War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[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.

[davidbfpo]

There have been discussions before on the prospects of a strike on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities in two threads (maybe more): http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=436 (closed) and another after a NIE was published:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4491

For reasons I do not fully follow the issue has re-surfaced and I've been reading two excellent threads on the KOW blogsite starting with: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/why-america-shouldnt-bomb-ira and today: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/iran%E2%80%99s-date-with-destiny/n/

For readers update.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Fuchs (again) for this item on a suspected false report on Iranian nuclear work in The Times of London on 14/12/09: http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/12/forged-documents.html

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Cryptome for locating this Swedish Defence Research Agency report 'The Israeli Threat An Analysis of the Consequences of an Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities' by Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Retired):

The conclusion starts with:
The situation has a quality of inevitability about it. It has the feel of Europe prior to World War I..(gap) The core question in the report is: If Israel were to decide that it had no choice but to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, what would be the consequences?
(later)...Although there are some leverage points for the United States on Israel to prevent Israel from striking Iran, they are limited. Most of the leverage would be in the form of punishment and not prevention. If events continue to unfold, an Israeli strike on Iran can be expected. The United States is put at a disadvantage if it waits until after an Israeli strike to deploy air and naval forces into the region. United States interests are damaged less if it moves forward with a combined Israel-U.S. operation and if initial targeting by the forces of the two countries is on both military capabilities and the nuclear sites...

Link: http://www.foi.se/upload/nyheter/2010/FOI_Rapport%20G5_NY2_med%20omslag.pdf

This report is a companion piece to an earlier Swedish report in 2008 and the link to that is:http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/PublicationPage____171.aspx?qu=FOI-R--2511--SE&au=&yr=&fomr=&sort=ar%20DES

[Rex Brynen]

In the last few months there have been several think tank-based crisis simulations of the effects of an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities (all links via PaxSims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com)):


more on the Brookings Iran simulation (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/more-on-the-brookings-iran-simulation/)
INSS Iran simulation (s.com/2009/12/30/inss-iran-simulation/)
and, yes, ANOTHER Iran nuclear simulation… (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/another-iran-nuclear-simulation/) (Carnegie Endowment)
another Iran simulation (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/another-iran-simulation/) (INSS)
Walt on the Harvard Iran simulation (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/walt-on-the-harvard-iran-simulation/)
Harvard KSG Iran simulation (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/harvard-ksg-iran-simulation/)

At this point, they'll soon be running simulations of Iran simulations. :D

[davidbfpo]

Puzzled that this subject has come up again, nevertheless Professor Paul Rogers has written this comment and points at a new UK think tank report.

Opens with:
An Israeli assault on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and personnel would be far more extensive than many realise. The prospect that it will happen in the next few months is increasing....The voices in Washington calling for a military strike on Iranian nuclear plants are growing in number and strength.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/israel-vs-iran-fallout-of-war

The report:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/military_action_against_iran_impact_and_effects

[huskerguy7]

I did not see the Council on Foreign Relation's simulation/prediction (http://www.cfr.org/publication/20637/israeli_strike_on_iran.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2 Fpublication_list%3Fid%3D404%26page%3D5) posted on here, so I decided to add it.

An observation: Notice how some simulations call for the bombing of 2 facilities and some call for the bombing of 3.

[Kevin23]

Oxford Research Group based in Britain has also came out with it's own report and analysis of the Iran situation, and what potential military action against the country and it's nuclear program could entail as well as mean for the region. However, I' partially taking it with a grain of salt as it seems biased against Israel at times in my reading of the report so far.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/military_action_against_iran_impact_and_effects

[Dayuhan]

Puzzled that this subject has come up again, nevertheless Professor Paul Rogers has written this comment and points at a new UK think tank report.

Opens with:



An Israeli assault on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and personnel would be far more extensive than many realise. The prospect that it will happen in the next few months is increasing....The voices in Washington calling for a military strike on Iranian nuclear plants are growing in number and strength.

Paul Rogers has been saying almost exactly that, in almost exactly those words, for many years. Used to read his stuff for the "a little left of center/left" perspective, haven't bothered for a while.

[Rex Brynen]

Paul Rogers has been saying almost exactly that, in almost exactly those words, for many years. Used to read his stuff for the "a little left of center/left" perspective, haven't bothered for a while.

The report seems to understate a few important dynamics in an Israeli strike:

1) Israel has a limited long-range strike capability, and in many cases would be up against hardened targets that would require multiple strike assets committed to each to assure a high probability of destruction. This wouldn't leave a lot of assets free for secondary and tertiary targets.

2) The larger the target list and the more it stretches into softer semi-civilian targets or those in urban areas, the higher the collateral and diplomatic costs of the raid. Moreover, Israel retains tighter control of the escalatory ladder if it keeps any (initial) strike fairly narrowly focused. (Balanced against this, I'll admit, is the "we only get one kick at the cat, so lets kick hard" argument). Certainly both the US and the GCC states would much prefer that if there were an Israeli strike, it be kept as short and narrow as possible.

3) Hizbullah retaliation is not, in my view, automatic. It might be very limited indeed to a single, tightly focused attack on Iran. The broader the attack, and the more extensive the collateral damage, the greater Iranian pressure on Hizbullah to "do something" will be. How one assesses this part of the picture depends on whether you think Israel wants to also fight a major war in Lebanon (more akin to 1978 or 1982 than 2006).

[huskerguy7]

I just read about some US legislation in Congress that is particularly interesting. It authorizes Israel with the authority to strike Iran with military force. More can be found here (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/29/the_republican_backdoor_to_war_with_iran).

[Ken White]

It isn't legislation in the normal sense and the US cannot in any way 'authorize' Israel to do anything. It is a sovereign nation with full authority to make its own decisions.

The PROPOSED effort in Congress is merely a RESOLUTION that says the sense of Congress (or those there that agree with the resolution) is that such a strike would be in Israels' -- and possibly the US' -- interest. Perhaps. We don't know what it says and as it has little chance of passing and is merely political theater, I don't propose to waste time trying to find it and read it.

It's a dumb idea but that's what happens when you get 535 people under one roof -- a few are bound to be flaky. Make no mistake, that Resolution is flaky...

[Rex Brynen]

It's a dumb idea but that's what happens when you get 535 people under one roof -- a few are bound to be flaky. Make no mistake, that Resolution is flaky...

Ken, I'm frankly shocked that you can say that about the institution that gave us the brilliant September 2007 "let's support the partition of Iraq (without asking the Iraqis)" resolution. :D

[jmm99]

A bit of free advice which you are also free to ignore. You need to get more background into things legal (including apparently, the US legislative process) before shooting at targets.

I'm not saying never shoot; just do your background learning before pulling the trigger - or confusing yourself with someone else. :)

Regards

Mike

[huskerguy7]

A bit of free advice which you are also free to ignore. You need to get more background into things legal (including apparently, the US legislative process) before shooting at targets.

I'm not saying never shoot; just do your background learning before pulling the trigger - or confusing yourself with someone else. :)


I agree and messed up. I should've paid more attention to the wording and given it some thought...a little trigger happy sometimes:o


The report seems to understate a few important dynamics in an Israeli strike:

1) Israel has a limited long-range strike capability, and in many cases would be up against hardened targets that would require multiple strike assets committed to each to assure a high probability of destruction. This wouldn't leave a lot of assets free for secondary and tertiary targets.


