Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 1 May 2005
The URL of this article is:
At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney
dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of
America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us
putting pressure on them "to do it":
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it
without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the
Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,"
(quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel
loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security
adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon
to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:
"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly
not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration
of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement
for the Israelis to do it."
The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not
"encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the
active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working
assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour
Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )
Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally,
without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the
Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved
in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli
counterparts) are involved in this operation.
"A British intelligence official said that any campaign
against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence
officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )
The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of
Iran's nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor,
Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement"
will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely
to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire
Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.
Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in
the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military
facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute
to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood
in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of
Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement
reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully
weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation
for a possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some
5,000 "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more
than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz,
which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":
"Given Israel's already substantial holdings of
such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement." (See
Richard Bennett, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs.
The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided
by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used
to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional
bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are
"safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html )
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See
Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an
attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide
"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke
war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias
Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue punitive
air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, there are indications that the possibility of a ground war is also being contemplated.
Iran's Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the
US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making
potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its
Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises
in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine.
Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center
for Strategic Studies).
The US "Military Road Map"
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and
Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves
the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses
more than 70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world's oil and ranks third after
Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global
oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise.
It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated
"in war theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed
in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation
of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment
of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region,
and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on
either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as
espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access
to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , emphasis
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey are the main actors
in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet
republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies
a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications
that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George
W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify
that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared
to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.
Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation
should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been
conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various
parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure
in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out
at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military
operation directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene
in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken,
which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's
IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including
Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the
Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises
and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels
in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext
to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe
Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General
is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz to IDF chief of
Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right man at the right time." The central
issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate
the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's appointment was specifically linked to the Iran agenda. "As chief of staff,
he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario."
March 2005 NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem
for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise.
These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding
potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that
Israel is under attack:
"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country
facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended
to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation
between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military
potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees
the need, could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because
it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel.
It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial
authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy
failed to stop Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli
military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to
Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine
and "unconnected to events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training
exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official
visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media
as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the
date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military bases described as "mobile groups"
in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which
allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The
stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is
to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves
and pipeline corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative
of establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:
"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network
of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects
of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become
an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the
project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President
Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan,
which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five"
military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets
George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon
was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel
on an official visit. He announces Russia decision's to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting
Iran's nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely visit to Israel must be interpreted
as "a signal to Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to
US officials "is not being tough enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA
chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee
prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD
presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
Late April 2005, Sale of deadly military hardware to
Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster
bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment).
The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of
the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable
of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.
The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s
on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who
met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint
production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also
known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara
decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon,
leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan,
Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military
bases. (see Map below). These countries including Turkmenistan are members of part of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation agreement with NATO.
Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003 (Click
Map to enlarge)
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive
scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with
Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested,
in this regard:
"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country,
Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other
countries... Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly
its territory." (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure
which threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation,
which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination,
a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's
participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in
the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
(See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact
that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are
authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because ther explosion
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute
a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to
the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the
Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance
movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the
Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be deployed in the case
of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia-
Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel
and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian
and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with
Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies,
between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance,
would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached
between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support
a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following
US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term
US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest
of the Russian Federation.
The Antiwar Movement
The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the
next phase of this war from happening.
This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies
will not in itself reverse the tide of war.
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members
of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement
at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately
instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry
is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation,
war is given a humanitarian mandate.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down,
the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state
must be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must
also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media,
which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war
criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire
and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the "war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize
public opinion in support of a global war agenda.
|TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated
delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France
and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and
Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from
a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's
most sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron
bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long
term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and
bombers capable of reaching Moscow...
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger
than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual
or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss,
let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses
and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table
and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the
Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which
sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while
simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy would focus international
public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace
in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement
much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that
there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon
From John Steinbach, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html