DOCSLIB.ORG

Speaking About the Unspeakable U.S.-Israeli Dialogue on Iran’S Nuclear Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Speaking About the Unspeakable U.S.-Israeli Dialogue on Iran’S Nuclear Program AgendA: IRAn Speaking about the Unspeakable U.S.-Israeli Dialogue on Iran’s Nuclear Program Chuck Freilich All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any infor- mation storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2007 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Published in 2007 in the United States of America by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Design by Daniel Kohan, Sensical Design and Communication Front cover: President Bush and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert speak to reporters at a White House press conference, May 23, 2006. Copyright AP Wide World Photos/Charles Dharapak. AgendA: IRAn Speaking about the Unspeakable U.S.-Israeli Dialogue on Iran’s Nuclear Program Chuck Freilich Policy Focus #77 | December 2007 The Washington Institute would like to thank all contributors to the Iran Security Initiative, whose generosity made this publication possible. About the Author Chuck Freilich is an Ira Weiner visiting fellow with The Washington Institute, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center (where he is writing a book on Israeli national security decisionmaking processes), and a Schusterman fellow. Previously, he served in the Israeli government as a deputy national security advisor, a senior analyst at the Ministry of Defense, a policy advisor to a cabinet minister, and a delegate at the UN mission. He teaches political science at Harvard, Tel Aviv University, and other institutions. n n n The opinions expressed in this Policy Focus are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, its Board of Trustees, or its Board of Advisors. Table of Contents Executive Summary . vii Introduction . 1 The Iranian Threat: A Shared U.S. and Israeli Assessment?. 3 The Bilateral Dialogue to Date . 6 The Bilateral Dialogue: Strategic Options. 8 Speaking about the Unspeakable . 21 Conclusion . 27 Appendix: Iran and Sanctions. 28 Executive Summary THE UNITED STATES and Israel have long shared out the strike would decrease. Therefore, in both cases, a truly “special relationship” whose breadth and depth Israel may be hesitant to discuss its military options are almost unprecedented. Moreover, as U.S. interests with the United States. in the region have expanded in recent years, the clas- The United States, for its part, may be similarly sic relationship, based on U.S. support for Israel’s dip- averse to discuss military options with Israel, although lomatic, security, and economic needs, has given way no doubt exists that the United States has the opera- to one based on a broader array of shared threats and tional capacity to conduct a major airstrike against interests in the areas of proliferation of weapons of Iran. Were the United States to veto an Israeli opera- mass destruction (WMD), terrorism, fundamentalism, tion in the face of an existential threat, Israel would and more. Iran’s nuclear program, in particular, which expect satisfactory assurance of U.S. intentions. The both countries have defined as “unacceptable” and United States, however, would presumably wish to keep expressed their resolve to prevent, has been the focus its options open and refrain from making far-reaching of an extensive exchange of intelligence and diplomatic commitments. The United States may also fear that information. Israel might interpret U.S. willingness to discuss mili- Nevertheless, a bilateral exchange does not appear to tary options as de facto legitimization, or approval, for have taken place on the two paramount issues related action. Moreover, if the United States decides not to to the Iranian nuclear threat: the possibility of mili- act militarily, it might be reluctant to apprise Israel, for tary action, if the diplomatic route runs its course, and, fear that the U.S. decision would be seen as justifica- conversely, possible means of “living with” a nuclear tion for an independent Israeli strike. Iran, should both the United States and Israel decide Similarly, Israel would be hesitant to engage in a dis- to refrain from military action. This study argues that cussion of the options for “living with” a nuclear Iran significant obstacles may indeed exist to a substantive out of fear that the United States might interpret this and comprehensive dialogue on such issues, seeks to discussion as a signal of Israel’s willingness to coun- explain why, and proposes possible means of surmount- tenance the possibility, forgo military options, and ing the difficulties. Following are some of the possible consider means of containing and deterring the threat obstacles to open dialogue presented in the study. rather than eliminating it. The United States may be Israel might fear that the very act of raising the issue no less reluctant than Israel to raise the subject, out of military action would risk an American “veto” and of concern that Israel would view this discussion as an may thus seek to refrain from placing itself in such a sit- indication that the United States is not truly commit- uation, much as it did in 1981, when it did not consult ted to preventing a nuclear Iran and thus as a justifica- with the United States before attacking Iraq’s Osiraq tion for an independent strike. reactor. Moreover, the United States might welcome Clearly, Israel’s understanding of American strat- knowledge of an Israeli intention to strike as remov- egy, especially of the likelihood of U.S. military action, ing the impetus for American action. Given the clearly would affect