While Iraq crashes and burns, attention now shifts to Iran and its suspected near-term acquisition of weapons-grade uranium/plutonium. Israel has long stated that it would not allow Iran to possess a nuclear arsenal, has a track record of aggressively neutralizing perceived nuclear threats (read Iraq), has just purchased several hundred US-made bunker-busting bombs, and now possesses a new & improved Patriot missile system (and possibly leading-edge advances along this line).
What’s clear is that Iran is no Iraq, is ruled by rabid anti-Israeli fanatics, has a long record of funding international terrorism, and has a vast arsenal of medium-range missiles, nerve agents and biologic weapons.
Given Iran’s missile force, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that Israel would have to neutralize Iran’s ability to stage a crushing missile counterattack, as part of an overall offensive? It seems likely that Iran’s missile forces are on 24/7 alert, for any signs of suspicious Israeli activity. Knowing they must launch before losing their missiles, the result might be a hairtriggered Iran. The implications for Israel, should several dozen of these highly accurate medium range missiles leave the silo, aren’t appealing.
So, where are things headed, should Israel effectively wage war against Iran?
An extremely messy conflict, ultimately unresolved, with high loss of civilian life, the bulk of losses due to the retaliatory use of Israeli-launched nuclear weapons if Iran does launch chemical or biological-tipped missiles, but probably not drawing other countries into the fray directly. Sorry I can’t be more optimistic.
•Iranian agents infiltrate the Browns Ferry nuclear plant and trigger a meltdown in reactor two.
•The president gives a stirring speech in which he labels the attackers ‘terrorists’.
•Many Americans believe him, but the rest of the world laughs at us and says cruel things like ‘sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’.
•Such tatters of international law as yet exist are cast into the dustbin of history.
What makes anyone think the Iranian nuclear facilities can be bombed? My understanding is that the Iranians have gone to great lengths to build a nuclear program that is distributed, hidden, and co-located with the civilian population. They may be fanatics, but they aren’t stupid. They saw what happened to Iraq.
I think the big elephant in the room here is the fact that we may not be able to do a damned thing about their program, short of invasion. Perhaps severe economic sanctions or even a blockade (which is an act of war). I could see things coming to that. I sure hope not.
But my prediction is that if Iran is allowed to have the Bomb, a nuclear bomb will be detonated somewhere in the world, probably in the Middle East, within twenty years.
I think a probable consequence would be for Iran to invade Iraq. Given the turmoil in Iraq, the Shiites would flock over to Iran.
Of course Iran would launch a missile barrage at Israel, probably with chemical and biological weapons if they have them (not to mention nukes) but the Israeli population can most probably weather this. As such, Iran would be looking to strike at Israel in any fashion. Attacking a stretched US peacekeeping force in Iraq may serve this purpose, as Iranians seem to equate the US and Israel. While I don’t see Iran actively using Sunni Palestinian groups against Israel and instead ramping up their use of Hizbullah as a proxy attack force, anything is possible as an Israeli action will almost certainly throw the region into complete turmoil.
Sam, Israel most certainly can bomb Iranian nuclear facilities–though not all of them and not with a high probability of mission success. But their realization that they cannot achieve overwhelming success might not be enough to dissuade them from taking military action, given strategic issues and mounting political pressure for some type of military resolution. (Suffice it to say, diplomatic efforts toward Iran would have the same likelihood of success as those with North Korea: zero.)
The Israelis have repeatedly insinuated their ability to disrupt, if not outright destroy, Iran’s nuclear program. Iran, meanwhile, has made it clear that its program is heavily protected, replicated and distributed, having learning a hard lesson from Iraq.
Doesn’t matter. In the final analysis–and as the clock nears midnight–Israel will feel compelled to take military action, believing that a nuclear Iran (a country with a long track record of anti-Israeli terrorism) would forever destabilize the region and shift the balance of terror. Ultimately, I believe, Israel would have to place their faith in precision-guided weapons and be led by this familiar belief: better to kill Iranian innocents (those in proximity of suspected Iranian nuke sites) than to let a nuclear Iran exact the crushing future blow it has always promised against Israel.
I think Israel is looking both short-term and long. Ultimately, I think the fate of Israel isn’t reassuring. But should Iran get the bomb, the U.S. would have little ability to control the exportation of that technology to other dangerous powers, nation states or not. Hell, the US can’t even control our own borders, or those of Iraq. Trying to stop the exportation of a few disassembled nuclear bombs would be exponentially more difficult and Israel knows this.
What I wonder is if Israel would attack, believing the US would ultimately come to its side. A risky proposition, to be sure.
Iran has stated exactly what it will do if its nuclear facilities are destroyed or targetted by Israel. It will consider itself at war with both Israel and America, and attack American and Israeli forces in the Middle East.
