[DEBATE] : Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran

[Riaz K Tayob]

Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on 
Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian

    * Jonathan Steele
    * guardian.co.uk,
    * Thursday September 25 2008 19:02 BST
    * Article history

nuclear enrichment plant of Natanz in central Iran

A view of the nuclear enrichment plant of Natanz in central Iran. 
Photograph: EPA

Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike 
on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he 
would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest 
of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the 
Guardian.

The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip 
to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the 
issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it 
[the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and 
that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in 
office", they added.

The sources work for a European head of government who met the Israeli 
leader some time after the Bush visit. Their talks were so sensitive 
that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently 
divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert 
had told him of Bush's position.

Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran 
appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US 
concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a 
wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling 
Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of 
dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several 
days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh 
the costs.

Iran has repeatedly said it would react with force to any attack. Some 
western government analysts believe this could include asking Lebanon's 
Shia movement Hizbollah to strike at the US.

"It's over ten years since Hizbollah's last terror strike outside 
Israel, when it hit an Argentine-Israel association building in Buenos 
Aires [killing 85 people]", said one official. "There is a large 
Lebanese diaspora in Canada which must include some Hizbollah 
supporters. They could slip into the United States and take action".

Even if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran without US approval its 
planes could not reach their targets without the US becoming aware of 
their flightpath and having time to ask them to abandon their mission.

"The shortest route to Natanz lies across Iraq and the US has total 
control of Iraqi airspace", the official said. Natanz, about 100 miles 
north of Isfahan, is the site of an uranium enrichment plant.

In this context Iran would be bound to assume Bush had approved it, even 
if the White House denied fore-knowledge, raising the prospect of an 
attack against the US.

Several high-level Israeli officials have hinted over the last two years 
that Israel might strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them being 
developed to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear 
bomb. Iran has always denied having such plans.

Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference 
during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not 
enough to block Iran's nuclear programme.

"Economic sanctions are effective. They have an important impact 
already, but they are not sufficient. So there should be more. Up to 
where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear programme," he said.

The revelation that Olmert was not merely sabre-rattling to try to 
frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it 
with Bush shows how concerned Israeli officials had become.

Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would 
not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might 
be preparing an "October surprise" before the US presidential election. 
Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an Israeli attack in an 
effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll 
security crisis.

Others have said that in the case of an Obama victory, the 
vice-president, Dick Cheney, the main White House hawk, would want to 
cripple Iran's nuclear programme in the dying weeks of Bush's term.

During Saddam Hussein's rule in 1981, Israeli aircraft successfully 
destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was due to 
start operating.

Last September they knocked out a buildings complex in northern Syria, 
which US officials later said had been a partly constructed nuclear 
reactor based on a North Korean design. Syria said the building was a 
military complex but had no links to a nuclear programme.

In contrast, Iran's nuclear facilities, which are officially described 
as intended only for civilian purposes, are dispersed around the country 
and some are in fortified bunkers underground.

In public, Bush gave no hint of his view that the military option had to 
be excluded. In a speech to the Knesset the following day he confined 
himself to telling Israel's parliament: "America stands with you in 
firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's 
leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would 
be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of 
peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, tonight reacted to the Guardian's story 
saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is 
raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. 
Israel prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must 
remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to 
the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with 
foreign guests".

Three weeks after Bush's red light, on June 2, Israel mounted a massive 
air exercise covering several hundred miles in the eastern 
Mediterranean. It involved dozens of warplanes, including F-15s, F-16s 
and aerial refueling tankers.

The size and scope of the exercise ensured that the US and other nations 
in the region saw it, said a US official, who estimated the distance was 
about the same as from Israel to Natanz.

A few days later, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, told the 
paper Yediot Ahronot: "If Iran continues its programme to develop 
nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The window of opportunity has 
closed. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative 
but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme."

The exercise and Mofaz's comments may have been designed to boost the 
Israeli government and military's own morale as well, perhaps, to 
persuade Bush to reconsider his veto. Last week Mofaz narrowly lost a 
primary within the ruling Kadima party to become Israel's next prime 
minister. Tzipi Livni, who won the contest, takes a less hawkish position.

The US announced two weeks ago that it would sell Israel 1,000 
bunker-busting bombs. The move was interpreted by some analysts as a 
consolation prize for Israel after Bush told Olmert of his opposition to 
an attack on Iran. But it could also enhance Israel's attack options in 
case the next US president revives the military option.

The guided bomb unit-39 (GBU-39) has a penetration capacity equivalent 
to a one-tonne bomb. Israel already has some bunker-busters.
Iran nuclear map Map showing nuclear activity in Iran

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1