Iran Watch: The myth behind Israel's attack on Osiraq

Iran Watch, part 5 - a response to some nonsense from Guido Fawkes.

Iran Watch, part 5 - a response to some nonsense from Guido Fawkes.

In a tweet to me this morning, libertarian blogger and Iran-war-agitator Paul Staines (aka "Guido Fawkes") claimed:

@ns_mehdihasan Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor and ended his nuclear ambitions. Thank God.

I once told Staines that he should stick to blogging about bond markets and deficits and stay away from foreign affairs and, in particular, the Middle East. I wish he'd taken my advice.

"Ended his nuclear ambitions", eh? Staines is referring to the Israeli bombing of Saddam Hussein's Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981 - codenamed "Operation Babylon". He couldn't be more wrong about the fallout from that now-notorious "preventive" attack on Iraq - and the lessons that we should learn from it now, three decades on, in relation to Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

Professor Richard Betts of Columbia University is one of America's leading experts on nuclear weapons and proliferation. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to the CIA and the National Security Council. Here he is writing in the National Interest in 2006:

Contrary to prevalent mythology, there is no evidence that Israel's destruction of Osirak delayed Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The attack may actually have accelerated it.

...Obliterating the Osirak reactor did not put the brakes on Saddam's nuclear weapons program because the reactor that was destroyed could not have produced a bomb on its own and was not even necessary for producing a bomb. Nine years after Israel's attack on Osirak, Iraq was very close to producing a nuclear weapon.

Here's Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School and an expert on weapons of mass destruction, writing in the Huffington Post in May 2010:

The Israeli attack triggered Iraq's determined pursuit of nuclear weapons. In September 1981, three months after the strike, Iraq established a well-funded clandestine nuclear weapons program. This had a separate organization, staff, ample funding and a clear mandate from Saddam Hussein. As the nuclear weapons program went underground the international community lost sight of these activities and had no influence on the Iraqi nuclear calculus.

And here's Emory University's Dan Reiter, an expert on national security and international conflict, writing in The Nonproliferation Review in July 2005:

Paradoxically, the Osiraq attack may have actually stimulated rather than inhibited the Iraqi nuclear program. The attack itself may have persuaded Saddam to accelerate Iraqi efforts to become a nuclear weapons power. . . Following Osiraq, the entire Iraqi nuclear effort moved underground, as Saddam simultaneously ordered a secret weapons program that focused on uranium separation as a path to building a bomb.

. . . In short, before the Osiraq attack, both the French and the IAEA opposed the weaponization of Iraq's nuclear research program, and had a number of instruments to constrain weaponization, including control over, including control over reactor fuel supply and multiple and continuous inspections. After the Osiraq attack, the program became secret, Saddam's personal and material commitment to the program grew, and the non-proliferation tools available to the international community became ineffective.

[Hat-tip: MediaMatters]

Then there's the Duelfer Report, released by the Iraq Survey Group in 2004 (and praised by the neoconservatives!), which admitted that

Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor spurred Saddam to build up Iraq's military to confront Israel in the early 1980s.

Oh, and there's also the well-informed Bob Woodward, who wrote in his book State of Denial:

Israeli intelligence were convinced that their strike in 1981 on the Osirak nuclear reactor about 10 miles outside Baghdad had ended Saddam's program. Instead [it initiated] covert funding for a nuclear program code-named 'PC3' involving 5.000 people testing and building ingredients for a nuclear bomb.

So the clear lesson from Osiraq is the exact opposite of what Staines and others on the pro-Israeli, bomb-Iran, chickenhawk right want us to believe: bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is likely to increase, not decrease, the prospect of an illicit Iranian nuclear weapons programme. So far, there is no evidence of such a programme - see the IAEA's last report - but an illegal Israeli or American air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would give the Iranian government the perfect excuse to take its nuclear programme underground, out of sight and out of reach. Don't take my word for it - here's the former CIA director Michael Hayden speaking in January:

When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.

On a related note, the Osiraq attack was followed, as I noted in an earlier blogpost, by a UN Security Council Resolution which condemned the Israeli government and called upon it "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards" - something Messrs Netanyahu and Barak continue to refuse to do. Why don't we ever talk about this particular aspect of the 1981 raid?

On an unrelated note, Staines and co continue to try and label opponents of military action as "friends of Ahmadinejad" - despite the fact that these include, among others, the afore-mentioned former director of the CIA as well as the ex-head of Mossad. It's a cheap, smear tactic to try and close down debate on this all-important, life-and-death issue and is a perfect reflection of how poor and weak the hawks' arguments are.

Finally, if you haven't read it yet, please read and share Harvard University professor Stephen Walt's excellent and informed blogpost on the "top ten media failures in the Iran war debate" and Israeli novelist David Grossman's Guardian column on how "an attack on Iran will bring certain disaster, to forestall one that might never come".

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Show Hide image

Promoted

Why might you invest in Europe?

At Henderson we believe the European market is a fertile hunting ground for investment opportunities. The market’s depth and breadth, with its regional variations and, at times, political uncertainty, means our fund managers have plenty of choice when it comes to picking stocks. Two of our investment trusts with a European focus include Henderson European Focus Trust, managed by John Bennett, Head of European Equities, and Henderson EuroTrust, managed by Tim Stevenson, Director of European Equities. Here we explore some of the factors that make the continent attractive.

1. The ECB’s continuing support

The euro area could claim only but a few fans a year ago. Investors fretted over deflation and depression, spurred, ironically, by the collapse in oil prices. What followed was a European Central Bank (ECB) showing willingness to explore extraordinary monetary policy measures, beginning a massive quantitative easing programme, initially involving monthly injections of €60 billion into the system and recently increasing to €80bn, through the purchasing of government and corporate debt with the aim of driving down interest rates, stimulating bank lending, getting the Eurozone economy moving again, boosting investment, creating jobs, and fighting off the spectre of deflation.

While not the saviour of Europe’s underlying structural problems, Europe’s markets appear set to benefit further from the ECB’s continuing loose monetary policies, with inflation well below the central bank’s target of 2% and QE likely ending in 2017, coming right at the point when the US and UK are on course to diverge and tighten theirs.

2. Currency weakness is helping all round

The ECB’s action has coincided with a substantial fall in the value of the euro. The chart demonstrates the Euro’s value against the dollar:

Chart 1 – The value of the euro against the dollar remains low relative to history

Source: Thomson Reuters Datastream, as at 18 April 2015

This is a great stimulus for European exporters, whose products and services become cheaper and more competitive in overseas markets, boosting exports to the US and UK at the same time as insulating others against the downturn in emerging markets. Ultimately this should feed through to better sales and profits.

3. Low oil prices

A sustained period of low oil prices would be a major positive for most European economies, putting more money into the pockets of consumers, while also helping to reduce the region’s notoriously high energy costs – Europe is the world’s largest net importer of oil and related products (approximately $406 billion in 2014). There are concerns, however, that lower oil prices could fuel a deflationary trend, while falling oil prices have had a negative impact on oil producers and oil services companies based in Europe.

Chart 2 – Falling oil prices - good for businesses and consumers, but possibly deflationary

Source: Datastream, Brent crude oil price, US dollars per barrel, as at 18 April 2016

 

4. Valuations remain relatively attractive when compared to the US

As mentioned, Eurozone stock markets have had a great run, and they’re certainly no longer as cheap as they’ve been in recent years. However, says Jason Hollands of broker Tilney Bestinvest, they remain “relatively attractive compared to US shares”.

Stock-picking remains key. The prodigious appetite for alternative income amid low yields and low interest rates, not-to-mention also quality stocks, means price ratios, a measure of how expensive stocks are relative to history, are being propelled ever higher. Rising share prices also mean fund managers need to be increasingly selective in building their portfolios – so it makes all the more sense to channel your money through a highly regarded European manager with a reputation for successful stock-picking.

Indeed, John Bennett, European fund manager at Henderson Global Investors, believes stock-picking is set to become all the more important in coming months.

“2016 has already seen a significant pick-up in volatility, so investors should brace themselves for difficult markets”, he says. “That is why I think stock picking is so important. By understanding a company’s strengths and weaknesses, we can seek to be better positioned than the general market both in good times and bad.”

 

5. Companies have reach beyond Europe

The global reach of European companies is evident in the breadth of their sources of revenue, with European-listed businesses deriving just over half of their revenues from overseas. This allows European fund managers to pick the companies with exposure to the regions with the most compelling opportunities – both domestic and global. It means that if the businesses are well managed ones – which our fund managers aim to pick – they can continue to outperform in falling as well as rising markets.

 

6. Companies are buying one another

Merger and acquisition (M&A) activity picked up steadily in 2015 and has continued into 2016, with Europe registering its highest level of deal activity since the 2007/2008 financial crisis. CEOs tend to open-up their corporate wallets when they’re feeling more confident about the business environment or the economy or when finance is cheap. In Europe deal volumes have been boosted by a combination of low oil prices, the strong US dollar and optimism about Europe’s economic prospects - a positive sign.

***

Before investing in an investment trust referred to in this document, you should satisfy yourself as to its suitability and the risks involved, you may wish to consult a financial adviser.

The value of an investment and the income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested.

Nothing in this document is intended to or should be construed as advice.  This document is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment. It does not form part of any contract for the sale or purchase of any investment.

Issued in the UK by Henderson Global Investors. Henderson Global Investors is the name under which Henderson Global Investors Limited (reg. no. 906355), Henderson Fund Management Limited (reg. no. 2607112), Henderson Investment Funds Limited (reg. no. 2678531), Henderson Investment Management Limited (reg. no. 1795354), AlphaGen Capital Limited (reg. no. 962757), Henderson Equity Partners Limited (reg. no.2606646), Gartmore Investment Limited (reg. no. 1508030), (each incorporated and registered in England and Wales with registered office at 201 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3AE) are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to provide investment products and services.