Two articles about Israeli nuclear capabilities appeared in the world press this weekend. The L.A. Times reported that
Israel has modified American-supplied cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads on submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to launch atomic weapons from land, air and beneath the sea, according to senior Bush administration and Israeli officials.Der Spiegel adds under the self-negating tagline of "Geheimoperation" (secret operation) that
Israel is planning an attack on Iranian nuclear installationsThe L.A. Times cites American and Israeli officials for its claims, but simultaneously opines that this disclosure
complicates efforts by the United States and the United Nations to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.These stories smell like deliberate leaks, and Ha'aretz' Aluf Benn writes that the Mossad regularly shares information about Iran's nuclear program with the media. So why would the Bush administration make a point of "complicating" its own efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program?
The motivation behind the Der Spiegel story seems clear to me. The UN and the US are pressuring Iran to open up its nuclear program to thorough inspections. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only for "generating electricity". But not only is Iran balking on the inspections, it is also far from obvious why a country whose proven oil reserves are good for another 200 years of electricity generation would need to invest in nuclear power. The public threat of attack must be designed to force Iran's hand and make it either open up to inspections and prove that the program is peaceful, or not. I bet on the not, but we'll have to wait and see.
In the meantime, both Israeli and non-Israeli weapons experts have dismissed the L.A. Times report about the submarine-based nuclear weapons as "technically impossible". So who knows why American and Israeli officials chose to give this information to the L.A. Times. To send the message to Iran that offensive nuclear weapons don't make any sense because Israel can deter any such attack? To focus the discussion on the fact that Israeli's strategic weapons are of a defensive nature while Iran's are offsensive? I don't know. But it's interesting to wonder about.
UPDATE Ralf Goergens e-mails that Der Spiegel also carried a version of the L.A. Times article with the spin that the subs had been supplied by Germany in the early '90s, raising the question whether the Kohl government had been aware of Israel's nuclear plans (probably was).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 12, 2003 09:17 PMSharkman I hope that Israel has nukes on submarines and I hope that she also has or will have neutron bombs.
Posted by: Joel on October 13, 2003 06:41 AMNukes on Harpoons would not quite work, but Israel doesn't need to fit nuclear weapons onto Harpoons because it fields the Popeye Turbo:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm
So make no mistake, Israel has the capability.
On the subs: delivered at the end of the 90's and early 00's. Nuke missile upgrade potential had been obvious ever since the planning stage. The Kohl government just ignored that fact and therefore tacitly broke weapon export laws.
Posted by: Chris K on October 14, 2003 12:00 PMStefan Sharkansy writes: "[I]t is also far from obvious why a country whose proven oil reserves are good for another 200 years of electricity generation would need to invest in nuclear power." That is indeed a good question and one I've not seen answered anywhere. Please let us know if you find anyone putting forward Iran's explanation.
Posted by: Simon on October 16, 2003 12:29 PMWould the Israelis actually go through with the bombing of the power plant in Iran? Do they feel that it is such a threat to their country?
Posted by: Sean on May 9, 2005 01:34 PMIran has all the rights to possess nukes if Israel has them. Israel stole their nukes from the west, probably from France and the US
Iran needs nukes to maintain balance in the Middle East