And I realize that Israel might calculate that it had to take whatever risks were associated with being public about taking out Iran's nuclear facilities in order to put pressure on the US and europe with regard to sanctions and with the US with regard to taking out facilities.
Agreed
I do think that there are risks with Israel being seen publicly as the main driver behind taking out Iran's nuclear facilities
There are always risks in any course of action. Of all people, the Israelis have best learned that it's better to be impolite than dead.
Why was there no public discussion with regard to Iraq but there is with regard to Iran?
My sense of Iraq is that it was a much smaller operation and they were at a much earlier stage of development. The Isarelis were confident they could do it on their own, and Iraq was preoccupied with its war with Iran.
On Iraq per Wikipedia:
In Israel, discussions on which strategy to adopt in response to the Iraqi reactor development were taking place as early as Yitzhak Rabin's first term in office (1974–1977).[35] Reportedly, planning and training for the operation began during this time.[35] After Menachem Begin became Prime Minister in 1977 the preparations intensified; Begin authorized the building of a full-scale model of the Iraqi reactor which Israeli pilots could practice bombing.[36] Three Israeli pilots died in accidents while training for the mission.[37]
Israel's Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan initiated diplomatic negotiations with France, Italy—Israel maintained that some Italian firms acted as suppliers and sub-contractors—and the United States over the matter, but failed to obtain assurances that the reactor program would be halted, and was not able to convince the French governments of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and François Mitterrand to cease aiding the Iraqi nuclear program.[38] Saddam Hussein consistently maintained that Osirak was intended for peaceful purposes.[39] Begin considered the diplomatic options fruitless, and worried that prolonging the decision to attack would lead to a fatal inability to act in response to the perceived threat.[16] According to Karl P. Mueller, in the spring of 1979, Begin had reached the conclusion that an anticipatory attack was necessary.[40]
Anthony Cordesman writes that Israel conducted a series of clandestine operations to halt construction or destroy the reactor.[41] In April 1979, Israeli agents in France allegedly planted a bomb that destroyed the reactor's first set of core structures while they were awaiting shipment to Iraq.[41] In June 1980, Israeli agents are said to have assassinated Yehia El-Mashad, an Egyptian atomic scientist working on the Iraqi nuclear program.[42][43] It has also been claimed that Israel bombed several of the French and Italian companies it suspected of working on the project, and sent threatening letters to top officials and technicians.[41][43][44] ...
The decision to go through with the operation was hotly contested within Begin's government.[53] Ariel Sharon, a member of the Security Cabinet, later said that he was among those who advocated bombing the reactor.[54] Dayan, Defense Minister (until late 1980) Ezer Weizman and Deputy Prime Minister Yigael Yadin were among those opposed.[40] According to Mueller, "the principal difference between the hawks and doves on this issue lay in their estimation of the likely international political costs of an air strike".[40] Shai Feldman specifies that "[those opposed] feared that the operation would derail the fragile Israeli-Egyptian peace process, fuel Arab anxieties about Israel's profile in the region, and damage Israel-French relations".[55] Begin and his supporters, including Sharon, were far less pessimistic than their opponents about the political fallout.[40] Yehoshua Saguy argued for continued efforts in trying to find a non-military solution as it would take the Iraqis five to ten years to produce the material necessary for a nuclear weapon.[53] In the end, Begin chose to order the attack based on a worst-case estimate where a weapon could be created in one to two years time.[53]
It has been claimed that Israel felt it necessary to destroy the reactor before it was loaded with nuclear fuel, in order to prevent radioactive contamination.[23] An analysis by Warren Donnelly of the United States Congressional Research Service concluded that "it would be most unlikely for an attack with conventional bombs upon the reactor when operating to have caused lethal exposures to radioactivity in Baghdad, although some people at the reactor site might receive some exposure".[56]
In October 1980, Mossad reported to Begin that the Osirak reactor would be fueled and operational by June 1981.[50] This assessment was significantly aided by reconnaissance photos supplied by the United States, specifically using the KH-11 KENNAN satellite.[37] French technicians installing the reactor later said it was scheduled to become operational only by the end of 1981.[37] Nonetheless, in October 1980, the Israeli cabinet (with Dayan absent) finally voted 10–6 in favor of launching the attack.[40]
Wow, this is interesting. After the attack:
Security Council Resolution 487[14] strongly condemned the attack as a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct" and called on Israel to refrain from such attacks in the future; the Council recognised the right of Iraq to "establish programmes of technological and nuclear development" and called for Israel to join Iraq within the "IAEA safeguards regime" of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[60] The Council also stated its consideration that Iraq was "entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered." The United States voted for the resolution and suspended the delivery of four F-16 aircraft to Israel
That would be the peacenik Reagan. In hindsight given the 1st Gulf War it is fortunate that the Israelis did what they did. But Iran is a much tougher operation so they are being more cautious and trying to get US help, and/or hoping that sanctions will work.
10 Oct 2012, 6:45 am 