Israel’s determination to act unilaterally. greater American capability to conduct a successful Were Israel confident of U.S. military action, it would operation, Israel would prefer that the United States be no doubt be willing to hold its own fire. Similarly, the one to carry it out and would thus again be reluc- Israel’s willingness to discuss options for living with tant to discuss its own plans. Conversely, if Israel does a nuclear Iran would be affected by a better apprecia- not have an effective military option, in all likelihood, tion of American strategy and of the deterrent options it would be no less reluctant to divulge this—again the United States would be willing to consider. In the for fear that the pressure on the United States to carry absence of dialogue, Israel may be driven to avoidable The Washington Institute for Near East Policy vii Chuck Freilich Agenda: Iran measures or ones of lesser efficacy than those at the dis- the benefits of joint consultation, both in terms of posal of the United States. The United States, for its the means of preventing Iran from achieving nuclear part, may miss opportunities to deal with the issue in capability and of adopting joint measures for living the manner it deems most effective, or preferable, and with it. may be left to deal with the consequences of actions to One thing is abundantly clear: if ever a test case which it was not a party. existed of the strength of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, To the extent that the analysis presented in this the Iranian nuclear program is it. On particularly sensi- study accurately reflects reality, serious obstacles tive issues, however, sovereign nations are loath to dis- exist to a true bilateral U.S.-Israeli dialogue on what cuss openly their intentions and capabilities even with is arguably the most important issue they have ever their closest allies. This reluctance is particularly true faced together. By the time the two countries over- in cases of asymmetric relations, where one side is far come these obstacles, it may be too late to realize fully more dependent than the other. viii Policy Focus #77 Introduction Fast forward, Lebanon, summer 2010. After four years tracted than Israel’s long-feared worst-case scenario, of tenuous quiet, a rearmed Hizballah, acting at Iran’s sooner than Washington’s estimate. If U.S. and Israeli behest, again launches rockets into Israel. Israel, deter- assessments of the timeline to an operational Iranian mined to deal Hizballah a truly severe blow, counter- capability have ranged recently from three to eight attacks, successfully applying the lessons of the 2006 years,2 with Israel tending toward the former, new war. Syria, greatly strengthened by its growing military disclosures regarding Iran’s centrifuge program lend alliance with Iran, concentrates its forces. Iran, having greater credence to the lower end.3 thwarted all diplomatic attempts to curtail its nuclear The publicly available information on the policy side program, announces that it has “the bomb,” hinting at of the U.S.-Israeli dialogue on the Iranian nuclear pro- Israel’s destruction. The United States places its forces on gram—in other words, those measures they could adopt alert. The UN Security Council convenes an emergency to impede and prevent the program’s completion or to session. Oil prices go off the charts. live with it once operational—is limited. Indeed, beyond the diplomatic and sanctions approach under discussion FOR WELL OVER A DECADE, the United States in the UN Security Council, as well as possible multilat- and Israel have engaged in an extensive exchange of eral sanctions outside of the UN system, the impression information and assessments on Iran’s nuclear pro- to be gained is that very little dialogue has taken place gram, often coordinating their ongoing, day-to-day on how actually to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat diplomatic activities and even taking some joint mili- should these measures fail.4 tary steps, such as U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Containing Iran: Strategies for Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge Met Through Patient and Forward-Looking Policymaking
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Purchase this document TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Corporation View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Containing Iran Strategies for Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge Robert J. Reardon Supported by the Stanton Foundation C O R P O R A T I O N The research described in this report was supported by the Stanton Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline: Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in the Middle East Compiled by Amanda Tapp
    Timeline: Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in the Middle East Compiled by Amanda Tapp 1949: The Israel Defense Forces find 1960s: Steps to establish a nuclear sources of uranium in the Negev desert. weapons-free zone in the Middle East begin. The Committee for the 1950s: Iran’s nuclear program begins Denuclearization of the Middle East (a with U.S. assistance as part of the “Atoms group of Israeli intellectuals) proposes for Peace” program, which began under the idea first in 1962, publicly stating U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s that the development of nuclear weapons administration. This collaboration “constitute[s] a danger to Israel and to would come to a halt with the toppling peace in the Middle East,” urging the of the Shah of Iran in the 1979 Iranian United Nations to intervene “to prevent Revolution. military nuclear production”. 