In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France. While Iraq and France maintained that the reactor, named Osirak by the French, was intended for peaceful scientific research, the Israelis viewed the reactor with suspicion, and said that it was designed to make nuclear weapons. On June 7, 1981, a flight of Israeli Air Force F-16A fighter aircraft, with an escort of F-15As, bombed and heavily damaged the Osirak reactor. The Israeli raid against a declared nuclear facility belonging to an NPT signatory state in good standing met with near-universal condemnation. The resolution characterized the Israeli action as a “clear violation of the UN charter and the norms of international conduct” and admonished Israel to refrain in the future from similar actions. Defending the right of Iraq to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, the resolution urged Israel to accept IAEA inspections on all its nuclear facilities (a step that would force Israel to eliminate its widely assumed nuclear arsenal) and concluded by recognizing Iraq’s right to “appropriate redress.”
The IAEA Board of Governors was equally condemnatory, repeating the Security Council demand that Israel place its nuclear facilities under agency safeguards and warning that Israel might be expelled from the agency if it declined to do so. Finally, on November 10, the UN General Assembly approved a resolution harshly critical of the Israeli attack on Osiraq, with 109 states voting in favor, 34 states abstaining, and only Israel and the United States voting against the measure.
Israel claimed it acted in self-defense [what else is new?] and that the reactor had "less than a month to go" before "it might have become critical." Ten Iraqi soldiers and one French civilian were killed. The attack took place about three weeks before the elections for the Knesset.
Ron Paul: "When Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear plant in 1981, “I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.” And Paul stated that, “We should honor our pledge to refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. . . . And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.” Today, that position hasn't changed. If today Israel used the same independent pretext to attack Iran, which candidate aside from Ron Paul would support that move without Israel first receiving U.S. approval?
Dr. Paul seems to share the pathological notion that only Israel has sovereignty in the region. Dr. Paul doesn't seem to take into account that Israel treats international law as if it doesn't apply to it. Israel has broken more UN resolutions that any other in UN history. Dr. Paul is silent on all accounts. The moral weight drags down even the most high-minded aspirations he has about civil liberties, and everything crashes down .
Israel’s nukes are there to threaten the U.S. as much as the Arabs, i.e., their threat to nuke the Aswan Dam back in ‘73 unless the U.S. resupplied them. Israel views its nukes as a strategic defense against EVERYONE, not just the Arab neighbors.
Shortly before stepping down as IAEA director general in November 2009, Mohammed Elbaradei declared, "This is not really sustainable that you have Israel sitting with nuclear weapons capability there while everyone else is part of the non-proliferation regime." As Joseph Cirincione, former director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out, "The world does well to remember that most Middle East weapons programs began as a response to Israel's nuclear weapons…It should be obvious that Israelis are better off in a region where no one has nuclear weapons than in one where many nations have them."