Israel strikes Iran....

[Presley Cannady]

...Israeli aircraft have made their way to Iran and taken out their targets.

What happens next...?

[jcustis]

Rockets resume raining down on the border area, from within Lebanon.

[Zack]

Public dissent within Iran vanishes.

[watchful1]

Iranians lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz

[Schmedlap]

A bunch of unemployed Arabs take to the streets in Mideast cities chanting death to Israel and a bunch of unemployed Americans take to the streets in US cities, holding up placards that blame it on Bush.

[Zack]

Shoot Sunburns and such at tankers

[watchful1]

Financial markets open and oil starts heading towards $100 barrel, insurance rates sky rocket for tanker and cargo ships in the gulf

[Rex Brynen]

I'm not convinced that Hizbullah retaliates on Iran's behalf--it would do the organization political damage in Lebanon to be seen to be acting so clearly at Tehran's best, and so clearly at odds with Lebanese national interests. It might in the event of a sustained Israeli air campaign, rather than a one-off attack.

Israeli embassies (or Jewish community centres) explode? Similar sorts of attacks? Possibly.

Mining the Straits? Very much depends on the size of the strike, and whether it is seen as a one-off or a continued campaign.

Shahb 3s fired at Israel (possibly even at Dimona)? Certainly possible, although they're not likely to hit anything.

Much also depends on whether the US is seen as complicit. In the latter case, we might see sponsored attacks against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly even opening of a major arms/money/logistical pipeline to the Taliban, notwithstanding past Iranian-Taliban (and Shiite/Sunni) differences.

Major commitment of Iranian resources to construct a nuclear weapon, and develop other retaliatory capacities? Fairly likely. Indeed, one of the key arguments against an Israeli strike is that it actually increases the long-term probability of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

[davidbfpo]

Bad news: the mission fails and hits a girls school. Two Israeli pilots are captured and appear on TV. One Israeli plane crashes in Afghanistan and a tanker crashes in Saudi Arabia. Unlikely? Yes, could one scenario happen? Yes.

davidbfpo

[Fuchs]

Iran calls for a condemnation by the UNSC and exposes the U.S. veto as partisanship.

Domestic opposition would likely be much reduced for about two years (not long enough for next election).

Russia would probably be irritated because it's now in the boat for some political pressure for the same goal.

Russian air defence system exports would rise, probably French ones as well.

The CIA will expect additional backlash for the next 20 years, and it may depend on publicized opinions at whom this backlash will be directed.

[slapout9]

3 luxury cruise ships are attacked with guided sea skimming missiles off the coast of Israel. 2 sink 1 is badly damaged. Causalities are huge, long term effect on Israeli tourism is huge.

[tequila]

Would the Iraqis grant overflight privileges for Israeli aircraft?

Now of our two allies, obviously we will choose Israelis over Iraqis, but I wonder at the political consequences in Iraq if (when) we reject an Iraqi request to enforce control of Iraqi airspace to escort Israeli aircraft out of it.

[Bob's World]

King of Saudi Arabia celebrates the news and congratulates himself on his ability to keep his greatest enemy in check through a very sophisticated application of the Indirect Approach; leveraging America's addiction to his oil and their equally mind befuddling degree of support for Israel to continue to manipulate such overt action against Iran without having to get his hands dirty.

Most Americans and Israelis remain oblivious to the subtle manipulations of the Saudis to keep the heat burning between the US and Iran; Similarly the Iranian populace also focuses their anger on the US and Israel as well.

Big winners:
The current government of Iran, as they regain lost ground with their populace; and support of Muslim populaces in general
The Government of Saudi Arabia, as their perception as the "good Arabs" is enhnaced in the West, and their greatest local threat is atritted.
Bin Laden, as his rhetoric receives validation, helping him to gain inroads with frustrated Shia Muslims as well as his primary Sunni audiance.

Normalization between Iran and US is delayed another 10 years; Hezbollah attacks against Israel increase; and Iran ramps up efforts to attain a nuclear capability to prevent this from happening again.

[UrsaMaior]

due to the heavily mined and attacked transport route. Since half China recieves its gas and oil from Iran China would be very upset so to say. If the USA was involved, attacks would multiply on US and NATO forces in A'stan and in Iraq.

Iran joins SCO making it a new anti-USA and anti-western bloc. And a new cold war is already upon us in month or so.

[Ken White]

a giant green octopus swoops from a cloud and gathers them all in its tentacles before heading south...

[Surferbeetle]

a giant green octopus swoops from a cloud and gathers them all in its tentacles before heading south...

Not sure if Ken has been jamming to Metallica's The Call of Ktulu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHyy4a4SVa0) ( Cthulhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu) ) again but as long as we are channeling otherworldy visions how about considering Stephen Walt channeling Hu Jintao (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/21/reading_hu_jintaos_mind):

I do have one lingering concern, however. America's leaders may come to their senses, and go back to the unsentimental realism that guided their rise to greatness in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They might discover what Sun Tzu taught -- "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" -- and stop insisting on bearing all the world's burdens themselves. But then I remember what their foreign policy "debate" is like, and I recall that both Democrats and Republicans seem equally eager to interfere all over the world, and suddenly that danger doesn't seem very great. In fact, the future looks bright."

[watchful1]

UN Security Council convenes in several emergency sessions as oil prices continue to rise. Pressure mounts to clear the Strait of Hormuz and resume cargo shipments.

(Russia benefits as market share of oil continues to grow and prices rise)

[watchful1]

The USS Nimitz CSG with CVW 11 is notified to prepare for operation “right of passage” along with the USS Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) conducting a port visit to Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates.

[Greyhawk]

Sadr (through intermediary) calls for mass demonstrations against the occupier.

Maliki denies aircraft used Iraqi airspace. Oppo groups (don't recall if the new coalition has a name) condemn Maliki. Sadr condemns Maliki. Sadr demos turn out to be smaller than anticipated, but this is downplayed in reports. Somewhere in Iraq a suicide bomber strikes.

Multiple wonks remind all who'll listen they were right - the surge failed. Strategically, that is. They mention we're doing the same thing in Afghanistan.

Seymour Hersh publishes story supporting Schmedlap's point. (This might not be immediate.) Intense coverage thereof neglects his overall track record.

[Greyhawk]

On Fox news Ralph Peters condemns President Obama's slow response within an hour of the first report.

[Uboat509]

The EU falls all over itself to condemn Israel. Russia will be more than happy to take a shot at the US. In the US politicians on the far left will voice outrage at Israel's unbridled aggression, those on the right will voice unconditional support. Everyone else will remain strongly non-committal, at least until the polls show way the public is leaning.

SFC W

[Presley Cannady]

Some questions:

1. A number of members predict Iran increases support for insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we have any estimate of the capacity Iran can bring to bear vis a vis the 2006-7 experience or how quickly she can turn up the dial?

2. Others pointed out the transnational threat posed by terrorist surrogates of iran outside the OEF and OIF theaters. Two part question. Did we see the limits of Hezbollah's reach and strength in the 2006 Lebanon War? What other actors can Iran rely and what capabilities do they bring?

3. How long and how badly can Iran jam up the the Straits of Hormuz?

4. Depending on the answers to the question above, and the likelihood Tehran redoubles its efforts to enrich uranium after an Israeli attack, will the United States have any choice but to sustain combat operations to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear industry?

5. Can the US avert any of the above escalations following an Israeli attack?

[watchful1]

President Obama holds a press briefing stating it is imperative that Iran remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz and calls on Ahmadinejad to restore "unfettered" shipping in the Strait immediately. The Dawlat al-Imārāt al-‘Arabīyah al-Muttaḥidah (in a joint statement) state that the situation is dire. NATO convenes an emergency session.

[Schmedlap]

3. How long and how badly can Iran jam up the the Straits of Hormuz?

Here is a posting that answers that question: http://irangcc.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/can-iran-really-shut-down-hormuz/

Also, I would add another prediction to my earlier post: think tanks begin banging the drum for a counterinsurgency operation in Iran.

[watchful1]

mines may effectively jam up the Straits and their potential should be reconsidered, not many mines need to be laid for insurance companies to see risk...

review....

http://hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org/mines

[watchful1]

Suicide bombers disrupt Zakum oil field and explosions occur along pipelines throughout the UAE.

6 to 7 million barrels a day are now offline.

Within days the Dolphin Project (gas) is severely damaged by a large explosion. It is not immediately clear who carried out the attacks.

[slapout9]

The Plan has already been done...just needs to be updated IMO.

http://www.truthout.org/article/secret-us-air-force-team-perfect-plan-iran-strike

[Dayuhan]

Also, I would add another prediction to my earlier post: think tanks begin banging the drum for a counterinsurgency operation in Iran.

Trying to get my head round that one, and failing... who would the insurgents be? Given that we don't like the Iranian government, why would we want to counter their insurgents, if they had any?

I guess for think tanks anything is possible...

My personal feeling is that the scenario is pretty hypothetical; the Israelis are more likely to rattle that saber than to actually swing it.

