Iran’s nuclear power pot has been burning whoever touches it. Israeli newspapers have been writing stories about a future in which the nuclear war conspiracies become true.  Israeli military leaders have been promising that any imminent threat against Israel will be eliminated.  There are the endless interpretations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports.   Iran is suspected of having one of its pawns too close to the opponent’s end of the chessboard. Iran planning to turn its pawn, the sites of nuclear fuel production and uranium enrichments into a queen—sites of nuclear weapon production? In how many moves might this happen?

The daily newspapers Yediot Ahronot, Haaretz and Maariv in Israel have been reflecting the Israeli concerns. During an interview in Tel Aviv between Lia Taranchansky, a reporter for the Real News, and Alex Fishman, Yediot Ahronot’s security journalist, Taranchansky said, “In the days following, their pages exploded with articles on the dangers and benefits of an Israeli attack on Iran.” “How Israel Will Look the Day after an Attack on Iran” in Maariv quoted the former heads of the Israeli security bodies all expressing opposition to the military option. Fishman suggested the Israeli leaders are only talking about “the need to neutralize the Iranian nuclear program.” How one might do that, however, is another question. Taranchansky stated that “the debate in Israel did not rage over whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program, whether it is Israel’s job to stop it or whether a military attack on Iranian soil is justified. Instead, it focused on potential retaliation from Iran warning [that] Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas from Gaza may fire rockets into Israel.”

Fishman further commented on Iran’s nuclear movement: “It’s not a threat at the moment; it’s a potential threat. And as soon as it has a nuclear weapon, so will Turkey and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The whole region will be nuclear. So what will this whole region balance on?” On the same subject, the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also highlighted the threat that Turkey and Saudi-Arabia would also start nuclear power production if Iran did. As Larry Elliot from Davos reported in the Guardian, Barak said, “Iran is prepared to defy and deceive the whole world to turn themselves into a nuclear power. This will be the end of any conceivable anti-proliferation program. Major powers in the region will feel compelled to turn nuclear.” He gave Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt as examples. The director general of the IAEA Yukiya Amano said: “All of the countries have the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purpose. However, rules must be respected and implemented fully. Unfortunately, that is not the case of Iran, so I am asking Iran to further cooperate with the IAEA.”

There has been speculation about a document detailing the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear capacity, published by the Times in London. Robert Kelley, the former director of the IAEA, explained: Mohamed ElBaradei, the current IAEA director and a lawyer, wanted solid traces to the source of the information. The document showed up in London fourteen days after he retired, and it looked “retyped to hide some of the information.” That could explain the lack of markings, dates or “distribution lists.” When questions were raised about the cylinders used in the nano-diamond experiments and their denomination  by the IAEA as “signs of nuclear weaponry,” Kelley commented “I saw a number of things about the way it was reported. […] The amount of explosive it contained didn’t seem to be enough. But we don’t know how the IAEA came up with the numbers they did. […] If uranium was ever used in that building with explosives with this chamber, the Iranians would be taking a huge chance by letting the IAEA in there.” Yet, Kelley concluded, Iran would not build such “huge material production plants at Natanz and the reactor that they’re getting ready to turn on at Arak” unless it was for a military purpose.

In an interview between Paul Jay, the Real News Network’s senior editor, and Gareth Porter from Inter Press Service, Porter suggested, that Iran would take action to move the IAEA out of the country if any nuclear action was to be taken. Porter stated, “There is actually a little-known but well-documented U.S. permanent military presence in southern Israel in the Negev Desert, which is a U.S.-Israeli joint radar station, and it was initially established in September, I believe, of 2008 and was clearly a move by the Bush administration to satisfy the Israelis that the U.S.  is somehow committed militarily to assisting Israel in the event of a war with Iran. [We are] very thoroughly integrated into Israeli defense policy, and even into an actual war between Israel and Iran at this moment, unless Obama takes real action to change that.”  This might mean that the next move on the chessboard will come from the U.S. On Porter’s comment, Jay said, “And he doesn’t want to, ‘cause he’ll look soft on Iran, and the Republicans will come after him. So it all becomes another calculation about the presidential elections.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seemed to be irritated by what David R. Ignatius, Washington Post editor and columnist, wrote in his report to the Washington Post. When Panetta was asked about his views, he said, “What I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else.” If the U.S. Defense Secretary avoids answering to such an important issue, who should the public turn to? Ignatius  had written that Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June—before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.

At the end of all discussions, reports and evasion, the Iran’s nuclear weaponry will remain as a threatening “if.” Panetta had pointed in his interview:  “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon.”

Related posts:

1. How have we agreed on non-proliferation
2. Gaza: Israel
3. Hezbollah vs. Israel
4. Israel and Palestine: The Gaza conflict in context
5. Israel: Homeland or wasteland?