The Strategic Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran
Chapter Three

The Regional Impact

The building of the Shahab-3 missile is not in breach of the peaceful policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which looks at détente and the establishment of peace and security in the region as a principle. In fact, it is a guarantor of peace and security in the region of the Persian Gulf against those who commit aggression against the rights of nations.

--Mohsen Rezai, July 1998

Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons and long-range missile delivery systems is likely to affect its behavior in the region. Tehran's new military muscle would bolster its aspirations for regional leadership and influence over a number of issues--from resolving territorial disputes to determining energy policy and production limits to serving as the beacon of political enlightenment for Arabs and Muslims worldwide.

Conservatives in Tehran may be more aggressive in negotiating style and willing to challenge neighbors and others on issues deemed critical to the Islamic Republic. They may be willing to reintroduce the nonconventional, asymmetric option--terrorism--to their militant arsenal. In contrast, Iranian reformists may have a softer approach, seeing no need to flaunt capabilities to intimidate other governments directly. Acquisition of nuclear weapons will give all Iranian leaders, whatever their stripe, greater self-confidence in dealing with thorny policy issues. We believe that Iran will neither casually threaten to use its newly acquired nuclear status to enforce oil policy or territorial claims on neighbors nor even to threaten Israel by supporting Palestinian and Islamic extremists. Such usage would undermine the more important purpose of homeland defense. Nevertheless, the choices Iran leaves for its neighbors, adversaries, and friends will depend on how it crosses the nuclear threshold and how the United States responds.

Iran and the Arabs: The View from the Neighborhood

We are a nation working for peace but we reserve the right to defend our country. We work towards procuring the weapons necessary to protect our country and this makes up these weapons through live tests before we buy them, and we make a shield to protect the safety of the Holy Shrines and the security of our citizens.

--Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, September 1999⁴⁹

The Arab States of the Persian Gulf, long accustomed to relying on strangers for their security, have several choices in reacting to a nuclear-armed Iran. They could choose to live in denial that Iran would mean them any harm, or they could see a quantum shift in their security needs and try either to join the nuclear club or to seek shelter under someone else's nuclear umbrella. They could raise new questions about living in a nuclear-free zone, or they could see Iran as a new champion against Israeli intransigence on the peace process. Would it matter at all that Tehran could now threaten any country in the region that it deemed insufficiently Islamic, too pro-Israel, or a stooge of the United States? Or would the Arab States simply ignore Iran's new status because of a willingness to believe that new leadership in Iran means a less threatening, more cooperative government in one of the region's largest and potentially most powerful countries?

Still Suspicious after All These Years

Persian Gulf neighbors and Arab Muslim states further afield, particularly Egypt and Syria, have closely scrutinized Iran's actions since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran was--and, in many quarters in the Greater Middle East, still is--suspect because of its efforts to export its Islamic revolution through persuasion and subversion, its support for international terrorism, and its offers of financial, logistic, and even military support to radicalized Islamist factions. Tehran under the late Ayatollah Khomeini and under current Supreme Leader Khamenei sees itself as the natural leader of the world's Muslims, an assumption that has frequently put it in conflict with the Protector of the Two Holy Mosques (Saudi Arabia) and other regional governments.⁵⁰ Adding long-range missiles capable of carrying NBC warheads would seem to give a militant Iran a very powerful edge if it chooses to exercise its authority to its fullest.

Reaction in the Greater Middle East to a nuclear-armed Iran probably would be muted for the most part. Syria and Iraq, for example, would have little reaction. Damascus has been allied with Tehran since the early days of the Iran-Iraq war, as a form of encircling their mutual enemy and as a way for Damascus to receive cheap oil in return for allowing Iran to supply Hizballah in Lebanon. Because Syria is working at acquiring longer-range missiles and has a chemical weapon capability, it is not likely to question Iran's acquisition of new weapons. Iraq would see Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons as a final step in the countries' race for arms supremacy, a path Iraq will hope to emulate once again. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been critical of Iran since Cairo expelled Iranian diplomats for trying to assist Egyptian Muslim extremists a decade ago. More recently, Cairo and Tehran appear to be moving toward restoring diplomatic relations, but Cairo is not likely to do anything about a new Iranian weapon capability. It could add its voice to those Arab countries calling for the region to be a nuclear-free zone, but Egyptian efforts are consumed by Israeli nuclear capabilities, its denial of those capabilities, and its refusal to sign the NPT, not by Iranian development. The United States is accused of not holding Israel to the same standards of behavior demanded of Iraq and Iran.

To the United States, the most important reactions will be those of the six governments that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Oman. Since their independence in the early 1960s, the six have preferred to have--or rather, allowed--outsiders to define their security policies and needs. New to acting like states rather than tribes, not yet as wealthy from oil as some would become, and accustomed to letting tradition determine their governance and institutions of civil society, the Arab States of the Arabian (not Persian) Gulf first followed their colonial protector, Great Britain, for shelter from the Arab and Persian nationalist storms that periodically swept through the neighborhood. When the British decided that they could no longer afford to protect the Gulf Arabs and withdrew in 1971, the United States began its gradual assumption of the British mantle.

The Gulf Arab Security Vision Then . . . 