[William F. Owen]

...Israeli aircraft have made their way to Iran and taken out their targets.

What happens next...?

Why? Why assume that Iranian nuclear weapons are relevant to Iranian strategic thinking, as opposed to posturing. Take a long cold drink and think about it.

[jcustis]

Perhaps they would do this...if they could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2DP-euH2AE&feature=related

[Dayuhan]

Perhaps they would do this...if they could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2DP-euH2AE&feature=related

Love the comments...

[Schmedlap]

Also, I would add another prediction to my earlier post: think tanks begin banging the drum for a counterinsurgency operation in Iran.
Trying to get my head round that one, and failing... who would the insurgents be? Given that we don't like the Iranian government, why would we want to counter their insurgents, if they had any?
Because think tanks view COIN as the panacea for all national security ills.

[MikeF]

a giant green octopus swoops from a cloud and gathers them all in its tentacles before heading south...

Moammar Gadhafi, the King of Kings of Africa, will ramble on about how that octupus is part of secret joint US-Israel plan to control the world.

[jcustis]

Love the comments...

What was amazing for me was the fact I've been to H-1 thru H-3 airfields during my previous deployments there, and although the coalition bombed them fourth and fifth times over, they are interesting places nonetheless.

[UrsaMaior]

3. How long and how badly can Iran jam up the the Straits of Hormuz?

IIRC a CSIS report (090808_gulfstrategyanalysis maybe?) or a MEMRI one calculated it at maximum one month rising from two weeks in the 1980s. It could last even longer given the significantly decreased anti-mine capability of the world's navies and the fact IRCG boasts a high number of small craft which could a. attack minesweepers b. even lay themselves mines


5. Can the US avert any of the above escalations following an Israeli attack?

Quite unlikely.

OTOH the above scenario could surface the first offensive use of 4GW (coordinated and unorthodox indirect means to achieve political goals - in my understanding).

[Presley Cannady]

Why? Why assume that Iranian nuclear weapons are relevant to Iranian strategic thinking, as opposed to posturing. Take a long cold drink and think about it.

I don't assume Iran intends to build a bomb, just that Israelis (and presumably the US) continue to estimate their intentions as such. Mainly, there's been a great deal of discussion of Iran's likely response to an Israeli attack. There's not much discussion of what happens after the counterstroke, though.

[Schmedlap]

I don't assume Iran intends to build a bomb, just that Israelis (and presumably the US) continue to estimate their intentions as such. Mainly, there's been a great deal of discussion of Iran's likely response to an Israeli attack. There's not much discussion of what happens after the counterstroke, though.
I think that those details are kept vague deliberately, to increase the uncertainty in the minds of the Mullahs when they do their calculus in...
- the cost/benefit analysis of threatening a strike
- the cost/benefit analysis of building a bomb
- the cost/benefit analysis of actually conducting a strike, to include weighing whether to do so with wmd, through a proxy, or some other variant

Part of the reason that Ahmedinejad acts crazy and makes threats, imo, is to get a better read of how we (and others) will react in each step of that process, not necessarily to prepare for a strike, but so that they can learn how to put forth a more convincing facade that they are capable of striking, without actually prompting us (or Israel) to strike first.

[watchful1]

William F. Owen asks a reasonable and important question.

simple answer: existential belief and strategic thinking are one in Iran. they actually believe.

recent Ahmadinejad interview: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32913296/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/print/1/displaymode/1098/

http://www.al-islam.org/masoom/bios/12thimam.html

nuclear weapons help this come about.

[watchful1]

Iran starts to move more small boats to Strait of Hormuz (increasing #s to 500) adding to the 200 or so that were there. Iran then starts to redeploy Shahab-3, Zelzal 1 and Zelzal 2, M-11 Variant/Tondar-68, Nazeat, M-6 and the HQ-2 air-/missile-defense system around several key cities. Numerous Gargoyle's not used in the initial air strike by the Israelis start to be deployed including the variant of the Chinese HongQi 15. The Iranians continue to mine the Straits and wait....

[reed11b]

Iran has it's fighters, anti-shipping missiles and civilian flights all coming from the same airport. After the embarassing downing of an Irainian 747, I have to believe that there would be a delay in our response if Iran launched an attack on US Navy ships in the gulf.
Reed

[Entropy]

...Israeli aircraft have made their way to Iran and taken out their targets.

What happens next...?


Iran's nuclear program is back up and running within 4 years.

[davidbfpo]

Iran has it's fighters, anti-shipping missiles and civilian flights all coming from the same airport. After the embarassing downing of an Irainian 747, I have to believe that there would be a delay in our response if Iran launched an attack on US Navy ships in the gulf.
Reed

Reed11b,

The USS Vincennes in July 1988 shot down an Iran Air A300 which was flying south from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. An incident that was controverisal then and for sometime; view for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Twenty-one years later I hope that both sides think hard before taking any action in the Persian Gulf -lessons learnt?

Plus I doubt if all Iranian military "eggs are in one basket" now.

davidbfpo

[William F. Owen]

Personally, I and a few others consider Iranian nuclear capability to be strategically less important than popularly imagined.

a.) How can they use nukes against Israel as a strategic option? Why is killing 75% of the population of Israel, going to further any policy especially when it might results in the death of 50% of the Iranian and loss of 90% of it's GDP for 5 years.
- The argument that Iran has an irrational leadership would always have to suppose that they cannot be rationally deterred. Thus, NO US/Israeli action can provide the strategic result necessary.

b.) It could well be suggested that threat of Iranian WMD has done nothing but benefit Israel in terms of maintaining a number of "flag ship" programmes which would otherwise have been under threat.

c.) The other issue being avoided is how Iranian interference in Israeli security, de-facto dams any prospect of a Palestinian State, since it is Iran's aim to control any Palestinian Government, in order to base forces within the Palestinian state.

d.) Iranian WMD is primarily a strategic issue for the US, in terms of it's ability to project power in the region - and that has security implications for Israel, as does any interference in Middle East strategic dynamics.

[UrsaMaior]

Personally, I and a few others consider Iranian nuclear capability to be strategically less important than popularly imagined.

a.) How can they use nukes against Israel as a strategic option? Why is killing 75% of the population of Israel, going to further any policy especially when it might results in the death of 50% of the Iranian and loss of 90% of it's GDP for 5 years.
- The argument that Iran has an irrational leadership would always have to suppose that they cannot be rationally deterred. Thus, NO US/Israeli action can provide the strategic result necessary.

b.) It could well be suggested that threat of Iranian WMD has done nothing but benefit Israel in terms of maintaining a number of "flag ship" programmes which would otherwise have been under threat.

c.) The other issue being avoided is how Iranian interference in Israeli security, de-facto dams any prospect of a Palestinian State, since it is Iran's aim to control any Palestinian Government, in order to base forces within the Palestinian state.

d.) Iranian WMD is primarily a strategic issue for the US, in terms of it's ability to project power in the region - and that has security implications for Israel, as does any interference in Middle East strategic dynamics.

For the first time we agree. If the iranian regime is so completely out-of-control as Cohen and others suggest, why is it and (has been) acting so cautiously (and in some cases ingeniously) in the last couple of years? Any system that is not interested or uncapable of organising its survival will show signs of it in the long term. As I see the mullahs do EVERYTHING in their power to survive as long as possible. Knowing Israel (its history, its capabilities and the Samson-plan) they are very well aware of their limits.

The only thing where I dont agree with you wilf that a nuclear Iran limits not only the US's but all other countries power projection ablilties (including Israel's). One thing I am sure it does not worth a war in the gulf with all its attached implications (oil, US troop presenence etc.). There are a million other ways then sabre rattling to reach sensitive points.

[William F. Owen]

The only thing where I dont agree with you wilf that a nuclear Iran limits not only the US's but all other countries power projection ablilties (including Israel's). One thing I am sure it does not worth a war in the gulf with all its attached implications (oil, US troop presenence etc.). There are a million other ways then sabre rattling to reach sensitive points.
Concur, which is why I said "primarily," - since who else would be likely to lead any coalition force against Iran?

[Entropy]

Good points Wilf. IMO, Israeli strategic policy is in serious need of overhaul. I think Israel still operates under the doctrine that it can't significantly influence the intent of its enemies, only their capabilities.

[William F. Owen]

Good points Wilf. IMO, Israeli strategic policy is in serious need of overhaul.
You'd not be alone in that. This is view of some very influential, and smart, IDF officers, but as I frequently ask them, "why?"
You have to differentiate the "Strategic argument" from the "Strategic reality." The strategy of protecting the state has never failed. Could it have been done better? Maybe. Has it been done well enough. Definitely.
I think Israel still operates under the doctrine that it can't significantly influence the intent of its enemies, only their capabilities.
At the simple heart of Israeli defence doctrine is the simple aim of visiting greater degrees of harm on anyone trying to harm Israel.
Has that mostly worked? Yes.
Is it sustainable? Dunno.
Could it be fine tuned to deliver better results? Probably.

[Fuchs]

... since it is Iran's aim to control any Palestinian Government, in order to base forces within the Palestinian state.

