Quibble – the Palastenian Authority. It is not recognized as a “country.” At least not yet.
I agree with **Alessan **above re: what the PA will most likely do (i.e., make frenetic hand-gestures about their displeasure.)
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which is dominated by the PLO, are mortal enemies. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip - there is been no PA presence there for six years. The PA controls the West Bank, and over the last few years has managed to almost completely suppress Hamas in its territory, while closely cooperating with Israel on the military and economic levels (albeit not on the political level).
Neither of these are countries, although from a de facto standpoint, Gaza is actually closer to being one - its borders are clearly defined, and it has no Israeli military presence in its territory.
I thought Hamas and the Palestinian Authority had been working on reconciliation for the last year or so? Granted, it’s been kind of a “two-steps-forward one-step-back” process.
I think that is only a show. If a war breaks out between the two territories they will lose all credibility in regards to their ability to self govern.
Also, the PA/Hamas accord was essentially an Egyptian creation - they initiated it, shepherded it and supervised it. Now that the Mubarak-Tantawi regime is gone, the detente has been left flapping in the wind.
How far away is Iran from having a working nuclear weapon?
That’s the 64 kiloton question.
Bad strategy. There is no control over how a proxy uses such a weapon. They might use it against Israel. They might, instead, use it against Armenia or the Kurds or just the ethnic group over the hill that they’ve been feuding with since Alexander the Great.
Letting someone else nuke Israel with a weapon you gave them is indistinguishable from doing it yourself. This is already well-understood policy, in the hypothetical case that Iran builds a bomb and gives it to Hezbollah. It isn’t just Hezbollah that suffers from massive retaliation.
What’s so scary about that scenario is that the USA isn’t going to stand idly by and let Israel be flattened by 15 Arab nations and assisted by China and Russia, so suddenly you have a world war. A nuclear world war that will make us long for the good old tranquil days of WW2.
Which is why it’s a bad idea for America to do it with Israel, or be perceived as doing so.
Consequence: The next Call of Duty game will be set there and it will be EPIC
I am not, nor have I ever been, a diplomat or a military officer. I do have an interest in the subject, but I’m speaking firmly ex rectum. That said, I am not sure why the U.S. would need to get involved, beyond issues of deterring future nuclear powers from using them.
Israel, as has already been noted, has multiple nuclear weapons and means with which to deliver them. These means are essentially unstoppable by Iran. They are sufficient to kill a large percentage of the Iranian population. (and, depending on strike patterns/warhead composition, some of Iran’s neighbors too.) Moreover, Israel has invested heavily in theater anti-ballistic missile defense, as Oakminster has stated. Iran is aware of all of this. I am at a loss as to how a missile strike–even a horde of them, as was used in the War Between the Cities during the Iran/Iraq War—will be able to kill a hundred thousand Israelis sans the use of an NBC warhead. Even then, you’d probably have to use a nuke. In the War Between the Cities I mentioned, IIRC, casualties in Tehran and Baghdad were ~2000 on each side from multiple (~320 SSMs for both) conventional missile strikes. The unopposed Iraqi Air Force bombing raids on Iranian cities, were much more deadly by comparison. Therefore, a 100K or, shoot, even 10k death toll from a few conventional Shahabs is very unlikely.
Nevertheless, since Iran has so cleverly hidden the truth of whether they actually have a nuclear-capable IRBM—or any nuclear weapons at all—any Iranian IRBM on a path terminating in Israel (especially Tel Aviv or another Israel C3I center) can be considered to potentially carry a nuclear bomb. I do not know, and would not want to bet, that Israel does not have a ‘launch on warning’ posture for its nuclear forces. I am willing to guess that Iran doesn’t want to bet that Israel doesn’t either. Accordingly, any IRBM shot by Iran into Israel, brings with it the threat of utter annihilation for Iran. I wouldn’t take that risk, if I were one of the mullahs running Iran, unless I was already facing ruin if I didn’t. Just the same as any ICBM shot by the U.S. at the Soviet Union did, and vice versa. There’s a reason why ICBMs have (to the best of my knowledge) never been tested on the over-the-Pole route that they’d have taken for real, and instead were shot on West to East (Soviet) or East to West (U.S.) trajectories. It’s just too destabilizing.
My own opinion is that Israel, like most nuclear powers that have thought about the issue, has multiple lines of communication and succession to try and deal with such an attack. Those LOCs would be enough to control Israel’s remaining assets enough to destroy Iran, and any other country that made a similar existence-threatening action.
In short, I do not see Ralph’s situation coming to pass, even after a ‘successful’ Israeli conventional strike on Iranian nuclear weapons’ plants and reactors. (Which would be difficult to ensure, IMHO.) If Ralph’s situation did come about, however, Israel is more than capable of, to paraphrase Admiral Halsey, ensuring that the Farsi language will only be spoken in Hell. Their nuclear weapons would ensure that Iran would no longer be able to project power anywhere for some time; the “job would be finished” already. I’d also predict that repression would ramp up against the Palestinians, should they feel that the loss of Tel Aviv constitute an opening for mischief. Since the Israelis would not need military assistance (unless the U.N (really, the U.S., China, and Russia) prevailed upon Israel for a conventional response to Iran.), I don’t see why other nuclear nations would, frankly, want to get involved with any nuclear strikes of their own.
