94Ha ViewpointIf the United States and Israel cannot destroy most or all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and nuclear capabilities as they did in 1981 (against Iraq), their struggle with Iran will continue, and the danger and severity of this will not only be borne by the United States, but also by the whole world.
On June 21, the US military attacked Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities. Six B-2 bombers dropped 12 GBU-57A/B massive earth-penetrating bombs (MOPs) on the Fordow nuclear facility, and a US Navy submarine launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan. Another B-2 bomber dropped two MOPs on the Natanz nuclear facility.
That evening, US President Trump gave a speech, saying that the United States “completely cleared” the three nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, and that the US goal was to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Iran’s nuclear facilities and nuclear capabilities are two issues, but they are also interconnected. First, whether Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely removed remains to be tested and confirmed. Second, even if Iran’s nuclear facilities are completely removed, Iran’s nuclear capabilities may not be completely destroyed. Therefore, Iran will continue to play cat-and-mouse games with Israel and the United States, and the world will still be in unsafe turmoil and shadows.
The Iranian National Nuclear Safety System Center claimed that after the US attack on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities, the center immediately investigated and assessed whether nuclear contamination occurred in the relevant areas, and confirmed that no signs of contamination were found. The International Atomic Energy Agency also confirmed this.
If the situation is true, it also means that even if Iran’s nuclear facilities are hit, the materials are not damaged, otherwise it is impossible not to have nuclear contamination.
Another theory is that Iran has long expected the United States to attack nuclear facilities, and moved the centrifuge equipment for enriching uranium and extracting uranium in advance, so these nuclear facilities are just an empty city plan, and the US bombing is actually empty.
In response, Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, posted on social media in the evening of June 22 local time that even if Iran’s nuclear facilities are destroyed, the game is far from over. Enriched (uranium) materials, knowledge reserves and political will still exist. “With the right to self-defense, the party that is good at strategy and avoids blind attacks will have the political and operational initiative. The best is yet to come!”
There are also people who beat the drums, such as Russian Federation Security Council Deputy Chairman Medvedev, who said on social media on June 22 that the infrastructure (used by Iran) for the nuclear cycle has obviously not been destroyed, or has only been slightly damaged. Iran’s nuclear material enrichment activities are still continuing, and it can now be frankly said that (Iran) will continue to produce nuclear weapons in the future. What is more intriguing is that Medvedev said, “Some countries are ready to directly provide Iran with their own nuclear warheads.” Among the countries with nuclear weapons, who will provide Iran with their own nuclear warheads? The lice on the bald head are obvious.
History has both similarities and differences. On June 7, 1981, Israel launched Operation Babylon (also known as Operation Opera or Operation Ofra), with the goal of destroying the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, the capital of Iraq. Although the military operation was successful, it only destroyed the main reactor. Other nearby facilities were not completely destroyed until the Persian Gulf War in 1991 under the fierce bombing of the coalition forces.
If the United States and Israel cannot destroy most or all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and nuclear capabilities as they did in the 1981 operation, the struggle between the two and Iran will continue, and the danger and severity of the two will not only be borne by the United States, but also by the whole world.
A situation that is both realistic and historical, and also logical, is that once Iran builds a nuclear bomb, it is likely that it will not only use it itself, but will also first allow its followers and younger brothers, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi armed forces, to use it. These organizations are world-renowned terrorist organizations or armed forces, and will use nuclear weapons around the world without regard for the consequences, as long as they identify the target as the United States, Israel, or supporters of the United States and Israel, as well as countries that are at odds with Iran and oppose Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, etc. (of course, this is mainly due to sectarian conflicts. Iran is Shiite, and Saudi Arabia and other countries are Sunni).
It is precisely because of the deep understanding of the danger of extinction of the nation’s survival and the fear that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will plunge the world into a state of eternal terror that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in his speech after the United States took action: “History will record that President Trump’s actions have prevented the most dangerous regime and the most dangerous weapons in the world.”
However, the actions of the United States and Israel may not necessarily destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. At present, this danger still exists. As long as the Iranian theocracy still exists, it will spare no effort and cost to obtain nuclear materials, nuclear technology, and master nuclear capabilities and develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons is not only a “political correctness”, but also the ultimate thinking and way out for the world to feel at ease. The feasible way is to end the existing Iranian autocratic theocracy.
Trump has said: “If the current Iranian regime cannot make Iran great again, why not regime change?” This statement may once again cause international controversy over which is more important: sovereignty, human rights, or peace. Ending the current Iranian regime may be a strong option for the United States and Israel, and it may also be an option that some Iranian people and some other neighboring countries are willing to consider. Even the European Union called on “all parties to take a step back”, but it also stated that “Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons because it will pose a threat to international security.” But UN Secretary-General Guterres said that a military solution is not feasible. The only way out is diplomacy; the only hope is peace.
If negotiations and diplomacy can make Iran change its mind and give up developing nuclear weapons, why would Israel and the United States bomb Iran’s existing nuclear facilities? If Iran’s nuclear facilities are destroyed, but its nuclear capabilities are still there, how can Iran be persuaded to give up developing nuclear weapons in negotiations?
Therefore, the once-and-for-all solution in the future is likely to be regime change; otherwise, the whole world will always be uneasy and tread on thin ice.