I demand proof or at least a source.


Iran seems to be of rather small relevance to the Palestinian issue, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and even Syria seem to be much more relevant.

Basing (questionable conventional or unnecessarily close unconventional) forces that far away and behind the Suez Canal/Gibraltar would look excessively stupid to me.


To sum it up: Your assertion sounds like an Israeli rumour to me.

[Rex Brynen]

The Iranians certainly provide support to Hamas, both directly and via Hizbullah. However it is not clear that they have any substantial influence at all.

Any possible agreement that establishes a Palestinian state will, in any case, explicitly prohibit any deployment of foreign forces in Palestine (aside from an international force to facilitate and monitor implementation).

There is, as always, good discussion of Iranian WMD issues ongoing at Arms Control Wonk (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/).

[William F. Owen]

I demand proof or at least a source.

Iran seems to be of rather small relevance to the Palestinian issue, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and even Syria seem to be much more relevant.

Basing (questionable conventional or unnecessarily close unconventional) forces that far away and behind the Suez Canal/Gibraltar would look excessively stupid to me.

To sum it up: Your assertion sounds like an Israeli rumour to me.
Fair enough. Perhaps it is more accurate to say, it seems highly likely that the Iranians are looking exert enough influence to base substantial rocket, and other forces on the West Bank, should Israel withdraw.
As concerns proof or a source, this is a common assessment from within the IDF, and is the source of Netanyahu's comments about the West Bank being a de-militarised zone. By Iranian forces, I mean Hezbollah, who have so far tried to base rockets in Gaza, and Sinai. - It is therefore logical they seek to do the same in the West Bank. The best defence against this is the Jordanians, but the current situation in Jordan, as in Egypt cannot be guaranteed.

The Iranians certainly provide support to Hamas, both directly and via Hizbullah. However it is not clear that they have any substantial influence at all.

Any possible agreement that establishes a Palestinian state will, in any case, explicitly prohibit any deployment of foreign forces in Palestine (aside from an international force to facilitate and monitor implementation).

Influence is always hard to gauge, and what we see now, may not be the case in three years time. - but my point being, Hezbollahs extra-Lebanon ambitions are bad for everyone in the region, bar Iran.

[UrsaMaior]

Keeping Iran honest

Iran's secret nuclear plant will spark a new round of IAEA inspections and lead to a period of even greater transparency

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-inspections

[Entropy]

Keeping Iran honest

Iran's secret nuclear plant will spark a new round of IAEA inspections and lead to a period of even greater transparency

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-inspections

Ritter's analysis contains some serious factual errors that negate most of what he says in that piece.

[UrsaMaior]

Ritter's analysis contains some serious factual errors that negate most of what he says in that piece.

Could you be more specific please. I am leaning towards the opinion that the iranians are playing a ouble game, yet I cant verify it.

[Entropy]

Could you be more specific please. I am leaning towards the opinion that the iranians are playing a ouble game, yet I cant verify it.

Sure, sorry!

Ritter says the "subsidiary arrangements" (aka Code 3.1) to Iran's comprehensive safeguards agreement is the same thing as the additional protocol to the NPT. They are quite different. For more, read this (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23884&prog=zgp&proj=znpp). A relevant quote:

The modification to Code 3.1 is not, as some have claimed, related to the Additional Protocol (presumably this confusion resulted from the fact that Iran accepted the modification to Code 3.1 at the same time as it announced it would provisionally implement the Additional Protocol). To clarify: the requirement to conclude Subsidiary Arrangements stems from Article 39 of Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/214). The request to states to modify Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements is not contained in the Additional Protocol. Indeed, every non-nuclear-weapon state with significant nuclear activities—including those with no Additional Protocol—has now agreed to the modification to Code 3.1.

[UrsaMaior]

Got it thanks.

[Presley Cannady]

Personally, I and a few others consider Iranian nuclear capability to be strategically less important than popularly imagined.

a.) How can they use nukes against Israel as a strategic option? Why is killing 75% of the population of Israel, going to further any policy especially when it might results in the death of 50% of the Iranian and loss of 90% of it's GDP for 5 years.
- The argument that Iran has an irrational leadership would always have to suppose that they cannot be rationally deterred. Thus, NO US/Israeli action can provide the strategic result necessary.

Admittedly the debate in general circulation overflows with black-white dissonance, but it's my impression few if any professionals assume Iran is completey irrational and therefore cannot be deterred. In fact, I thought the real debate revolved around what yardstick of reality Iranians use to estimate risk vis a vis their adversaries. To be crude about it, we can't dismiss the fact that Israel obviously estimates her own nuclear force is either insufficient or to vulnerable to adequately deter Iran; we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. Let's say Americans judge that a strong US-Israel relationship and a nuclear umbrella may ultimately deter Iran. Israel, on the other hand, may estimate that Americans are insufficiently solemn about obligations we have yet to even put in a treaty.

b.) It could well be suggested that threat of Iranian WMD has done nothing but benefit Israel in terms of maintaining a number of "flag ship" programmes which would otherwise have been under threat.

True, but that ends the day the threat emerges. If it does.

c.) The other issue being avoided is how Iranian interference in Israeli security, de-facto dams any prospect of a Palestinian State, since it is Iran's aim to control any Palestinian Government, in order to base forces within the Palestinian state.

Assuming that is Iran's intention, how do we know that the leadership accepts your reasoning? In fact, given Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza, her thirty year track record of seeking peace agreements with her Arab neighbors, and the sheer amount of international pressure to move forward on a Palestinian state, its conceivable Iran has reasoned that the Israelis will eventually cave. Once again, no reason to assume the Iranians are irrational, but we do need to consider how their actions hint at their perception of the strategic reality.

d.) Iranian WMD is primarily a strategic issue for the US, in terms of it's ability to project power in the region - and that has security implications for Israel, as does any interference in Middle East strategic dynamics.

This same reasoning easily applies to Israel...only Israel doesn't have a deep frontier of oceans and continents separating her from Iran.

[William F. Owen]

To be crude about it, we can't dismiss the fact that Israel obviously estimates her own nuclear force is either insufficient or to vulnerable to adequately deter Iran; we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. Let's say Americans judge that a strong US-Israel relationship and a nuclear umbrella may ultimately deter Iran. Israel, on the other hand, may estimate that Americans are insufficiently solemn about obligations we have yet to even put in a treaty.
Israel has somewhere between 100-200 warheads. That is sufficient.
The whole point is Israel is not worried about "detering Iran." It is worried about the shift in strategic balance, concerning the US. The US also has enough Warheads to deter Iran, but seems equally worried.

Assuming that is Iran's intention, how do we know that the leadership accepts your reasoning?
The reasoning simply comes from an intent and a capability. Nothing more. Who says the key players in Iran will be their in 18 months time?

[Schmedlap]

Israel has somewhere between 100-200 warheads.
What is the evidence of that? My understanding is that Israel is deliberately vague about whether it has nuclear weapons.

Added:
Just saw this at information dissemination: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/09/israel.html

One last comment: I'm assuming that Israel would strike with aircraft - if so, how would Israel be able to strike Iran without us knowing about it and cooperating? Don't we still control airspace over Iraq? Wouldn't Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have the capability to thwart any attempts to use their airspace? Given the wide margin for error in an attack on Iran (negotiating airspaces of unfriendly neighbors) wouldn't Iran likely have enough early warning to defend? Or do we think Israel is going to lob long-range missiles?

[Presley Cannady]

Israel has somewhere between 100-200 warheads. That is sufficient.

And not more than 400, but it's sufficient if and only enough if it survives. I don't know what Israel's done to her three SSKs or how far her indigenous cruise missile program, but off the shelf each Dolphin has magazine space for 16 Harpoon missiles. I don't know enough to estimate the survivability of her Jericho forces in the face of an Iranian first strike, but if Israel managed to produce 200-400 lb high yield warheads, and if she can deliver them at such a range that she doesn't need to deploy her submarines to the Gulf first, she may be able to put a gigaton of second strike power to sea that is essentially invulnerable. Still we can't simply make that assumption, and we can't simply say that Israel should reasonably believe or does believe she has a proper strategic deterrent.

The whole point is Israel is not worried about "detering Iran." She's worried about the shift in strategic balance, concerning the US. The US also has enough Warheads to deter Iran, but seems equally worried.

I don't doubt Israel and the US are worried about the full spectrum of implications emanating from a nuclear armed Iran, but I'm not ready to dismiss that Israel at least fears that her current nuclear forces alone are insufficient to indefinitely deter Iran from lunging towards the worst case scenarios.

The reasoning simply comes from an intent and a capability. Nothing more. Who says the key players in Iran will be their in 18 months time?

Not sure what changing players has to do with how Iran estimates Israel may react to a Muslim bomb vis a vis Palestine. What I do know is that Iran has pursued its missile program aggressively for two decades while at the same time Israel is making major concessions on the Palestinian issues. I don't see how its a foregone conclusion that Iran perceives acquiring nuclear weapons as damning her interests in Palestine.

[Presley Cannady]

What is the evidence of that? My understanding is that Israel is deliberately vague about whether it has nuclear weapons.