Indeed, I think a nuclear weapon going off in Tel Aviv would be such a giant public health catastrophe that the Palestinians would be doing their best to help their own population weather the effects, rather than try going to war/restart the Intifada against Israel. Gaza is only 55 miles or so from Tel Aviv, if Google Earth isn’t leading me astray. Depending on the weather, I wouldn’t want to be 55 miles from a groundburst 100 kt or so weapon, never mind if the Iranians built something really large. Foreign aid, trade, very few things would be getting in or out of Israel or the Palestinian Authority for some time after such a hideous disaster.
TL;DR: Iran isn’t going to try and nuke Israel. If they somehow managed to, Israel would wipe Iran off the face of the Earth all by itself. Both sides already know this. Everyone else would want to stay out. And Tel Aviv’s loss by itself’d be the biggest health disaster since the 2004 tsunami or the 1970 Bangladesh Cyclone, only this time with the added joy of radiation.
Add a strategic strike on Iran…I’m at a loss for comparable losses of life. Iran has 75 million people. Kill even 30% of them… Even atrocity/genocides like the Holodomor and the Famines from the Great Leap Forward et al, killed, what, 10-20 million, and took several years to fulfill?
It would be the Holocaust in one afternoon. And World War I in a few weeks, after the civilians finally succumbed to 2nd stage radiation sickness and burns.
I believe that you under estimate the hatred the locals have for Israel and the testosterone poisoning that makes folks in the area come to blows with little practical reason.
Pretty much, yeah.
It isn’t a great idea to launch a conventional attack against Iran either, for lots of reasons, but it’s a damn bad idea to launch a nuclear attack.
On the other hand, retaliating against an attack is not quite as stupid. The consequences may spiral out of hand…or might not…but the principle of retaliation, as screwy as it may be, has kept the large-scale peace for over sixty years now.
Personally, I think that it is okay for Iran to get the bomb. Pakistan has it already, and I consider them less responsible (and sane) than Iran. (Not by a whole lot, but some.) Once Iran gets the bomb, it gets to sit in the Big Boys Club. And it gets to see thousands of warheads aimed right at its heart. It gets to take part in Mutually Assured Destruction – the game you can only win by not playing.
If they decide to play, then the question is whether or not the damage can be limited to their destruction, without the ripples widening. Nobody knows this…but the Iranian leadership will know that they cannot survive launching a nuclear first strike.
I think the risk of them having such warheads is slightly less than the risks involved in an attack on their research facilities. Slightly.
Israel isn’t going to nuke Iran over what would likely be at most a modestly effective response to an attack on a military target. If the Iranian response was very deadly the counter would be even more conventional force. However, if the Israelis did counter with a nuclear weapon, I don’t see a nuclear power getting involved with nuclear weapons.
France and Britton are right out. China has no dog in the fight; their politics and sphere of influence concern the Pacific Rim. Plus Israel is a big supplier of military hardware and technology to China. India is a democratic republic with current close military ties to Israel. They would likely condemn a nuclear response but take no action. Pakistan won’t divert its military attention from India. More importantly Pakistan hasn’t shown the ability to hit Israel. Their longest range rocket has about a 1000 mile range. Israel and Pakistan are 2000 miles apart. Same applies to North Korea. They can reach and aren’t involved in the area. Russia would benefit from the instability. They would increase their sales of military equipment to the surrounding countries. Their stocks of oil and natural gas would rise in value as traffic through Straights would likely be all but stopped. The cost of gas will skyrocket.
Israel would be at far greater risk from conventional attacks from Egypt (recall the Muslim Brotherhood is now in charge), Syria, Jordan and possibly Saudi Arabia. The standing Israeli military is out numbered 10 to 1 by its neighbors standing militaries (per open sources). There will be calls for open warfare from the radical elements in the surrounding countries. OPEC could call for an embargo. Add to this that the rest of the western world would condemn the nuclear strike. Support would be hard to drum up even in the US. Our economy would slip backwards due to the massively increased costs of fuel and all things connected.
Europe would face similar financial issues. The economies of Greece, Italy and Spain could fail under the stress. The countries would then default on their bailouts. Stock exchanges across the world would drop. Add this to the fact that the healthy economies are already contracting as they deal with the massive increase in the cost of fuel and the world could enter another rescission if not an outright depression.
Would the US respond with military aide when Israel is attacked by its neighbors and the Palestinians revolt in mass? That’s the question. I think in the end the US would supply logistical and technological support like they did in the Yom Kippur War and allegedly in the 6 Day War. Maybe some drone and missile strikes but no troops on the ground.