Through the 1970s and 1980s, the Arab States of the Gulf faced first the hegemonic ambitions of Iran under the secular and intensely nationalistic regime of the Shah and then the determination of the revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran to export its revolution across the Gulf. In between Iranian challenges came Iraqi feints at territorial acquisition as well as influence in decisionmaking on Gulf and wider Arab political, economic, and strategic affairs. The U.S. solution was to maintain the small naval presence (the Fifth Fleet) that it had first sent to Bahrain in 1949 and to encourage a balance of power that allowed Iran under the Shah to dominate the region. In the 1970s--after the British withdrawal east of Suez and concerned about possible Soviet encroachments in the Gulf--President Richard Nixon created the Twin Pillars policy, which designated Iran and Saudi Arabia as proxies for U.S. military presence in the region. When the Shah fell and the Ayatollah threatened the region, the United States increased its presence and role in the Gulf. The Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) was established in November 1979 and became the principal tool of the Carter administration, which defined the Persian Gulf as vital to U.S. interests.

U.S. military involvement increased dramatically during the Iran-Iraq war with the reflagging of commercial vessels (Operation Earnest Will).⁵¹ When it seemed that Tehran might succeed in defeating Baghdad and increase its ability to subvert the smaller Gulf States, the United States provided limited assistance to Baghdad, which became the short-term protector in the balance of power. The U.S. presence was still considered to be offshore and over-the-horizon, with no bases or homeporting rights (except for Bahrain and Oman, where access agreements had been established to allow prepositioning of equipment).

The Gulf Cooperation Council was formed in 1981 as a means of self-protection against Iraq and Iran. Although protection from war may have been an impetus, GCC leaders have used the organization primarily as a sounding board for regional security issues and cooperation on economic policy. Along with Iraq, Iran, Israel, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern governments, they joined the arms race, spending major portions of their budgets on weapon systems and training packages that they could barely absorb. Interoperability was never a key concept in defense planning in the Gulf States. All bought what they wanted in bidding wars from whomever they wanted without a serious thought to how the equipment could be used in a combat situation. Arms purchases were not intended to bolster defense; rather, they were an extension of foreign policy, intended to give as many arms-merchant states as possible a stake in their survival. Kuwait, for example, often bought inferior if not obsolete equipment from the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China as well as other European suppliers in order to help ensure political alliances.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait shattered the myth of self-protection by arms sales, GCC solidarity, and U.S. over-the-horizon presence. It exposed the Arabs to their inability to prevent their large, powerful, and angry neighbors--first Iran, now Iraq--from taking out their wrath or seeking succor in the oilfields of Kuwait and the Gulf at large. To the relief of the rulers and the concern of the ruled, the invasion brought the United States military into the region with reshaped strategic doctrine and security perceptions. For a while after the war, it seemed as if the United States would maintain a significantly large footprint and the GCC would stay under a U.S. security umbrella to protect the regimes, their oil, and sealanes from hegemonic threats from Iraq, Iran, or both.

. . . And Now

Ten years after Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the Gulf governments prefer to reestablish the kind of balance of power in which they once felt comfortable--a balance maintained by de facto partnership with Iran and backed up by a more distant United States. The Gulf Cooperation Council holds training exercises, most of them bilateral ones with the United States, and occasionally some members raise the prospect of a 100,000-man GCC military force.⁵²

GCC states have been especially supportive of UNSCOM efforts to detect, inspect, and destroy Iraqi NBC capabilities. They are much more complacent about potential threats from a similarly armed Iran. Hopeful that Khatami's election presaged changes in Iran's Islamic militancy toward them, GCC states have welcomed all signs of moderation in Iran and rejected any suggestion that Tehran supports terrorism or intends to threaten them once it has developed the technology for and tested new, more sophisticated long-range missiles that could carry biological or chemical warheads. Similarly, GCC states have shrugged off dire predictions of the dangers of a nuclear Iran.

GCC Security Options If or When Iran Has the Bomb

How Gulf Cooperation Council states react to news of a nuclear-armed Iran depends primarily on how Iran reveals it has crossed the threshold. They are less likely to acknowledge public agreement with U.S. claims that Iran intends to or is capable of attacking them with nuclear-armed missiles. Nor are they likely to respond to veiled suggestions from Iran that it has acquired the capability. In neither case would they acknowledge concern about Iranian intentions or perceive that they could be the intended targets for an attack, believing that such behavior would only provoke Tehran. Open Iranian testing, however, would force GCC states into public debate on how to protect themselves. It probably would lead to one of at least three options on how best to do so.

