Sunday Times: Israel Has F-15 I Squadron Ready To Attack Iran

2006-01-15

West battles to pull Iran's leader back from Judgment Day bomb

Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv

The Sunday Times

www.timesonline.co.uk/ article/0,,2089- 1986052,00.html

... Bush is expected to invite Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli prime minister, to Washington next month for talks on Iran. The timing is sensitive. Israel goes to the polls in March and it would be bad form for the White House to give the successor to Ariel Sharon an apparent electoral boost. But the Iranian threat is considered so serious that Bush may not want to wait.

Before the massive stroke that left him in a coma, Sharon had declared: "Israel will not accept a nuclear weapon equipped Iran." He had quietly ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to be ready to launch airstrikes against nuclear sites in the Islamic republic if necessary.

"The whole issue is now with the Americans," said an Israeli defence source. "Once we get the green light, we're ready."

For now the light has stalled on amber. Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, chastised Iran last week for its "dangerous defiance" and warned that "the president of the United States never takes any of his options off the table". She added, however, that diplomacy was the best way to solve the crisis: "If the international community stays united, it has a chance to work."

... Some Israelis have declared themselves willing to shoulder the burden. "We should attack and we are capable of completing the job," said General Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel's national security council, last week. "Iran is an imminent danger to Israel."

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, has backed the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, although Olmert's Kadima party looks the more likely election winner.

At the Hatzerim air base on the edge of the Negev desert, the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron is ready to attack. Months of preparations have been completed and the young pilots have finished training for the long-haul flights that will be necessary to reach Iran and back without refuelling.

The planes, costing GBP 60m each, are equipped with secret state-of-the-art weaponry and precision bombs that have yet to be tested in battle.

Two submarines capable of launching cruise missiles are on standby: one hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf, the other stationed in the Israeli port of Haifa. In an attack they will be used to receive high quality signal intelligence.

Israel's elite special forces are also prepared for their role - flying into Iran by helicopter to sabotage the underground targets that cannot be bombed from the air. That Israel has a plan of action surprises nobody, but it is a long way from pressing the start key. Its air force successfully bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 but, mindful of the lessons of that attack, the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear sites around Iran. There are thought to be at least 40 targets, some buried deep in the ground.

"What we now have is a lot of targets, which makes the operation much more difficult," said Ze'ev Raz, the former pilot who led the attack on Osirak.

It is inconceivable that the Israelis could strike without the support of the Americans. "The reality is that it would have to be a sponsored mission because the Israelis would have to fly across Iraqi or Turkish air space," said a senior British defence official.

"Then there is the question of retaliation. Iran has got ballistic missiles and some chemical weapons. What would happen if they used them?"

A wave of terrorism could be unleashed against Israeli and Jewish targets. On Israel's southern border with Lebanon, Iran's Hezbollah allies could fire off rockets - although, as with Osirak, there would be plenty of Arab nations relieved that Iran had been de-fanged.

The consequences, however, are so unpredictable that Perle believes it would be safer for America to take on the job itself. "If the only credible solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is an airstrike to destroy their facilities, we are far better able to do it than the Israelis. The worst thing would be to attack and not succeed."

If Olmert comes to Washington next month, Bush is certain to warn him against acting precipitately. "Our working assumption is that the Americans will try to pour water on our military plans," said an Israeli defence source.

One of the questions uppermost in the policymakers' minds is the state of public opinion in Iran. It is overwhelmingly likely that an attack would inflame people against the American "Great Satan" and Israel.

Not only would Iranian national pride be wounded; civilian casualties could also provoke fury at a time when pro-western sentiment in Iran had been on the rise.

For Perle, the correct strategy is obvious: hold off military action for now and extend vigorous support to the internal opposition in Iran. As he sees it: "There's nothing being done there. We're giving the mullahs a free ride."

Mounting international pressure on Iran could test the unity of the Islamic regime and the Iranian people. The son of an ironworker, Ahmadinejad's humble background and simple lifestyle have won him the respect of many of the poorest Iranians, who still hope he will fulfil election promises to fight unemployment and corruption.

The country's political elites, although aghast at his gaucheness, mostly support his nuclear policy out of national pride. "Ahmadinejad is using the nuclear question to play to the domestic gallery," said a Foreign Office official. "He has revived the sentiments of the 1980s. That's his philosophy."

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, has been one of Ahmadinejad's most outspoken critics but he has remained silent on the nuclear issue. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran who has the final say on all matters, is said to favour Ahmadinejad's uncompromising stance.