It will probably be a tit-for-tat thing, though. I don’t think anyone, including Iran, will stage a massive invasion of anyone else. Why would Iran invade Iraq? Do they even want it? I can see them firing missiles across the border at American targets in Iraq, and definitely can see them shooting missiles at Israel though. A few of the missiles could be loaded with chemical or biological agents, but I think Iran knows that it needs to be careful about presenting a legitimate face to the world. America, Israel, and now Russia are all foaming at the mouth for an excuse to go after someone, anyone, and it wont take much more than a chemical or biological attack to set them off. If there’s one thing the government of Iran does not want, it’s to fight off an invasion by these three.
Note that there is considerable scope for placing much of the OP against a mirror and asking whether Iran might justifiably feel threatened by Israel’s nuclear weapons.
That’s a good point. Iran’s long history of exporting terror might just leave it facing the Israelis, the U.S. AND the Soviets in a fight, and as fanatical as the Iranian leadership undoubtedly is, that’s gotta be a daunting prospect, even for them. Put the American and Israeli tanks at one border and the Soviet tanks at the other, and Iran starts to look like a meat grinder.
I don’t think anyone is threatened by Israeli nukes, just like nobody would be threatened by American or European ones. Even Indian and Pakistani nukes are not particularly threatening. Iranian and North Korean nukes definitely make me nervous though.
I’m not convinced. I think both North Korea and Pakistan are more likely to launch first strikes with nukes. Iran’s leaders may be a tad fanatical, but they’ve been in power for quite a while now and want to stay their. As you say, they aren’t stupid, and they no doubt understand quite clearly that launching on Israel would mean annihilation, as Israel has lots enough warheads to destroy every major city in Iran, and the means to deliver them.
On the other hand, North Korea is ruled by a bona fide lunatic, and Pakistan’s relatively friendly dictatorship if pushed much further in the “War on Terror” might fall to revolutionary Islamicists, who, unlike those in Iran, wouldn’t have developed the long-term vested interest in staying in power, and would hence be more likely to launch on India after some perceived slight in the Kashmir.
I just don’t see Iranian nukes as that terribly threatening.
What would be a problem, though, is the chance they might sell warheads to someone even less savoury. However, Pakistan already appears to be doing this sort of thing, so it’s not like the problem is contained anyways.
Isn’t it the case, though, that Iran will only be able to build a nuclear weapon when it gets the necessary equipment (the fuel rods?) sometime next year?
And isn’t it the case that said equipment is going to be sold to Iran by Russia?
Why is Russia going ahead with this deal? Do they want a nuclear-armed islamic fundamentalist regime right on their border? Russia and Iran have fallen out before and may do so again, I don’t understand why Russia is helping them get nukes???
Surely it is in Russia’s interest (as much as anyone elses) to avoid nuclear proliferation, especially among hardline theocracies? And it’s not like they don’t have recent experience of the lengths religious nuts will go to to get their way.
Nobody’s looking at the big picture here. The problem is that the whole region is volatile and there are any number of ways a new Iranian-Israeli conflict could spin out of control. There are Arab Shi’ites in southern Iraq and the Northeastern Province of Saudi Arabia who might be thinking, at this point or in the near future, of the possibility of a new Shi’ite state. Which might be allied with Iran – or might not, because there’s also a population of Arab Shi’ites in southwestern Iraq (a region known variously as Arabistan, Khuzestan and Ahwaz) who have at time expressed discontent with rule from Tehran – they might want to join instead with the Arab Shi’ites to their west. Saudi Arabia itself is a dysfunctional state with a discontented, fanatical minority of Wahabbi extremists for whom even the official status of Wahabbism is not enough, so long as the royal family remains as corrupt and decadent as it is; we have had GD threads on the possibility of a revolution in SA, and the consensus is that it is a real possibility, and unlikely to lead to anything other than an Iranian-style theocracy. Add to that the stateless Kurds, who live in northwestern Iran as well as Iraq, Turkey and Syria, and who are just now starting to take seriously the idea that they might win an independent Kurdistan within their lifetimes. Hell, there’s even a national minority nobody pays much attention to, the Balochis, in southeastern Iran and southwestern Pakistan – and the Pakistani Balochis, at least, have made noises about wanting their own independent Balochistan. There’s also a movement for the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan to secede and form a new state of Pashtunistan. If anything happens to unbalance the regional status quo even further, a multi-sided regional war could ensue and it would be impossible to predict, from here and now, how long it would drag on and how it would end. Think Lebanon in the 1980s, on a continental scale, with the possibility of WMDs being used.
Now, do you think an Israeli bombing raid on Iran would not unbalance the status quo? You’re talking about flicking matches at a pool of gasoline.
Most of us have stated as much. That’s the entire point of the thread: the destabilization of the Middle East resulting from an Israeli attack resulting from a nuclear Iran.
Most of us, I believe, are looking at the big picture. That’s what scares the hell out of us.
So, the question becomes, which presents the greater danger of destabilization: Allowing Iran to develop its ostensibly peaceful nuclear-power program as planned – under the eye of IAEA and UN inspectors, which the Irans have allowed and said they will allow – and running the risk that they will somehow manage to produce nuclear weapons without the inspectors finding out; or allowing Israel to bomb their nuclear facilities. My money’s on the latter.