When Barack Obama recently urged Benjamin Netenyahu to pursue the diplomatic rather than military route with regards to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, the Israeli Prime Minister was keen to remind the President and the world of Israel’s close proximity to Iran and how that makes for a different timeframe for them to operate upon: “the American clock regarding preventing nuclearisation of Iran is not the Israeli one. The Israeli clock works, obviously, according to a different schedule.” In other words, Israel feels that there is greater imperative to act sooner rather than later on account of its geographical closeness to Iran. Presumably, that also means less time for diplomacy. Such hastiness seems strangely familiar. To avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, Netanyahu would do well to turn his “clock” back to 1981.
Back then, Israel felt threatened by Iraq and what it believed it was up to at its Osirak nuclear reactor plant in Tuwaitha. Like present-day Iran, Iraq insisted its nuclear programme was peaceful. Of course, Israel was wise not to take the word of the Iraqi incumbent Saddam Hussein. However, it wasn’t just the Iraqis that insisted Osirak served a peaceful purpose. Harvard Physicist, Richard Wilson, who inspected the plant in December 1982, was adamant that Osirak was nothing more than a power plant. It was his belief that “to collect enough plutonium [for a nuclear weapon] using Osirak would’ve taken decades, not years.” Iraqi exiles would later voice their agreement with this analysis. The French, who sold the Iraqis the reactor in the first place, also stated that the plant wasn’t capable of producing a nuclear weapon.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding Osirak’s true purpose, Israel went ahead and launched ‘Operation Opera’ – a swift bombing by Israeli warplanes that levelled the plant in mere minutes. As is typical with Israeli airstrikes, there was little to no regard for human life as the bombings killed eleven, including a French civilian.
If one were being generous to Israel, we could say that such disregard for casualties and International Law could be forgiven if the bombings prevented or significantly slowed down Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. However, the evidence indicates that the airstrikes had the complete opposite effect – not only did they fail to stop the programme but they may in fact have initiated it. At the very least it accelerated the process. As such, it is erroneous to describe Operation Opera as a ‘pre-emptive’ or ‘preventative’ strike as many have done over the years. It is far more accurate to describe it as an ‘instigative’ or ‘accelerative’ attack. Those who cite the bombing of Osirak as a successful model to be emulated in Iran clearly need to be reminded of this.
There are of course, key differences between Iraq 1981 and Iran 2012. In the case of the latter, it would take more than not launching an instigative or accelerative attack to halt its nuclear weapons programme. However, it would at least be one less step towards a nuclear Iran. If Israel wishes to take multiple steps back, then it and its allies will need to abandon their programme of provocation and to end the practise of undertaking military aggression too readily on the doorstep of Iran.
It’s not only three-decade old history that the Israelis should be wary of when it comes to Iran. One only has to glance at recent history of the region – specifically the belligerence of Israel and its allies – to see why the Iranians have been going down the path of nuclear weapons in the first place.
If Israel chooses to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, it’s highly likely that they won’t inflict enough damage stop their programme for little more than a while. It’s far more likely that such an attack will motivate the Iranians to push their programme quite literally further underground in harder bunkers. More significantly, any attack will inspire the Iranians to pursue nuclear weapons with an even harder resolve.