1953: Iran launches a civilian nuclear May 1961: The U.S. Atomic Energy program initiative with the aim of Commission (AEC) sends inspectors reaching nuclear cooperation agreements to Dimona. The results affirm that with other nuclear-capable states. Dimona only had a research reactor and was not capable of producing weapons- 1955: The United States agrees to sell grade plutonium. This is reaffirmed by a Israel a small nuclear research reactor. second inspection in September 1962. 1957: Israel begins work on the Negev 1963: Israel agrees to buy 100 tons of Nuclear Research Facility, a large reactor uranium ore from Argentina in a secret in the desert near Dimona, which would agreement in response to rising tensions become the foundation for Israel’s between the United States and Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Counterproliferation Compatible with Nonproliferation?: Rethinking the Defense Counterproliferation Initiative
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1995-06 Is counterproliferation compatible with nonproliferation?: rethinking the Defense Counterproliferation Initiative McColl, Angus A. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/31463 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS IS COUNTERPROLIFERATION COMPATIBLE WITH NONPROLIFERATION? RETHINKING THE DEFENSE COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE by Angus A. McColl June, 1995 Thesis Co-Advisors: Peter R. Lavoy John Arquilla Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 19960116 044 mt&m ra^crr REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information ,s estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions searching• existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and review.ng the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or änv othe'r aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate^ inf5rrn«Sn S-S r - V -a*ect-?f ,h,s Oavis Highwav.Suite, 204, Arlington, ^22202-4302.,"»^ 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 1995 Master's Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS IS COUNTERPROLIFERATION COMPATIBLE WITH NONPROLIFERATION^ RETHINKING THE DEFENSE COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE 6. AUTHOR(S) McColl, Angus A. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93940-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regional Context Domestic Aspects of Strategic Postures: the Past and Future in a Middle East Nuclear Regime
    The Regional Context Domestic Aspects of Strategic Postures: The Past and Future in a Middle East Nuclear Regime ETEL SOLINGEN This paper examines domestic aspects of the debate over the establishment of a regional nuclear regime in the Middle East. It does so in order to offset the marginal attention paid to the impact of domestic processes and institutions in the definition of strategic outcomes.' The call for incorporating domestic politics into the study of international regimes is not new but, with few exceptions, has been rarely followed by actual applications.2 That failure has not been the subject of great controversy in the analysis of nuclear options in the Middle East, because neorealist assumptions about the primacy of state survival considerations have gained unparalleled analytical supremacy. The potential for physical annihilation compelled a neorealist point of departure, even when neorealist assumptions led to no particular saddlepoint, or solution (in logical terms, the search for survival could have led to a range of means and outcomes). That different domestic actors are likely to define strategic options with different considerations in mind seems self-evident. Domestic groups weigh different international outcomes according to the latter's potential effect on their own political and institutional pay-offs. The pay-offs associated with different outcomes can be affected by different mixes of side-payments. For instance, no military establishment entrusted with maintaining conventional deterrence would endanger its access to conventional weapons, the means with which it maintains its mission. In general terms, domestic actors rank their preferences according to the rate at which they discount the future, their degree of receptivity to transparency, their sensitivity coefficients to gaps in gains, and/or their definition of a 'balanced exchange'.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Attack on Osiraq
    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS ISRAEL’S ATTACK ON OSIRAQ: A MODEL FOR FUTURE PREVENTIVE STRIKES? by Peter Scott Ford September 2004 Thesis Advisor: Peter R. Lavoy Second Reader: James J. Wirtz Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2004 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Israel’s Attack on Osiraq: A Model for Future 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Preventive Strikes? 6. AUTHOR Peter S. Ford 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • National Perspectives on Nuclear Disarmament
    NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT EDITED BY: Barry M. Blechman Alexander K. Bollfrass March 2010 Copyright ©2010 The Henry L. Stimson Center Cover design by Shawn Woodley All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Henry L. Stimson Center. The Henry L. Stimson Center 1111 19th Street, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202-223-5956 fax: 202-238-9604 www.stimson.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .....................................................................................................................v Introduction ...........................................................................................................vii BRAZIL | A Brazilian Perspective on Nuclear Disarmament Marcos C. de Azambuja.....................................................................1 CHINA | China’s Nuclear Strategy in a Changing World Stategic Situation Major General Pan Zhenqiang (Retired)........................................13 FRANCE | French Perspectives on Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Disarmament Bruno Tertrais ..................................................................................37 INDIA | Indian Perspectives on the Global Elimination of Nuclear Weapons Rajesh M. Basrur .............................................................................59 IRAN | Iranian Perspectives on the Global Elimination of Nuclear Weapons Anoush Ehteshami............................................................................87
    [Show full text]
  • Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran
    MCNAIR PAPER 69 Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran JUDITH S. YAPHE a n d CHARLES D. LUTES Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University About the Authors Judith S. Yaphe is a senior fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, where she specializes in political analysis and strategic planning on Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf region. Prior to joining INSS in 1995, Dr. Yaphe was a senior political analyst on the Middle East-Persian Gulf for the U.S. Government. She has published extensively on Iraq, Iran, and U.S. security policy in the Gulf region. Colonel Charles D. Lutes, USAF, is a senior military fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, where he focuses on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, counterterrorism, mili- tary strategy, and strategic concept development. Colonel Lutes has served in the Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate, Joint Staff, and commanded an operational support squadron. ■ ■ ■ ■ The National Defense University (NDU) educates military and civilian leaders through teaching, research, and outreach in national security strategy, national military strategy, and national resource strategy; joint and multinational operations; information strategies, operations, and resource management; acquisition; and regional defense and security studies. The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is a policy research and strategic gaming organization within NDU serving the Department of Defense, its components, and interagency partners. Established in 1984, the institute provides senior decisionmakers with timely, objective analysis and gaming events and supports NDU educational programs in the areas of international security affairs and defense strategy and policy.
    [Show full text]
  • 543 Bodansky
    ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security Issue Nuclear Ambition and the Importance of Intelligence, Strategies and Politics No. 543 Yossef Bodansky April 2018 Nuclear Ambition and the Importance of Intelligence, Strategies and Politics Yossef Bodansky April 2018 Executive Summary The Al-Kibar bombing in September 2007 was a clear demonstration of the Begin Doctrine. Although the crisis management and decision-making process of then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is considered one of the best in Israel’s history - the collection of the indisputable intelligence that made this strike possible has been problematic at best. While Israeli senior intelligence officials now acknowledge that their success was based as much on luck as on professionalism - the entire process belies the inherent pitfalls still plaguing the intelligence analysis and decision-making process concerning the acquisition of nuclear weapons by rogue states. The same fundamental problems in intelligence collection, analysis and decision-making continue to plague the handling of the looming Iranian nuclear threat throughout the West. Applying the threat analysis criteria that Israel ended adopting in 2007 points to Iran being a nuclear power. Taken together, the audacity and self- confidence of Iran’s uppermost leaders - starting with the Ayatollah Khamenei - leave no doubt they know they have the ultimate insurance against US-led efforts at regime change. Namely, Iran has the nuclear weapons and long-range strategic delivery systems to deter the US-led West. About ISPSW The Institute for Strategic, Political, Security and Economic Consultancy (ISPSW) is a private institute for research and consultancy. The ISPSW is an objective, task-oriented and politically non-partisan institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli Perceptions of the Iranian Issue
    Conflict Studies Research Centre Middl e East Series 06/42 Defence Academy of the United Kingdom 1 Israeli Perceptions of the Iranian Issue Eugene Kogan Key Points * There is a clear agreement within the Israeli military ranks and the political leadership that the Iranian nuclear programme poses a threat to the whole world and not just to Israel. As a result, diplomacy has to be given ample time before resorting to various sanctions including military options. * Nonetheless, as diplomacy leads nowhere, various sanctions including the military option are gradually moving to the central stage. There is also a deep understanding within the Israeli defence establishment that should there be a pre-emptive strike against Iran, it will respond with all its military might, including using proxy forces such as Hizbullah, which is based in Lebanon. As a result, Israel has been taking measures to protect itself in case of an attack from Iran. * As for an Israeli military strike, there are too many question marks regarding a successful outcome. However, such a possibility cannot be dismissed outright. Reaction from the West or Russia will not be positive, but neither will Israel be ostracised. Contents Introduction 1 Iranian nuclear programme – A world problem and not just Israel’s 3 In case of a pre-emptive strike against Iran 5 Potential operation: Facts and practicalities 6 In case of an attack from Iran 8 International Reaction 9 Conclusion 10 06/42 Israeli Perceptions of the Iranian Issue Eugene Kogan Introduction This report deals with the issue of Israeli reporting and perception of the Iranian nuclear programme under prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, who are rather different in style and policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Opera: an Ambiguous Success