Assuming Israel's nuclear forces are solely fed fissile material from sources we know about, we can estimate the maximum number of minimal yield warheads she can produce from the amount of nuclear fuel she could conceivably divert to a weapons program. 200-400 is an upper limit, and given that simple arithmetic suggests at least a gigaton force.

[Dayuhan]

An Iranian nuclear capacity would certainly have implications for Israel, but I think it would be an error to assume that Israel is the only reason why the Iranian leadership might pursue a nuclear capacity. They have other regional ambitions as well, and a nuclear capacity would provide a deterrent shield behind which other ambitions might be pursued.

For example, it's entirely possible that in a not too distant future the US could be largely withdrawn from the region and reluctant to go back in. Iraq could be devolving into civil war. In such circumstances, if Iran chose to intervene in Iraq - to protect oppressed and threatened Shi'a of course - a nuclear capacity would be an important way to cement a fait accomplii and deter any potential response. Holding the deterrent card would make it possible for the mullahs to be much more assertive in the region.

That's one scenario, we can all think of others. We shouldn't limit ourselves to the assumption that an Iranian nuclear capacity would necessarily be used against Israel or placed in the hands of terrorists.

[William F. Owen]

And not more than 400, but it's sufficient if and only enough if it survives. I don't know what Israel's done to her three SSKs or how far her indigenous cruise missile program, but off the shelf each Dolphin has magazine space for 16 Harpoon missiles. I don't know enough to estimate the survivability of her Jericho forces in the face of an Iranian first strike, but if Israel managed to produce 200-400 lb high yield warheads, and if she can deliver them at such a range that she doesn't need to deploy her submarines to the Gulf first, she may be able to put a gigaton of second strike power to sea that is essentially invulnerable. Still we can't simply make that assumption, and we can't simply say that Israel should reasonably believe or does believe she has a proper strategic deterrent.


Why mount Nuclear Warheads on Harpoon and fire them from an SSK?

While obviously classified it seems most likely that Israel's "Special Weapon" is Jericho 2 and 3 ICBM mounted in hardened missile silo's all over Israel - same as the US and in some cases a generation plus based purely on more recent construction.

I can take a pretty good guess at 7 such sites, dispersed from end to end of the country. An Iranian capability of successfully strike all these successfully is extremely unlikely.

- but to ask the exam question, again, to what purpose? What Iranian policy could be successfully progressed by striking Israel?

Israel reason to possess Nuclear weapons is purely as a defence against land invasion, and to deter the use of Chemical Weapons against the civilian population by another state.

Another issue constantly avoided is that Israel "may or may not" have nuclear weapons. Now everyone knows that this is a game, but if you claim not to have Nukes, you are logically bound to exclaim dismay about someone else getting them.

[Zack]

What is the evidence of that? My understanding is that Israel is deliberately vague about whether it has nuclear weapons.

Added:
Just saw this at information dissemination: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/09/israel.html

One last comment: I'm assuming that Israel would strike with aircraft - if so, how would Israel be able to strike Iran without us knowing about it and cooperating? Don't we still control airspace over Iraq? Wouldn't Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have the capability to thwart any attempts to use their airspace? Given the wide margin for error in an attack on Iran (negotiating airspaces of unfriendly neighbors) wouldn't Iran likely have enough early warning to defend? Or do we think Israel is going to lob long-range missiles?

Yes they would probably need to overfly Iraq. Even if they could somehow do it without US approval, I doubt very much that we would escape blame/retaliation. For a very detailed analysis of strike options (outdated now that the facility at Qum is out, but they targeted the centrifuges at Natanz, the heavy water reactors at Arak, and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan) check out "Osirak Redux" in International Security.

[Zack]

Why mount Nuclear Warheads on Harpoon and fire them from an SSK?

While obviously classified it seems most likely that Israel's "Special Weapon" is Jericho 2 and 3 ICBM mounted in hardened missile silo's all over Israel - same as the US and in some cases a generation plus based purely on more recent construction.

I can take a pretty good guess at 7 such sites, dispersed from end to end of the country. An Iranian capability of successfully strike all these successfully is extremely unlikely.

- but to ask the exam question, again, to what purpose? What Iranian policy could be successfully progressed by striking Israel?

Israel reason to possess Nuclear weapons is purely as a defence against land invasion, and to deter the use of Chemical Weapons against the civilian population by another state.

Another issue constantly avoided is that Israel "may or may not" have nuclear weapons. Now everyone knows that this is a game, but if you claim not to have Nukes, you are logically bound to exclaim dismay about someone else getting them.

I agree. There is basically 0% chance that Iran will first strike Israel, doing so would essentially be tantamount to suicide. Iran would be turned into glass. The Iranians may be able to escape retaliation through "plausible deniability" with conventional weapons, but this would not be the case if they supplied a proxy with a nuclear device, they would suffer retaliation as if it were an ICBM that had been launched from Iran. I also doubt that the Iranians will fully weaponize. It seems far more likely to me that they will develop a break out capability, and leave it at that. The whole point of developing a nuclear weapon is to prevent invasion, and a break out capability will do that, in many ways, us assuming that they have/will have that has already acted as a deterrent. We need to stop freaking out about this. Nuclear deterrence will continue to work. No matter how crazy you think the IRGC & friends are, they are not about to commit mass suicide. This isn't Heaven's Gate.

[Fuchs]

An Iranian nuclear capacity would certainly have implications for Israel, but I think it would be an error to assume that Israel is the only reason why the Iranian leadership might pursue a nuclear capacity. They have other regional ambitions as well, and a nuclear capacity would provide a deterrent shield behind which other ambitions might be pursued.

That's close, but let's be honest and blunt:

Iran needs nuclear weapons as deterrent against the U.S..
Nothing else has worked against meddling, bullying, pressuring and even naval warfare directed by the U.S. against Iran for 55+ years.

I would seek the possession of nukes if I was head of government in Iran, and I would also do so if Israel and Russia wouldn't exist at all.
I would also seek such a nuclear deterrent without any ambitions in the region.

The only alternative to nukes would be a formal alliance with Russia.

[Presley Cannady]

Why mount Nuclear Warheads on Harpoon and fire them from an SSK?

While obviously classified it seems most likely that Israel's "Special Weapon" is Jericho 2 and 3 ICBM mounted in hardened missile silo's all over Israel - same as the US and in some cases a generation plus based purely on more recent construction.

We're talking about targets that can withstand on the order of 1000 psi overpressure. You can place such a target at 95 percent with a 1 kT device on a 1000 ft CEP vehicle at 100 ft, or a 1 MT device at 1000 ft. Iran's Shahab family of missiles already has a CEP under 200 ft.

I can take a pretty good guess at 7 such sites, dispersed from end to end of the country. An Iranian capability of successfully strike all these successfully is extremely unlikely.

I'd be surprised if Iran could kill half of Israel's land-based nuclear force with a robust first strike arsenal, but that's besides the point. The question is whether Iran figures it can weather a half a gigaton exchange. To put this in perspective, Glaser estimates (Table 5.7, slide 35) (http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/lecture2007_weaponeffects.pdf) that you'd need ten 475 KT weapons, or just under 5 gigatons, to threaten a quarter of Iran's population. Israel may not even have 2 gigatons in her entire arsenal, and is probably more vulnerable per unit arsenal yield than even Syria.

- but to ask the exam question, again, to what purpose? What Iranian policy could be successfully progressed by striking Israel?

Setting aside whatever cultural or religious lens shapes their view of the strategic reality, striking Israel would remove of their only significant native competitor. Whether the risks posed by such a move are worth it in Iran's eyes is what I think we, and hopefully the professionals, are trying to determine.

Israel reason to possess Nuclear weapons is purely as a defence against land invasion, and to deter the use of Chemical Weapons against the civilian population by another state.

That calculation changes once Israel faces another nuclear belligerent. And while Israel needs a large force, possibly more powerful than the one she has presently, to assure destruction of Iran, the reverse is not true. Twenty or so 50 kT weapons reaching their targets would be sufficient to annihilate Israel.

Another issue constantly avoided is that Israel "may or may not" have nuclear weapons. Now everyone knows that this is a game, but if you claim not to have Nukes, you are logically bound to exclaim dismay about someone else getting them.

Can't argue with that, but one thing's for sure. Israel can build a weapon at least as quickly as North Korea can starting from scratch, and we can at least determine the upper limit on how much yield she can build into such a force.

[slapout9]

Just send Major Kong......Strategery Nukery Combat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

[William F. Owen]

I'd be surprised if Iran could kill half of Israel's land-based nuclear force with a robust first strike arsenal, but that's besides the point. The question is whether Iran figures it can weather a half a gigaton exchange.
Aha! Exactly. That's precisely my point. What Iran can never know is what it will cost, for all the obvious reasons.