• Option 1: Do nothing. Saudi Arabia, speaking for the smaller GCC states, could decide that the best course to follow would be to do nothing that would arouse the ire or attract the attention of Iran or Iraq. The tactic failed to mollify Iraq in late July 1990, but hopes might be high that the strategy would now succeed. The Gulf Arabs would try to use détente and engagement of Iran--symbolized by improved bilateral diplomatic ties backed by investment in Iran, increased trade, and coordination on issues of common concern such as oil production and pricing and regional security issues--rather than risk the dangers of pursuing policies of isolation or containment.
• Option 2: Join a nuclear umbrella. The Gulf Arabs could seek shelter under an expanded NATO umbrella or expanded security guarantees under a U.S. nuclear umbrella. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, in particular, may prefer a NATO-style alliance with the United States as lead participant. In exchange for guarantees of protection, the Gulf governments would have to allow upgrades in the kinds of military planning and equipment necessary to defend them from the enhanced Iranian threat. For example, they might have to agree to higher levels of deployment and the addition of nuclear weapons intended to deter or defeat an Iranian threat. They might insist on sharing the keys to such facilities, meaning they would have a vote on when, where, and under what conditions such equipment could be used.
• Option 3: Acquire their own nuclear-armed weapon systems. The Gulf States have spent large sums of money in the past decade on conventional aircraft and weapon packages. In addition, Saudi Arabia has aging Chinese-manufactured CSS-2 missiles acquired more than 10 years ago and probably in need of replacement or upgrade. The UAE has Scud-Bs, but they apparently are inoperable. The Gulf States, individually or collectively, are highly unlikely to have the incentive, talent, and capability to build indigenous nuclear programs, as Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan have done. At a minimum, Saudi Arabia and the UAE probably will look to purchase new weapon systems and very likely could insist on receiving nuclear-ready warheads. They are not likely to listen to U.S. admonishments regarding the dangers of becoming a proliferator.

Impact of the Options on the United States and the Neighborhood

The first two options--doing nothing or seeking to sit under someone else's nuclear umbrella--will have little impact on GCC states or the region. These states will remain consumers of security, vulnerable to attack and to threats from Iran if Iran perceives itself spurned by the Gulf Arabs in favor of the United States or another Western Big Brother. Tehran will not appreciate rejection by its Gulf Muslim brothers of an Islamically correct security blanket, but it also may want to allay their concerns about hostile intent to keep the Arabs from too close a Western-U.S. embrace.

The third option--Gulf Arab acquisition of new weapon systems--is certain to raise the anxiety level in Israel. As it has with previous Saudi requests for airborne warning and control systems and other advanced fighter aircraft, Israel will oppose any U.S. or European assistance to Gulf Arab acquisition of new weapons, believing--incorrectly--that any new systems would be targeted toward Israel, turned over to the Palestinians or Syrians for use against Israel, or both. Thus far, the Gulf States have used their acquisitions of aircraft systems for internal purposes; Qatar and Bahrain, for example, have threatened each other over mutual claims to Hawar Island rather than expressing military solidarity with the Palestinians. The Gulf Arabs are not likely to turn to Syria or Egypt for additional levels of protection. Syria under the late Hafiz al-Asad was perceived as too close to Iran and too ideological; Gulf leaders will wait to see if his son and successor, Bashar, toes the same hard line. Cairo would be mistrusted because of its past support for radical antiregime movements on the Peninsula.

Should the Gulf States opt for more advanced weapon systems, several factors could constrain them. The primary one probably is cost. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE, in particular, have invested heavily over the past decade in new aircraft and weapons purchased at a time when oil revenues were falling, budgets shortfalls soaring, and domestic debt increasing. If there has been public criticism of expensive weapon purchases, it has been that the governments still are unable to defend their countries despite the new acquisitions and that much of the spending has been made under pressure from the United States.⁵³

These criticisms have been heard in Saudi Arabia and echoed even in Kuwait, where most Kuwaitis worry at the same time that the United States will not stay the course. Scholars agree that public opinion in Saudi Arabia, for example, would not be a constraint on government efforts to proliferate by acquiring nuclear weapons.⁵⁴ Public opinion does not have a significant impact on Saudi defense policy decisionmaking. Moreover, the Gulf Arabs, especially those in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, know they live in a dangerous neighborhood in which WMDs have been developed, deployed, and used. The Islamists--the most strident critics of the Saudi ruling family in the 1990s--in their 1992 Memorandum of Advice to King Fahd accused the government of military weakness and of relying on the United States to defend the homeland of Islam. They called for the development of a domestic arms industry, more cooperation with other Muslim countries in weapon development, and a more independent and self-reliant defense strategy.⁵⁵

The additional risk in the Gulf States acquiring nuclear weapons lies in the lack of an indigenous manpower base to construct, monitor, deploy, or protect the systems. Any advanced weapon system would require foreign expertise in developing a domestic program or constructing a turnkey project. It also probably would need foreign assistance in maintaining that capability once deployed. According to Muhammad al-Khilewi, the Saudi diplomat who sought political asylum in the United States in 1994, Riyadh tried to obtain nuclear research reactors from China and a U.S. firm.⁵⁶ No evidence indicates that the Chinese provided nuclear warheads when they sold the Saudis the CSS-2 missiles in the 1980s or that any state is considering such a deal now. Saudi Arabia has signed the NPT, but it has not signed the comprehensive safeguard agreement with the IAEA as required by the treaty. The Saudis have, over the years, provided Pakistan financial assistance in its development of nuclear technology and capability and might look to Pakistan as a source of protection or turnkey technology. Saudi Defense Minister Sultan visited Pakistan late last year and included a stop at Pakistani nuclear facilities.

Pakistan--faced with economic sanctions, grinding poverty, growing Islamist extremism, and potential state failure--may see little to gain by selling its one coveted technology and asset in the threatened battle with India. Finally, where the authority rests within the Saudi Arabian government and ruling family to determine deployment and usage is unclear. As the transition to power under Crown Prince Abdallah continues, the family is likely to mute the old defense arguments between him and his rival and probable successor, Prince Sultan, in preference for consensus and a common front.