I agree with you and believe that you are correct. Some of these reports tend to misunderstand Israel's capabilities. Israel has the capacity to strike Iran, but it has a limited amount of assets. The depth of the strike is also limited; Israel could strike 2-4 targets. Is that all the targets that need to be neutralized?

An Israeli strike on Iran would be complicated for practically any military. The amount of variables that could go wrong along with the tiny margin of error make this very difficult. Israel could achieve it, but only with a limited amount of targets.

Also, if I'm correct, the point of the strike is to eliminate Iran's complete nuclear capability. As mentioned above, different reports say that different plants need to be attacked; there could possibly be facilities that Israel doesn't know about. So, is it worth taking the risk and knocking out some of Iran's nuclear capabilty?

Another point. Iran clearly understands this threat. I am curious if any of these simulations predict Iran's defense capabilities. I'm sure that Iran has taken steps to specifically strengthen it's nuclear facilities. Even with the latest technology and aircraft, some 2nd and 3rd gen IR missiles could put up a serious fight if emplaced properly.

[bourbon]

The depth of the strike is also limited; Israel could strike 2-4 targets. Is that all the targets that need to be neutralized?
Probably not.


Also, if I'm correct, the point of the strike is to eliminate Iran's complete nuclear capability.
Is it? Certainly that’s the narrative in the media – which makes it highly suspect, imo. I get the hunch that it has more to do with who is the strongest tribe in the region, than any Iranian nuclear program and an existential threat to Israel, real or perceived.

[bourbon]

Ken, I'm frankly shocked that you can say that about the institution that gave us the brilliant September 2007 "let's support the partition of Iraq (without asking the Iraqis)" resolution. :D
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory." - Pat Buchanan

[Rex Brynen]

"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory." - Pat Buchanan


Which, in this case, had nothing to do with Biden's decentralization/partition plan.

[bourbon]

Which, in this case, had nothing to do with Biden's decentralization/partition plan.
The partition of Iraq wouldn’t have been to Israel’s strategic benefit?

[jmm99]

taking out hardened, underground facilities.

There have been lots of bytes spilled on this issue (and on the Iranian facilities); and I've downloaded a lot of them to my computer for future reference. My interest in this area is nuclear containment and limitation (I Law stuff), and not targeting.

A 2000 article, Eric M. Sepp (LTC USAF), Deeply Buried Facilities - Implications for Military Operations (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat14.pdf) (Occasional Paper No. 14, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base), points up some of the technical issues and problems in destroying underground facilities - if deep-penetrating nuclear weapons are not used.

Much more in the 48-page article, but here is the bottom technical and political lines (pp. 37 & 9-10):


[JMM: technical problem]

The immediate problem is that, short of the use of nuclear weapons, the current generation of technologies for locating and neutralizing these types of facilities are not sufficient for holding deeply buried facilities at risk. This means that the United States should direct its research and development organizations to develop weapons that will allow U.S. forces to locate, characterize, and neutralize underground facilities. One must also consider that a military response to these facilities may involve more than brute force attacks against the facility or its contents.

The use of advanced conventional penetrating weapons may not be sufficient to ensure complete success because if a weapon misses an underground facility by a mere 50 feet, the facility may survive. Furthermore, if it is desirable to preserve the contents of the facility or if collateral damage is politically unacceptable, the use of overwhelming force simply may not be a realistic military option. The implication is that alternative means of neutralizing deeply buried facilities must be vigorously pursued so that the United States and its allies will have the widest range of capabilities and options for destroying these facilities.
.....
[JMM: political problem]

While one military plan for defeating deeply buried targets was to use nuclear weapons delivered by B-2 bombers,[5] the Clinton administration overturned this policy and banned the use of nuclear weapons to defeat such targets. The reason behind this decision is the concern that the use of nuclear weapons would have grave political consequences, especially in an era when nuclear weapons are less central to defense planning.[6] While the use of nuclear weapons is a militarily practical way to destroy targets that may be hundreds of meters below the surface, their use involves political and environmental risks that increase when one considers that the location, configuration, and contents of underground targets are often unknown.

5. Susanne M. Schafer,"B-2s are Combat Ready, "Air Force Times, April 14, 1997, Vol 57, Issue 37, p 16.

6. Patrick J. Sloyan, "A Policy Change Undone; U.S., Says Nuclear Threat Not Needed" Newsday, February 26, 1998.
.......
The political repercussions of employing nuclear weapon may be greater than the United States would want to contemplate, and the environmental consequences of potentially spreading a warehouse full of potentially deadly biological or chemical agents would be unacceptable. The reality is that the use of nuclear weapons is not a practical option for dealing with underground targets in most circumstances.

The problem with using conventional weapons against such targets is that the depth and hardness of the targets can exceed the physical ability of the weapon to survive passing through tens of meters of rock and rubble. Some experts estimate that new materials will need to be developed to penetrate modern concrete structures.

The result is that the U S military strategy and operational capabilities for holding hardened and deeply buried targets at risk will be deficient until the appropriate technologies and tactics are developed that will allow the United States to put such targets at risk. ....

A tricky, sticky wicket for thems what wants to penetrate the briars.

Regards

Mike

[Rex Brynen]

The partition of Iraq wouldn’t have been to Israel’s strategic benefit?

Not especially, no.

A stable, united, and generally pro-Western Iraq that wasn't a client of Iran would be more of an Israeli prefence, I should think.

Now, back to the Iran topic of the thread... :D

[huskerguy7]

A 2000 article, Eric M. Sepp (LTC USAF), Deeply Buried Facilities - Implications for Military Operations (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat14.pdf) (Occasional Paper No. 14, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base), points up some of the technical issues and problems in destroying underground facilities - if deep-penetrating nuclear weapons are not used.

This is a very informative paper that points out several interesting points. In addition to the ones you mentioned, I think determining the structure of the facility is essential for success. Several quotes from the paper support this assertion.


Underground facilities are difficult to find, are resistant to revealing the physical details that are critical to effective targeting, and in many cases are fundamentally beyond the reach of most conventional weapons.


...The tunnel has significant implications for the survivability of the facility, principally because a smaller diameter tunnel is less detectable than a larger diameter tunnel. Tunnel entrances can also be designed to collapse at predetermined lengths in order to attenuate the blast, shock, and overpressure of an explosion...Another advantage of tunnels is to increase the uncertainty about the location of the underground facility.

If Israel, or the US conducts a strike on Iran, knowing the layout of the facility is very important. It's not only imperative to understand the deepness of the facility for determining how the necessary amount of warheads, but it's also essential to understand where your target is in the facility. There could be a 100 meter tunnel that leads away from the main base to WMDs. If you target the main base, the blast may not destroy the WMDs. Obtaining this intelligence is very trick. The paper described some scientific ways of doing it, but human intelligence is extremely important. This makes me wander what specific questions were asked to that "kidnapped" Iranian scientist...

With its capabilities, the US may be able to obtain solid intel. However, I don't think that Israel could do it by itself.

[jmm99]

you got the technical targeting issues right - basically a civil engineering project, using cute little devices like this:

1188

A B-61 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb) museum piece from Los Alamos, first produced in 1966 and becoming something of a family affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_Family). A much updated version became the B61-11 earth-penetrating weapon (http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2010/04/b61-11-earth-penetrating-warhead.html).