To put this in perspective, Glaser estimates (Table 5.7, slide 35) (http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/lecture2007_weaponeffects.pdf) that you'd need ten 475 KT weapons, or just under 5 gigatons, to threaten a quarter of Iran's population.
IIRC, hasn't the analysis on Slide 35 been widely discredited? - eg: Purely mechanistic?
Setting aside whatever cultural or religious lens shapes their view of the strategic reality, striking Israel would remove of their only significant native competitor. Whether the risks posed by such a move are worth it in Iran's eyes is what I think we, and hopefully the professionals, are trying to determine.
On what planet is Israel in strategic competition with Iran? Iran threatens Israel, for no other reason except Race and Religion, and Israel does not and has never has threaten Iran.
That calculation changes once Israel faces another nuclear belligerent.
Nothing changes. Israel was building Nuclear shelters in the 1950s on the assumption that Egypt and Syria would have nuclear and/or chemical weapons by the late 1960s or 1970s. "Should it exist" it seems extremely likely that Israel's nuclear programme was and is premised on regional peer competitor, especially Iraq - and now Iran.

[Presley Cannady]

Aha! Exactly. That's precisely my point. What Iran can never know is what it will cost, for all the obvious reasons.

I don't know if Iran can never estimate its costs, but I'm pretty sure they've tried. Why build a missile with a thousand mile range if you haven't reached some judgment--flawed as it may be--about the targets you can hit with it? Whether their judgment matches a Western view of reality and aversion to costs is another matter. Israel clearly feels Iran calculates using a different set of rules.

IIRC, hasn't the analysis on Slide 35 been widely discredited? - eg: Purely mechanistic?

Don't know, I've not done a full lit review on this particular matter. But isn't nuclear war pretty mechanistic in the first place? At least mechanistic enough that civilians can play armchair strategist and pass the laugh test. It's my understanding this is the origin of the strategic studies community. ;)

But in all seriousness, when we're talking about releasing gigatons of energy in a matter of minutes, almost all other variables are quasi-static.

On what planet is Israel in strategic competition with Iran? Iran threatens Israel, for no other reason except Race and Religion, and Israel does not and has never has threaten Iran.

True, but then again for the same two reasons you list Iran's leadership clearly views Israel as its chief competitor native to the region. After all, it's Tehran's perception that matters here, no?

Nothing changes. Israel was building Nuclear shelters in the 1950s on the assumption that Egypt and Syria would have nuclear and/or chemical weapons by the late 1960s or 1970s. "Should it exist" it seems extremely likely that Israel's nuclear programme was and is premised on regional peer competitor, especially Iraq - and now Iran.

In the 1950s and 1960s, you had missile CEPs measured in tens of thousands of feet. Polaris, widely regarded as one of the most accurate vehicles of its time, had a 6000 ft CEP. Weapons wouldn't win the race against environmental defenses until the 1970s--by then RV accuracy fell below 3000 ft. The fracture strength of a cap of steel is about 65,000 psi (provided the cap support compression strength is the same). That's 20 kT at 100 feet.

[Fuchs]

I don't know if Iran can never estimate its costs, but I'm pretty sure they've tried. Why build a missile with a thousand mile range if you haven't reached some judgment--flawed as it may be--about the targets you can hit with it?

First some historical background; the "War of the cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#.22War_of_the_Cities.22)" among Iraq and Iran when they were bombarding each other's cities with a kind of V-weapon/"Baby Blitz" offensive because their ground forces were too inept to achieve strategic success.
This was likely the foundation for their missile arsenal and might have coined their perception of missiles.

Another point of view would be to treat their ballistic missiles as some kind of ICBM/SLBM equivalent; tools of deterrence.
Potential aggressors are more cautious if they have to think about what a rain of BMs loaded with chem and bio weapons could do to their cities. The prospect of complications helps to deter aggression.

The interpretations of those BMs as some kind of offensive political tool (blackmail) or as a tool of genocidal plans are just possible interpretations among many possible interpretations.


There's little doubt about which interpretation hawks would choose - and we all know that hawks have a more than proportional influence on the U.S. media's reports on security policy topics (I'm not so sure about their influence in Israeli and UK reporting and Germany media is usually dominated by doves).

[Zack]

Just send Major Kong......Strategery Nukery Combat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

Best movie ever.

[William F. Owen]

In the 1950s and 1960s, you had missile CEPs measured in tens of thousands of feet.
In the 1950s and 60s the threat to Israel was either airdropped, short-range Ballistic (FROG-7),-CEP of 2,400ft or something like AS-3 Kangaroo, one of which was launched at Tel-Aviv in 1973, but was shot down.

[Presley Cannady]

First some historical background; the "War of the cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#.22War_of_the_Cities.22)" among Iraq and Iran when they were bombarding each other's cities with a kind of V-weapon/"Baby Blitz" offensive because their ground forces were too inept to achieve strategic success.
This was likely the foundation for their missile arsenal and might have coined their perception of missiles.

Ineptness aside, most missile arsenals exist to check strategic failure by other means. This goes for both the defender, who risks falling back behind a trip ware, and the aggressor, who risks a rout if his attack fails. Right?

Another point of view would be to treat their ballistic missiles as some kind of ICBM/SLBM equivalent; tools of deterrence.
Potential aggressors are more cautious if they have to think about what a rain of BMs loaded with chem and bio weapons could do to their cities. The prospect of complications helps to deter aggression.

The interpretations of those BMs as some kind of offensive political tool (blackmail) or as a tool of genocidal plans are just possible interpretations among many possible interpretations.

These weapons are also used to check the range of counter-attack options a particularly risk averse adversary will choose. The Soviets played this game for decades, covering their adventures around the world with the threat of superpower conflict. Not that Iran's ambitions are anywhere as lofty, but we already know she has no problem arming insurgents shooting at Israelis and Americans from Lebanon to Afghanistan.

[Presley Cannady]

In the 1950s and 60s the threat to Israel was either airdropped, short-range Ballistic (FROG-7),-CEP of 2,400ft or something like AS-3 Kangaroo, one of which was launched at Tel-Aviv in 1973, but was shot down.

You don't happen to know the export figures for the FROG-7?

[William F. Owen]

You don't happen to know the export figures for the FROG-7?
Sorry. Only non-WP countries to operate them were Egypt, Syria and Kuwait, IIRC. Quite a few Syrian FROGs impacted in the Galilee in 73, and at least one hit Ramat-Gan Air base.

[watchful1]

So there is no failure of imagination…

Several weeks after the initial Israeli air strike … a) with the Straits jammed and... b)oil pipelines sabotaged throughout the UAE and... c) the UN and NATO at impasses and … d) oil at record prices and... e) small boats continuing to lay mines and build up their numbers into the hundreds within the Straits

in a surprise move…. Russia reveals the “MR2” agreement with Iran. A pact of non aggression.

Note: Irrational actor has always been a term people use when they do not understand the opponents rationale. Maybe some insight here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/features/letters-from/letter-from-tehran

[watchful1]

articles to help with the imagination...

http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russia-needs-honest-discussion-of-molotovribbentrop-203328-eng.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Postmodern-Stalinism/48426/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

[Uboat509]

Iran needs nuclear weapons as deterrent against the U.S..
Nothing else has worked against meddling, bullying, pressuring and even naval warfare directed by the U.S. against Iran for 55+ years.

I would seek the possession of nukes if I was head of government in Iran, and I would also do so if Israel and Russia wouldn't exist at all.
I would also seek such a nuclear deterrent without any ambitions in the region.


What?

How is it that Iran developing a small nuclear capability that it can in no way deliver anywhere near a US population center a deterrent to pressure from the US? I'm thinking that it will increase pressure. They will never approach anything like parity with the US in terms of military capability, and that includes nuclear capability. The most that they could hope for would be to strike at a US military base or a US ally. In return, Iranian military capability gets turned to radioactive ash, at the very least.

SFC W

[Zack]

What?

How is it that Iran developing a small nuclear capability that it can in no way deliver anywhere near a US population center a deterrent to pressure from the US? I'm thinking that it will increase pressure. They will never approach anything like parity with the US in terms of military capability, and that includes nuclear capability. The most that they could hope for would be to strike at a US military base or a US ally. In return, Iranian military capability gets turned to radioactive ash, at the very least.

SFC W

It isn't to threaten the US itself, but it would be possible to use the weapon against an invading force. That is certainly a deterrent. They don't have to achieve parity to deter an invasion, just make it seem as though it would be immensely costly to do so.

[tequila]

I'm of the opinion that the Iranians seek a deterrent against Israel, primarily, with the U.S. coming in second (not as a peer competitor deterrent a la the Soviet Union, but as security against a conventional invasion).

When they reactivated the program, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was probably first on the list.

Many have noted that all the significant actors in the Iranian security services came of age in the Iran-Iraq War, when their conventional offensives in the last years of the war were broken by Iraqi WMD. The need for an adequate security against this threat is likely deeply ingrained.

[Fuchs]

What?

How is it that Iran developing a small nuclear capability that it can in no way deliver anywhere near a US population center a deterrent to pressure from the US? I'm thinking that it will increase pressure. They will never approach anything like parity with the US in terms of military capability, and that includes nuclear capability. The most that they could hope for would be to strike at a US military base or a US ally. In return, Iranian military capability gets turned to radioactive ash, at the very least.

