Israel, the United States and the Iranian Nuclear Program

Illustration by Evan Caughey

As Iran continues development on its nuclear program, denouncing nuclear weapons at the highest levels of government while continuing to enrich uranium and barring International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from conducting a fully transparent inspection, Israel and the United States are working to address how they will continue to go about preventing a nuclear Iran.

The IAEA report issued last November strongly condemned the Iranian nuclear program. Despite Iran’s insistence that its program is for peaceful purposes, the report accused the country of activities relevant to making a nuclear weapon, activities like testing explosives, performing experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and drawing models for missiles with nuclear capability.

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met last Monday at the White House to discuss the growing threat faced by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The Israeli government is viewed to be pushing for a military strike sooner rather than later, whereas the United States has continually urged that more time be given to let the current economic sanctions take effect. Recently, with thousands of pro-Israel supporters descending on Washington last week for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference and election day approaching amidst criticisms that he has been weak on Israel, President Obama has sharpened his rhetoric towards the Islamic Republic. He vowed that the U.S.’ policy is not containment of a nuclear Iran but prevention of Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon.

At the meeting between the two heads of state on Monday, Prime Minister Netanyahu told reporters, “Israel remains master of its fate.” According to analysis of the meeting by the New York Times, this rhetoric implies that Netanyahu believes that U.S. will not try to block Israel from taking military action on Iran.

The question still remains whether the United States should participate in a strike on Iran. As Israel’s closest ally, the United States has consistently vowed to protect Israel’s security and its right to exist.

Despite the constant stream of inflammatory rhetoric from the Islamic Republic on the U.S. and Israel, there is a disagreement on the true danger of a nuclear Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to view Iran as an existential threat, likening the regime to Nazi Germany. Other top officials, including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, do not. The premise of Barak, Dempsey and others’ argument is based on the rational actor model–that Iranian leaders are rational, and, like other rational leaders, want to preserve their own power. The argument continues that Tehran understands that an unprovoked strike on Israel would bring international condemnation, the wrath of Israeli and American military might, and the downfall of the Islamic Republic’s ruling regime.

Whatever the case may be, an Iranian bomb would have an incredible impact on U.S. interests in the region. Iran could pass on weapons or nuclear secrets to its far less rational proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, or to jihadist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan creating an undeniably existential threat for Israel. An Iranian bomb would likely spark a nuclear arms race beginning with the Persian country’s Arab rival, Saudi Arabia. These outcomes would bring an unprecedented level of instability to the world’s most unstable region.

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu
President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu meet in the White House | Photo by Pete Souza via Wikimedia Commons

Council of Foreign Relations Fellow Matthew Kroenig, in his essay in Foreign Affairs encouraging a military strike on Iran, discusses at length the costs of a nuclear Iran. Kroenig argues that an Iranian regime armed by nuclear weapons immediately requires the United States to think twice about its actions in the region. Consider in 2001 when the United States sent troops to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban and rid the country of al-Qaeda. Had Iran had nuclear weapons at that point, the U.S. would have been required to comply with Iranian conditions if it had threatened nuclear war. With U.S. troop levels dying down in Iraq and Afghanistan, a nuclear Iran would wield exponentially more influence in the volatile countries and necessitate that the U.S. sends additional troops back to the Middle East as a balance.

Israel has successfully conducted unilateral air raids on Middle Eastern countries’ nuclear programs twice before, once on the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and another attack on a Syrian Nuclear Project in 2007. Neither Iraq or Syria restarted their nuclear programs again.

However, experts agree that an attack on Iran’s nuclear program would be far more difficult. Having learned from the Israeli strikes on Iraq and Syria, Iran has spread its nuclear facilities throughout the country with a number of them buried deep underground. As a result, most experts believe that an air strike would only delay Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons rather than stop the program altogether, especially one from Israel which lacks the United States’ capacity to carry out a significant attack.

This has led skeptics to argue that the risks associated with an attack on Iran are not worth the reward.

The risks are indeed profound and numerous. According to an article in the New York Times, retaliatory strikes on Israeli and American targets are nearly certain. Iran would also likely encourage Hamas and Hezbollah to rain rockets on Israeli cities and resort to other forms of terrorism throughout the region. U.S. military bases and oil operations in the region could be targeted. A full scale retaliation on western targets could bring the U.S. into a protracted conflict in the Middle East, regardless of whether it participates in bombing raids.

The economic risks are great as well. Iran has threatened to close the straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes, raising oil prices and providing a blow to the U.S.’ recovering, but fragile economy and throwing a wrench into Europe’s fiscal crisis.

Opponents of a military strike argue that an attack would also provide the current Iranian government justification for pursuing nuclear weapons while allowing the regime to consolidate power just as devastating sanctions are causing a growing number of Iranian citizens to doubt the government’s legitimacy.