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_S1Gu2hX9S6c/Spz-w7apsqI/AAAAAAAANNs/DWxB4Y_4CAg/s800/060409-nuclear-strikes-iran_telegraph.jpg

A quick look at the effects of nuclear weapons can be found in Alexander Glaser, Effects of Nuclear Weapons (http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/lecture2007_weaponeffects.pdf) (WWS556d, Princeton University, February 12, 2007). Here is a brief, general overview of Earth-Penetrating Weapons (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/epw.pdf) (Google will provide many hits).

See also this thread, Israel strikes Iran (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8506)...., which meanders along dealing with other Israeli-Iranian points, until some targeting diiscussion is found starting on page 3, post #57 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8506&page=3), which continues through page 4 and ends on page 5, post #94 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8506&page=5).

I wouldn't sell the Israelis short on intel about their own neighborhood (HUMINT to SATINT); but I've no idea what they know or what we know, for that matter.

Cheers

Mike

[JMA]

It isn't legislation in the normal sense and the US cannot in any way 'authorize' Israel to do anything. It is a sovereign nation with full authority to make its own decisions.

The PROPOSED effort in Congress is merely a RESOLUTION that says the sense of Congress (or those there that agree with the resolution) is that such a strike would be in Israels' -- and possibly the US' -- interest. Perhaps. We don't know what it says and as it has little chance of passing and is merely political theater, I don't propose to waste time trying to find it and read it.

It's a dumb idea but that's what happens when you get 535 people under one roof -- a few are bound to be flaky. Make no mistake, that Resolution is flaky...

Ken, with respect what is flaky is that Israel has waited so long to neutralise this threat to their very existence.

[Rex Brynen]

Ken, with respect what is flaky is that Israel has waited so long to neutralise this threat to their very existence.

You're assuming that they're capable of of neutralizing that threat. That's far from clear, in several ways:

1) Do they actually know enough about the Iranian programme to effectively target it?

2) If they do know enough, can they actually destroy the targets?

3) At the moment, Iran's nuclear programme consumes a very small portion of Iran's national resources, and it is not at all clear that Tehran plans to build a weapon (as opposed to develop the capacity to build a weapon). It certainly isn't an Iranian "Manhattan project" by a long shot. What happens if bombing Iran convinces them they actually should build a weapon for deterrent purposes, and they increase 10-fold or more the national resources devoted to this?

Given all of those questions, it is not surprising that the Israelis are hoping that sanctions will do the job for them.

[JMA]

You're assuming that they're capable of of neutralizing that threat. That's far from clear, in several ways:

1) Do they actually know enough about the Iranian programme to effectively target it?

2) If they do know enough, can they actually destroy the targets?

3) At the moment, Iran's nuclear programme consumes a very small portion of Iran's national resources, and it is not at all clear that Tehran plans to build a weapon (as opposed to develop the capacity to build a weapon). It certainly isn't an Iranian "Manhattan project" by a long shot. What happens if bombing Iran convinces them they actually should build a weapon for deterrent purposes, and they increase 10-fold or more the national resources devoted to this?

Given all of those questions, it is not surprising that the Israelis are hoping that sanctions will do the job for them.

Thanks for putting what is probably the standard western approach. Its that sort of cowardice allows such matters to be escalated in the first place.

Go back to the time when India and Pakistan were competing to build a bomb. Had the (leading nations of the) world had the balls to say that there were enough nations with the bomb and there would be no more we would have been in a better position now, yes?

Now we have the potential problem of renegade Pakistan scientists helping North Korea and Iran build a bomb of their own.

This cowardice is making the world a more unstable and dangerous place.

[Rex Brynen]

Thanks for putting what is probably the standard western approach. Its that sort of cowardice allows such matters to be escalated in the first place.

It is very easy to hurl accusations of cowardice around, but it really doesn't resolve any of the challenges I identified earlier. I do hope it made you feel good, though. :rolleyes:

Nuclear weapons are 1940s technology. It is rather difficult to prevent a determined country from developing them.

[bourbon]

Go back to the time when India and Pakistan were competing to build a bomb. Had the (leading nations of the) world had the balls to say that there were enough nations with the bomb and there would be no more we would have been in a better position now, yes?
Probably not, the likeliness of conventional conflict between the two would be much greater – nuclear weapons have deterred that.


Now we have the potential problem of renegade Pakistan scientists helping North Korea and Iran build a bomb of their own.
The Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons was a cost of our partnership with the Government of Pakistan in countering and rolling-back the Soviet Union. We could have stopped its development had we chosen to, but it was the cost of doing business. Renegade scientists are an unintended consequence of this.


This cowardice is making the world a more unstable and dangerous place.
I am sure similar arguments were used against those who were in opposition to the devils-deal described above, which caused the unintended consequences you lament today.

[huskerguy7]

Thanks for putting what is probably the standard western approach. Its that sort of cowardice allows such matters to be escalated in the first place.

Go back to the time when India and Pakistan were competing to build a bomb. Had the (leading nations of the) world had the balls to say that there were enough nations with the bomb and there would be no more we would have been in a better position now, yes?

Now we have the potential problem of renegade Pakistan scientists helping North Korea and Iran build a bomb of their own.

This cowardice is making the world a more unstable and dangerous place.

Rex's assertions are dead on and make clear sense. What do you suggest? Should the US or Israel take military action against Iran? How bad will Iran's retaliation be through their proxies (I'm not worried about their Strait of Hormuz threats)? What will our (US) standing in the Middle East be? What if we miss the facilities and kill innocent Iranians along the way? The point is that a military strike is currently to difficult and complex to handle confidently. Don't underestimate the Iranians. Yes, we have access to much more power, but so far, Iran has been able to use its limited resources efficiently.

I agree with using a tough hand. That can be done through diplomacy. Military action should be a last resort.

[JMA]

Rex's assertions are dead on and make clear sense. What do you suggest? Should the US or Israel take military action against Iran? How bad will Iran's retaliation be through their proxies (I'm not worried about their Strait of Hormuz threats)? What will our (US) standing in the Middle East be? What if we miss the facilities and kill innocent Iranians along the way? The point is that a military strike is currently to difficult and complex to handle confidently. Don't underestimate the Iranians. Yes, we have access to much more power, but so far, Iran has been able to use its limited resources efficiently.

I agree with using a tough hand. That can be done through diplomacy. Military action should be a last resort.

Exactly as I said. It would take courage to remove this nuclear threat (or potential threat) and a list of the "what if's" provides an easy out. This timid approach merely delays the inevitable future confrontation where the stakes will be exponentially higher.

[JMA]

Probably not, the likeliness of conventional conflict between the two would be much greater – nuclear weapons have deterred that.

Well if the two are intent on making war let it be of a non-nuclear conventional nature. The 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-2002_India-Pakistan_standoff) was close enough to having a few nucs tossed around the sub-continent for anyones liking. I know they have had a good few shots at military action against India but do Pakistan really think they will ever have a chance of victory? A people who still reach for the sword when it is obvious they can't win should not be in possession of a nuclear weapon.


The Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons was a cost of our partnership with the Government of Pakistan in countering and rolling-back the Soviet Union. We could have stopped its development had we chosen to, but it was the cost of doing business. Renegade scientists are an unintended consequence of this.

