I am trying, and failing, to follow the logic of this “news analysis” (read: editorial) by New York Times reporter William Broad in the Sunday paper. In it, he argues, citing “a surprising number of scholars and military and arms-control experts” (six by my count), that “a strike could actually lead to Iran’s speeding up its efforts, ensuring the realization of a bomb and hastening its arrival.” Therefore, he suggests, an Israeli or American attack on Iran would result in the very thing we most want to avoid: a nuclear Iran.
But wait: Is there any reason to think that, absent a strike, Iran won’t get nuclear weapons anyway? In fact, all the evidence suggests that, despite all of the international opprobrium and sanctions Iran has suffered, it remains hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon and could well be past the point of no return by next spring. Is Broad actually arguing that Iran will get a nuke sooner if the U.S. or Israeli attack its nuclear installations? That seems unlikely. While experts debate how long a strike will set back the Iranian program, I have never heard anyone suggest that air strikes would have no effect at all on Iran’s ability to manufacture nukes.
Not even Broad makes such an indefensible claim, although that would have to be the case for the logic of his article to hold together. The most he can say with any degree of plausibility is that, in the wake of air strikes, Iran may well redouble its efforts to rebuild its nuclear capacity. That may very well be true, although the record of the only two air strikes ever taken against nascent nuclear facilities–Israel’s attack on an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and on a Syrian reactor in 2007–does not support Broad’s assertion. Neither Iraq nor Syria has come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon after those attacks. Iraq was still not there even a decade later when it fought the U.S. and its allies in the Gulf War. Granted, Iran’s facilities are more dispersed, advanced, and hardened than those in Syria and, therefore, harder to take out, but Iran too would suffer a serious setback if its installations were bombed. By contrast North Korea, which was not bombed (even though the Clinton administration seriously debated doing so), acquired nuclear weapons. So did Pakistan, which also wasn’t bombed. Those are all examples that Broad, however, omits from his unconvincing editorial.
It is true that no air strikes could eradicate the Iranian nuclear program forever, but it remains a matter of speculation what Iran would do in the wake of such strikes. It may well try to restart the nuclear program–or maybe it would figure there was no point because of the probability of another round of air strikes. The air strikes might also cause the Iranian people to rally around the regime as Broad suggests–or they may undermine the aura of the regime’s invincibility that the rulers count upon to cow the ruled. No one knows. The only thing we do know is that if we do nothing the odds are very high that Iran will go nuclear. That, to my mind, is the worst-case scenario.
I cringe a little whenever anyone cites the NY Times for anything. It is a totally unreliable, biased politically, bigoted religiously, and incompetent journalistic rag.
Well, if you're a member of the 1% summer in the Hamptons set, it works. Sadly, the purveyors of the carriage trade don't wish to fill up those glossy pages anymore, leaving the New York Times to seek out a new market, perhaps left-wing Millennials, who, Facebook insists, will respond in Pavlovian bursts of tail wagging to ad pitches by "friends"–well, customized pop-up ads targeted to social networks. Wall Street isn't buying the pitch so far any more than advertisers are propping up the Times, but you never know. From personal experience, buzz marketers insisting you try the latest xerox of a xerox alt-country-Japanese-post-punk-psychedelic band also enthusiastically push the Times, so there may be life left in the old gal yet.
The Hell's Angels and the Outlaws summer in the Hamptons? nOh, sorry; wrong 1%.
Of course, Netanyahu and his acolytes have been claiming an Iranian nuke was imminent since 1992. The proverbial broken clock was right twice a day. n nNot to say the Iranians aren't building a nuke, but it's hard to trust a usually unreliable source.
Amazing how little support you are willing to offer when promulgating shameless lies. nAs you say, it is hard to trust a usually unreliable source.
Who are we to believe – the Mossad and CIA intelligence estimates that say that Iran does not have the capability to make nuclear weapons and has no program to do so or shameless politicians who lie as a matter of course? Whatever you do – don't believe the evidence, believe the politicians who lie for a living. As George W. Bush would say "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice … won't get fooled again."
Repeat, anti-Semitism makes grown men ignorant. Not just Bibi. Not just acolytes. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.S. intelligence community de facto, Europe, etc. But anti-Semitism forces men who could otherwise reason, to concentrate on the maleficence of the Jews and construct their world view from that wrong end of the telescope–so all the world's problems come down to a tiny constricted circle of Zionists somewhere. n nNo, there is a near universal consensus that the behavior en toto of the Iranians, including their testing of nuclear triggers and purchase of components for nuclear weapons systems, is that the Iranians are going for nukes. What is not consensus is whether anything need be done about it. n nYour own self-broken clock periodically goes cuckoo cuckoo but twice a day accuracy rate would be a step up.
Why bomb railroad tracks and concentration camps? It will just kill the people we are trying to save, and make the Germans even more determined to kill their victims.
Presumably, then, the NYTimes would enthusiastically argue for a nuclear pre-emptive strike, since Tehran's efforts would most definitely waaay "slow down" after that. Those reluctant to state their true argument for appeasement or convenience play the knocked-down argument on blowback.
There is a consensus on three aspects of the Iran nuclear issue:
● Permitting Iran a nuclear arsenal is out of the question. Even President Obama affirms that much.
● Israeli aircraft alone, can NOT be sure of substantially destroying Iran’s nuclear installations. Let alone shake the mullah’s determination.
● The administration has been delaying, diluting and even undermining tough economic sanctions. An Obama who cannot bring himself to be rough on Iran with non-violent measures is unlikely to go to war with her.
Denied US help, unable to mount an effective air campaign on her own, what is Israel to do? She will either have to submit to mullahs with feverish fingers on a red button, which means extinction, or reach for her one means of effectively destroying those nuclear facilities now.
Give Iran half a day’s warning to bring her people out of those those underground facilities, and then attack them with Israel’s deep penetration bombs followed by nukes delivered via her very accurate Jericho II missiles. Iranian and Israeli casualties will be far lower than the costs of a conventional fight.
The world’s fury will of course be horrendous, Israel will be boycotted, ostracized, reviled, targeted by terrorists, etc., but no less will happen after a conventional strike.
In short, in for a penny, in for a pound. She might as well do it in a way that solves the problem.
There is a consensus on three aspects of the Iran nuclear issue: n n u25cf Permitting Iran a nuclear arsenal is out of the question. Even President Obama affirms that much. n n u25cf Israeli aircraft alone, are unlikely to substantially destroy Iran's nuclear installations. Let alone shake the mullah's determination. n n u25cf The administration has been delaying, diluting and even undermining tough economic sanctions. An Obama who cannot bring himself to be rough on Iran with non-violent measures is unlikely to go to war with her. n nDenied US help, unable to mount an effective air campaign on her own, what is Israel to do? She will either have to submit to mullahs with feverish fingers on a red button, which means extinction, or reach for her one means of effectively destroying those nuclear facilities now. n nGive Iran half a day's warning to bring her people out of those those underground facilities, and then attack them with Israel's deep penetration bombs followed by nukes delivered via her very accurate Jericho II missiles. It will cost fewer Iranian and Israeli lives than a conventional fight. n nThe world's fury will of course be horrendous, Israel will be boycotted, ostracized, reviled, targeted by terrorists, etc., but no less will happen after a conventional strike. n nIn short, in for a penny, in for a pound. She might as well do it in a way that solves the problem.
Excellent analysis. Not certain that the half day's notice is needed or even desirable. The people leaving the nuclear facilities are just the ones who may have the capability to start it all over. Also, the deep penetration bombs would probably not be needed. Finally, at least one nuke landing on Qom, the home of the insane religious leaders sounds like a very good idea.