Immunity Zone

As we spoke, however, [Israeli defense minister Ehud] Barak laid out three categories of questions, which he characterized as “Israel’s ability to act,” “international legitimacy” and “necessity,” all of which require affirmative responses before a decision is made to attack:

1. Does Israel have the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and bring about a major delay in the Iranian nuclear project? And can the military and the Israeli people withstand the inevitable counterattack?

2. Does Israel have overt or tacit support, particularly from America, for carrying out an attack?

3. Have all other possibilities for the containment of Iran’s nuclear threat been exhausted, bringing Israel to the point of last resort? If so, is this the last opportunity for an attack?

For the first time since the Iranian nuclear threat emerged in the mid-1990s, at least some of Israel’s most powerful leaders believe that the response to all of these questions is yes.

At various points in our conversation, Barak underscored that if Israel or the rest of the world waits too long, the moment will arrive — sometime in the coming year, he says — beyond which it will no longer be possible to act. “It will not be possible to use any surgical means to bring about a significant delay,” he said. “Not for us, not for Europe and not for the United States. After that, the question will remain very important, but it will become purely theoretical and pass out of our hands — the statesmen and decision-makers — and into yours — the journalists and historians.”

[...]

He warned that no more than one year remains to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weaponry. This is because it is close to entering its “immunity zone” — a term coined by Barak that refers to the point when Iran’s accumulated know-how, raw materials, experience and equipment (as well as the distribution of materials among its underground facilities) — will be such that an attack could not derail the nuclear project. Israel estimates that Iran’s nuclear program is about nine months away from being able to withstand an Israeli attack; America, with its superior firepower, has a time frame of 15 months. In either case, they are presented with a very narrow window of opportunity.

[...]

“From our point of view,” Barak said, “a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations.”

   Ronen Bergman, an analyst for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in the NYTimes

This is a little different phrasing than Bergman used in an interview on NPR this afternoon. In that interview, he was asked why the Israeli’s think that Iran would attack Israel, knowing Israel has nuclear weapons and would counter, with the aid of the US. He said that it’s not a matter of deterrence, but a matter of not allowing Iran to have the nuclear weapon. The reasoning was this: Barak told him to imagine if Israel decided to attack the Hamas government in Gaza again, and this time they decided “to go all the way” and “take them out.” He quoted Barak as having said that Iran having nuclear weapons wouldn’t necessarily keep Israel from doing so, but it would make them “think twice about it.”

Heaven forbid Israel should have to think twice about “taking out” another country.

As one senior American official wrote to the State Department and the Pentagon in November 2009, after an Israeli intelligence projection that Iran would have a complete nuclear arsenal by 2012: “It is unclear if the Israelis firmly believe this or are using worst-case estimates to raise greater urgency from the United States.”

Gee. I wonder. What a coincidence that the “immunity zone” coincides with the US presidential election.

I suppose, however, that the Middle East being the cradle of civilization, it is only fitting that it should also be its grave.

...and hey, do what you want...you will anyway.