That was a big mistake then. Not the first made with regard to nuclear weapons and not the last.


I am sure similar arguments were used against those who were in opposition to the devils-deal described above, which caused the unintended consequences you lament today.

I put it down to the "everything is negotiable" attitude of the West (primarily the US). When you get down to that level the possible unintended consequences are not even considered.

[JMA]

It is very easy to hurl accusations of cowardice around, but it really doesn't resolve any of the challenges I identified earlier. I do hope it made you feel good, though. :rolleyes:

Nuclear weapons are 1940s technology. It is rather difficult to prevent a determined country from developing them.

OK instead of "cowardice" I will use the term "lack of courage".

Yes, South Africa working with Israel developed its own bomb.

Again I suggest rather than just using an easy out (like that) the world needs to decide that no more nuclear countries will be allowed and those that have weapons will be required to scale them down in number to verifiable limits.

It will take a little courage so I'm not holding by breath.

[bourbon]

I'm not worried about their Strait of Hormuz threats
Choking-off 40% of the worlds daily seaborne oil supply (20% total), and driving oil prices to $200-300 barrel is not cause for concern? Not to mention what they could easily do to oil production in eastern Saudi Arabia.

[JMA]

Choking-off 40% of the worlds daily seaborne oil supply (20% total), and driving oil prices to $200-300 barrel is not cause for concern? Not to mention what they could easily do to oil production in eastern Saudi Arabia.

Maybe you are correct. Should we just surrender now and be done with it?

[JMA]

The following editorial and source document was published on Kings of War:

Should Israel Strike Iran? (http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/07/should-israel-strike-iran/#comments)

with the source doc:

A Military Attack on Iran?
Considerations for Israeli Decision Making
Ron Tira (http://kingsofwar.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/tira-iran.pdf)

Israel knows the potential risk from a nuclear armed Iran. It should not need their consideration of a strike against Iran it should be through the combined pressure of the world powers that Iran closes down it nuclear program... any form of nuclear programme for good.

The current run-around they are giving with the "talks" about the nuclear programme highlight just how pathetic the international resolve is.

It would seem obvious that the Iran nuclear programme should stopped before they have a nuclear weapon. The world needs a little courage here... which certainly won't be forthcoming.

And sadly the US military seems confused on the issue: U.S. has plan in case attack on Iran needed, says army chief (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-has-plan-in-case-attack-on-iran-needed-says-army-chief-1.305344?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+kow-reading+(Kings+of+War-Reading)#)

[huskerguy7]

Choking-off 40% of the worlds daily seaborne oil supply (20% total), and driving oil prices to $200-300 barrel is not cause for concern? Not to mention what they could easily do to oil production in eastern Saudi Arabia.

Yes, the blockade would hurt us. However, we import oil from other areas. The prices will go up causing some negative effects on the economy, but we could hold out.

Could Iran hold out? No way. Iran exports around $70 billion USD every year. Of this $70 billion USD, only $22.5 billion USD goes to border countries. The rest ($48 billion USD) goes through shipping routes in either the Caspian Sea or Persian Gulf (most goes through the Persian Gulf because the Iran's Caspian port is not very large and is somewhat undeveloped).

Crude oil makes up 80% of Iran's exports. Most of, if not all or Iran's oil storage facilities are in the Gulf. Lastly, Iran's three largest ports (Kharg Island, Lavan Island, and Bandar Abbas) are all based in the Persian Gulf. Not only would Iran's economy struggle, but they wouldn't be able to import all of the goods they need.

Source: Here (http://student-view-world.blogspot.com/2010/05/iran-unreal-threat.html) (I wrote the article. All of the facts are sourced).

Also, some people (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/12/the_strait_dope) argue that if Iran tried, they wouldn't even succeed in cutting off the oil flow.

Conclusion: Iran would kill itself if it tried cutting off the oil.


This timid approach merely delays the inevitable future confrontation where the stakes will be exponentially

There's a difference between being timid and being cautious.

[JMA]

There's a difference between being timid and being cautious.

And in this case of Iran and its nuclear programme what exactly is the difference?

[jmm99]

Following the logic of this thread, we would see (1) an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities; and (2) some sort of response by Iran (usually focused on the Gulf and/or Iraq).

From those basics, we hear of action by NATO (EU) and the US. As to NATO (EU), it seems hard to see how Iranian action would trigger a collective response by NATO (or the EU), despite various interlinked alliances (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/03/germanys-alliances-ii.html):


Our NATO collective defence was regionally limited, basically to Europe and North America. Attacks on the Falklands, for example, wouldn't have activated NATO obligations. NATO is only a collective defence north of the tropic of cancer (see article VI (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm)).

The WEU treaty has stronger wording about what to do in case of an attack, but it's limited to Europe (see article V (http://www.weu.int/Treaty.htm)).

Well, what was the extension of our collective defence commitments .... See the Treaty of Lisbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_treaty):

Article 42 (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions-/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html):

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. ...

Now I suppose one might argue that an attack on a Dutch ship is an attack on the Lowlands; and thus technically (and very tenuously) meeting the "on the territory" requirement; but does anyone think that an attack on one tanker (or ten) would generate the political will for NATO to engage in a collective armed conflict, even if it were legal. What is Iran's immediate existential hostile threat to NATO (EU) ?

Now, an alternative might come about if the Security Council mandated collective action pursuant to the Peace Enforcement provisions of Chapter 7. Does anyone believe that that will happen ? So, the issue will pass to individual nations to take their stand or not, depending on their self-interests.

Take the US. What is Iran's immediate existential hostile threat to the US ?

Note that I did not ask what Iran is threatening. US national command policy should not be shaped by what another nation theatens - but, it must take into account what another nation can deliver. What Iran can deliver is somewhat speculative and the various order effects cannot be determined with certainty.

If we have a situation where a nation (or group) is an immediate existential hostile threat to the US, we kill it by whatever means are required; and we should offer no apologies regardless of what the rest of the World thinks.

The posited situation (IMO) - (1) an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities; and (2) some sort of response by Iran - does not meet the "immediate existential hostile threat" standard re: the US.

Thus, the response of the US must legally and logically be proportional to the threat to the US, which seems to me to cover a rather speculative range. The response must also legally and logically be that necessary to meet the threat with a direct and tangible advantage to the US (e.g., a diplomatic response may provide more advantage than a military response, or vice versa).

Each nation must analize its response in terms of its own interests and the extent of the threat to it.

Regards

Mike

[bourbon]

Yes, the blockade would hurt us. However, we import oil from other areas.
It’s a global commodity so the US would still have to pay hundreds of dollars a barrel. Moreover, the countries that do get the bulk of their oil from the Middle East are going to be pissed off; and since China would be financing said military adventurism anyway, the Iranians would have a lot of leverage playing that card. Modern blockades are not about literal survival in the siege warfare sense, but rather the leverage derived.


The prices will go up causing some negative effects on the economy, but we could hold out.
How? Our country was strangled at $150 bbl in 2008; we are talking about $200-300 bbl, minimum. Our economy cannot function without oil; our society cannot feed itself without oil.

