Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal has a column today asking whether Israel can bomb Iran. He writes:
Put simply, an Israeli strike on Iran would not just be a larger-scale reprise of the attacks that took out Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syria’s in 2007. On the contrary: If it goes well it would look somewhat like the Six-Day War of 1967, and if it goes poorly like the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Nobody should think we’re talking about a cakewalk.
While many proponents of a military strike draw parallels to Israel’s strike against the Iraqi reactor in 1981, or its attack on the Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, Stephens is correct to note that the Iranian situation is far different, but he doesn’t go far enough: Even if Israeli pilots managed to fly into Iran with surprise, they will not be able to fly out with surprise once they drop their ordnance. This means that, even before Israeli planes can strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, they would have to strike enemy airfields, surface-to-air missile batteries, command and control centers, and radars. Multiple planes would then strike at the same target to better ensure success. In short, this could mean more than 1,000 sorties. Certainly, Israel has submarines and unmanned drones, but these alone will not suffice.
Too often, discussion about a military strike revolves around the bunker buster issue. This is not a make-or-break issue. While Iran has buried facilities under mountains—not the usual stuff of a civilian energy program—it would suffice to destroy the entrances or exits to such facilities. Israel timed its strike on Osirak to pre-empt the loading of nuclear fuel into the reactor. Iran’s centrifuges are already spinning, so if Israel collapses entrances to the mountain facility, Greenpeace should dance a hora of joy.
Stephens is correct that a strike would likely delay Iran’s nuclear program. Such a strike would come at a high cost, though experts can debate the length of the delay. In all likelihood, it would not equate to the setback suffered by Saddam Hussein in Iraq, whose own missteps in Kuwait contributed to further sanctions and war, extending the delay beyond Israel’s wildest dreams. Still, the real question for policymakers is what plans are in place to take advantage of such a delay. Ultimately, until policymakers are willing to discuss the real problem—not Iran’s potential nuclear weapons but the regime which would wield them—there will be no lasting solution.
Under the circumstances, delay is victory. The Tehran Regime is shaky at best as Barry Rubin and Michael Ledeen point out from time to time. There is a very real possibility that the Regime could be toppled by covert assistance to pro-democracy forces within Iran. But that will take some time. n nEven a limited strike on Iran would at least give more time for a new President to take office and pursue a much more aggressive strategy of replacing the Regime with a pro-Western one. That is the ultimate goal. Nuclear weapons are a fact of 21st Century life. That Genie will not go back into the bottle, but the West must do all to ensure that nukes are not held by hostile, unstable and irrational regimes. It was bad enough that Clinton allowed North Korea and Pakistan to obtain nukes. The West cannot afford to add the Mullahs to the Club.
A nuclear attack by Israel could take out Iran's nuclear capability for decades. This is not contrary to the stated Israeli policy of not being the first to use such weapons. Iran has already declared a war of annihilation against Israel and is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. Also Iran has been in active war with the U.S. and the west since 1979. Atomic bombs ended the war with Japan and saved perhaps hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives. It could do the same with Iran. Better to do it first before Iran's murderous leaders try it.
So, what is the justification for Israel "nuking" Iran? By your logic, we should go around nuking anybody we don't like? It is utterly stupid. Even Panetta and Barak said Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Do you have your own intelligence agency that tells you differently? Also, Iran has not made any threats against anyone, even against Israel. Please don't tell me that you are so ignorant that you still believe that nonsense about "wiping out Israel," which was a mis-translation of a single sentence in 2005. How long are you going to carry on this farce?
This idiot, Quint…, is indeed totally asleep. Or more likely an insane Arabist.
The idiot is the one who does not add anything meaningful to the discussion. You comment is like a dog who just barks. No brains.
The logic behind blocking entrances via bombs eludes me. n n nLets assume that a nation capable of developing nuclear weapon technology can … operate bulldozers. Whoa! Who wudda thunk it? n nAnd? Oh, they remove the rubble. Very patiiently for …. a week? two weeks? a month? n nThe Russians send an engineering team to help, maybe the Chinese; sensing weakness the Russians and the Chinese form an ad hoc alliance to run diplomatic interfernce and Iran makes it nuclear weapons program … overt. Oh, we were only developing energy to give medical isotopes to widows and orphans but now yadda yadda. n nAnd then what? n nit's like the whole logic is….well, we have to go to war. but we can't do that. oh no, and not that. so, well do this thiing over here which somehow turns out to be air power. n nIf you strike the king, kill the king. n nOtherwise things can get awfully worse quickly. n nbut why nukes only? Maybe Israel could crash the sun into Tehran. That would show them. n nthe world is mad. n n n
All this talk about Israel bombing Iran is utterly stupid. There is absolutely no valid reason for such an attack. Iran has not attacked another country for 300 years at least and has made no threats against any country, including the apartheid and racist country of Israel. All this nonsense about Iran wanting to "wipe out Israel" was based on a mis-translation of a single sentence in 2005., How long can these crazy people drag on this farce. n nThere is zero evidence that Iran is building nukes. The recent IAEA report was a farce, a work of fiction based on forged documents. Yukiya Amano, the head of IAEA, is a US stooge as WikiLeaks showed in the leaks of US diplomatic e-mails. So, Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs and the US has more than 5,000. Yet, these two want to deny Iran even a civilian nuclear program. The audacity and hypocrisy of these two terrorist states and bullies of the international scene is unbelievable.
