How the Israelis can safely attack Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
It’s well known that Israeli jets would have to overfly Saudi Arabia and Jordan to get into Iranian airspace. Such a mission would put the Israeli pilots at risk.
Would it not be feasible for Israel to use missiles to nuke the suspected targets?
Either way, they know they will enrage the Iranians and many in the Moslem world. However, by using nukes, they will be sending the message in no uncertain terms that if you dare to make preparations to attack us, we will pre-emtively strike you, and we may use our nuclear aresenal.
Sub-thread:
If Israel decided to overfly Saudi Arabia and Jordan and were shot down, how would they react?
Is it likely that Saudi Arabia and Jordan would attempt to shoot down Israeli aircraft?
If Israel attacked Iran, wouldn’t they have justification to also attack Syria, another well-known sponsor of terror?
They can safely attack Iran’s nuclear weapons program by doing exactly what you say, flying over Jordan SA.
I don’t honestly believe Jordan would be able to stop the event (I think the Iranians stand the best chance of knocking out the bombers.) If Jordan took out the Israelis en route it would be via 1) luck, or 2) internal intelligence failure on Israel’s part that allowed the Jordanians to be very prepared for the event.
Also of course I don’t even think Jorda would try to attack the Israelis, and certainly Saudi Arabia would not.
Israel only has to overfly Jordan to get to Iraq, and then on to Iran. And don’t forget, the rest of the ME nations are probably not thrilled at the prospect of a nuclear Iran. When (and if) Jordanian radar picked up the Israeli strike, I suspect there will be some radar techs ordered to tend to their shoelaces for a while.
But even assuming stiff resistance from Jordan, Israel can get to Iran. Israel has probably the second most powerful airforce in the world, and this is a pretty darned important issue to them.
I’ll say this in defense of the OP. Israel won’t need evidence of a clear cut nuclear program to act. They’ve attacked reactors before when there was little evidence said reactor or anything relating to it was going to be involved in a nuclear weapons program.
So from the aspect of us worrying about what Israel may do, proof or even existence of a weapons program is immaterial. Israel has acted simply in response to a nuclear energy program in the past and unless the U.S. tells them not to they could very likely do it again in this case.
IOW, you’re proposing using nukes preventively? And in order to prevent the possession of nukes?
And it would make Israel better than Iran in what way, exactly? I mean , if such a thing happens, it will be quite easy for me to tell you which country is a major danger, should be immediately contained, have its governement overthrown by any mean available, and be disarmed. And it wouldn’t be Iran, in case you wouldn’t be sure.
No the Bush doctrine actually says the United States will act in any way necesssary (and especially preemptively) to maintain the United States’ position as the most powerful country in the world. It’s not something that other nations can use and call the Bush doctrine, they can just call it good ole fashioned realism.
Which is why it won’t happen. Unless you have information that shows otherwise?Some people here are quick to accuse Israel without evidence… much like they claim others are doing with Iran.
Back to the OP - I’m pretty sure the IAF can fly over Jordan without being detected; after all, they did it for Osirak. Even if they are spotted, the Jordanians have neither the ability nor the interest to respond. They’ll probably sit tight and wait to file a formal complaint with the UN, to which Jerusalem will respond with reduced tariffs and perhaps a sweet little trading deal as compansation.
No, the major problem is the distance and multiplicity of targets. The eastern edge of Iran is at the very edge of the range of Israel’s F-15Is, which leaves little room for maneuver if something goes wrong. The fact that Iran’s nuclear program is supposedly spread out over numerous sites means that the strike force will have to be spread pretty thin, with 2-4 planes per target, adding to the risk.
One thing I have to add - whether or not you or I believe Iran has a nuclear program is hardly relevant. What matters is if the Israeli government believes it. I have to say, though, that they generally don’t carry out this kind of operation without pretty sound intellegence, if only because of the risk involved. I doubt they’ll risk the lives of dozens of highly trained pilots, as well as billions of dollars worth of aircraft, just because of a hunch, or to make a political point. Sending planes out at great risk to bomb targets that later turn out to be fictitious will be a sure way to bring down Sharon’s government.
Legally justified? I suppose so. I’m not sure if the two nations are technically at war or not, but they’re certainly not at peace. The Iranian government does not recognize Israel as a legitimate state, so I suppose an attack would not violate international law. There may be some problems with the UN, though. Not that the UN ever actually does something to nations that violate its charter.