[huskerguy7]

It’s a global commodity so the US would still have to pay hundreds of dollars a barrel. Moreover, the countries that do get the bulk of their oil from the Middle East are going to be pissed off; and since China would be financing said military adventurism anyway, the Iranians would have a lot of leverage playing that card. Modern blockades are not about literal survival in the siege warfare sense, but rather the leverage derived.


How? Our country was strangled at $150 bbl in 2008; we are talking about $200-300 bbl, minimum. Our economy cannot function without oil; our society cannot feed itself without oil.

Oil would rise, but it wouldn't go that high. You are right, 80% of the world's exports go through the Persian Gulf. Guess how many Persian Gulf countries are in the list of top 15 countries where the US imports its oil. The answer: 3 (Saudi Arabia is number 3, Kuwait is number 12, and Iraq is number 7). People forget that Canada (which is where we most of our petroleum from) and Mexico (which is number 2 on the list) have large amounts of oil. 66% of the US's oil comes from 5 countries and only one is in the Persian Gulf.

Source: (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)

So go for it Iran, try pushing us around by cutting off the Strait. Not only will you really hurt your friend China and yourself, but you'll also anger our allies in Europe which will result with them taking a more aggressive stance.

[JMA]

So go for it Iran, try pushing us around by cutting off the Strait. Not only will you really hurt your friend China and yourself, but you'll also anger our allies in Europe which will result with them taking a more aggressive stance.

So we are talking about oil now? What happened to the important stuff like nuclear weapons programmes by unstable governments?

Of course the US has had ample time to exploit oil resources at home and nearby but has not. We are probably about to see another own goal...

[JMA]

How? Our country was strangled at $150 bbl in 2008; we are talking about $200-300 bbl, minimum. Our economy cannot function without oil; our society cannot feed itself without oil.

That's where the military comes in. You want that oil? You have to secure the source and the supply line. Hint: start to concentrate on oil off the coast of West Africa.

[bourbon]

Oil would rise, but it wouldn't go that high. You are right, 80% of the world's exports go through the Persian Gulf. Guess how many Persian Gulf countries are in the list of top 15 countries where the US imports its oil. The answer: 3 (Saudi Arabia is number 3, Kuwait is number 12, and Iraq is number 7). People forget that Canada (which is where we most of our petroleum from) and Mexico (which is number 2 on the list) have large amounts of oil. 66% of the US's oil comes from 5 countries and only one is in the Persian Gulf.
Again, it is a global commodity; the price is more important than where the stuff comes from. Oil for the most part is sold at the spot rate, not on fixed long-term contracts.


So go for it Iran, try pushing us around by cutting off the Strait. Not only will you really hurt your friend China and yourself, but you'll also anger our allies in Europe which will result with them taking a more aggressive stance.
The point being that Iran can use this leverage to turn China and other countries against US policy and actions.

[bourbon]

So we are talking about oil now? What happened to the important stuff like nuclear weapons programmes by unstable governments?
Few things are more important than oil in international relations. And in this case nuclear programs and unstable regimes are intricately connected to the oil issue.


That's where the military comes in. You want that oil? You have to secure the source and the supply line. Hint: start to concentrate on oil off the coast of West Africa.
Secure sourcing and supply is important, but unless you are plundering the oil, it still has to be paid for. And when Iran is choking-off the supply of Middle East oil, the price is going to be in the hundreds of dollars per barrel.

[huskerguy7]

The point being that Iran can use this leverage to turn China and other countries against US policy and actions.

It could be the other way around. A closed strait could force China and other countries to cooperate with the US.

[SWJ Blog]

Moderator's Note: copied here from SWJ Blog.

The Saudi Option (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/08/the-saudi-option/)

Entry Excerpt:

The Saudi Option

by Tristan Abbey and Scott Palter

Download the full article (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/484-abbey-palter.pdf)

The year is 2012. Squadrons of F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s streak across the sky, swamping air defenses and neutralizing other key Iranian installations. The next wave targets the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the nuclear power station at Bushehr, the conversion plant in Isfahan, and the heavy water plant at Arak. Within hours the Iranian nuclear program is crippled. As the armada returns to base, the head of state who ordered the attack readies to congratulate the pilots who carried it out.

“Peace be upon you all,” King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz says to his men. “Your bravery humbles me. The Saudi Kingdom will be forever grateful.


* * *

Since the Bush administration forced the issue of Iran’s nuclear program to the fore in 2002, debating the merits and perils of a preemptive airstrike has become something of a favorite pastime. Amid all the chatter about narrow corridors and Saudi “green lights” lies an inescapable truth: a surprise Israeli strike has never been more unlikely.

The contours of the problem have remained largely unchanged over the years. The United States risks too much by attacking Iran, while an Israeli strike is difficult to achieve without American backing. None of the countries that could conceivably grant Israel over-flight rights—Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia—relishes the thought of being seen as complicit in a Zionist-Crusader foray against yet another Muslim country. Logistical requirements, namely limited refueling capacity, restrict the Israeli Air Force’s options to but a single multi-squadron assault of questionable long-term effectiveness. Tel Aviv, essentially, has one bullet.

Download the full article (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/484-abbey-palter.pdf)

Tristan Abbey and Scott Palter are senior editors at Bellum: A Project of The Stanford Review (http://bellum.stanfordreview.org/).



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/08/the-saudi-option/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Rex Brynen]

It could be the other way around. A closed strait could force China and other countries to cooperate with the US.

China would be extraordinarily unhappy with any unilateral strike against Iran--it's been hard enough getting them onside with mild sanctions. In the Chinese view it would highly the dangers of self-interested Western military adventurism.

[JMA]

China would be extraordinarily unhappy with any unilateral strike against Iran--it's been hard enough getting them onside with mild sanctions. In the Chinese view it would highly the dangers of self-interested Western military adventurism.

Why may I ask would the Chinese need to be happy about a strike?

[Rex Brynen]

Why may I ask would the Chinese need to be happy about a strike?

It was, as you'll see, a comment on the previous post.

[JMA]

It was, as you'll see, a comment on the previous post.

It all a bit strange really. One minute the US acts as if it does not care what China thinks or might do - naval exercises off the Chinese/North Korean coast - and the next seems to quiver with fear as to what China might think or do - a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Will the real USA please stand up?

[JMA]

Few things are more important than oil in international relations. And in this case nuclear programs and unstable regimes are intricately connected to the oil issue.

Secure sourcing and supply is important, but unless you are plundering the oil, it still has to be paid for. And when Iran is choking-off the supply of Middle East oil, the price is going to be in the hundreds of dollars per barrel.

Speaking from out here in the colonies I must let you know that we see this US oil crisis (or potential oil crisis) a somewhat of an own goal. It appears you have oil reserves at home or close to home which for environmental reasons you are not tapping and have steadfastly refused to push for the development of alternative fuel and renewal energy systems.

So if you (the US) had thought this whole thing through and acted many years ago there may have been no need to go into Iraq and now no need to worry about Iranian oil supplies.

Then again right nearby the Chinese seem to be grabbing the local oil. China Lends Venezuela $20 Billion, Secures Oil Supply (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-18/china-lends-venezuela-20-billion-secures-oil-supply-update1-.html). Someone asleep at the wheel again?

[bourbon]

Why may I ask would the Chinese need to be happy about a strike?
The United States is operating on a $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, and as such it is dependent on foreign investors to purchase this debt. China is the leading purchaser of this debt.