None of the options will have a significant effect on the foreign or commercial policies of GCC states. Their primary concern will be to mesh their diplomatic and economic interests with those of Iran (and eventually Iraq) and not to appear to threaten or be threatened by anyone. If the third security option is chosen, the Gulf Arabs would still act as discreetly as they did when they acquired the CSS-2s, letting their acquisition be known but not discussing it. Pursuing this option would not make the Gulf Arabs more aggressive toward Iran, although it could raise the risk to their own internal security should terrorists or extremists secure any parts of the new systems. The Gulf Arabs will not change oil pricing or production policies only to satisfy a nuclear Iran, and Iran is not likely to threaten use of these weapons to enforce its economic ambitions. Iran has made its points on oil pricing and production in bilateral talks and in Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries negotiations.

What Will They Want of the United States?

The Gulf Arab States that can afford new weapon systems--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE--probably will seek some kind of upgrade or acquisition of new weapon systems. Their ability to do so will be limited by suppliers (will Pakistan, India, France, Russia, North Korea, China, or the United States find it in their overall interest to sell new weapon systems?) and, more importantly, by costs. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have made large weapon purchases since the war even though revenues from oil were down and budget shortfalls up. Domestic criticism has been building in both countries over the costs of defense at the expense of domestic interests and over the extent of dependence on the United States. However, perceptions that the United States will back away from its security commitments in light of a nuclear-armed Iran will encourage GCC states in two ways: to upgrade their own defensive weapon systems, perhaps to include a nuclear option, and to seek ways to reintegrate Iraq--with or without Saddam--into the Arab camp.

When Iran develops a nuclear capability for its missiles, what will the Gulf Arabs want of the United States, considering the costs, domestic criticism, and risks? They probably will want guarantees of enhanced protection and promises to defend them before Iran can make good on any threats. However, the Gulf Arabs are not likely to support a policy of preemptive strikes to lessen their Iran problem. As they have argued against using the military option against Saddam Husayn (unless his departure could be guaranteed), they will argue for engagement over isolation and negotiations rather than military operations. On the other hand, they probably will not accept Iranian invitations to enter an Islamic nuclear blanket and kick the farangis (foreigners) out.

The Gulf Arab States will continue to rely on U.S. protection to some degree, especially if a nuclear arms race increases the threat. If American actions or statements suggested that Washington would feel constrained militarily by a nuclear-armed Iran, then the Gulf Arabs will move closer to Iran, and at least the lower Gulf States will seek Iraq's return. As the United States tries to involve the Gulf States more in assuming responsibility for protecting their own populations through what is termed consequence management by U.S. Central Command (seeing that the population is protected from biological and chemical weapon threats by providing protective masks and through other preparations), they may use this pressure to justify acquiring new defensive weapons.

The U.S ability to restrain Gulf Arab efforts to acquire new nonconventional weapon systems is limited. The Saudis almost certainly did not inform Washington of their intentions to acquire the Chinese missiles in the 1980s and probably have not revealed the purpose behind Defense Minister Sultan's highly publicized visit to Pakistan, including his stop at its nuclear plants, last year. The United States could suggest that it would not continue as arms provider, protector, trainer, and technology maintainer for the Saudi military's conventional forces, particularly in the Kingdom's air defense systems. Such hints, coupled with a U.S. reaffirmation of its security commitments in the region, would weigh heavily on the internal Saudi arms debate.

Pakistan

For nearly three decades, Iran has been seen as pivotal to the Pakistani concept of strategic depth. Pakistani planners assumed a strong, cooperative Islamic Iran would provide a defensive fallback and reliable counterweight to a hegemony-seeking India. Although the geostrategic concept was never explicitly defined and was as much psychological as political or military, at minimum it promised a friendly western border for Pakistan. Iran found some comfort that its eastern frontier was relatively secure at a time when Tehran felt surrounded by suspicious and hostile powers. In the 1980s and 1990s, both Muslim Iran and Muslim Pakistan were willing to overlook conflicting ideologies, incompatible allies, and domestic meddling.⁵⁷

In this same time period, much Western attention fell on Pakistan as a possible proliferator of the Islamic nuclear bomb. Many in the West feared that a radicalized or impoverished Pakistan might transfer nuclear technology in exchange for generous financial assistance from Iran or an oil-rich Arab regime. However, no evidence suggests that Pakistan has shared its nuclear technology or expertise. Nor apparently has Pakistan, whether under dictatorship or democracy, pledged to use its nuclear force on behalf of another Islamic state or cause.⁵⁸

Three factors constrain Pakistani nuclear cooperation with the Gulf Arabs. First, the risk of a war with India, possibly triggered by a Kashmir crisis, requires Pakistan to concentrate its force multiplier in its own hands. Second, even though some of Pakistan's leaders in the government, military, and intelligence services are pro-Arab, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim in their sympathies, Islamabad has been loath to deviate from its pro-Western orientation. In particular, many scholars believe that Pakistan's leaders are not willing to risk alienating the United States by cooperating militarily with Iran or providing nuclear weapon technology to the Arabs. Finally, Islamabad's relations with Tehran have deteriorated seriously over the past several years because of Pakistani Sunni Muslim attacks on Shiah communities inside Pakistan and Iran. Tehran has accused Islamabad of encouraging Afghanistan's Taleban to target Shiah villages and Iranian assets in Afghanistan for elimination. Pakistan assumes Iranian agents have been arming and inciting militant Shiah elements against Islamabad. In this latter context, Pakistan almost certainly would not welcome a nuclear-capable Iran on its borders.