“Justified” in the sense of “smart”? No, probably not. Israel’s response would be devastating. Even if Iran launches an attack that completely devastates the country, Israel has enough strategic asets (such as submarines) to make it not worth the mullahs while. They may not lose their country, but they’ll lose everything that makes it worth living.
As to “justified” in a moral sense - well, I don’t know. You’re the American, you’re the one who puts world conflicts in terms of right and wrong. If Iran nukes Tel Aviv and I happen to survive, I won’t go screaming to heaven “Damn you to hell, evil Persians!!”. I’ll mourn my losses and get ready for the next move.
I’m noy saying that morals have no place in international politics, if only because the moral thing to do is usually also the smartest thing. I’m just saying that they shouldn’t be an underlying cause for action - or inaction. I’m not being cynical, here, I’m just being a student of history. Nations have never let morals get involved when their own interests are at stake.
clairobscur, I apologize. Sevastopol’s post in such proximaty to yours made me assume tha everybody was making baseless accusations. Obviously, this wasn’t true in your case.
Ahem, see location. And I merely seek to apply to the nation state whatever moral or ethical framework applies in the nation state so as to minimise hypocrisy and doublethink. “Kill if you can get away with it” is still a moral framework - we simply don’t happen to apply it within our respective democracies.
But as far as I see it, “fight the wars you need to fight” has always been the moral guideline for nations, your country as much as any other. International law is not the same as internal law, and no nation has an obligation to treat citizens of other countries the same way it treats its own. It’s not hypocracy - there are simply different rules for individuals and for governments.
Is that fair? I don’t know. But to say otherwise goes against five thousand years of human history. I know you think we’re speaking academically - hypothetically - here, but I’m not, and if your country was also threatened, neither would you.
…in which individual morality was very different also. Just as black people are no longer slaves, fighting wars because you can will hopefully become a relic of that historical hypocrisy also. If nation states are outside normal morality, Iranian attacks on Israel are morally equivalent to Israeli attacks on Iran.
There’s a HUGE difference between preventive wars and pre-emptive wars.
Now pre-emption has become newspeak for preventive.
When there is an imminent threat then a war is not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of “preemption.” “Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike.”
Without an imminent threat a war is a “preventive war”. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."
As Confucius analected, “If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then … morals and art will deteriorate [and justice will go] astray … Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”
Or as Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things.
Newspeak limits thoughtcrime.
This is not realism. As a matter of fact Realists like Kissinger, Scowcroft, and Baker objected to the invasion of Iraq not because it was a crime, but because it was worse- it was a blunder.
Also see the above comments re pre-emption vs prevention.
From the Naval Postgraduate School’s Department of National Security Affairs’ Center for Contemporary Conflict: [INDENT]Preventive War vs. Preemption
Although the terms often are used interchangeably, “preventive war” and “preemption” are different strategic concepts. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war. Preventive war thinking seems to dominate U.S. planning about Iraq: it is better to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime now then to deal later with a regime armed with nuclear weapons. Preventive war thinking, however, can turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (treating war as inevitable helps make it inevitable). It also can lead to unnecessary conflict because few things are inevitable: Saddam could die of natural causes next week, producing a significant opportunity for the United States and its allies to shape Iraqi politics and policies.
Preemption is nothing more than a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike. Preemption or launch-under-attack are strategies that can be adopted by states that fear preventive war. [/INDENT]
Please don’t be insulted when I say this… but many Europeans believe that their continent has evolved beyond its bloody, barbaric past. Myself, I’m not that sure. I think you guys are just on hiatus. You have no real enemies, so you can afford to act all “civilized”. If you ever feel yourselves threatened you’ll go right on back to your old mass-murdering ways.
Of course, I may be wrong. But history teaches me that Europeans are the most bloodthirsty, warmongering people in the world, and it’ll take more that 60 years of peace to convince me otherwise.
Oh, I quite agree, Alessan. But I’d suggest that part of the reason that Europe has few enemies is due to a gradual (if often conveniently temporary, admittedly) acceptance among its members that nation states are not quite so amoral as jungle animals and that some state actions should be avoided even if they could be gotten away with.