SFC W

You're writing about the country that went to war over a crazy idea that non-existing nukes could be given to terrorists who were at odds with the alleged potential nuke owner and could smuggle them past security measures into the U.S..

You're also writing about a country that insists on keeping floating cities in sight of the Iranian coast, a gazillion miles away from their home.

[William F. Owen]

I'm of the opinion that the Iranians seek a deterrent against Israel,

A deterrent against Israel doing what exactly? Be specific. Iran has NEVER been in strategic competition with Israel. It is not even an Arab Nation. The current Iranian regimes threats are based purely on race and religion - again, two areas where Israel cannot be a strategic competitor.

[Zack]

I'm of the opinion that the Iranians seek a deterrent against Israel, primarily, with the U.S. coming in second (not as a peer competitor deterrent a la the Soviet Union, but as security against a conventional invasion).

When they reactivated the program, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was probably first on the list.

Many have noted that all the significant actors in the Iranian security services came of age in the Iran-Iraq War, when their conventional offensives in the last years of the war were broken by Iraqi WMD. The need for an adequate security against this threat is likely deeply ingrained.

I agree about the US, but not Israel. The only scenario I can imagine that would lead to a strike against Iran by Israel is one aimed at their nuclear facilities. Israel cannot mount a conventional invasion of Iran (obviously). So how would Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons deter Israel?

[Fuchs]

The current Iranian regimes threats are based purely on race and religion - again, two areas where Israel cannot be a strategic competitor.

Excuse me - "race"? That's the first time I hear or read about this. I'm not aware of any indicators that support this assertion.

I would have added ideology to the list, that's for sure. Both Zionism and theocracy are ideologies in my opinion, and unfriendly ones (unless united in one country).

[jmm99]

1 gigaton = 1,000 megatons = 1,000,000 kilotons.

ten 475 KT weapons = ten 0.475 MT weapons = total 4.75 MT yield (in theory).

A 5-7 gigaton attack would require 5,000-7,000 1MT warheads, or 10,000-14000 0.5MT warheads - beyond the present capabilities of the US and Russia combined.

Based on the Glaser link (http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/lecture2007_weaponeffects.pdf), a 20 MT attack (in theory) would take out 100% of Iran's population - and much more, depending on the weather conditions at the time of the attack.

Turning Israel into glass would take much less - one can infer they (IDF) would launch on a verified launch from Iran and not wait to see whether the incoming was nuclear or non-nuclear. MAD, indeed, but what alternative would their missile officers have.

[tequila]

A deterrent against Israel doing what exactly? Be specific. Iran has NEVER been in strategic competition with Israel. It is not even an Arab Nation. The current Iranian regimes threats are based purely on race and religion - again, two areas where Israel cannot be a strategic competitor.

From a purely rational strategic standpoint, I completely agree. Israel and Iran are not genuine strategic competitors as Israel poses no reasonable threat to Iran.

However, I submit that the Iranian regime's calculus is not one of pure strategic competition with Israel. Iran seeks strategic dominance in the Muslim Middle East. Its prime competitors are Turkey and Sunni Arab regimes, and it is handicapped by its clerical Shiite and Persian identity. Iran uses its opposition to Israel for diplomatic and IO leverage in the Arab world, as well as for domestic legitimacy (though this latter appears to be fading in effectiveness overall, but nonetheless still is a key motivator for the regime's increasingly narrow political base). Because its opposition is primarily terroristic in nature, Iran naturally expects that Israel, based on its own theory of strategic deterrence, may strike at Iranian targets sooner or later.

We know that Israel's nuclear deterrent would likely never be used in a first-strike capacity. The Iranian regime, OTOH, does not necessarily believe this.

I stress that I don't think Israel would hit Iran in a first strike, nor that Iran's opposition to Israel is at all rational. It's not. But if you live by Iran's non-rational, paranoid strategic calculus, then a deterrent to Israel's nuclear arsenal is a good idea.

[Ken White]

You're writing about the country that went to war over a crazy idea that non-existing nukes could be given to terrorists who were at odds with the alleged potential nuke owner and could smuggle them past security measures into the U.S.Not even the Iraqis bought that line. :rolleyes:

Have you read this (LINK) (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/29/obama_pax_americana/index.html)? I don't agree with him on much and I don't agree with his recommendation here but at least he's figured part of it out and doesn't repeat that foolishness you did. That was a palliative for the masses, no more.

[Fuchs]

Based on the Glaser link (http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/lecture2007_weaponeffects.pdf), a 20 MT attack (in theory) would take out 100% of Iran's population - and much more, depending on the weather conditions at the time of the attack.

That's completely unrealistic.
Iran is too huge.

That presentation uses the Bravo test (15 Mt) as an example, which covered a much smaller area with lethal radiation.
I gotta admit that said test was a poor test, though. It was done over an atoll and therefore not able to maximize radiation output because of limited contact of the fireball with the ground.

Nevertheless; Iran is too large.

Even a large quantity of small nuclear weapons amounting to a total of 20 Mt would not even approach 100% lethality.


By the way; the use of nuclear weapons in the Near/Mid East by any regional power would probably lead to its extermination.
The French, British, Pakistani and Indians could very well decide that the survival of no such state with a proven readiness of using nukes against cities (=genocide) could be tolerated.
An immediate domestic overthrow of the government might be the only chance of survival.

[Presley Cannady]

That's completely unrealistic.
Iran is too huge.

Population density. Iran has urbanized two-thirds, nearly 15 million in Tehran province alone and almost 8 million in the city proper.

Even a large quantity of small nuclear weapons amounting to a total of 20 Mt would not even approach 100% lethality.

Probably not. You'd need a few dozen gigatons to achieve that, and that sort of firepower is only found in superpower arsenals.

By the way; the use of nuclear weapons in the Near/Mid East by any regional power would probably lead to its extermination.
The French, British, Pakistani and Indians could very well decide that the survival of no such state with a proven readiness of using nukes against cities (=genocide) could be tolerated.
An immediate domestic overthrow of the government might be the only chance of survival.

The existence of such a state would definitely change world affairs, but I don't know if we can predict how just yet. I imagine other nuclear powers would take into account their relationships with both the aggressors and victims before formulating a response, but multilaterally assured reprisal is hardly an international norm today.

[Presley Cannady]

Based on the Glaser link (http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/lecture2007_weaponeffects.pdf), a 20 MT attack (in theory) would take out 100% of Iran's population - and much more, depending on the weather conditions at the time of the attack.

The relationship between firepower and casualties isn't linear because population densities aren't linearly distributed. 25 percent of the Iranian population is at risk from a 5 gigaton strike because 67 percent of them live in cities and almost a third live in one province alone.

Turning Israel into glass would take much less - one can infer they (IDF) would launch on a verified launch from Iran and not wait to see whether the incoming was nuclear or non-nuclear. MAD, indeed, but what alternative would their missile officers have.

Less than ten to wipe out the entire urban population--91 percent of the total population.

[jmm99]

in practice. No, I did not.

Attack by 40 475 KT warheads would logically be targeted on the two dozen or so urban centers, mostly in western Iran in a roughly N-S strip along the Zagros chain. A favorable westerly wind and other weather conditions would also impact the rest of the country. Actual casualties - I haven't the foggiest idea - nor does anyone else, because we do not have a good test case.

BTW: How many gigatons of nuclear capability do you think the US has ? And how many 1 MT warheads does 5 gigatons equal ?

----------------------------

In theory, a 1 MT warhead, airburst at 2000m, has roughly a 7km destructive radius (~ 150+ sq km) - and its Equivalent MegaTonnage (EMT) = 1 EMT. A larger warhead has a relatively smaller EMT - e.g., a 9 MT warhead has an EMT between 4 and 5. A smaller warhead has a relatively larger EMT - e.g, a 475 KT warhead would have an EMT greater than 0.5 and less than 1.0. These are population destroying concepts. For hardened targets, accuracy is the important factor + ground penetration cabability (if available).

[Presley Cannady]

in practice. No, I did not.

Attack by 40 475 KT warheads would logically be targeted on the two dozen or so urban centers, mostly in western Iran in a roughly N-S strip along the Zagros chain. A favorable westerly wind and other weather conditions would also impact the rest of the country. Actual casualties - I haven't the foggiest idea - nor does anyone else, because we do not have a good test case.

That's the beauty, or ugliness, of nuclear weapons. We don't really need a fairly good test case. Given the scale of energy, physical size of the target area, and the mass of bodies associated with nuclear strike problems, error is almost always negligible. Put another way, a missile strike anywhere in the world takes on the order of minutes from order to completion. A 1 kT device will annihilate anything within a quarter of a klick of detonation at optimum burst height and torch anything flammable within a third of a mile. Put enough firepower on target and you can extend that zone of certainty arbitrarily; and there's no physical limit to the destruction you can put on target.

The entire exercise is disgustingly academic.

BTW: How many gigatons of nuclear capability do you think the US has ? And how many 1 MT warheads does 5 gigatons equal ?

