The Gathering Storm
04.04.2008 - 9:41 AMIf Iran continues with its nuclear-weapons program, and Israel takes the decision to strike before the ayatollahs acquire an actual bomb, what would be the likely timing of an Israeli action?
We have asked that question here before, and noted that Iran was acquiring long-range, highly advanced surface-to-air missiles, the Russian SA-20, that would greatly complicate an aerial assault. Since the missiles will start becoming operational this fall, Israel would be under pressure to act before or around that time.
An additional factor in the Israeli calculation might well be the U.S. elections. The Israelis would have good reason to believe that the U.S. under George W. Bush would be more supportive of their action than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, both of whom might have serious reservations about the use of force.
John McCain, who has said that the only thing worse than a U.S. strike on Iran would be an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, would obviously be more sympathetic to Israel’s position. But the Israelis can hardly count on his victory in the presidential contest. Waiting until after the U.S. elections would seem to add risk to risk.
Which brings us to the news that Israel’s security cabinet yesterday authorized the distribution of gas masks to its entire population. The last such distribution came just before the U.S. attack on Iraq four years ago.
What does the decision mean?
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
April 4th, 2008 at 10:20 AM
It would make a lot more sense for Israel to launch this strike than America. Israel is already at war with Iran on two fronts - Hamas and Hezebollah. Given that Israel is already at war with Iran, one wonders what additional warlike measures Iran will take. Will Hezebollah and Hamas attack? This would be a blessing in disguise in a way, because it would allow Israel to decimate these organizations without restraint.
Israel is in far more danger from Iran’s nuclear weapons than America. Unfortunately, America could conduct these strikes more effectively than Israel. It will be interesting, and somewhat terrifying, to find out what happens over the coming months.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:27 PM
What does the decision mean?
That Ahmadinejad had better review where his local air-raid shelter is?
April 4th, 2008 at 1:10 PM
“Waiting until after the U.S. elections would seem to add risk to risk.”
I am adamantly convinced that Israel must strike Iran before the elections in the United States. The possibility of a dishonest pacifist Democrat residing in the White House will almost certainly prove disastrous. Today’s Democrats are the progeny of the isolationists who unwittingly helped Adolph Hitler gain power. Deep in their guts, they believe that military violence is never really justified. One merely needs to acquire further training in soft power techniques. Democrats are especially unwilling to confront evil committed by dark skinned individuals. These people are deemed to be legitimately enraged by our imperialist policies of the past. Being nice to them and offering reparations should be sufficient to turn them into warm and cuddly pacifists.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Israel will turn 60 this year. This is (and should be) a cause for celebration!
How deeply disturbing it is therefore, that after 60-years, this neighborhood is far from safe and Israel is far from secure.
The world is a dangerous place: How many cyclotrons does Iran have operational, now?
The threat is real, I agree totally.
Is war or continued diplomacy the solution?
The Israelis have so much at risk that any miscalculation of strategy or tatics could prove devestating for Israel.
I just don’t believe that distributing gas masks to the civilian population is a sign of anything, except paranoid behavior. What type of security will gas masks provide the Israelis?
How could nuclear disarmament ever become an achievable goal in the Middle East?
Would Israel be more or less secure if an intermediary Sunni power, such as Saudi Arabia acquired the bomb? (They could just buy one, you know.)
Would the Iranians risk nuclear brinkmanship in the Region, if there were a Sunni Islamic atomic bomb to deal with in close range?
We should believe the threats Iran makes against Israel. No hiding our heads in the sand! Never again, 1938!
What on earth are the Iranian wisemen thinking of when they call for taking on a very heavily armed nuclear Israeli? It is a complete mismatch–with Israel, fortunately, so much stronger and more powerful than Iran.
The war-like braggadaccio of on-line posters notwithstanding, Israel is the super power in the Middle East with a good ally, the hyper-super-power, the USA.
