Iranian aspirations to gain nuclear capabilities — and possibly nuclear weapons — evoked significant concern in the Western world in recent months, and there is now speculation that Israel could use force to ensure that the possibility isn’t realized.
In an opinion column published Feb. 2, David Ignatius of The Washington Post wrote that U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes there is a “strong likelihood” of an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities this spring.
Panetta has declined to comment on the column.
Tensions between Iran, Israel and the United States have surged due to Iran’s exploration of nuclear programs, which Israel and the United Sates oppose.
The possibility of an attack is the latest step in the rising friction surrounding Iranian nuclear concerns. Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz — a vital oil-shipping lane — and the assassination of a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist have added to tensions. The detention of an American citizen on treason charges by the Iranian government also occurred within the last several months.
While Scott Bennett, distinguished professor of political science at Penn State U., said he finds the concern of an Israeli attack to be legitimate, he said Panetta’s failure to refute the column has a political purpose.
“It puts pressure on both Iran and Israel,” Bennett said.
For Iran, Bennett said, the statement is a warning. And for Israel, it leverages the weight of public opinion upon their actions.
Bennett said American and European Union sanctions have Iran “feeling the pressure.” The major question is how far Iran is willing to push to gain nuclear weapons, Bennett said. He also noted different factions within the Iranian government have different aims as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.
Israel has a history of using military might against its neighbors when disputes have arisen.
PSU Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern history Arthur Goldschmidt said there are three incidences of Israeli military strikes that are historically relevant to the current situation: the bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in June 1981, the invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 and the air attack on Syria’s al Kibar nuclear reactor in September 2007.
Goldschmidt also said Israel “faced an existential threat in 1967, and chose to launch preemptive strikes against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.”
In the past, the U.S. has preferred to provide “huge amounts of military aid” to Israel rather than actively participating in engagements, Goldschmidt said.
Bennett said he did not believe the U.S. would take part in an attack.
“The U.S. would condemn the attack, but probably quietly hope that it did enough to slow Iran down,” he said.
Bennett said that in the case of an attack, it was unlikely that coordinated Israeli air strikes could eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Rather, they would hinder Iran’s nuclear gains for several years.
He also noted that there would be significant backlash from an Israeli attack. Israel would be condemned by the international community and could face a wave of attacks from organizations like Hezbollah, Bennett said.