Yeah, its kind of shocking that Israel wont take the moderate, peace loving, honest-to-a-fault Iranian regime at its word that it’s nuclear ambitions are peaceful…:rolleyes:
Remember, everyone, this is GQ, not GD. The question is not whether war is likely to break out, nor which side (if either) would be justified. The question is just what the technical capabilities are in the event of a war.
I agree with the analysis on the political question, but would beg to differ on the military aspect. The issue is not hardware, to hurt Iran’s capacity in any meaningful way they would need to c arry out a sustained bombing campaign against a country almost 2000 km away, in the face of rather intense Anti-Air defences as opposed to a one night only mission like Orsirak or Tunis. The IAF is not a force configured for such operations, the deep strike missions in Egypt with bases in the Sinai were unsuccessful and had to be called off back in the days of the war of attrition.
True, but we have just developed one that can blast deeper. Iran has dispersed them, but also made them deeper, beyond the reach of preexisting bunker busters. Perhaps Israel can develop the same technology or perhaps she can buy it from us, but the problem remains about the dispersion of the sites. This greatly increases the risk and decreases the chance for success.
I can’t see Israel being able to mount a sustained campaign for the reasons noted above. However, I also don’t see even a nuclear abled Iran sending a suitcase bomb into Israel. They know Israel’s response would then be overwhelming and even the most crazed Iranian hardliner knows they need an actual country to stay in power.
If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it doesn’t have to use them itself. It can give them to Hezbollah and Hamas, as it has been doing with non-nuclear weapons. Hezbollah and Hamas idolize suicide jihadists, and really don’t have a state government for themselves, although they are parts of two different governments. It would, however, be difficult for Iran to deny it supplied the weapons. But these are fanatics and I don’t trust that they wouldn’t use them.
Not likely actually.
Thing is once someone gets “The Bomb” the last thing they want to do is let anyone else get one. Handing a nuke to Hezbollah? Not likely.
Further, I think most countries would not be fooled into thinking Hezbollah secretly manufactured their own bomb. Attention would immediately turn to Iran and they could fully expect the whole world coming after them for doing that. The ass kicking would be complete. If they were to try a terrorist nuke attack they’d need to blow up most major Western cities in one go. That still leaves a bunch of nuclear submarines out there anyway…they’d still get flattened.
Nah, Iran gets a bomb then it can agitate more forcefully for regional control. Anyone threatens to come after them they threaten to nuke them back. A nuke is your ace in the hole so to speak.
Ooops 
Iran’s not peaceful? How many wars have they started? They’re all bluff and no bite, Israel SHOULD take their word that their nukes are peaceful. Having them will make sure of that. With nukes, they can be assured that they won’t be invaded by some stupid neocon government out to prove a point. I hope Iran gets nukes so this daily will-they-or-won’t-they cat-and-mouse game will finally come to an end.
I strongly suspect that Israel knows more about Iran’s weapons programs than most. Mainly from sources on the ground. Every so often someone gives the USA etc a hint of where to look.
While Israel does have a track record of bombing perceived threats, eg: the N. Korean unidentified ‘thing’ in Syria and the arms convoy recently bombed in Sudan, they also have other approaches - like what happened to the Supergun and its Belgian inventor.
Iran could get at Israel using unconventional means, and Israel could go in for some pre-emptive retalliation using equally (or more) unconventional means. Personally I think that is quite likely - when you see signs of someone planning an airborne bombing raid, that is the time to worry about a ‘known unknown’.
Although it’s a fictional account, Frederick Forsyth’s The Fist of God opens with the story of Gerry Bull and makes a very compelling case that he was not, repeat not, assassinated by the Israelis:
-The projects he was working on at the time (artillery, rockets and the supergun) were not a threat to Israel.
-The people who killed him were observed by witnesses following him around. Mossad Kidon teams are invisible.
-Bull loved to discuss his work and had never heard of the term discretion. If the Israelis (whom he liked and got along well with) challenged him about one of his projects, he’d go into great detail about exactly what the challenges were and how he was going to overcome them. He gave this intelligence upon request and for free.
-Israel apparently has a policy of warning an industrialist to knock it off if their work is seen as a threat (In the recent Gaza war, Israel did the “roof knock” on the homes of actual terrorists so this doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to me).
It seems much more likely that he was killed by the Iraqis to prevent him from talking about the work he was doing on their behalf.