At the same time, Iran's mutual interests with India are growing. The Iranian economy is more compatible with that of India than that of Pakistan. More important, both Tehran and New Delhi receive Russian military assistance--and possibly nuclear technology. All three abhor the growing threat of Sunni Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and blame Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States for unleashing the Taleban to promote regional instability and limit economic opportunities in Central Asia. Yet Iran is not likely to challenge Pakistan militarily over the Taleban. Following Taleban attacks on Shiah interests in Afghanistan and the murder of two Iranian diplomats in 1998, Iran moved troops to the border with Afghanistan but backed down from actual military confrontation. Similarly, Pakistan is unlikely to be drawn into a conflict over the Taleban with Iran that it can ill afford.

A key question is what lessons has Iran learned from Pakistani and Indian open nuclear testing in 1998. Tehran conspicuously refused to join the international criticism of Pakistan following its May 1998 test. Iran also may wonder why it, too, could not develop a nuclear weapon program if a near-failed state like Pakistan can do so.

Israel

It is ironic that those who are so concerned about saving humanity from nuclear weapons, fully support Israel which is a nuclear power and is unwilling to join the NPT or accept IAEA safeguards, while leveling allegations against Iran which has not even been able to complete its first nuclear power plant which began before the revolution. These are all pretexts for imposing certain policies on Iran and the region and to create panic and mistrust. We are not a nuclear power and do not intend to become one. We have accepted IAEA safeguards and our facilities are routinely inspected by that agency.

--Mohammad Khatami, January 1998⁵⁹

The Perception in Jerusalem

Israeli civilian and military leaders generally have assumed for some time that Iran poses a serious, if existential, threat to Israel. This belief represents a broad but not a total consensus. All agree that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons and/or ballistic missiles armed with NBC warheads will fundamentally transform Israeli national security. The disagreement stems from the reluctance of some Israeli civilian and military leaders to see Iranian NBC weapon acquisition as a fait accompli and from their refusal to see Israel as Iran's primary target. Civilian advisors in the government and in think tanks are less alarmist than are defense and military officials about Iranian capabilities, and they caution against overreacting.⁶⁰ They argue that certain factors will constrain if not delay the time when Iran achieves a nuclear arms capability. These factors include Iran's lack of fissile material, its dependence on foreign experts and technology, and the possibility that an increasingly moderate and democratic government would change national priorities. The civilian advisors argue that the U.S. arms embargo on Iran was misguided in that it placed sanctions on conventional weapon purchases and thereby encouraged Iran to acquire nonconventional weapon systems.

Israeli defense and military officials are more pessimistic than their civilian counterparts, seeing a nuclear Iran with Israel as the prime target. They worry, too, about what Egypt and Syria will do when--not if--Iran acquires nuclear weapons.⁶¹ They caution that a new arms race will begin, with Cairo, Damascus, and even Ankara seeking nonconventional weapon systems.

For the first time in its history, conventional Israeli military capabilities will be inadequate to meet a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state.⁶² Israeli leaders have long warned the West, particularly the United States, about Iran's nuclear weapon agenda and the great risk Iranian ambitions and animosity pose for Israel. Military and political leaders in the government and the security establishment, including the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, have conceived of peace with Israel's neighbors as a pragmatic measure intended in part to isolate an increasingly threatening Iran. Israel seems to fear Iran's ideological drive as much as, if not more than, its emerging technical capabilities. They accept official Islamic Republic policy statements that concede no legitimacy to the Jewish state. Israelis appear to take no comfort from the fact that Iran's primary target may be Iraq. Once armed, they argue, Iran would pose a direct threat to Israel in Tehran's assumed willingness to support Hizballah and extremist Palestinians to destroy Israel. Others counter this argument by noting that Iran has no substantial strategic motive for conflict with Israel and, in the absence of any perceived threat to its vital national interests, would not seek direct, nuclear warfare with Israel.

A nuclear-armed Iran would present Israel with several options, each of which carries its own risks. Since the time of Prime Minister Ben Gurion, a pillar of Israeli national security philosophy has been that the size and vulnerability of the state necessitated an aggressive military posture--striking first when necessary, defending by attacking, and carrying the fight to the enemy. Whether Israel chooses to pursue an offensive or a defensive response, or a combination of both, will depend on how Iran crosses the nuclear threshold and the sense of urgency Israeli leaders feel regarding the risk to the country's security. Unlike the Gulf Arab States, Israel could not ignore an Iran that has openly tested a nuclear device or that boasts of possessing nuclear warheads capable of striking Israel. Israel would certainly consider the merits of:

• Testing its own nuclear device. An Iranian test could force Israel to review its own policy of partial nuclear opacity.⁶³ Israel may believe that it can deter Iran only by making clear that it could do far more damage to Iran than Iran could do to Israel. An Israeli test, however, could trigger U.S. laws suspending aid and arms sales. Israel is not likely to garner international support to isolate Iran when similar efforts against India and Pakistan have failed and Israel is the unacknowledged possessor of similar capabilities.
• Launching a preemptive military strike. This tactic worked in June 1981 when Israel attacked Iraq's sole nuclear facility at Tuwaitha, but Iran and Iraq have learned the lesson of concentrating programs and equipment in one place. Both have dispersed and concealed the locations of their nuclear-related facilities. Although Israeli military leaders deny it, they lack the data and the capability to forestall Iranian development of nuclear arms by force.⁶⁴ A mission to Iran would be against a larger, better prepared opponent with multiple, dispersed, and well-hidden targets. The demands for real-time intelligence, logistics, and long-distance strike capability almost certainly exceed the current capabilities of the Israel Defense Forces. Israel probably could degrade or delay parts of Iran's nuclear programs, but it could not eliminate them. Attacking through Turkey, with whom Israel has expanding military cooperation, might resolve these problems, but Ankara may not feel that allowing Israel to use Turkish territory to collect intelligence on and stage operations against Iran is in its interests.
• Using covert operations to eliminate Iranian technical programs and specialists, as it did with Iraq. Israeli covert operations in the 1970s and 1980s aimed at eliminating European, Arab, and Iraqi scientists and interdicting equipment bound for Iraq were dramatic but comparatively ineffective means to halt or delay Iraq's nonconventional weapon programs.⁶⁵ No information suggests that Israel has attempted similar operations against Iran, although Israel has tried unsuccessfully to influence Russia to stop assisting Iran in constructing its nuclear facility at Bushehr or providing training at Russian facilities for Iranian scientists.
• Opening back-channel communications with Tehran. This approach would not be without precedent. Israel had back-channel links to Tehran during the mid-1980s.⁶⁶ If Israelis believed that Iran could be deterred from using its strategic arsenal against Israel, they might conclude that Tehran understands and appreciates the logic of deterrence. Back-channel talks probably would be intended to establish a hot line regarding nuclear tests or usage. The obstacle to this initiative is a lack of willingness not in Israel but in Tehran.
• Seeking broader security cooperation with the United States. Israel almost certainly would turn to the United States for additional military support by increasing military aid and new technologies for Israel, by allowing Israel to use U.S. military aid to buy foreign-made weapons (along the lines of the deals for the Dolphin-type submarines Israel is buying from Germany with U.S. military funding), or by pressuring the United States to purchase additional Israeli-made weapons or to stockpile additional war reserves in Israel. Israel will use all the channels at its disposal to obtain U.S. assistance in preventing, delaying, or countering Iranian acquisition and development of nuclear weapons. Israel would also seek U.S. technical help in developing its own next generation of advanced missile defense systems. Israel is not likely to be satisfied with its Arrow missile system and probably would push to develop and deploy an airborne boost-phase intercept system, keeping with the Israeli military philosophy of taking the fight to the enemy. Israel also might seek greater joint military training and operational planning with the United States as a way to forge a joint response to an Iranian nuclear threat. Finally, Israel might request a U.S. declaration of the perilous consequences for Iran should it openly cross the nuclear threshold and use WMDs. This kind of declaration, similar to the warning the United States issued to Iraq on the eve of the Gulf War, could allow Israel to maintain its own nuclear opaqueness without issuing warnings of its own.

In addition to seeking expanded U.S. military guarantees, Israel might decide that the only solution to the new Iranian threat is to make clear that the Jewish state is protected by the U.S. nuclear arsenal and that it might press for a formal alliance with Washington. Short of that, Israel would probably seek secret clarifications or guarantees serving the same purpose that they could then leak as a warning to Tehran. Israel and the United States already have extensive channels of cooperation, including the recently established Joint Strategic Planning Committee, to improve coordination on strategic issues such as Iran's nuclear programs. Because the U.S.-Israeli relationship is so broad and deep and because Israel will perceive a threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, Washington will have to anticipate Israeli requests for support, cooperation, and assistance.

An Israeli attack on Iran--successful or not--could sow the seeds for a great asymmetrical threat to Israeli and Jewish well being worldwide. If recent history was a guide, Iran would feel obligated to respond to the Israeli attack either with a retaliatory missile strike or with terrorism. Iran could increase support to Syria, Hizballah, and other anti-Israel countries and groups to launch terrorist attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets worldwide. Israeli efforts to retaliate by striking Iranian economic targets in the Gulf (oil processing facilities or export infrastructure) would have significant political but little economic impact; they also would seriously exacerbate U.S. relations with the Gulf Arabs.

Recent acquisitions and alliances enhance the Israeli ability to reach Iran should it choose the confrontational or preemptive route. Israel is acquiring F-15I strike aircraft, cruise-missile-capable submarines, and extended-range Jericho missiles. Moreover, its growing military cooperation with Turkey could give Israel the site from which to conduct flight training and operate intelligence-collection facilities for possible operations against Iran. Most specialists believe Israel would not want to rely on an untested Arrow II antimissile system to shield the country from a retaliatory missile attack, and most also agree that a even a single NBC-tipped missile striking Tel Aviv would constitute an unacceptable, even fatal, outcome for Israel. Most Israeli senior military leaders are reluctant to place their faith in TMD as an effective shield for populations against ballistic missile attack. They still prefer counterforce operations to destroy weapons in their country of origin.⁶⁷

Impact on Israeli Strategic Behavior and Policy Formation

A nuclear-armed Iran would affect Israel's strategic planning in significant ways. Israel would intensify its demands on the United States for security guarantees, new weapon systems, and a more aggressive U.S. stance on anything pertaining to Iran. The Israeli reaction also would affect other strategic relationships and U.S. policies:

• The Middle East Peace Process. Israelis have long believed that their military superiority over any potential combination of enemies was decisive in bringing about the peace process. If Israel were to feel more vulnerable suddenly or it feared that the Arab States no longer considered it invulnerable because of Iran's new weapons, then Israel might be less willing to conclude peace with Syria or allow a Palestinian state to be declared. Moreover, Israeli leaders might fear that Arab extremists would calculate that the so-called military option was once again viable because Iran could support them in their determination to restore Muslim control of the Holy Places in Jerusalem and end Jewish control of Muslim lands. On the other hand, concern that Iran would make its arsenal available to Syria and the Palestinians could move Israel to conclude the peace process negotiation to forestall such a development. This would preempt Syrian and Palestinian alliances with a nuclear-armed Iran that could threaten Israel.
• Turkey. The common threat of further Iranian proliferation could draw Israel and Turkey closer together. Both governments feel threatened by the Islamic Republic, and both would oppose any strengthening of what they would see as a radical bloc led by a nuclear-armed Iran. Israel will continue to expand ties with Turkey regardless of which faction dominates in Iran, although a Khatami-led moderate government could lessen some forms of Turkish cooperation with Israel, including intelligence-sharing and basing or overflight agreements aimed at Iran. Turkey and Israel view the other dimensions of cooperation--including defense assistance, arms sales, military education and training, and combined exercises--as part of a much broader strategy in which Iran is not a major player. In any event, Turkey will not want to face Iranian retaliation for allowing Israel to use its territory to attack Iran.
• Relations with the Great Powers. Iranian development of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems could alter Israeli relations with Russia, China, and other countries hoping to benefit by supplying Iran. Israel has tried--and failed--to use its links with Russia to expose and stop Russian support to the Iranian nuclear program.⁶⁸ Russians and Russian émigrés in Israel can provide Israel with information on Iranian capabilities and, Israel might hope, act as a restraining influence on Iranian behavior. On the other hand, Russian participation in these programs--especially once they become operational--could further alienate Israel from Moscow. Similarly, although Israel might hope that its arms deals with China might provide sufficient incentive to influence Beijing to temper its arms relationship with Tehran, it is a futile hope. Finally, Israel would try to use its relations with European supply states--including France, Germany, and the Czech Republic--to cut off European willingness to provide technological, scientific, or military assistance to Iran. If Israel found itself increasingly at odds with Washington over how best to respond to Iran, then Israel might seek support from Europe to counterbalance the United States, especially if there are more outspoken anti-Iranian voices in Europe than in the United States.
• Relations with other Arab states. Some Israelis have raised the prospect of an Israeli protective alliance or umbrella for Arab States, excluding Iraq, which might feel threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.⁶⁹ They envision intelligence sharing, defense assistance, combined exercises, arms sales, military education programs, basing or overflight rights, and even formal alliances. Even if the peace process was concluded to the satisfaction of both sides, the Arab Gulf monarchies are very unlikely to overcome their reluctance to sit down with Israelis to join in a common defense strategy. Such a proposal almost certainly would raise a clamor from the streets and from Islamist critics of these fragile regimes who already accuse them of being unable to defend the Arab and Muslim heartland.

Israel's response will depend on its leadership--a Prime Minister with military credentials (like Barak and unlike Netanyahu) is better able to determine how serious the Iranian threat to Israel is and what the appropriate response should be. The response also will depend on Israel's view of the Iranian leadership--it is less likely to worry about a Khatami-type moderate than it would if the hard-line factions that favored use of terrorism against Israel returned to power. Finally, whatever decision Israel makes--to stage a preemptive military attack on Iran or to try to open back-channel contacts with Tehran--it is not likely to inform or seek the approval of the United States.

Endnotes

⁴⁹Interview with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan ibn Abdul-Aziz in Al-Hawadith, September 10, 1999. [BACK]

⁵⁰In the late 1980s, Riyadh barred Iranians from making the annual pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca because of Iranian-inspired rioting and insistence on holding political demonstrations (which usually featured condemnation of the United States). Saudi Arabia also suspected Iran of encouraging Saudi Shiah Muslims, only 15 percent of the population but centered in the oil-rich Eastern Province, to oppose the regime. [BACK]

⁵¹The Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force was redesignated U.S. Central Command in 1983; its mission was to "deter the Soviets and their surrogates from further expansion and, if necessary, defend against it." See Rachel Bronson's draft paper for the Council on Foreign Relations, "The United States Military in the Persian Gulf: Postured for Success?" January 2000. [BACK]

⁵²This has been a favorite suggestion of Oman, with no further specifications known. [BACK]

⁵³Interviews conducted with current and former government officials and senior military officers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Summer 1998 and 1999. [BACK]

⁵⁴Ibid. [BACK]

⁵⁵F. Gregory Gause III, Gulf States Politics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, unpublished paper presented at National Defense University, January 1999. [BACK]

