Peter Robinson · January 29, 2012 at 6:38pm
mapbig1

In the New York Times Magazine this morning, an instance of what the Times, on occasion, still does better than anyone else:  a comprehensively reported and beautifully written piece on a subject of genuine importance. 

The most frightening paragraphs you'll read today:

Barak [Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister] went on: “The moment Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the region will feel compelled to do the same. The Saudi Arabians have told the Americans as much, and one can think of both Turkey and Egypt in this context, not to mention the danger that weapons-grade materials will leak out to terror groups.

“From our point of view,” Barak said, “a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations.”

At that point Barak leaned forward and said with the utmost solemnity: “And if a nuclear Iran covets and occupies some gulf state, who will liberate it? The bottom line is that we must deal with the problem now.”

He warned that no more than one year remains to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weaponry.

Will Israel attack Iran?  Can it afford not to do so?

Comments:



Joined
Dec '11
Translucent

I think that Israel try to use espionage to accomplish its goals.  It will only attack Iran directly and openly if it has no choice.  Iran through its oil reserves has bought some very powerful friends.  History also has shown that for the most part most nations(outside the US) seem to look Israel with almost contempt.  In fact sometimes I think that our protection of Israel might be one of the few things keeping it alive.

I think that it is slowing becoming more apparent that our up-incoming general election determines not only America's fate but those of other nations around the world.  The republican party should see if many prominent Israeli figures would offer political support during the general election, since the winner might determine the fate of Israel.  In fact maybe we would be able to take the Jewish vote away from the democrats if an appeal was made directly to them.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

I can offer you the following based on a conversation I had with a "spook" who must remain unnamed.  The gist of his explanation runs something like this:

Israeli intelligence is aware that the Iranian leadership is deeply divided by faction.  Israeli policy, at least in part, is to exploit this factionalism in an attempt to bring down the regime.  Any public statements offered by Israel should be regarded as an attempt to play these factions against one another.  There is a game afoot here that is only understood deep within the bowels of Israeli intelligence.  Opinion on this matter is therefore a matter of speculation, and little more.

I suspect there is a fixed line somewhere in the sand that once crossed will force Israel to act.  The Iranians have already stated that they will attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz should it come to military action.  Senior US diplomats have already stated that we have contingency plans for such an event.  We can fairly assume that any attempt to close the strait will quickly build to crisis levels as the world's oil supply is threatened.  

    

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

And if you want to know what's going on within conservative think tanks on this subject, I can offer you two books by Ilan Berman.  The first is called Winning the Long War with a foreword by Newt Gingrich.  The other is called Taking on Tehran with a foreword by Tom Ridge.  Dry but very informative stuff.     

Valiuth
Joined
Apr '11
Valiuth

Well if you were a real spy novel writer you would propose the following strategy to combat the Iranians.

To undermine Iran's credibility, enrage its people and destroy their nuclear program, Israel should manufacture a "nuclear accident". The Israelis using their own nuclear expertise manufacture a small nuclear device and sneak it within close proximity of the main Iranian nuclear development site and detonate it. This would serve to destroy the sight and make it seem like the Iranians were: A) Developing weapons, B) have no idea what they are doing C) Thus they are a danger to themselves and others D) make the Iranian people doubt their governments competency to develop such weapons and deploy them effectively.

That is my Jack Ryan plot...

In real life I predict no one will do anything, not even the Israelis because the Obama administration won't support them, and I doubt they have the fighter range to carry off the attack on their own. There is no way the US is getting dragged into a war with Iran, barring a direct attack against us or our troops. The doctrine of preemption is dead. Obama will not resurrect it. 

Edited on January 29, 2012 at 7:46pm

Joined
Dec '11
Nobody's Perfect

I'm really going to miss these kinds of discussions after the Electromagnetic Pulse.

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser

We could use Hitchens now -- a voice from the left making the moral case that Israel shouldn't bear this burden alone.

I do wish we'd stop the confident "we have a year; no more" stuff. Krauthammer ended a column in 2004 with the very same line. It might very well be true this time -- who knows? -- but after a decade of use, such a claim can no longer be considered a reliable timeline for those of us on the outside.

But these are very strange and scary times.

  


Joined
Jan '11
Anon

It is unambiguoulsy in Israel's national interests to destroy Iran's nuclear resources.

The question is whether Obama strategic position of the floating base is to counter Iran's irrational motives, or to counter Israels rational defense of its nation.

I remember Obama's caution to Israel that if their plans overflew Iraq on their way to taking out Iran's nuclear resources, American planes have orders to shoot down the Israeli planes.

There is no doubt that Obama has put his trust and support in the Muslim camp, his vows of support to Israel notwithstanding.  He has told us, in no uncertain terms, that he will stand with the Muslims. The interesting question is, knowing that, why did 78% of Jews voting in 2008 vote for Obama?  The really interesting question is what percentage will vote for him again in spite of his anti-Israel policies?

Israel will not allow itself to be mortally attacked.  One Holocaust is more than enough.

Edited on January 29, 2012 at 9:28pm

Joined
May '11
ctlaw

Israel is incapable of inflicting substantial damage on Iran's nuclear program.

Much is too deep for the small conventional bunker buster bombs Israel has (recent reports indicate too deep for even the US massive ordnance penetrator bombs).

It is highly unlikely that Israel has nuclear weapons that can do the trick. It is fairly difficult to engineer a nuclear weapon that is robust enough to survive penetration and explode. It also requires extensive testing which we know Israel has not done. Any Israeli nukes are likely configured for above-ground detonation. They will do zero damage to hardened buried facilities (just recall how the concrete base of the tower used for the Trinity nuclear test survived).


