Road to the point of no return

In Israel they call it the point of no return, a time that is fast approaching, bringing with it far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and the wider world.

This is the moment when Israel concludes that Iran′s uranium enrichment process has gone beyond that required for the peaceful purpose of producing nuclear power; in other words, when it appears certain that the maverick Islamic regime is intent on building a nuclear bomb.

This day, expected to arrive within six months, will mark the moment when all bets are off, when international diplomacy is rendered mute and when Israel must make one of the gravest decisions of its turbulent history. Does it accept that one of its most implacable enemies in the region will have the bomb or does it risk international condemnation and terrorist reprisals by bombing Iran′s nuclear facilities?

Neither Israel nor the West like to confront this question publicly, preferring to discuss the dwindling list of international diplomatic options available to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

But behind the scenes there is growing evidence that Israel has already made up its mind. The mood in Israel is hardening against Iran, fuelled in part by the recent wild anti-Semitic rantings of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In Israel′s Negev desert, elite Israeli commandos have been quietly training for an assault on Iran′s nuclear facilities. A series of bombing options has been drawn up for Israel′s air force that are said to be far more detailed than mere contingency planning.

And in political and academic circles there is a growing conviction that Iran must be stopped at all costs. If the US or the West will not do it, then Israel must.

"It [military action] is not the preferred option, but Israel can never live under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb, never," says retired brigadier general Ephraim Sneh, chairman of the Knesset′s subcommittee on defence planning.

"This is the real threat above all else. It is the only thing that can wipe this state out; they [Iran] have declared that they want to do it. It would be the end of the Zionist dream. We can′t afford it."

Eran Lerman, director of the American Jewish Committee, echoes the beliefs of most of Israel′s elite when he says that Iran′s nuclear ambition is easily the gravest threat facing Israel.

"The Arab world has basically come to accept that Israel is a done deal but not Iran," Lerman says. "It would be great folly in this country if there was no talk of pre-emptive action. This is the future of our children we are talking about."

From the perspective of the West, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is deeply unsettling, but from Israel′s perspective it is intolerable. Israel is described bluntly by the US military as a "one-bomb country", meaning that a single nuclear bomb would destroy the nation. The risk of a nuclear-armed neighbour might be considered tolerable if Israel were confident that Iran would show the same maturity as have all other members of the nuclear club.

But Ahmadinejad has all but destroyed international confidence in his regime by displaying naked hostility towards Israel.

On October 26 he stated bluntly that "Israel must be wiped off the map". Earlier this month he claimed that the Holocaust did not happen, that it was "a myth that Jews were massacred".

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps," he said. "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or condemned ... we don′t accept this claim."

Ahmadinejad′s comments have served only to galvanise international opinion against Iran and convince Israeli moderates that military action is justified if diplomacy fails.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned bluntly this month that Israel cannot accept the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel is pinning its hopes on two unlikely scenarios. One is that concerted diplomatic pressure, including possible UN sanctions, could force Iran to open its facilities to full inspections. So far Iran has all but ignored the diplomatic campaign against it, asserting its right to develop its nuclear facilities free from foreign interference.

Even if the UN Security Council eventually unites to condemn and threaten Tehran, its power to compel the regime to abandon its nuclear program is minimal.

Should diplomacy fail, Israel will be hoping that the US or a collective of European nations, perhaps under the banner of NATO or the European Union, will conduct surgical bombing raids to destroy Iran′s nuclear facilities. This would spare Israel from further demonisation in the Arab world and would minimise the inevitable reprisals from Iranian-sponsored terrorists based in the West Bank and Lebanon.

But any direct US involvement in a military strike on Iran is problematic given Washington′s huge and messy involvement in neighbouring Iraq. Washington will be reluctant to spearhead military action that further devalues its currency in the Arab world. Justification for any military strike on Iran would also rely heavily on intelligence assessments of Iran′s capacity to build a bomb. After the failure of weapons of mass destruction intelligence in Iraq, any shrill US claims about Iran′s nuclear capacity is likely to be treated sceptically by many countries, undermining support for any US-led bombing raids.

Given these factors, there is a prospect that Israel will choose to go it alone, as it did in 1981 when the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq′s Osiraq nuclear research reactor complex.

But the military mission this time is far more challenging, with Iran having dispersed its nuclear facilities across the country in anticipation of possible attack.

"Learning the lessons of Osiraq, Iran has dispersed, hidden and hardened its nuclear facilities, making them less vulnerable to attack than was the case in Iraq," says Gerald Steinberg, from the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs. "No single air attack would be able to destroy the multiple elements that constitute the Iranian program."

However, most analysts, including Steinberg, say that even if an attack failed to destroy Iran′s nuclear program, it would still set it back by years, delaying Tehran′s development of the bomb.

A report issued this month by the US Army War College also concluded that an attack by Israel would be unlikely to fully wipe out Iran′s nuclear facilities.

"[But] it can be safely assumed that any Israeli action against the Iranian nuclear program would enjoy vast support by Israeli public opinion," the report says. "Even the failure of the operation would not erode the support because of the almost general consensus of the public."

A strike on Iran by Israel would cause outcry in the Muslim world but would be unlikely to be condemned by the West, which has seen Iran snub every plea for a diplomatic solution to the impasse.

But experts believe Iran′s capacity for military retaliation against Israel is relatively limited given its outmoded air force and the inaccuracy of its long-distance Shehab-3 missiles. Retaliation would no doubt come via a new wave of Iran-sponsored suicide bombings inside Israel and rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon. But such attacks are already a part of Israeli life and are unlikely, in themselves, to influence Israel′s final decision on Iran.

The most difficult decision for Israel may be the question of when it should attack Iran′s nuclear targets.

Israel would risk international condemnation to do so before the diplomatic process has exhausted itself, which will take at least several more months. The timing of any attack is further complicated by the West′s incomplete and inconclusive intelligence on Iran′s nuclear program.

There is unlikely to be any definitive smoking gun to prove that Iran is building a bomb, so it will be a judgment Israeli will be forced to make without 20-20 vision. Israel′s history of unilateral military action suggests it will act sooner rather than later and almost certainly via a surprise attack rather than by waiting until Iran can build a bomb.

So when might this attack -- which would be a defining news story of 2006 -- happen? In recent months strategic experts have narrowed their time frames.

"Sometime in 2006" has become "sometime in the next six months".

The clock is ticking faster. Iran′s President may find that his virulent anti-Semitism and his nuclear defiance will come back to haunt him sooner rather than later.

By provoking Israel with words and deeds, Iran is playing with fire.

Cameron Stewart visited Israel this month in a trip partly sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Ministry.