Still, many question the effectiveness of the sanctions on Iran, which have been enforced on the country since 1979, when the U.S. supported Shah was thrown from power and the Islamic Republic established itself as the ruling government. As Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post points out, despite the recent addition of sanctions on Iran’s central bank and EU embargo of Iranian oil, as long as China, India and Russia continue purchasing Iranian oil, the Islamic Republic’s economy can stay afloat.

This issue is undoubtedly a complex one. As the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz illustrates in its analysis of the Netanyahu and Obama’s meeting, the Prime Minister is still unsure of how he wants to proceed. There may still be hope that this conflict does not escalate into war. Iran has yet to begin developing weapons, and this week western leaders agreed to resume discussions with Iran over its nuclear program. American and Israeli officials understand the risks involved and while few believe that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a desirable approach, ultimately if Israel feels like the window to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is closing, it will attack. The role of the United States, the Iranian reaction and the regional fallout will remain to be seen.

 

About Ian Moskowitz

Ian is a senior in CAS studying political science.

View all posts by Ian Moskowitz →

6 Comments on “Israel, the United States and the Iranian Nuclear Program”

  1. You repeat the common refrain about the bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981–that Iraq didin’t restart it weapons programs after that. In fact, Iraq got serious about its nuclear weapons program precisely after the Osirak bombing.

    The reasons for hat bombing were a lot more ambiguous than they were made out to be. The most dangerous aspect of Osirak was its highly enriched uranium fuel, enough for a bomb. It was not destroyed. The bombing came right before an election Menachem Begin was expected to lose and after the bombing won by one vote in the Knesset.

    And similarly the reasons for Israel’s push for an attack (especially a US attack) have to do more with political competition with Iran for influence in the Middle East than with fear of an Iranian attack on Israel. Let’s not forget Israel may have as many as hundreds of bombs.

    Also left out of nearly all accounts is the matter of international law. Isn’t it a bit odd to be joining with a non-NPT country to attack an NPT country that we suspect will violate the Treaty but hasn’t done so yet?

    The president says all options are on the table. if we really want to negotiate an end to Iran’s suspected weapons effort, we ought to think about putting Israel’s weapons on that negotiating table.

    1. Victor: It seems like you’re accusing me of having a slant. This article was intended to provide an unbiased summary of the ongoing dealings between Israel and the U.S. over Iran’s nuclear program. I do have opinions on the issue and on Israel in general so to be fair I’ll disclose the fact that I believe in Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself and believe that the U.S. and Israel should act within their interests when proceeding on the Iranian nuclear issue. Take that as you will.

      Bearing that in mind here’s my response to your comment:
      You make a good point–it would be naive to downplay the role of domestic forces and international power politics on this issue. But the role of domestic politics is not noteworthy: in democracies policy is generally based on courting the electorate. On the international power issue I’d agree as well. While the rhetoric from some leaders (PM Netanyahu in particular) is alarmist, I think very few truly thinks that the Iranian regime itself would use a nuclear weapon on Israel.

      I’m assuming that you’re being facetious in asking Israel to give up its nuclear weapons because of the simple fact that they wouldn’t under any circumstances. More importantly let’s not forget that Israel is threatened by their neighbors. Hundreds of rockets fell on Southern Israel from Gaza last week. Part of the reason for Israel’s survival has been its outmatched power in the region (backed by the U.S.) and unilateral actions internationally, which is why mentions of international law were irrelevant to my article. Whether it has always acted responsibly with all of that power is certainly a matter for debate, but a nuclear Iran would be a powerful Iran and could hinder Israel’s ability to act unilaterally which in and of itself threatens Israel’s ability to defend itself. This is ultimately why Israel wishes to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

  2. RE “.. most experts believe that an air strike would only delay Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons rather than stop the program altogether, especially one from Israel which lacks the United States’ capacity to carry out a significant attack. ..
    Opponents of a military strike argue that an attack would also provide the current Iranian government justification for pursuing nuclear weapons while allowing the regime to consolidate power.”

    What is accomplished by an attack that brings the consequences you lay out and, as stipulated by the experts, “… would only delay Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons” … and, as opponents of a military strike argue “… an attack would also provide the current Iranian government justification for pursuing nuclear weapons while allowing the regime to consolidate power”?

    1. Well the argument goes that despite the technical fact that an Israeli strike would set Iran’s nuclear program back only 1-2 years (and an American one a few more) attacking Iran’s nuclear program would provide a strong disincentive for the Iranian government to build a nuclear weapon if its leaders think the country is going to get bombed every few years. After all, Iraq and Syria never restarted their nuclear programs after Israeli airstrikes on the two countries.

      The point of the “an attack only delays” argument means that ultimately so long as the current regime in Iran is in power, it can pursue nuclear weapons.

      If you want to read more on the justification for a US strike on Iran, the article I link to by Matthew Kroenig is one of the more thorough ones.

  3. I could not help a smirk whenever reading of ‘experts’ advice on M. East affairs.
    It reminds me of Erick Sevareid’s quip : “Expert give answers not because they know, but because they are asked”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *