S. Fred Singer, a physicist who was formerly chief scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation, wrote in The Washington Times on December 15 that the Geneva Interim Accord on Iran’s nuclear programs may trigger Israeli military action.

The heavy-water reactor at Arak – Photo: AFP

“As these talks continue and drag on, look for a startling development: Israel may attack Iran’s heavy-water reactor — now being completed near Arak — arguing that Iran does not need to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium if its nuclear programs are truly peaceful as claimed. Not being involved in the interim agreement, Israel would be free to act,” Singer writes.

Singer says that the scenario leading to military action is predictable. Israel would find out that Iran is cheating, but this would be disputed by the United States.

Already, Singer writes, the United States and Iran seem to differ on the issue of the Arak reactor, whose main purpose seems to be the manufacture of plutonium for bombs. The United States believes that Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak while the Iranian Foreign Minister says otherwise.

“The Arak facility,” writes Singer, “is a relatively easy target: It is above ground, about halfway between Tehran and Isfahan, but closer to Iran’s western border with Iraq. According to published photographs, it includes a complex of buildings, in addition to the reactor itself.”

“One may imagine that Israel is carefully weighing the security and political benefits and costs,” he writes, “in addition to the purely military planning of such an attack. It may delay somewhat Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons. It might even cause Iran to abandon such efforts — think Moammar Gadhafi — unlikely, unless there is a major political upheaval there. It would certainly demonstrate Israel’s willingness and capability to enforce previously set ‘red lines,’ and thereby generate respect from others in the region and the world.”

Singer says that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states would quietly support such an attack, along with the U.S. public and Congress, Canada and Australia.

It would be disapproved of by the U.N. and rest of the world.

“The ball seems to be in Israel’s court,” writes Singer. “That nation faces a fateful decision with a complex cost-benefit calculation. Yet in the final analysis, domestic political considerations there may determine the outcome.”

View original Israel Hayom publication at: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=14151