03-07-2025
All your questions about Israel's short war on Iran answered
Daily Maverick foreign affairs journalist Peter Fabricius answers your questions on the 13-day War on Iran by Israel and the US.
Question: Do you think the US action in Iran, to deter it from the ability to make a nuclear weapon – even though US intelligence services consider this an unlikely aim – echoes the US and UK decision to invade Iraq because of their claim about WMD? Or is it more about Israel's ambition to control the region?
Answer: I think the concerns that Iran intended to build nuclear weapons are somewhat more credible than the claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003. For example, IAEA director general Rafael Grossi is ambivalent. He declines to say if he thinks Iran intends to construct nuclear weapons. He has said that he has not seen conclusive evidence pointing to that, but also that Iran has not answered all the IAEA's questions about its nuclear programme.
Q: And should Iran wish to have its own nuclear deterrent, would that be any more of a threat to peace than the nuclear weapon capability that Israel (and/or other states) has?
A: This is a good question. Of course Israel should not have nuclear bombs either. However, the objective view should be that any nuclear proliferation should be prevented if possible. We cannot say that it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel has them. Any proliferation of nuclear weapons represents an increase in the danger of nuclear war, which would endanger not only the direct belligerents.
Q: How credible is the view that Iran is trying to kill all Jews? Could it be that they are in support of measures to liberate Palestinians who are currently in occupied territory or being mistreated in Gaza?
A: It is impossible to assess Iran's attitude. I strongly doubt that it intends to kill all Jews. But it does oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state – which is not the same thing.
Q: How sure can we be that the US' bombardment of Iran's nuclear facilities – and what we are told is the outcome – without verification from the IAEA, is not another huge scam à la WMD in Iraq?
A: I have partly answered this in Question 1. I don't think this is a complete scam, as I believe Israel and the US – and several other Western states – really believe Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons. Whether they are right or wrong is less clear.
Q: Why is Israel allowed to have a nuclear bomb but not Iran?
A: This comes down to who is 'allowing,' of course. In theory, Israel should not be allowed to have an atomic weapon, but I believe the US and other allies tolerate this because they believe it is a deterrent against an existential threat – or just because they support Israel. As I said, though, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons does not mean Iran should be allowed to have them. Neither country should.
Q: The truth as to whether Iran's nuclear-building capabilities have been or have not been totally wiped out. We hear/read 'yes', we hear/read 'only for a few months'. Once and for all, which is it?
A: I am inclined to believe the leaked US intelligence report and the assessment of IAEA director-general Grossi that Iran's nuclear programme has been retarded for several months—not 'completely obliterated,' as Trump has claimed. However, Israel and the US could attack again.
Q: Did the US really destroy Iranian nuclear power?
A: Well, the answer to that question depends, of course, on whether Iran was intending to become a nuclear power – by which I assume the questioner means acquiring nuclear weapons. If it was, it would appear that the US and Israel failed to destroy its ambitions to become a nuclear power. (See also Question 6.)
Q: Is the US president allowed to just attack any other country without having to get authorisation from the US government?
A: If by 'the US government' this questioner means 'the US Congress', my understanding is that the US Constitution is rather ambiguous on this point. It gives very wide scope to the president in matters of war, according to the doctrine of the separation of powers. In any case, Republicans control both houses of Congress and I am sure would support Trump's actions.
Q: How much of this war is related to oil? So many US interventions have been related to this.
A: I don't believe this intervention is related to oil. The US and Israeli attacks have not – and were probably not intended to – topple the Iranian government, which therefore continues to retain control of its oil reserves.
Q: What is wrong with Iran having a nuclear bomb? Other countries have it too.
A: I think I have answered this question already, in my reply to Question 1. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – which most countries, including South Africa, support – forbids any countries other than the five original nuclear powers (the US, UK, China, Russia and France) from possessing nuclear weapons. This is in principle unjust, as those five have no more right to possess nuclear weapons than anyone else.
But when the NPT was first extended in 1995, South Africa, like most countries, took the pragmatic view that it would be better to support the treaty anyway, rather than facing the risk of an uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would present a grave danger to the world. But in any case, not only Israel but also India, Pakistan and probably North Korea have developed atomic weapons outside the parameters of the NPT. DM