[Ken White]

...Someone asleep at the wheel again?Who do a great deal of that sleeping at the wheel. Mostly not napping so much as being more concerned with their re-election than the nation's business... :rolleyes:

Thus my continued plea: Vote all incumbents out of office!!! :mad:

[Dayuhan]

Speaking from out here in the colonies I must let you know that we see this US oil crisis (or potential oil crisis) a somewhat of an own goal. It appears you have oil reserves at home or close to home which for environmental reasons you are not tapping and have steadfastly refused to push for the development of alternative fuel and renewal energy systems.

More about politics than energy, I fear. Thee's no evidence to indicate that untapped US reserves are large enough to make a significant difference, and while the alternative and renewable side looks wonderful on green party powerpoints, they're a long way from a meaningful contribution, despite large investments.


Then again right nearby the Chinese seem to be grabbing the local oil. China Lends Venezuela $20 Billion, Secures Oil Supply (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-18/china-lends-venezuela-20-billion-secures-oil-supply-update1-.html). Someone asleep at the wheel again?

Short of invading Venezuela, there's not a great deal the US can do to stop them from dealing withe the Chinese. Again, though, this is about poliotics, not energy. Hugo has chafed for a long time at sending so much oil to his enemy and raison d'etre, and deals with the Chinese are useful propaganda for him. The bulk of Venezuela's production will continue to flow north; geographic logic demands it. When Venezuelan oil goes to China, who do you think eats the premium imposed by shipping costs and tanker turnaround times? I'm betting it's not the Chinese.

Iran's presumed ability to close the Straits of Hormuz and otherwise disrupt Gulf shipping is of course a significant obstacle to war with Iran. Of course we don't know how much they can do or for how long, but they wouldn't have to do much to spike the price of oil and cause a lot of grief for a lot of people.

[huskerguy7]

As some of you may have seen, some thoughts on this issue were recently published originally at SWJ. LINK (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/484-abbey-palter.pdf)

"The calculus is simple. A strike that neutralizes Iran‟s nuclear program has the highest chance of success if it is orchestrated by the Americans. It has the lowest chance of success if the Israelis launch unilaterally."

[JMA]

The United States is operating on a $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, and as such it is dependent on foreign investors to purchase this debt. China is the leading purchaser of this debt.

If they don't want to upset China then why are they (the US) insisting on holding naval exercises in the Yellow Sea?

Its all very confusing.

[JMA]

As some of you may have seen, some thoughts on this issue were recently published originally at SWJ. LINK (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/484-abbey-palter.pdf)

"The calculus is simple. A strike that neutralizes Iran‟s nuclear program has the highest chance of success if it is orchestrated by the Americans. It has the lowest chance of success if the Israelis launch unilaterally."

... and absolutely no chance of success if everyone just sits on their hands.

[Ken White]

Define success.

[JMA]

Define success.

In this case it would be the complete destruction of the physical nuclear weapons infrastructure in Iran.

[Ken White]

In this case it would be the complete destruction of the physical nuclear weapons infrastructure in Iran.or blowback (much less the possibility of their rebuilding sans occupation) and just looking at what it would take to do that and what would be accomplished or gained, have you done a cost benefit analysis?

[huskerguy7]

have you done a cost benefit analysis?

I've seen enough simulations on an Israel strike. What I think people need to see now are simulations of Iran's retaliation. As discussed in this thread, Iran has many different options. Whether it's unleashing it's fury on the Strait of Hormuz, Israel, Coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or something on home soil, Iran has different options available. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to measure Israel's strike capabilities. However, I think we understand the idea and need to examine the retaliation part more closely. I think a cost benefit analysis should be included (in-depth).

[JMA]

or blowback (much less the possibility of their rebuilding sans occupation) and just looking at what it would take to do that and what would be accomplished or gained, have you done a cost benefit analysis?

Lets look at it this way.

What is the real risk if some Iranian nutcase gets to have access to nuclear devices?

[JMA]

I've seen enough simulations on an Israel strike. What I think people need to see now are simulations of Iran's retaliation. As discussed in this thread, Iran has many different options. Whether it's unleashing it's fury on the Strait of Hormuz, Israel, Coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or something on home soil, Iran has different options available. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to measure Israel's strike capabilities. However, I think we understand the idea and need to examine the retaliation part more closely. I think a cost benefit analysis should be included (in-depth).

OK, may a suggest we view this something like this.

If pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities take place what are the possible Iranian retaliatory actions?

What are these options and what would be the most likely to damage the US or Israel?

Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.

Can the US, can Israel, can the world afford to have an itchy Iranian finger on a nuclear trigger?

[Ken White]

What is the real risk if some Iranian nutcase gets to have access to nuclear devices?of a Pakistani, Russian, Israeli, British, French, US, Chinese or Indian nuke. Noting that all those nations also have nutcases and that a number of other nations are known to have the capability of developing their own nukes -- nations that also have nutcases in the population...:rolleyes:

That answer of yours, BTW, is not a cost benefit analysis, far from it. But, then, you knew that.
If pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities take place what are the possible Iranian retaliatory actions?

What are these options and what would be the most likely to damage the US or Israel?That's a very superficial start. Before you assess that, consider the attitudes of both US and Israeli voters; all the voters...

You may also wish to add an assessment of the probability of success of those strikes -- and consideration of world reaction -- to that. In addition to Iraniha retaliation, consider the effect on world oil trade to any brouhaha in the Gulf and concomitant economic impacts. Then go from there... :wry:
Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.Likelihood of success? Don't forget that Iran is three times as large and almost as rugged as Afghanistan and that it has more than double the population...:eek:
Can the US, can Israel, can the world afford to have an itchy Iranian finger on a nuclear trigger?The Mullahs are nuts but they aren't stupid. Thus on a world aspect, I'm not particularly concerned. For Israel, they can take care of their own interests.

My concern is US interests. We could possibly do what you suggest but I'm quite convinced the long term political fallout for us would be far from beneficial, I strongly doubt it would be in our interest to perform such an attack. That's not to say we would not, could not or will not depending on circumstances, merely that it's easy to suggest "The US must do something about this..." as so many who want something done they cannot do seem to wish -- then rant about how evil the US was / is for doing it. Easy to ask someone else to do a job but the guy who does it has a responsibility for the job, all ancillaries and effects thereunto pertaining and ideally he consider those factors in great detail before applying a knee jerk reaction. Particularly someone else's knee jerk...

In any event, I'm inclined to be more worried about the prognosis for Africa than I am about Iranian nukes. Nutcase obtains and pops one, doing some damage somewhere in the west and Iran becomes a parking lot. Khameini and his successor aren't dumb. The Iranis were being devious and scheming in palaces while our ancestors were chasing wild pigs in the forests of Europe. Iranian nukes are more than likely and will be no big thing. Neither will those of the Saudis, the Turks or Brazilians. :cool:

[huskerguy7]

Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.

The chance of success for completing this is slim, if not impossible. Knocking out Iran's reaction force is impossible because it's quite concealed. How do we know that there aren't Quds Force operatives in Mexico ready to infiltrate the US and cause damage? Are we even sure that we can prevent an Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz (anyone remember General Paul van Riper's wargames)? You're overestimating US capabilities.

It sounds good in theory, but it is not in the least bit practical.