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 3 Number 4 Volume 3, No. 4: Winter 2010 Article 8 Operation Opera: an Ambiguous Success Joshua Kirschenbaum [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons pp. 49-62 Recommended Citation Kirschenbaum, Joshua. "Operation Opera: an Ambiguous Success." Journal of Strategic Security 3, no. 4 (2010) : 49-62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.3.4.3 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol3/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Operation Opera: an Ambiguous Success Abstract To assess the efficacy of Israel's strike on Osirak, one must determine Israel's strategic objectives and their material effects on Iraqi capabilities. The capacity of the facilities to produce fissionable material without detection remains in dispute. So, too, does the timeline—and therefore the imminence—of Iraqi acquisition of a nuclear option. The political cost-benefit equation in this case requires a fair dose of subjective judgment. How much did the Israelis delay the program? How much did Iraqi motivation increase post facto? Is military counter-proliferation a viable strategy? Was the potential Iraqi bomb worth risking a bold, unprovoked attack that inevitably drew the condemnation of the world? Did the raid, in toto, raise or lower the risk of regional proliferation in the Middle East? All of these considerations must factor into an informed opinion on the retrospective wisdom of Begin's decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's 2007 Strike on Syrian Nuclear Reactor
    MENU Policy Analysis / Articles & Op-Eds Israel’s 2007 Strike on Syrian Nuclear Reactor: Lessons Learned for Iran by Michael Herzog Apr 25, 2018 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Michael Herzog Michael Herzog was appointed Israel's ambassador to the United States in 2021. Previously, he was an international fellow at The Washington Institute. Articles & Testimony Israel’s intelligence agencies deserve praise for their role in the operation, but they must also consider what their prior miscalculations mean for future counterproliferation efforts. he destruction of the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 contains lessons that have been overwhelmed by the T battle over who gets the credit. As the defense minister’s chief of staff at the time, I followed the decision- making process closely. I would like to illuminate three major dimensions. THE INTELLIGENCE T he fact is that a neighboring state hostile to Israel had been building a nuclear reactor for military purposes for about five years before Israel discovered it, close to it becoming “hot.” From a result-oriented point of view, Israeli intelligence did succeed in discovering it in time, but it certainly needs some soul-searching with regard to the process. In my judgment, during the years preceding the reactor’s discovery, Israeli intelligence subscribed to the mistaken conception that it was unreasonable for Syrian President Bashar Assad to try to develop nuclear military capabilities. As a result, proper collection efforts were not directed at this issue and relevant information was misinterpreted. This conception had been correct for the era of Hafez Assad, Bashar’s father.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 47 Precautionary Self-Defense and the Future Of
    Chapter 47 Precautionary Self-Defense and the Future of Preemption in International Law Elli Louka I. The Al Kibar Incident On September 6, 2007, Israel bombed a target in Eastern Syria located in the Al Ki- bar area1 close to the Iraqi border.2 Th e attack and the reasons for it were covered in secrecy and there was wild speculation in the media that the target might have been a nuclear reactor.3 Information about the incident was restricted to some offi cials, and the Israeli press was prevented from publishing information about the incident.4 After Israel’s raid, satellite images showed the site being bulldozed clear in an alleged attempt by Syria to destroy evidence regarding the facility.5 In late October 2007, a nongovernmental organization successfully located the site through satellite imagery 1 Th e Al Kibar facility was located in an isolated desert region of eastern Syria called Dayr az Zawr close to the Euphrates River. 2 CNN fi rst reported the strike as an attack targeting Hezbollah militants. See Syria Complains to UN About Israeli Airstrike, CNN.com, Sept. 11, 2007, http://edition.cnn. com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/11/israel.syria (last visited Aug. 23, 2009). In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Syria called the raid “a breach of air space of the Syrian Arab Republic.” Th ere was speculation that about ten North Koreans working at the facility died but these reports remained unverifi ed. See Tak Kumakura, North Koreans May Have Died in Israel Attack on Syria, NHK Says, Bloomberg.com, Apr.
    [Show full text]