The New Conventional Wisdom on Osirak?
One of the interesting facets of the debate over military strikes on Iran is a new understanding about the impact of Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor. The popular take on Osirak is that the Israeli air force sparred the world (and particularly the U.S. in the first Gulf War) from a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. The strike proved, moreover, the efficacy of military action as a counter-proliferation tool.
Fast forward to today, however, and a new picture is emerging. Rather than a success that spared the world from a nuclear Iraq, the Osirak strike may have actually spurred Saddam Hussein toward a nuclear weapon:
'For a start, Saddam wasn't building a bomb at Osirak. Richard Wilson, a nuclear physicist at Harvard University who inspected the wreckage of the reactor on a visit to Iraq in 1982, noted how it had been "explicitly designed" by French engineers "to be unsuitable for making bombs" and had been subject to regular inspections by both on-site French technicians and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."The Iraqis couldn't have been developing a nuclear weapon at Osirak," Wilson tells me, three decades on. "I challenge any scientist in the world to show me how they could have done so."
For Wilson, the Israeli raid marked not the end of Saddam's nuclear weapons programme but the beginning of it. Three months later, in September 1981, Saddam â?? smarting from the Osirak incident and reminded of Iraq's vulnerability to foreign attack â?? established a fast-paced, well-funded and clandestine nuclear weapons programme outside of the IAEA's purview. Nine years after Osirak, Iraq was on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb.
Wilson's analysis is shared today by leading non-proliferation experts, including Columbia University's Richard Betts ("there is no evidence that Israel's destruction of Osirak delayed Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. The attack may actually have accelerated it"); Emory University's Dan Reiter ("the attack may have actually increased Saddam's commitment to acquiring weapons"); and Harvard University's MÃ¥lfrid Braut-Hegghammer ("it triggered a covert nuclear weapons programme that did not previously exist").
'
Colin Kohl also cited some additional evidence that the conventional wisdom about Osirak is incorrect:
'By demonstrating Iraqâ??s vulnerability, the attack on Osirak actually increased Husseinâ??s determination to develop a nuclear deterrent and provided Iraqâ??s scientists an opportunity to better organize the program. The Iraqi leader devoted significantly more resources toward pursuing nuclear weapons after the Israeli assault. As Reiter notes, â??the Iraqi nuclear program increased from a program of 400 scientists and $400 million to one of 7,000 scientists and $10 billion.â?ÂIraqâ??s nuclear efforts also went underground. Hussein allowed the IAEA to verify Osirakâ??s destruction, but then he shifted from a plutonium strategy to a more dispersed and ambitious uranium-enrichment strategy.
'
You can read a wonkier version of this argument in a paper (PDF) Dan Reiter authored in 2005.