[JMA]

of a Pakistani, Russian, Israeli, British, French, US, Chinese or Indian nuke. Noting that all those nations also have nutcases and that a number of other nations are known to have the capability of developing their own nukes -- nations that also have nutcases in the population...:rolleyes:

OK then let me rephrase that to read... no more nut cases!

There is some progress in the direction of nuclear disarmament but there is still a long way to go. So I say again no more nuclear powers.


That answer of yours, BTW, is not a cost benefit analysis, far from it. But, then, you knew that.That's a very superficial start. Before you assess that, consider the attitudes of both US and Israeli voters; all the voters...

It has a cost benefit. To prevent the madmen in Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons at any cost.


You may also wish to add an assessment of the probability of success of those strikes -- and consideration of world reaction -- to that. In addition to Iraniha retaliation, consider the effect on world oil trade to any brouhaha in the Gulf and concomitant economic impacts. Then go from there... :wry:Likelihood of success? Don't forget that Iran is three times as large and almost as rugged as Afghanistan and that it has more than double the population...:eek:The Mullahs are nuts but they aren't stupid. Thus on a world aspect, I'm not particularly concerned. For Israel, they can take care of their own interests.

Well start to prepare the world for it, make contingency plans, get the mad Mullahs under pressure till they crack... then do the business.

Once the aim has been selected that (for starters) these two lunatic states are not going to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons then you do what you need to do to achieve that aim.

Then one day allow a free and fair election to be held in Iran. Nice byproduct that will be!


My concern is US interests. We could possibly do what you suggest but I'm quite convinced the long term political fallout for us would be far from beneficial, I strongly doubt it would be in our interest to perform such an attack. That's not to say we would not, could not or will not depending on circumstances, merely that it's easy to suggest "The US must do something about this..." as so many who want something done they cannot do seem to wish -- then rant about how evil the US was / is for doing it. Easy to ask someone else to do a job but the guy who does it has a responsibility for the job, all ancillaries and effects thereunto pertaining and ideally he consider those factors in great detail before applying a knee jerk reaction. Particularly someone else's knee jerk...

The long term risk of nuclear fallout should be more of a concern to you than the medium term political fallout I suggest.

Unlike Iraq the world will know why this was done and will at least privately be thankful. Surely you realise that if some lunatic starts to chuck nukes around the US in some shape or form will be on the receiving end?


In any event, I'm inclined to be more worried about the prognosis for Africa than I am about Iranian nukes. Nutcase obtains and pops one, doing some damage somewhere in the west and Iran becomes a parking lot. Khameini and his successor aren't dumb. The Iranis were being devious and scheming in palaces while our ancestors were chasing wild pigs in the forests of Europe. Iranian nukes are more than likely and will be no big thing. Neither will those of the Saudis, the Turks or Brazilians. :cool:

Not sure about that after seeing the response to the sinking of the (South) Korean warship. I see at least half the world screaming NEGOTIATE rather than retaliate. I'm not sure you need to drop a nuke on Iran. It is not the people who are the problem so why should they die?

If this is handled properly there will be no need to think about how to retaliate because there will be no first strike (because neither Iran nor North Korea will have a nuke to toss at anyone).

[JMA]

The chance of success for completing this is slim, if not impossible. Knocking out Iran's reaction force is impossible because it's quite concealed. How do we know that there aren't Quds Force operatives in Mexico ready to infiltrate the US and cause damage? Are we even sure that we can prevent an Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz (anyone remember General Paul van Riper's wargames)? You're overestimating US capabilities.

It sounds good in theory, but it is not in the least bit practical.

Well you are assuming that the strike needs to be against their nuclear facilities. I would suggest that what is needed is a demonstration of intent that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Start with a little "shock and awe" demonstration to make sure the regime knows you are serious (and make sure you don't kill civilians not involved in the nuclear programme nor upset the lives of the population at all).

For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message (after giving them a fair opportunity to come clean on what they have been up to start to dismantle the programme).

[davidbfpo]

I profess no expertise on the debate over bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, that aside if there ever was a time and opportunity to coerce Iran that way it is past. If an alternative target was considered, as JMA suggests:
For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message.. there would be significantly less legitimacy and IMHO with international law - no legitimacy.

Elsewhere IIRC analysts have provided explanations as to why Iran has gone down the nuclear weapons route and that I suspect is largely built around hostile neighbours with US military facilities. We know that the current Iranian regime has its internal critics and its own problems of legitimacy. By addressing those factors offers a way ahead.

Bombing is simply not a policy option for a host of reasons, as illustrated by the debate here and the links to the analysis provided by experts.

I am also mindful that Israel is a nuclear weapon state, albeit un-declared IIRC and that her national interests - which are not the same as others - are well served by a focus on Iran, so avoiding a closer examination of Israel's position. (A veritable "minefield" in its own right asking SWC to consider this:wry:).

[Entropy]

Elsewhere IIRC analysts have provided explanations as to why Iran has gone down the nuclear weapons route and that I suspect is largely built around hostile neighbours with US military facilities.

Originally it was a response to the threat of Iraq and an Iraqi nuclear program. Obviously, Iraq is no longer a threat, so, assuming the program still exists, what is its purpose today? Perhaps the US and Israel have replaced Iraq as justification. Isolation is probably a big factor - Iran does not have have a great-power protector willing to extend a nuclear umbrella to protect it. Iran may aspire to become a great power itself. Alternatively, Iran's program my continue on the basis of inertia - in other words, it became institutionalized. The reasons are probably all of the above in some form or another.

[JMA]

I profess no expertise on the debate over bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, that aside if there ever was a time and opportunity to coerce Iran that way it is past. If an alternative target was considered, as JMA suggests: there would be significantly less legitimacy and IMHO with international law - no legitimacy.

Elsewhere IIRC analysts have provided explanations as to why Iran has gone down the nuclear weapons route and that I suspect is largely built around hostile neighbours with US military facilities. We know that the current Iranian regime has its internal critics and its own problems of legitimacy. By addressing those factors offers a way ahead.

Bombing is simply not a policy option for a host of reasons, as illustrated by the debate here and the links to the analysis provided by experts.

I am also mindful that Israel is a nuclear weapon state, albeit un-declared IIRC and that her national interests - which are not the same as others - are well served by a focus on Iran, so avoiding a closer examination of Israel's position. (A veritable "minefield" in its own right asking SWC to consider this:wry:).

I appreciate that simple solutions to these problems will have people approaching an apoplectic state of anxiety.

The simple problem is that there is no doubt that if asked (big IF) the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran would rubber stamp the use of nuclear weapons against the "Great Satan" (just like the US Congress did for the invasion of Iraq).

So today the thought of even a preemptive strike against the nuclear facilities with a low civilian death toll is considered unacceptable by countries who see themselves outside the target selection options (of a madman or regime with a nuke) and a bunch of self styled analysts.

But what of the countries who will be targets or affected by a renegade regime with a nuclear weapon? Do they have the courage to act or in the post Iraq invasion era has the reserve of courage been fully used up. Personally I don't believe that there is enough courage among the political elites of the West to deal with this matter either through diplomatic action and sanctions let alone through a preemptive strike. As the Brits would say "their bottle has gone".

[huskerguy7]

Start with a little "shock and awe" demonstration to make sure the regime knows you are serious (and make sure you don't kill civilians not involved in the nuclear programme nor upset the lives of the population at all).