I agree the Persians have a vision of empire building. That vision will be very short-lived if Israel really thought there were a chance it would be the target of Iran’s “baby Shi’a Islamic bomb”–once Iran can actually produce a weapon, of course.
Put aside for a moment the domestic political denunciations and calumny of the presidential campaign. Ask yourself, “Is the West really going to war–conventional or nuclear, with Iran, if it aquires an atomic weapon?
History shows that the likely reaction will be “quarantine the country.” With nuclear missiles at our door steps during the Cuban missle crisis, the US did not launch an invasion of the Island or bomb Havana. The powers found a back door out of the crisis.
At the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, I can’t believe there isn’t a back door to open, somewhere.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Iran is nothing more than a serogate for the strategic energy interests of Comminist China and its other energy supplier the “emerging Communist” Russia.
Iran is becomming another North Korea but with energy clout.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:18 PM
The gas mask distribution may also be in anticipation of terrorist threats that Israel has intelligence on — threats that may emanate from the direction of Syria and Lebanon as well as the Palestinian Arabs. The Israelis learned long ago that boresighting on one threat was a ticket to disaster. (Their leaders don’t always remember the lesson with the same promptitude of access to memory.)
The Israelis have virtually zero history of trying to influence events with disinformation (hard as Seymour Hersh has tried to generate a myth along those lines). We can confidently suppose, at least, that they have a valid reason for distributing gas masks.
Two other assessments we can make are the following:
1. Since an Israeli strike would effectively be a one-shot strike, it would be limited to the very highest-value targets. Israel has the airpower to conduct more comprehensive strikes, but it would still not be possible to do so given the geography and time factor. Israel will get off, at most, 2-3 waves of strikers before neighboring countries begin scrambling in response, and threatening to shoot Israeli aircraft down. Israel can’t conduct this operation over multiple days, as the US could.
2. Israel’s ability to effectively attack the underground elements of the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is not the equal of America’s, nor could it be done with the small number of visits Israeli strikers could make to the target. A full Natanz takedown would require more sorties than Israel can get through to it, even if effective “bunker-busting” bombs could be employed. Attacking the reactor at Bushehr has its own problems, since it is a live reactor. Taking it down and rendering it inoperable would be an appropriate job for special forces, and something Israel is well capable of, however.
Whatever Israel is able to do will be a temporary “fix,” one that Iran can recover from by buying more stuff. The key difference between an Israeli strike and a US attack is the message sent to Russia and China regarding the advisability of helping Iran reconstitute its nuclear program. A robust US attack would give everyone pause. Unfortunately, an Israeli attack won’t. This isn’t Osirak. The genie is already out of the bottle in Iran. With this problem, what is needed is comprehensive destruction, the warning that would be to Iran’s enablers, and the implied promise that there will be more to come if Tehran doesn’t change course substantially.
Given the scope of the “thump” that needs to be put on Iran, to effectively suppress her nuclear ambitions – with some hope of permanence – I am hard put to disdain any Israeli planners who might question the utility of making their maximum effort. If they do decide to do it, though: Godspeed.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:24 AM
As was implied in the post, Israel would distribute gas masks no matter who might attack Iran, since the Iranians could still bomb Israel for propaganda reasons, as Saddam did in 1991. Since this is effectively a tip-off to Teheran, it’s also a form of psychological warfare. Given all the regional, international and tactical issues involved, I still doubt the US would leave this mission to the IAF. The Sunnis, in particular, don’t want A’jad scoring points by making it a purely Israeli thing. I’m guessing a NATO-style operation is far more likely.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:08 AM
With due respect to my fellow bloggers I beg to differ. No country in the West has the fortitude to mount such a strike to cripple the Iranian nuclear activities. The USA are in the throes of an economic morass, the EU is just talk and no action. Maybe we should send Jimmy Carter to Tehran to negotiate with the mullahs.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I second Richard’s proposal to send Jimmy Carter, provided only that the Iranians keep him.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:26 AM
What does it mean? It means that it is once again up to Israel to do the West’s dirty work.