By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:22

If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel’s main nuclear facility.

Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area.

Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries.

Zakhariya, located in the Jerusalem hills is - according to foreign reports - home to Israel’s Jericho missile base. Both Israeli and international media have published commercial satellite images of the Zakhariya and Dimona sites.

Abasi, a senior lecturer at Tehran University, was quoted in the Roz internet news site, identified with reform circles in Iran.

Iranian affairs experts believe Abasi’s statements are part of propaganda battle being wages by all sides - including Israel and Iran - in the lead up to next months United Nations Security Council debate on Iran’s nuclear program.

At this stage, the possibility that sanctions will be leveled at Iran are extremely low.

Remarks from ACDN:

1. March 6, 2006, is the day when the IAEA’s director Mohamed ElBaradei submits to the UN Security Council his report on Iran’s nuclear program. This could lead to the matter being placed on the Council’s formal agenda.

2. For some months, various statements by Israeli and US figures have been hinting that military strikes against Iran’s nuclear and strategic installations could occur from the end of March (i.e. after the legislative elections and the formation of a new Israeli government).

3. There had already been talk of such strikes at the start of 2005. For over a year Israel and the USA have been making multiple military preparations with this "option" in view.

4. US officials have also mentioned the "nuclear option", i.e. the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Note that President Chirac’s speech of 19 January 2006, addressed to French nuclear submarine crews in Brittany, offers an a priori justification for such an action.

5. Although at present "the possibility that sanctions may be taken against Iran is extremely slight", particularly after Mohamed ElBaradei’s statement that the Western states have scarcely any choice about accepting Iran’s uranium enrichment activities at a non-military level, this slight possibility of diplomatic, economic and other sanctions against Iran is not particularly reassuring: it could lead the USA and Israel to act "unilaterally" with military strikes.

6. Some observers think that the decision to make such strikes has already been taken in Washington, without however an identifiable implementation date. In any case, the coming weeks are likely to play a crucial role in the subsequent course of events. The final positions which Russia and China will adopt at the Security Council will be extremely important, as will those of US allies like France and the UK.

7. The most pessimistic observers, not necessarily the least realistic, consider that military strikes against Iran, whatever their nature but especially if they are nuclear, would have incalculable and uncontrollable consequences, likely to result in what they don’t hesitate to call a "Third World War".

8. In this very unhealthy "pre-war climate" and this relatively volatile "pre-war situation", public opinion in the countries concerned can play a not-negligible role in steering events one way or the other. It is therefore of prime importance that the advocates of a peaceful diplomatic solution should mobilise rapidly and in large numbers, so as to place pressure on the governments in question.

See also the other articles on this topic, on this site.