A report published today in Britain’s Sunday Times says that the ability of Iran to move much of its nuclear program into hardened mountainside bunkers has already rendered it invulnerable to conventional air attack. This account relies on western intelligence and defense sources that may be intent on deterring an Israeli attempt to forestall Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But given the obvious difficulties involved in any such attack, especially with the more slender military resources available to Israel than the United States, it could be correct. According to the story, that leaves Israel with only two options: use its own nukes to destroy the site or deploy ground troops to Iran. Needless to say, neither is a realistic option for Israel.
While skepticism about any such story is in order, it does raise a couple of important questions. One is whether the reason for these Western intelligence leaks is behind an effort not so much to stop an Israeli strike as to prevent action by the West should President Obama need to use force to make good on his promise not to allow an Iranian nuke on his watch. It also places speculation about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s alleged order in 2010 to raise its alert level in preparation for a possible attack on Iran is a slightly different context. While that action has been depicted as reckless by some and even interpreted as a cynical attempt to provoke an Iranian attack on Israel or the West, if it is now too late to stop Iran perhaps Netanyahu’s concern was well placed. Just as important, it could be that the complacence exhibited by those in the security establishment in Israel that opposed any thought of action was far from wise. The same could be said about the conviction that still prevails in Washington that takes it as a given that there is still plenty of time to wait until decisions have to be made about the threat.
The American defense establishment has been eager to spread the idea that a strike on Iran is a bad idea because it would only delay rather than completely end the Iranian nuclear program. That is a foolish argument, since even a few years’ delay could buy Israel and the West the time it needs to pursue other options. It also fails to take into account the fact that an Iran that is devastated by effective economic sanctions that amount to a complete embargo (as opposed to the loosely enforced sanctions that are currently failing to persuade Tehran that it is in its interests to give up its nuclear ambitions) would probably not be able to afford to reconstruct its nuclear facilities.
Yet if it is now too late for Israel to stop Iran from the air, it is also entirely possible that the same will eventually be true for the United States, which is no more willing to launch a ground operation in Iran than is Israel (the nuclear option mentioned by the Sunday Times is one that neither country could choose so it is not even worth discussing). That means even in the unlikely event that the Obama administration or its European partners were ever to declare that diplomacy with Iran had definitively failed, there may be no path available to make good on President Obama’s promise to stop Iran from going nuclear on his watch.
Even if it really is too late for Israel to strike, given the strength of American air and naval aviation resources available to use against Iran in the region that may not be true of a U.S.-led effort. But the troubling aspect of these leaks is the impression it gives of a Western military and security establishment that is determined at all costs to influence its own political leadership to back away from confrontation with Iran.
President Obama has specifically and repeatedly disavowed any intention of being willing to “contain” a nuclear Iran. He also pledged in the last of the presidential debates that any possible compromise with Tehran must involve that country giving up its “nuclear program” and not just agreeing to a compromise about the storage of enriched uranium that might enable them to evade the restrictions and, like North Korea, obtain a weapon. But unless he sets some red lines about diplomacy, there is no chance to convince the Iranians that he is serious or that there will be any consequences for them in continuing to prevaricate with the West.
Many in Washington and the capitals of Europe seem to agree with French President Hollande, who is reported to have described Netanyahu as “obsessed with Iran.” That’s an odd way to describe the leader of a country whose existence is threatened by the possibility of an Islamist dictatorship getting the ability to make good on their threats. But given the Iranian success in making fools of Western diplomats and the eagerness with which the Western defense establishment seeks to downplay the chances of doing something about the problem, it’s hard to blame Netanyahu for being obsessed.
It was too late many many months ago when Obama clearly reached a quiet backdoor detente with Iran. In exchange for them not going nuclear before the election he agreed to do whatever he could to run cover for them. Once Iran goes nuclear mid 2013, Obama will declare that since there's nothing to be done about it, 'talking" is clearly the only path forward. Chris Matthews will practically have an orgasm on camera extolling The One's great wisdom and of course state a point blank lie that Obama forcefully prevented those Evil Jews from attacking Iran. n nAnd with a nuclear Iran the US will once and for all completely vacate the entire mideast and west Asia for good. Islamoinsanity will be on the march and Obama will adopt a David Cameron role of being the nations top weapons dealer to the Sunni Arab states. He'll dial back our armed forces massively and throw the whole instability over to the Arabs to mismanage. Sometime before the beginning of the 2014 campaign season Obama will drop Israel as an ally and partner in the region and will push for an end to all aid to Israel and will stop supporting Israel in the UN. He's clearly switched sides to Turkey.
