By Arieh O'Sullivan

Jerusalem, Israel

As United Nations nuclear inspectors touch down in Tehran, the running assessment is that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and will do everything including a military strike to stop it.

As far back as 1997, Jane's Intelligence Review stated this very clearly and no one has denied it. What has changed over the decade is the timetable. Signs are increasingly pointing to this year being the decisive one of decision and there are indications that a direct military confrontation between Iran and the West - the U.S. and/or Israel - is more likely today than at any time in more than two decades.

"The strategy vis-a-vis Iran should be to do whatever is possible under the radar coupled with painful and crippling sanctions, but at the same time we should also keep a viable military option on the table with the willingness to use it if necessary," former Israeli army chief Lt.-Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi said at a recent conference in Tel Aviv. "When the moment comes, I don't know if we won't be alone, and for this reason Israel must also rely on itself."

But just as the belligerent rhetoric goes up a notch there also has emerged increasing signs of divisions within Israel's strategic community on exactly when and how to deal with Iran's nuclear challenge.

Shlomo Brom, a general retired from Israel intelligence and former deputy national security adviser, said the Iranians have not yet made the crucial decision to assemble a nuclear bomb.

"There is time," Brom told The Media Line. "If the only consideration is the Iranian program and how close they are to a bomb, well they haven't taken yet the decision to take the last step for weaponization. They are acquiring all the necessary technology so that once they do decide to do it they will."

Ronen Bergman, an Israeli writer on strategic affairs, published an article in the New York Times last week saying that the three major factors for a strike are in place now. These were "international legitimacy," "Israel's capability" and "necessity" to act.

Last year, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said a military strike now would be "the stupidest thing I have ever heard." He has said in published remarks that war planes should only be dispatched when the knife was at Israel's throat.

His position was echoed this week by the recently retired head of Israeli military intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin. He believes there is still a point once a decision is made by Iran to get the bomb and the process is in motion that the strike could be ordered.

"Assuming that once they do make a decision to weaponize, we will know it and that is the assumption of Yadlin. There is a window of time from the point of making this decision and until they succeed in weaponizing," Brom explained.

But the flaw in this thinking was raised by Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is troubled by what he called Iran's "immunity zone." He has described this as the ability by Iran to accumulate know-how, raw materials and equipment so that a military attack would be too late.

"Even if Iran hasn't taken that decision, they are taking steps to make their program immune and remove their vulnerability and then it [a military strike] won't be a possibility," said Brom, currently a senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies.

Brom added that containing a nuclear-armed Iran is also out of the question, not because it wouldn't be impossible to establish a situation of mutual deterrence with Iran, but because of the impact of a nuclear Iran on the region.

"The question is the affect of nuclear proliferation will have on the Middle East and the ability of Iran to cause trouble by other means," Brom said.

Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel, currently head of planning for the Israeli military and front runner to be named the next air force chief, outlined recently the prevailing view that once an enemy nation has the bomb, it severely restricts the use of force in the neighborhood.

"This is going to create a dramatic change in Israel's strategic posture, because if we are forced to do things in Gaza or Lebanon under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, it might be different," Eshel told reporters and diplomats at a Jerusalem think tank last week.

He deflected questions on whether Israel could contain a nuclear Iran, saying that was a political decision. His job, he said, was to give the government the "tool box" of options.

"We have to provide the government with tools in the box. The decision to use them or not is a few blocks from here," Eshel said. "I will say what President Obama said, 'Nuclear Iran is unacceptable'."

A recent cartoon in the Jerusalem Post shows Netanyahu facing a street sign: "War with Iran before they get nukes" point one way and "War with Iran after they get nukes" pointing the other way.

This illustrates the dilemma facing Israeli leaders. A vast majority say war with Iran before it got nukes could have horrific results, but one Israel could weather and would eventually end, despite casualties and damage. The other scenario could see the annihilation of the Jewish state. The choice is obvious to those who advocate early action.

The question is also whether other measures, such as sabotage and assassination and mysterious explosions and computer worms, could reach the same results as an overt military strike.

According to the Ha'aretz daily, the Israel Defense Forces are not at ease with Barak's public warnings about Iran attaining nuclear capacity within months. The army's latest assessment reportedly states that "possibly Iran will have nuclear operation capability sometime within the span of the next five-year plan." This could mean anywhere between 2013 and 2018.

The question is the timeline. The Institute for Science and International Security, a non-profit institution headed by former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright, concluded last week that Iran did not have enough weapon-grade uranium to make nuclear weapons this year. But, it said, the Islamic republic had developed a capability to "rapidly build nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program" once a decision was taken.

The task of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in Iran this week is not to inspect the nuclear sites, merely to get talking again on their nuclear program. This tactic, Israel says, is Tehran's ploy for gaining time.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country, facing toughened sanctions, is ready for nuclear talks with the world powers. However, he says sanctions will not force Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which he claims they seek for energy not weapons.

In the meantime, mysterious explosions continue to rock Iran, kill nuclear scientists and destroy missile plants.

 

Twitter: @ihavenetnews

Israel Debates Iran Nuclear Strike | Global Viewpoint