FAS estimates (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html) 2330 MT (1430 MT deployed) as of 2007, with a peak 40-50 years ago at 20 gigatons. I remember reading that the total global stockpile exceeded 60 gigatons.

In theory, a 1 MT warhead, airburst at 2000m, has roughly a 7km destructive radius (~ 150+ sq km) - and its Equivalent MegaTonnage (EMT) = 1 EMT.

A larger warhead has a relatively smaller EMT - e.g., a 9 MT warhead has an EMT between 4 and 5. A smaller warhead has a relatively larger EMT - e.g, a 475 KT warhead would have an EMT greater than 0.5 and less than 1.0. These are population destroying concepts. For hardened targets, accuracy is the important factor + ground penetration cabability (if available).

If I remember correctly, planners calibrated their slide-rules with somewhere north of 10 psi as the minimum overpressure of widespread destruction. Some power law will describe dissipation of overpressure as distance from point of detonation grows. Just remember, >10 psi will rip apart a human body and blow away reinforced concrete buildings. >1000 psi will fracture cast iron and >5000 psi will fracture steel.

[jmm99]

Yup, we're now on the same page as to current capabilities. Per FAS, US had 2007 deployed 1430 MT or 1.430 gigatons. Total EMT depends on sizes of warheads; FAS places 2007 deployed at 2060 EMT - US has mostly fractional 1 MT warheads - 3700 warheads deployed.

The power law for human and soft building destruction (which I'm sure someone can find) yielded a rule of thumb, where EMT ~ the 2/3 root of raw MT. So, 1 MT = 1 EMT (since all powers of 1 are 1). A fractional MT would have more bang for the buck - 475 KT (.475 MT) ~ 0.60 EMT. Big devices run the other way. 15 MT ~ 6 EMT; 50 MT ~ 14 EMT. So, there are some finite limits on the destructive power that can be put on a target. One could put 14 1 MTs on one target and ~ the effect of a 50 MT - except for "missile fratricide" (the first airburst will screw up the target environment for later arriving missiles).

A 60 gigaton total (60,000 MT) at height of Cold War is quite possible (FAS has ~ 20,000+ MT for US) because the USSR had some very large warheads (in MT, but lower in EMT).

As you say, all of this is an academic exercise, unless someone decides to turn the missile keys first.

[Surferbeetle]

If I remember correctly, planners calibrated their slide-rules with somewhere north of 10 psi as the minimum overpressure of widespread destruction. Some power law will describe dissipation of overpressure as distance from point of detonation grows. Just remember, >10 psi will rip apart a human body and blow away reinforced concrete buildings. >1000 psi will fracture cast iron and >5000 psi will fracture steel.

Overpressure (rocket or mortar) is no fun. Nukes are something beyond...

Gauge pressure or absolute pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement)? 1 atm = 760 mm Hg = 14.7 psi, Dynamic pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pressure)?

Lets think about steel metrics for a moment; what type, what condition, what thickness, what shape, what temp, how long has it been irradiated, and what was the dose?

A36 Structural Carbon Steel, anticipated tensile strength 400-550 ksi (k=kip=1,000 lbs)

A514 High-Yield strength Quenched & Tempered Alloy Steel, anticipated tensile strength 690-895 ksi

The Charpy V Notch Test (ASTM E23) is a reproducible way to characterize the amount of energy needed to fracture a material (http://books.google.com/books?id=hzk6GJuH7vkC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=pressure+to+fracture+a36+steel&source=bl&ots=XsO8X90W3b&sig=4JORhkI6xlOvEA7aawLxMFWcYTQ&hl=en&ei=XTDESsbvEIbKsQPv3KS2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pressure%20to%20fracture%20a36%20steel&f=false)...the result is typically reported in ft-lbs.

Cast iron is more likely to shatter than steel, particularly in the instances discussed, but keep in mind that it is stronger than steel in certain instances and applications...

A study on pilots and overpressure (http://www.stormingmedia.us/81/8178/A817813.html)

[Valin]

...Israeli aircraft have made their way to Iran and taken out their targets.

What happens next...?

(A bit off topic)
Why do people assume it would/will be an airstrike?

[William F. Owen]

Excuse me - "race"? That's the first time I hear or read about this. I'm not aware of any indicators that support this assertion.


....and your definition of Jews (both an ethnic group and a religion) being distinct from Israelis begins where? Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier. That position is logically against Jews, not just Israelis - and yes, I know some "Jews" deny the holocaust.

[Zack]

(A bit off topic)
Why do people assume it would/will be an airstrike?

How else could they do it? Missiles are too inaccurate without going nuclear, and land forces are certainly not able to hit it. The centrifuges at Natanz are under something like 25ft of soil and concrete, so cruise missiles and such are out. The only thing that could work would be sequenced penetrators carried by a pretty big strike package. It isn't an assumption, there isn't any other way it could be carried out really.

[Fuchs]

....and your definition of Jews (both an ethnic group and a religion) being distinct from Israelis begins where? Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier. That position is logically against Jews, not just Israelis - and yes, I know some "Jews" deny the holocaust.

I don't see the Israelis as an ethnic group.
They're not even all of the same race (Caucasians) - look at those from Ethiopia.

Ahmadinejads holocaust questioning is in my opinion a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the holocaust as a rationale for exceptional claims (solidarity of Westerners mostly) of Israel.
It's stupid, but IF he had success with it he would cut some of the special relationships Israel enjoys today. To cut the lifelines of Israel to Europe and Northern American is a necessary grand strategic move for everyone who wants to get rid of the state of Israel.
I fail to see anything racial in it.

[William F. Owen]

I don't see the Israelis as an ethnic group.
They're not even all of the same race (Caucasians) - look at those from Ethiopia.

You may not, but they do! All the Jews on the planet come from the same small 3,000 (+) year old gene pool - it's a central tenet of Jewish identity. 12 tribes ring any bells?

Ahmadinejads holocaust questioning is in my opinion a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the holocaust as a rationale for exceptional claims (solidarity of Westerners mostly) of Israel.
It's not knee jerk. It's part of very carefully constructed set of anti-Semitic arguments used to inform modern political Islam that also has strong resonance with a significant proportion of Europeans.
Israel exists BECAUSE ( and yet in spite of ) of the Holocaust. Basic assumption being, no nation will provide a safe home for the Jews and that victimising Jews in inherent to Christian and Muslims - now you may want to dispute that, but that is how the world is viewed from here.

If you want to argue the distinction between Jews, Zionists and Israelis, I suggest we do it someplace else.

[UrsaMaior]

anti semitism does not equal criticism towards Israel. Anti semitism is rascism, and hatred while a critique (put politely, with argumentation etc.) is a critique.

Edit this is OT here.

[William F. Owen]

anti semitism does not equal criticism towards Israel. Anti semitism is rascism, and hatred while a critique (put politely, with argumentation etc.) is a critique.


Absolutely agree. Israel's Government can and must never be immune from criticism - same as the US.
IMO, where criticism of Israel does become anti-Semitic is where:

a.) Israel is held to a unique, differing and/or higher contemporary or historical standards of conduct than other nations - such as the US.

or b.) Israel's right to exist is considered illegitimate, by virtue of it being a/the Jewish state. - thus a state existing in the same time and place, but being Christian and/or Muslim (eg: Lebanon) would be considered legitimate.

... and not OT, IMO, since it is highly relevant to the nature of the Iran's foreign policy, the source of the problem.

[Presley Cannady]

Overpressure (rocket or mortar) is no fun. Nukes are something beyond...

Amen to that.

Gauge pressure or absolute pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement)? 1 atm = 760 mm Hg = 14.7 psi, Dynamic pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pressure)?

Gauge.

Lets think about steel metrics for a moment; what type, what condition, what thickness, what shape, what temp, how long has it been irradiated, and what was the dose?

Plastic deformations will start much earlier than at the ultimate tensile strength. For most of these structural steels, we're talking about some double digit percentage on either side of 50,000 psi. Afterwards, we start talking about the dimensionless strain on the material.

Good points all, but notice that for the high yield strength steels we're talking about a good amount of carbon doping.

Which decreases their fracture points significantly. For load-bearing supports, they perform pretty well--this is why you have an intuitive notion of the skeleton of a well built building surviving a nuclear blast. But as cover, not so much.

[Presley Cannady]

I don't see the Israelis as an ethnic group.
They're not even all of the same race (Caucasians) - look at those from Ethiopia.

Genetic drift between the major Jewish communities has significant, and Sephardic Jewry is more closely related to some northern Levantine, Transcaucusian and Mesopotamian populations. Still, there is enough variation to identify a closer relationship between European and Oriental Jewry than between either group and Arabs, Persians or other ethnic groups.

Ahmadinejads holocaust questioning is in my opinion a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the holocaust as a rationale for exceptional claims (solidarity of Westerners mostly) of Israel.

It may be inconsistent, politically motivated and thoroughly unprincipled, but it's hardly knee-jerk. And it's not a mere personal quirk (http://www.iranholocaustdenial.com/). Iran's leadership en banq has embraced anti-Semitism in general and with this administration Holocaust-denial in particular as state policy.