Joined
Dec '11
Nobody's Perfect

With its very existence in the balance, Israel has the right to use whatever weapons are at its disposal.  

Iran's nuclear weapons program would be rendered impotent were Israel to destroy its energy, communications, transportation and military infrastructure. It's pretty hard to process uranium and build warheads by candle light. 

Daniel Perez
Joined
Nov '11
Daniel Perez
Scott Reusser: We could use Hitchens now -- a voice from the left making the moral case that Israel shouldn't bear this burden alone.

So true.. I was so impressed with his commentary on Iran. Here´s the link.

jetstream
Joined
Dec '10
jetstream

Nobody's Perfect:

... Iran's nuclear weapons program would be rendered impotent were Israel to destroy its energy, communications, transportation and military infrastructure. ...

After the surrender of Baghdad Bob, the U.S. had the military force in place with exactly the  right address to launch a solution at Iran's nuclear weapons program.  The Democrats demagogued that option and Bush blinked.

The question now, does Israel have a credible military option.  Just eyeballing google maps, even if Israelis F-15's could fly over Iraq, it looks like tankers would be needed. Does Israel even have tankers and where would they operate?

How good is Iran's air force and air defense system?  There have been numerous articles the last couple of years about Russia selling it's newest technologies to Iran. So, how good is their system and how effective are Israel's counter measures?

 Israel has a reputation of invincibility but the complexity of this endeavor would be high. If Israel starts an air war with Iran, it surely seems like a bad outcome is possible.

Completely shutting off Iran's supply of gasoline might work, but, Obama won't do it and Israel probably can't.


Joined
Dec '11
Nobody's Perfect

The question now, does Israel have a credible military option.  Just eyeballing google maps, even if Israelis F-15's could fly over Iraq, it looks like tankers would be needed. Does Israel even have tankers and where would they operate?

Forget the conventional option.  Israel has nuclear weapons capable of being delivered by cruise missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and submarine-launched missiles.  

EThompson
Joined
Dec '11
EThompson
Scott Reusser: We could use Hitchens now -- a voice from the left making the moral case that Israel shouldn't bear this burden alone.

I'm afraid we've reached the point where talk is cheap. The left will never support Israel and so, to this excellent point:

Nobody's Perfect:

Iran's nuclear weapons program would be rendered impotent were Israel to destroy its energy, communications, transportation and military infrastructure.

 

skipsul
Joined
Mar '11
skipsul

Israel, like Iran, knows that it can only bluff.  If Israel strikes first, it is toast, the rest of the world will only cement their opinion of Israel as the root of all Mideast trouble, and public opinion would force the leaders of the Arab countries, no matter how much they might detest the Persians, to side with Iran.  No win for Israel there.

But if Iran does strike first, neither the Russians nor the Chinese (Iran's main benefactors), will tolerate the disruption of their money or energy, and the world would have to (grudgingly) side with Israel.

As for us, same deal.  Iran WANTS to be hit first, good for world opinion, unifies the country from within.  As long as we don't blink (and don't listen to Krauthamer on this), we're tidy.  IF they openly hit us first, they're toast and they know it (and I'm sure Russia and China have reminded them of this).

Iran is a PIA regime, but not stable within or without, and aside from fellow loonies like Chavez is utterly without real friends. They dare not act first.

outstripp
Joined
May '10
outstripp
skipsul: Israel, like Iran, knows that it can only bluff... · 2 hours ago

I like your analysis.  Seems to me, this is a job for subterfuge.

EThompson
Joined
Dec '11
EThompson
skipsul:   IF they openly hit us first, they're toast and they know it (and I'm sure Russia and China have reminded them of this).

Huh? If they're allowed to "openly hit us," who gets to be the first American to lose his/her life?

Heshmon
Joined
Mar '11
Heshmon

For me, as an Israeli, the really scary part is not knowing if we (Israel) are even capable of taking out the Iranian nuclear projects on our own. I am pretty certain that the US, under the current administration, is incapable of making the necessary decision to do that, even if it does has the necessary hardware.

And I think it's fair to doubt (though not rule out) that Israel has the tactical nukes that theoretically could, say after a first wave of bunker busters, take out the hardened sites.

The distinct impression I get, as a layman with no real inside track, is that both Israel and the US are in a rather desperate race to get themselves into a better position than they currently are in (recall the downed US drone, for example) vis-a-vis Iran, before it's too late.  This does not bode well.

And as for the "if they hit us first" arguments, don't even get me started. Whoever is volunteering to get hit first, just please move at least 3000 miles away from me.

John Marzan
Joined
Oct '10
John Marzan

Please take note that the U.S. has already pulled out all the troops from Iraq.

WHICH means they have a freer hand in targetting Iran.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran...

skipsul
Joined
Mar '11
skipsul

I'm not suggesting that we want to be hit first.  What I am saying is that, crazy as they are, I don't think Iran is stupid enough to actually strike first.  They've got Chinese and Russian money and material in the pipeline and they would risk losing that. If they hit anyone first, be it us, Israel, or the Saudis, they would just stir up the old Arab vs. Persian animosity and likely lose their Chinese and Russian goodies.

They also know that if we strike first they would have the whole Islamic world at their backs in public, even if certain Arabic leaders were relieved in private, PLUS Putin and Jintao can continue their support.

Hence, stalemate, as long as we don't blink first.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In