcome news about Iran's
nuclear program as it cascades toward a weapons option. It will also
be a fateful year for Israel, one that may require action - no matter
what the latest NIE says.
Story originally ran in The NY Post.
# #
FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Peter Brookes is a
Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation
and is a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission. He writes a weekly column for the New York Post and
frequently appears on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR and BBC. He is the
author of: "A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Rogue States." Mr. Brookes served in the U.S. Navy and is now a
Commander in the naval reserves. He has over 1300 flight hours aboard
Navy EP-3 aircraft. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy; the
Defense Language Institute; the Naval War College; the Johns Hopkins
University; and is pursuing a Doctorate at Georgetown University.
read full author bio here
If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more
information about this writer or this article, please email your
request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy
of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
===========================================================
.
|