Some reformists are concerned by Iran's defiance of world opinion. Mohammad Reza Khatami, the younger brother of Ahmadinejad's predecessor as president, believes that the country should not risk international isolation.

"It's impossible to put very strict and broad sanctions in place against Iran. The world is not unified and it needs Iran's oil," said Khatami. "But it is important that Iranians feel they are part of the world and their isolation would have a very heavy effect on them."

How to put pressure on the regime without punishing its citizens is a vexing question for the security council. One idea floated last week was to ban Iran from the World Cup, for which the country has qualified for the first time.

"It would give a very clear signal to Iran that the international community will not accept what they are doing," said Michael Ancram, the Conservative MP.

That was not the view from the terraces in Tehran on Friday, where the Iranian team Persepolis was playing Germany's Bayern Munich in front of a home crowd for the first time since 1972. Many fans expressed relief that the German team had ignored the political fallout over the nuclear issue and turned up to play.

In London, Straw soon rejected the idea anyway, saying he was "not certain" that sports sanctions would help. "Sports sanctions hurt the people, not the regime," said a spokesman.

Other suggestions for sanctions include blocking travel visas for the political elite and halting Iran's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation.

China - Iran's top oil importer, with burgeoning energy needs - is likely to veto all but the mildest of diplomatic sanctions. "It would be a replay of the Iraq debate," said one western diplomat gloomily.

Only last month a high-level Chinese delegation slipped into Tehran for talks on an oil and gas deal worth more than $57 billion. The two nations also have military links stretching back to the Iran-Iraq war.

The Russians are furious that their attempt to play the go- between with Iran and the West has gone nowhere. They had hoped that Ahmadinejad would take up their offer to enrich uranium in Russia for Iran's civilian needs. His humiliating lack of interest led to some unusually sharp criticism of the Iranians last week.

Even so, it is highly doubtful that President Vladimir Putin would support stringent sanctions jeopardising Moscow's huge economic and strategic interests in the region. Even the French and Germans have warned that economic sanctions are "premature".

As a first step, the UN security council president is likely to issue a stern statement condemning Iran, a move likely to be interpreted in Tehran as a sign of western weakness. The pressure will then be increased by degrees but it is a risky gambit that will allow Iran to continue its nuclear work.

The Israelis believe that time is running out. Its nuclear scientists claim that Iran is fast approaching the "point of no return" when it will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity.

According to a study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran will be three years away from producing a nuclear bomb if it can feed the uranium through 1,000 centrifuges that it hopes to operate at Natanz. A 50,000-centrifuge plant being built nearby could hasten the process considerably.

The 20 years of talks with the Iranians have already sped by. By the time the talking stops, Iran may have the know-how to build what the rest of the world dreads: an "Islamic" bomb.

Additional reporting: Michael Sheridan, Bangkok, Mark Franchetti, Moscow, Tom Walker and Flora Bagenal.

Where sanctions have succeeded and failed

The easiest sanctions the United Nations security council could impose on Iran would be travel restrictions on members of the Tehran theocracy and a freeze on assets held abroad. But any sanctions affecting trade and investment would probably be vetoed by China and Russia, given their reliance on energy deals with Iran. An oil embargo is extremely unlikely.

If the UN fails to agree on measures, the European Union could impose its own sanctions. These would probably mirror those applied to Zimbabwe and would include a travel ban and an assets freeze, plus a halt to investment and exploration.

Whatever the eventual package, sanctions have an extremely mixed record and have rarely proved effective.

Among cases where sanctions have worked without military force are:

Libya 1992-99

An arms embargo, assets freeze, flight bans and a ban on imports of oil equipment led the Gadaffi regime eventually to hand over the Lockerbie bombing suspects; later it gave up its nuclear research programme.

South Africa 1974-94

Arms embargo and ban on cultural and sporting links helped to end apartheid. Instances where sanctions largely failed and regimes were overthrown by military intervention include:

Iraq 1990-2003

Comprehensive sanctions prevented Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction but caused widespread suffering. Saddam was removed by the US-led invasion in 2003.

Yugoslavia 1992-96

Comprehensive sanctions may have increased Slobodan Milosevic's popularity at home. Nato's bombing in 1999 pressured the Serbian population into pushing him from office.

Afghanistan 1999-2002

Despite aviation and financial sanctions, the Taliban regime continued to shelter Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden until US attacks ended its rule. In Somalia, Liberia, Angola, Sudan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Ethiopia in the 1990s, embargoes proved useless in ending fighting and the black market in small calibre arms.

Source: IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis