If US withholds bunkerbusters, Israel may be forced to use tactical nukes

Deeply concerned as it is by the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel has never even hinted at using atomic weapons to forestall the perceived threat.

But now a respected Washington thinktank has said that low-radioactive yield "tactical" nuclear warheads would be one way for the Israelis to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment plants in remote, dug-in fortifications.

Despite the 65-year-old taboo against carrying out -- or, for that matter, mooting -- nuclear strikes, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says in a new report that "some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels."

But other independent experts are on record warning that such a scenario is based on the "myth" of a clean atomic attack and would be too politically hazardous to justify.

Read more from Reuters in the New York Times.

Tags: CSIS, Cordesman, Iranian threat, tactical nukes

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Israel Insider to add comments!

Join Israel Insider

Comment by Mark Storm on March 28, 2010 at 2:49am: I am very much inclined to agree with Shlomo: the Reuters article suggests that Israel is foolish enough to believe that a nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear development facilities would be effective and generate little-to-no political fallout.
Shlomo is right. The New York Times' running of such an article does nothing but stir up more undue concern and (which is what I believe such talk is designed to do) generate dislike, distrust and outright contempt for Israel.
Why would Israel do or even consider such a thing?
Just because some "think tank" suggests it is a viable option, does not mean that Israel does.
Consider: If Israel did let it be known that she was considering a nuclear strike against Iran, it would be tantamount to an outright declaration that Israel has always had nuclear weapons. This would be in clear contradiction to the current policy of ambiguity, which thus far has been very useful diplomatically.
Secondly, the use of nuclear weapons of any kilo or megatonnage against underground nuclear development facilities would indeed generate vast clouds of radioactive fallout, the consequences of which would be catastrophic. If even I know that, surely Israel does!?
Obama's recent snubbings of Israel might see Israel feel she has no support from his administration - causing some of Netanyahu's cabinet to suggest that Israel must act unilaterally on the threats that a nuclear-weaponed Iran poses.
But to pursue a nuclear strike on Iran as an option is outright insanity.
As much as the other Middle Eastern states of the region distrust or even hate Iran, we all know that an Israeli nuclear (or even a conventional weapons strike) would precipitate an immediate regional war of the Muslim states against Israel.
It isn't going to happen. Not a nuclear strike, that's for sure.
Israel's best option right now against those who would see her humiliated or (worse) destroyed, is to re-invent her public image.
Harping on the Holocaust is not going to work.
Rather, Israel ought to emphasize how it does work to facilitate democracy to her Arabic citizens... how it does labour to foster a multi-lateral market economy... how it does ensure civil liberties for all who seek peace within the state. Israel must endeavour to constrast these features of her land against the prevailing autocracies of the Middle Eastern world.