Israel Matzav

8 days to attack Iran?

In an earlier post, I reported that Russia plans to begin loading nuclear fuel into Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor on Saturday. In another post earlier today, I noted that former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton had described fueling the reactor as a 'major victory for Iran.'

But there was more that Bolton said that was not previously reported. In an interview with Fox Business Network on Monday, Bolton urged Israel to attack the Bushehr reactor before the fuel is loaded.

Bolton warned that once the Bushehr facility is operational it will be too late for a military air strike against Iran because such an attack would spread radiation and harm Iranian civilians.

"Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they're in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it," Bolton said.

Bolton actually said a lot more than that. Let's go to the videotape.



But not everyone is as upset as Bolton by what's going on at Bushehr. Here's Stephanie Fried:

Middle East expert and Pajamas Media contributor Barry Rubin dismisses the notion of an Israeli attack now and links to a piece by arms control expert Joshua Pollack, whose analysis shows why Israel has its own timetable and wouldn’t be deflected by such an event.

Experts say the announcement and subsequent fueling are significant events worthy of close scrutiny, but neither is cause for immediate panic.

“It’s highly symbolic,” American Foreign Policy Council Vice President Ilan Berman said from his D.C. office.

Iran has been trying to prove that they’re a de facto nuclear state for a long time and this bolsters their case for acceptance into the nuclear club.

...

Behind the scenes, numerous elements come into play in this scenario. First, Iran is striving for both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Bushehr, fueled by plutonium rather than uranium, is believed to fall into the latter category. So if there is no international outcry over fueling Bushehr — which there probably won’t be due to the fact that the facility is not a cornerstone of Iran’s nuclear program — the future question is: “if we get sacked for one, why not for the other?”

Second, the Iran-Russia relationship is key in this deal. Bushehr, says Berman, is a Russian debutante; it’s run on Russian technology and brain-powered by Russian engineers and scientists. And most probably, it’s a ruse. Says Berman:

The Russians made the Bushehr facility very high profile — it’s a showcase of their nuclear expertise. It’s also the site most picked over by UN inspectors. But we believe Iran is pursuing overt and covert programs. So the program getting the most attention paid to it is probably not the core nuclear weapons program. Bushehr is important because it shows overall nuclear technology progress but suffice it to say, this fueling feeds into the larger narrative of a nuclear state.

Another element coming into play: by fueling Bushehr, Russia is fulfilling a role as instigator/problem solver. The government is playing by the rules and grudgingly adhering to agreed upon sanctions, while at the same time sticking to the “Bushehr falls under pre-sanction contractual agreements with Iran” line. They’re double-dealing — staying in Iran’s good graces while telling the West what it wants to hear.

...

The real red line, Berman says, is not fueling the reactor but Russia’s delivery of contracted Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Recent reports indicate Iran may be getting S-300 technologies by way of workarounds, i.e., other country vicarious sales from Russia to Iran. Berman:

Russia knows if Iran gets the S-300, that will be the basis for war because Israel will have to attack before the units get deployed. But from a Russian perspective it’s brilliant. They signed a contract and they look good and appear to be cooperating.

Same current dynamic, it appears, but with a higher stake.

And finally, there are the threats from the Iranians themselves.

An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be an "international crime," Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying Tuesday.

In an interview with IRNA, Salehi said that the impact of such a strike would be global. "This is stipulated in the resolutions passed by the IAEA and the UN Security Council as well as in the resolution adopted at the close of the NPT Review Conference," he stressed.

I don't expect there to be an attack in the next eight days, and I don't expect that Bushehr being fueled - if in fact it is fueled - will prevent an attack on it in the future. If either Israel or the US has to attack Iran to stop it, there are going to be thousands of civilian casualties. I'm not convinced that fact will stop an attack on Bushehr.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:45 PM