Has The Countdown Begun?

The US and Israel—acting separately and in tandem—havestarted stepping up psychological pressure on Iran. This PSYWAR campaign isdirected at countering Iran's exploitation of the difficulties faced by the USin Iraq in order to advance its own agenda and to prevent any US intervention inIran and to convey a message to the Iranian public that Iran will pay a heavyprice if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to defy the internationalcommunity over its concerns regarding the real purpose of its acquiring anuranium enrichment capability.

This PSYWAR campaign has so far taken the followingforms:  

• The recent US detention and questioning of two Iranian diplomats posted in Iraq  on their role in assisting the Shia extremist groups.
  
  
• The stepped-up US rhetoric on the devious game being played by the Iranian intelligence in Iraq by assisting the illegal Shia militias as well as pro-Al Qaeda Sunni extremist elements.
  
  
• The well-publicised authorisation by President George Bush of covert action against Iranians posing a threat to American lives and interests in Iraq.
  
  
• The beginning of an operation mounted by MOSSAD, the Israeli external intelligence agency, to eliminate senior Iranian nuclear scientists.  The Sunday Times of London reported on February 4, 2007, as follows: "A prize-winning Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran. An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service. Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as "gas poisoning". The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned, but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce next Sunday — the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution — that 3,000 centrifuges have been installed at Natanz, enabling Iran to move closer to industrial scale uranium enrichment. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency say that hundreds of technicians and labourers have been "working feverishly" to assemble equipment at the plant."
  
  
• Stepping up of broadcasts and telecasts to Iran by radio stations and TV channels funded by the US and run by Iranian exiles.
  
  
• The movement of additional US naval ships, including another aircraft-carrier, to the Gulf and the designation by Bush of a senior naval officer (Admiral William Fallon) to head the US Central Command, which is responsible for operations in West Asia. In the past, a US Army officer had headed the Central Command.

The US had seen in North Korea whathappens if it avoids action in response to pressure from other countriesco-operating with the US. North Korea has carried out a nuclear test and is nowinsisting that any agreement it signs with the US and other powers would be as anuclear power and not as a non-nuclear power. It is reportedly prepared todiscuss a freezing of its military nuclear capability at its present level, butnot its winding-up. The US and Israel—Israel even more than the US—aredetermined to prevent a similar scenario in Iran. The price of inaction will beprohibitively high for Israel, endangering its future.

The US Congressional opinion—now dominated by theDemocrats—is strongly opposed to Bush's Iraq policy. Its views on his Iranpolicy are much more nuanced. The likely opinion of the Jewish voters in the USon the Iraq policy at the time of next year's Presidential elections would notbe that important for the Presidential aspirants, but it would be in the case ofIran's nuclear designs. One could see evidence of it in the recent statements ofSenator Hillary Clinton. She is not in favour of direct US military interventionin Iran, but at the same time she does not want to rule out the military option,should the worst comes to the worst.

After a visit to the US in February last year, I hadreported that there were three groups there—one group was totally opposed toany intervention in Iran. A second group urged intervention by the US before itbecame too late. The third group favoured intervention by Israel with a US wink,without Washington getting directly involved. The third group seems to have wonthe debate.

Action to stop the acquisition of a military nuclearcapability by Iran is vital for Israel's security and very survival. Therepeated anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements of President Ahmadinejad make itall the more important for Israel to disrupt, if not destroy, Iran's nuclearplans. For Israel, the question is not whether Iran has the intention to acquirea military nuclear capability. The question is should Iran be allowed to have aninfrastructure capable of being used for military nuclear purposes even if itdoes not have the intention at present to use it for military purposes. Once itis allowed to have the infrastructure, any time—clandestinely and at shortnotice—it would be able to acquire a military nuclear capability and confrontIsrael with a nuclear fait accompli.

Israel is determined not to allow this scenario todevelop. Two elements of Iran's existing infrastructure are key in this regard—the uranium hexafluoride plant at Isfahan and the uranium enrichment plant atNatanz. Raiding and destroying or seriously damaging them would be a morecomplex operation than the Israeli raid on the French-aided Osirak reactor inIraq in the early 1980s. Osirak had not yet been commissioned. The Frenchengineers collaborated with Israel by keeping away from the reactor site at thetime of the raid.

Natanz and Isfahan are facilities, which have alreadybeen completed and are already in the production mode. There is a greater riskof heavy human casualties and possible environmental damage than there was inOsirak. Iran is a strong military power, with an ability to retaliate againstIsrael. Iraq of Saddam Hussein was not in the early 1980s. Moreover, it had gotinvolved in a military confrontation with Iran. Israel did not have to pay aprice for the Osirak raid. There is a risk that it may have to if it raidsIsfahan and Natanz.

Israelis have a reputation of not allowing fears oflikely consequences deter any action by them which they consider necessary fortheir security and survival. An Israeli air strike on Natanz and Isfahan is verylikely sooner than later. Things have started moving in that direction. Theaccumulation of US forces in the region is meant to deter any Iranianretaliation. Israel hopes Iran will not be unwise enough to retaliate. If itdoes, Israel is prepared for it. Israel is confident of its ability to take onIran—even if Teheran instigates the Hezbollah to step up attacks on Israelfrom the Lebanon.

It would be suicidal for Iran to think that the painfulexperience of the US in Iraq and of Israel in the Lebanon in July last year hasweakened their will to resort to military action, if they consider it necessaryin their national interests. It has not. 

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), CabinetSecretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute ForTopical Studies, Chennai.