Well, Israel will still have its nukes. They may or may not always share Mr. Tobin's assessment of natural law and Israeli interest .
Inshallah. n nHowever, Obama sold himself to the Pritzkers years ago.
The use of Atomic weapons is a tragic last option. It was taken in WWII and this saved perhaps millions of lives, both Japanese and American – and possibly mine as well.. If Iran has an option to use such weapons, then all is lost. The sooner we, the US and/or Israel use that option, the more lives will be saved and the sooner, as opposed to perhaps never, a sort of peace may begin to show itself in the world.
Who knows perhaps advances in computers, science, and technology, could lead to a nuclear weapon whose release of energy is modulated and less geologically and geographically catastrophic than our current stockpile. Or, the use of nukes in an uninhabited portion of Iran could serve as a diversionary part of an integrated attack involving suppressing air and rocket fire and the insertion of a ground force. n nBut, we have to recognize that the Israeli defense and security establishment *is* complacent and their fallback position may well be that deterrence and containment of a nuclear weaponized Iran is possible and rational given the ability of electronic and other monitoring of the state at any time of their launch or no launch decisions.
EMP burst over Iran, followed by conventional attack on a blinded enemy. This is perhaps the only option. Who knows. n nObama and Bush dithered, and held back Israel for 8 years, and the Israelis allowed themselves to be held back.This is what comes of 'trusting to Princes'.
But if Israel's security establishment does not believe that pre-emption is critical, they are the princes living in the Land.
it was said that all was lost when the Soviets got such weapons…and said again when the Chinese did. n nIran having them would be pretty darn bad, but not instantly fatal
It's no more "too late" to stop Iran than it was in 2010 or 2008 or 2000. they had tje capacity to do everything then that they're doing now and didn't newly develop the ability to tunnel out bunkers in and under mountains. n nit's far, far easier now to stop them because we've spent the last four years rebuilding the credibility and world support that we frittered away by lying about Iraq.
“The obsession,” in my opinion, is the effort by the West to think of every way possible to avoid stopping Iran and to concentrate on faulting Israel. Additionally, I think the West uses the term “obsession” in order to characterize Israel as being unreasonable and irrational, which is charateristic of my classifying the West as “obessed” with avoiding stopping Iran and somehow always blaming Israel. A lethal obsession by the West, in my view.
". . . Too Late to Stop Iran?" NOT AT ALL! n n To say, as Tobin does, that a non conventional strike is not a realistic option, is false. n nIt is the only realistic option. n nThe mullahs need to be given an ineluctable choice and hard consequences. Hand over all of your HEU, your nuclear triggers, your implosion lenses, your weapon design, your thousands of centrifuges, raze your centrifuge production facilities, and make yourself fully transparent to the IAEA. n n If not that, then evacuate your nuclear facilities because they will be struck within 24 hours, either by conventional or nuclear war heads, several times if necessary. n nThat is the most responsible solution. Unacceptable is a new Holocaust. Resorting to the weapon which alone can reach and destroy deeply buried facilities crafting a nuclear arsenal dedicated to genocide, is appropriate and sane. Especially since, if the evacuation warning is heeded, no one need die. n nThose responsible for this drastic resort are – n nu25cf President Ahmadinejad: “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury… Our dear Imam [Ruhollah Khomeini] ordered that this Jerusalem-occupying regime [Israel] must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement… Soon this stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable.” n u25cf Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “Iran’s position…is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region… the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.” n u25cf Former president Rafsanjani: “The employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but would only do damage to the Islamic World. It is not unreasonable to consider this possibility.” n u25cf Maj.-Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards : “With God’s help the time has come for the Zionist regime’s death sentence.” n u25cf Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Revolutionary Guards : “In the near future, we will witness the destruction of the cancerous microbe Israel.” n nSuch a course will safeguard the world against future, illegal attempts to achieve nuclear weapons.It will free the Arabs from the illusion that Israel need not be accepted as a permanent reality. It will substantiate the Jew's vow, Never Again.