⁵⁶Cited by Gause. [BACK]

⁵⁷Marvin Weinbaum, Pakistan's Strategic View and Weapons of Mass Destruction, unpublished paper presented at National Defense University, Washington, DC, January 1999. [BACK]

⁵⁸P.R. Kumaraswamy, in a study done for the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, argues that Israel does not perceive a nuclear Pakistan as a direct threat to Israel. Israel, he writes, has not really been worried that Pakistan's bombs would become Islamic or that Pakistan would transfer nuclear weapons and technologies to Islamic countries. See Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations, Memorandum No. 55 (March 2000). On the other hand, Pakistan clearly is concerned about the possibility of closer Israeli-Indian military cooperation, especially Israeli assistance in modernizing Indian capabilities. An editorial in the Pakistan Observer on January 13, 2000, warned that Indo-Israeli collaboration was targeted against Pakistan and that Pakistan "cannot ignore the clandestinely planned Indo-Israeli attack against its nuclear facilities in May 1998." [BACK]

⁵⁹Transcript of CNN interview with Mohammad Khatami, prepared by the Islamic Republic News Agency, January 7, 1998. [BACK]

⁶⁰See, for example, Ehud Springzak, "Revving Up an Idle Threat," Ha'Aretz, September 29, 1998. Springzak, a professor of political science at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, rates Israel as fifth or even sixth on Iran's list of priorities and fears. He argues that Iran has no reason to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. The Iranians, he says, "are far more rational and pragmatic than depicted in the Israeli media" and are well aware of Israeli superiority in unconventional weapons and missiles. Israelis have a difficult time distinguishing between inflammatory Iranian rhetoric and concrete military plans, according to Springzak, who blames the vested interests of the Israeli military establishment for using the "psychosis of impending doom" about Iranian intentions to avoid budget cuts. He advises the Israeli government to stop scaring the Israeli people and the Iranians, to reassess the huge investments in military spending based on the alleged Iranian threat, to monitor Iran for support for international terrorism, and to develop intelligence contacts with professional Iranian sources. He warns that Israel should not be a rubber stamp for the United States. On the issue of Iran, he concludes, Israeli interests do not necessarily converge with those of America. [BACK]

⁶¹Based on interviews with Israeli government and private sector specialists on Iranian military and strategic policy. For a less alarmist view, see Ephraim Kam, "The Iranian Threat: Cause for Concern, not Panic," Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Strategic Assessment 1, no. 3 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, November 1998): 1, 3-7. Kam is not as certain as Israeli military security analysts that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons with which to threaten Israel. He acknowledges that Iran's test firing of the Shahab-3 missile eventually will give Iran the capability to strike Israel with nonconventional weapons. Russian termination of aid (which will not happen), U.S. efforts to prevent Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology and materials (which cannot be done), and Iranian commitments to international inspections will delay but cannot stop Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Kam believes Iran would attack Israel with nonconventional weapons only under exceptional circumstances, such as an extensive U.S. attack on Iran or in the event of a Syrian-Israeli war. He believes the likelihood of such an attack is low; Iran is not particularly worried about an Israeli nuclear attack and views Israel as less a threat than Iraq or the United States. Kam's cautious optimism assumes Iran bases its strategic decisions on logic and reason, although he admits that Iranian leaders may not be as deterrence-minded as he thinks they are. Israel can contain the threat from Iran by concluding a peace agreement with Syria and hoping the reformists come to power in Iran. To this latter end, Kam proposes supporting a U.S.-Iranian dialogue in which the United States would insist Iran suspend its nuclear programs, its support for terrorism, and its opposition to the Middle East peace process. He also proposes reducing Iran's perception of an Israeli threat by moderating its anti-Iranian statements and increasing its nonconventional capacity to deter Iran. Israel, he concludes, may have to live in the shadow of a nuclear-armed and antagonistic Iran, but it need not panic. Israel can counter the threat, it is not alone in the confrontation, and Iran is not omnipotent. [BACK]

⁶²Kenneth M. Pollack, unpublished paper presented at the National Defense University, Washington, DC, January 1999. [BACK]

⁶³Partial nuclear opacity describes the Israeli policy of refusing to declare or openly test its nuclear capability while signaling potential adversaries that it does possess the weapons. [BACK]

⁶⁴Interview with Major General Isaac Ben-Israel, Director of Defense Research and Development, Ministry of Defense, Israel. [BACK]

⁶⁵Israeli intelligence operatives have been accused of killing Gerald Bull, the inventor of the so-called Big Gun, and an Egyptian scientist working for Iraq and intercepting shipping in French ports bound for Baghdad. For a list of Iraqi nuclear programs and Israeli efforts to obstruct them, see Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services (London, Grove Press, 1992), 99, 517-18; and Cordesman, Iraq and the War of Sanctions. [BACK]

⁶⁶The Israeli-Iranian connection involved supplying Western arms for Iran in its war with Iraq, freeing Western hostages held by pro-Iranian terrorist factions in Lebanon, and funding the Nicaraguan contras. [BACK]

⁶⁷The points in this paragraph were made in interviews with senior Israeli military officers. [BACK]

⁶⁸See discussion of Russian contributions to Iranian NBC programs in chapter 1. [BACK]

⁶⁹Seminar at Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, Summer 1999. [BACK]