I repeat, 'This idiot, Quint…, is indeed totally asleep. Or more likely an insane Arabist.' Putting this tripe on the net is the equivalent of 'hacking'.
Another brainless grunt. You certainly are adding to the discussion here.
Are you still barking?
" Iran has not attacked another country for 300 years at least and has made no threats against any country". Quinty, what have you been smoking ? Iran and Iraq clobbered each other in the 1980s, killing around 1 million people among themselves. The Iranians who you think are so enlightened used to send children through minefields on their way to their deaths. These kids had a plastic key around their necks, guaranteeing them entrance to heave. Iran is peaceful ? They prop up Hizballah and Hamas, and continue stirring up trouble in Iraq. You probably think its all a forgery like you think about the IAEA report. No doubt you think the moon landing was a fake and 9/11 was a Zionist conspiracy.
Talk about ignorance. Iraq attacked Iran unprovoked with the help of the US and France. And, you are blaming Iran. Unbelievable. So, you expect them to just lie down and be slaughtered? n nEverything you say is based on hot air. Do you know the difference between facts and speculation? Hezbollah and Hamas are NOT terrorists, while Israel is a terrorist state. OK, when was the last time that Hamas sent a suicide bomber to Israel? Do you know? Also, how many Israelis have been killed or injured by Hamas rockets during the last 12 years? Let's have some facts here, please.
An Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear program would mean war between Iran and Israel indefinitely. Warmongers love war. These days, most warmongers seem to love to hate Iran. Having forgotten that it was Iran that rescued Jews from annihilation 2,500 years ago, although it may be irrelevant today, since war is about Israel distracting the world about its atrocities against Palestinians and its Apartheid in Gaza. I had no doubt that Iraq invasion of 2003 would cause irreparable damages and look at U.S. today, after $1 trillion war expenses. Israel will pay dearly and it will now add to its list of haters, Iranian people. Don't be surprised if you see ordinary Iranians start to kill Jews everywhere around the planet. You will have another war that will last 1,000 years. All these warmongering by neocons in U.S. will kill American boys and girls so the parasites like Michal Ladeen can such blood to sooth his vampire desires for world domination. Iranian people will go after Jews everywhere around the world. Be warned. But of course, you will happily ignore that. As a jew, I have been called a "self-hating jew" many times. Now I believe that the state of Israel is the cancer on earth that has caused more bloodshed, more hate, more wars, and more demonization of countries and people than anything else i can imagine in history. Why do so many Jews have to suffer for the few that want to rule the world and benefit from stealing the Palestinian land?
Another lying anti-Semitic 'hacker'. I guess this comment section is dead.
Yep. Jane Lemey, you are despicable.
Ahyes. The 'stolen palestinian land' meme. The original 'sin' , the 'settled' narrative that is not amenable or permissable to review. The great canon that unifies the left with islamics whose worldview the left would otherwise find abhorent . n n nNext time we Jews decide to 'steal' some land, I suggest we consider northeast 'saudi' arabia (we can call it 'BaumBergSteinOwitzky Arabia'), or perhaps the smaller family based country called 'kuwait'. More oil . . . n n
Not your best, besht2003. The question is NOT whether Israel can "kill the king". It cannot, ever. By your logic, then, Israel should not ever strike. The real question is whether a strike will materially improve Israel's status as a regional superpower, tip the balance of power in its favor and enhance the perception of its power in the eyes of its neighboring states and non state actors. A convincing case can be made that a strike, even of moderate success, would accomplish those things, and therefore should be undertaken, soon.
The problem with this discussion and why I don't engage this issue is because I have so little of the knowledge requisite to even begin to know what I'm talking about. Presuming Israel can effectively strike a pre-nuclear Iran to hobble its program, then there is room for rational debate on the question of whether it should. But analyzing the military pros and cons by arm chair generals who don't really know what they're talking about is beyond foolish.
Don't worry, most of the people writing here are in the same boat.
This is not about political considerations or politically correct considerations. n nA nuclear Iran means the end of Israel. It also means the end of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. n nIt means an Iranian monopoly on oil, and $10 a gallon oil. n nThat is why the world will huff and pufff and in private thank Israel for de fanging the mad Ayotolahs.