[Dayuhan]

IMO, where criticism of Israel does become anti-Semitic is where:

a.) Israel is held to a unique, differing and/or higher contemporary or historical standards of conduct than other nations - such as the US.

or b.) Israel's right to exist is considered illegitimate, by virtue of it being a/the Jewish state. - thus a state existing in the same time and place, but being Christian and/or Muslim (eg: Lebanon) would be considered legitimate.

... and not OT, IMO, since it is highly relevant to the nature of the Iran's foreign policy, the source of the problem.

Well, if it's not OT...

Israel's entire claim to statehood rests on the assumption of uniqueness: is there another modern case of a population of recent immigrants appropriating an area and imposing a statehood unacceptable to the pre-existing population? Granting, of course, that the Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc all did the same thing, but under the standards of the day that was acceptable behaviour. I'm not sure anyone else could have got away with it in the mid 20th century, a time when the general trend was running in the opposite direction. The notion of a "historical claim" would have been seen as preposterous if not for the connection between Jewish history and the Christian mythology of the Western powers: who else could have demanded and received international support for the restoration of a state that had not existed for many centuries?

The argument against Israel's legitimacy is not a consequence of the state's Jewishness, but of its imposition by force against the wishes the pre-existing population. It's hardly unique to Israel; essentially the same argument was used to challenge the legitimacy of Rhodesia, white-ruled South Africa, etc...

[Fuchs]

Iran's leadership en banq has embraced anti-Semitism in general and with this administration Holocaust-denial in particular as state policy.

The standard counter-argument to this allegation is that the Jewish minority in Iraq lives quite well and obviously refuses to emigrate despite Israeli offers.

It may be a too complex attitude, and "antisemitism" may be a poor and inadequate description for it.

There are many voices in the West that accuse Iran's government of antisemitism, but I keep my doubts about that because it fits poorly to some of its behaviour (see the minority) and doesn't appear to be the only possible explanation. Anti-Zionism works fine as explanation as well.

And it doesn't help that Israel is in defiance of a U.N resolution that's about the equal of a UN resolution that demanded Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait.

Western hypocrisy in regard to the Near/Mid east conflicts doesn't help either.



This is all quite important because Western sources of conflict blocking a lasting non-violent conflict solution just as are their motives.

The difference between Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism is also important because one could be solved quickly by political concessions while the other could at best be solved by slow and steady erosion over generations.


Know your enemy.
And don't be satisfied with prejudices.

[William F. Owen]

is there another modern case of a population of recent immigrants appropriating an area and imposing a statehood unacceptable to the pre-existing population? Granting, of course, that the Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc all did the same thing, but under the standards of the day that was acceptable behaviour.
So under the standards of behaviour of a given time, when were European colonists ever subjected to industrial state sanctioned annihilation by a de-facto colonial power?
... that's the only reason Holocaust denial exists. - to delegitimise Israel's right to exist.

Now you can argue that the Palestine Mandate was not an ideal location for the Jewish Homeland, but where was the one place on earth constantly inhabited by Jews since written records began? - albeit as a minority for a long while.

The argument against Israel's legitimacy is not a consequence of the state's Jewishness, but of its imposition by force against the wishes the pre-existing population.

Sorry, but a substantial proportion of anti-Israel arguments are founded on precisely that issue.
Israel is a demonstrably secular State whose primary reason for existence is the protection of ethnic and religious Jews (and anyone under their protection) from anywhere on the planet. - Zion.

A great deal of rubbish is talked about Zionism. At it's heart and even across other cultures and in some popular culture, it's meaning is "last safe place."

Fully confess to not being a fair broker on this one, - a bit like Americans being pro-American. ;)

[Fuchs]

Maybe I'm alone, but I don't see the state of Israel being justified by the Holocaust. I see it justified by the majority opinion of its inhabitants.

The conflict as I see it is about its extension beyond internationally accepted borders. It gotta follow the UN resolution. Maybe it needs some guarantee powers for its real borders just as Belgium got in I think 1838.
Imagine USA, France, UK, Turkey, Russia and India guaranteeing Israel's internationally recognized borders against any aggressor - including nuclear umbrellas.
There would be no more justification for an occupation of the Golan heights - peace with Syria would be possible.

The whole affair in the Near/Mid East is a conflict among sinners in my opinion. No side is free of blame, and it's no wonder that they looked and look at the military as power tool in the struggle.

The region needs to cool down - that requires suitable political actions - and it needs time to heal. But you cannot heal wounds that are still full of blades without pulling them out.

Israel is in a hopeless position in the long term (three generations at most) unless it arranges itself with its neighbours.
Hawkish propaganda and policies waste time that's needed for long-term measures. The Israeli intelligence has warned about Iranian nukes as a short-term threat for at least 18 years now. That does not help. There was no significant conflict between Israel and Iran in the early 90's.
You don't secure your country by hawkish actions that add to its list of foes.

I consider the Iranian threat as hyped-up, and did so for a long time.

[Steve Blair]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.

[William F. Owen]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.

Very much concur.

[Valin]

How else could they do it? Missiles are too inaccurate without going nuclear, and land forces are certainly not able to hit it. The centrifuges at Natanz are under something like 25ft of soil and concrete, so cruise missiles and such are out. The only thing that could work would be sequenced penetrators carried by a pretty big strike package. It isn't an assumption, there isn't any other way it could be carried out really.

I'm thinking Mosad. Just asking a simple question

[Ken White]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.Though I will note I provided one of the few sensible comments on this type of thread. ;)

[Dayuhan]

So under the standards of behaviour of a given time, when were European colonists ever subjected to industrial state sanctioned annihilation by a de-facto colonial power?
... that's the only reason Holocaust denial exists. - to delegitimise Israel's right to exist.


By this logic, should not the Native Americans, the Roma, and quite a number of others be entitled to a State?


Now you can argue that the Palestine Mandate was not an ideal location for the Jewish Homeland, but where was the one place on earth constantly inhabited by Jews since written records began? - albeit as a minority for a long while.

Israel is a demonstrably secular State whose primary reason for existence is the protection of ethnic and religious Jews (and anyone under their protection) from anywhere on the planet. - Zion.

A great deal of rubbish is talked about Zionism. At it's heart and even across other cultures and in some popular culture, it's meaning is "last safe place."


Clearly there is no necessary connection between constant inhabitation and safety. The real "last safe place" for the Jews seems to be the US, where Jews are more numerous, prosperous, and secure than they are in Israel.

No further comment.

[Presley Cannady]

Though I will note I provided one of the few sensible comments on this type of thread. ;)

I'll also note that I started this thread after third happy hour last week.

By this logic, should not the Native Americans, the Roma, and quite a number of others be entitled to a State?

Yes, and it's called New Jersy.

[Presley Cannady]

How else could they do it? Missiles are too inaccurate without going nuclear, and land forces are certainly not able to hit it. The centrifuges at Natanz are under something like 25ft of soil and concrete, so cruise missiles and such are out. The only thing that could work would be sequenced penetrators carried by a pretty big strike package. It isn't an assumption, there isn't any other way it could be carried out really.

I don't know. A 50 m CEP is pretty damned accurate, and you don't exactly have to put just one missile on the target. Likewise, 25 ft of of soil and concrete eventually has to give way to the rule: anything worth shooting is worth shooting as many times as it takes to put down.

[Fuchs]

This thread is starting to wander into familiar territory, and may have exceeded its useful life span.

The problem is that grand strategy is superior to political strategy which is superior to military strategy, operations, tactics.

It's misleading to discuss something on one level while ignoring the higher levels. The conclusions may very well be wrong ones.

I think that justifies to wander off to higher level discussions even if the topic is really about a detail. This happens usually if there's no consensus about the higher level decisions.


I understand that from a forum moderation point of view - with a delicate topic environment - it's preferable to stick to a detail topic, but that's a systemic mistake.

[William F. Owen]

By this logic, should not the Native Americans, the Roma, and quite a number of others be entitled to a State?
May be, but it's irrelevant. The Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, was unique in nature and scale and proved beyond doubt that Europe was not a safe place for Jews to live. Somewhere safe had to be found.

You may disagree with that, but it was a widely held view in 1946, and had been held by many Zionists since the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the open anti-semitism of the French Right Wing - and many other nations, in the 1870's.
Clearly there is no necessary connection between constant inhabitation and safety.
Agreed. However if you want to pick a place to settle a people, it may as well be where they originally came from. - and not criminally stupid places like Uganda and Madagascar - which some suggested.
The real "last safe place" for the Jews seems to be the US, where Jews are more numerous, prosperous, and secure than they are in Israel.
Well that maybe your opinion. It's not the 2,000 year old idea ingrained in the vast majority of the Israelis.

[Steve Blair]

I understand that from a forum moderation point of view - with a delicate topic environment - it's preferable to stick to a detail topic, but that's a systemic mistake.

In your opinion, perhaps. But this isn't a political forum..and the endless loop that this thread is starting down is one that we prefer to avoid. Thread closed.