For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message (after giving them a fair opportunity to come clean on what they have been up to start to dismantle the programme).

There are several flaws with this. First, I doubt that we will be able to deliver such a powerful strike without killing innocent civilians. A strike on the ICA without killing civilians...seriously???

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

A strike on Iran's homeland, no matter the target, would give Iran every reason to mobilize any North American or South American Quds Force assets it has. Even if Iran's government refuses to retaliate, how do we know that different Iranian assets won't go rogue hungry for revenge?

The results from a strike will be overwhelming.

[WW]

Wouldn't that be a major radiological attack, and/or a tactical nuclear first strike, unprecedented in the nuclear age? Surely I must be mistaken. Proposals for crossing such a line, tearing the lid off pandora's box, would draw comment from the smart folks here.

This isn't ###-for-tat sabotage and assassination. It starts with Chernobyl scale radiological WMD warfare being launched over the heads of our troops and fleet in the Gulf. But how does it end, and who benefits?

Maybe someone here will take a peak at my comment below, an attempt to dial back such weapons grade strategic blindness.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/08/the-saudi-option/

[JMA]

There are several flaws with this. First, I doubt that we will be able to deliver such a powerful strike without killing innocent civilians. A strike on the ICA without killing civilians...seriously???

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

A strike on Iran's homeland, no matter the target, would give Iran every reason to mobilize any North American or South American Quds Force assets it has. Even if Iran's government refuses to retaliate, how do we know that different Iranian assets won't go rogue hungry for revenge?

The results from a strike will be overwhelming.

Well you must credit the air force with the ability to select the right weapon for each job. Second it is certain that these nuclear facilities are not sited in/among/beneath areas of high civilian populations but rather in remote areas, down mine shafts etc. If you wanted to send a message to the ICA a small precision weapon is all you would need. Low civilian casualties. Low would be fine.

Equal reaction? Nah... what it Mike Tyson gives me a slap. Can i come up with and "equal" reaction? Iran will only be able to do what they can do and that would not be equal to what the US would have to offer.

Yes there is a danger that a badly planned and selected target in Iran would serve to pull the nation together in a surge of nationalist fervour. That is why I said earlier that the target needs to be carefully chosen to represent something which represents the worst parts of the current regime. Something like to take out the Secret Police HQ. You do this and you will have the Iranians out dancing in the streets.

Don't let fear rule you. If such an action would bring the Iranian sleepers out of their deep cover then that may in fact be a good thing. It would take them years to rebuild such a network.

Overwhelming? Meaning incapable of being resisted (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=overwhelmingly) ??? You mean it will lead to the US being defeated?

[JMA]

Wouldn't that be a major radiological attack, and/or a tactical nuclear first strike, unprecedented in the nuclear age? Surely I must be mistaken. Proposals for crossing such a line, tearing the lid off pandora's box, would draw comment from the smart folks here.

This isn't ###-for-tat sabotage and assassination. It starts with Chernobyl scale radiological WMD warfare being launched over the heads of our troops and fleet in the Gulf. But how does it end, and who benefits?

Maybe someone here will take a peak at my comment below, an attempt to dial back such weapons grade strategic blindness.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/08/the-saudi-option/

Who said anything about using a tactical nuke? And it is not the Iranian people that are the target but rather the regime (surely that is obvious?). If a non-nuclear strike on a facility will release radiological fall out then it quite frankly its not a legitimate target. There is little point in trying to sell a doomsday scenario in trying to sell your anti preemptive strike position.

So what do you suggest? Surrender now and get it over with? Or do nothing and keep your fingers crossed?

[WW]

"Now, back to the Iran topic of the thread..."

Is no one here concerned that such an attack would cross a radiological/nuclear threshold that has remained closed since 1945? This would be regarded as WMD terrorism, were it even threatened against any but N.Korean nuclear facilities.

Iran is probably 10 years away from an operational nuclear deterrent. S. Africa came much closer, produced HEU and tested a Jericho-type IRBM, before apartheid collapsed. But no one proposed blasting tons of radioactive toxins across the African countryside.

Bourbon made a strong point above, that nuclear Israel and IRBM equipped Arabian Sunnis feel threatened by the emergence of another strong tribe. But the assertion that Iran's nuclear future is an existential threat to Israel or an imminent threat to the US is a specious casus belli for large-scale radiological warfare.

The question is not tactical, how to sequence letting the radiological war genie out of the bottle. The question is strategic, how that would end, who the winners and losers would be.

[davidbfpo]

I posted this earlier:
We know that the current Iranian regime has its internal critics and its own problems of legitimacy. By addressing those factors offers a way ahead.

This offers some help:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/10/how_to_debate_ahmadinejad

[WW]

"If a non-nuclear strike on a facility will release radiological fall out then it quite frankly its not a legitimate target."

JMA, the working medium for enrichment is U-hexaflouride gas, which is stored in pressurized vessels, when not cycling thru thousands of centrifuges. Whether you attack with conventional (DU?) penetrators and explosives, or blast deeper/wider with nuclear bunker-busters, the goal would be to scatter the enriched uranium and feedstock so widely that it can't be salvaged. By design, it would result in tons of of highly radioactive ejecta, fallout over many square miles.

Given the limited effective radius of conventional/DU penetrators (see the B61 illustration above) and the goal that most of the tons of U-hexaflouride gas be breached and scattered, the radiological nature of an attack scenario trends planning forward to where 'no options are off the table', which plainly includes nuclear.

My point is that in discussing or encouraging this, we need to be honest with ourselves on 'what kind of war would it be?'. As envisioned and advocated, it would be an unprecedented radiological war of choice.

If the logic that leads me to make this point is faulty, put your work on the table.

[JMA]

I posted this earlier:

This offers some help:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/10/how_to_debate_ahmadinejad

OK David, I believe once the decision has been taken to not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon then the strategy to achieve that should be "as many as the branches of a tree" with the threat of the use of military force while being a last resort being accepted as inevitable if all else fails. The Iranian leadership must know that they can duck and dive only for so long but in the end they (the Iranian leadership) will either dismantle their nuclear weapons programme or face carefully targeted military action.

[JMA]

"If a non-nuclear strike on a facility will release radiological fall out then it quite frankly its not a legitimate target."

JMA, the working medium for enrichment is U-hexaflouride gas, which is stored in pressurized vessels, when not cycling thru thousands of centrifuges. Whether you attack with conventional (DU?) penetrators and explosives, or blast deeper/wider with nuclear bunker-busters, the goal would be to scatter the enriched uranium and feedstock so widely that it can't be salvaged. By design, it would result in tons of of highly radioactive ejecta, fallout over many square miles.

Given the limited effective radius of conventional/DU penetrators (see the B61 illustration above) and the goal that most of the tons of U-hexaflouride gas be breached and scattered, the radiological nature of an attack scenario trends planning forward to where 'no options are off the table', which plainly includes nuclear.

My point is that in discussing or encouraging this, we need to be honest with ourselves on 'what kind of war would it be?'. As envisioned and advocated, it would be an unprecedented radiological war of choice.

If the logic that leads me to make this point is faulty, put your work on the table.

Your point seems to be that if the nuclear facilities themselves are targeted there will be a catastrophic release radiological fall-out. This may well be so.

My point is that the Iranian leadership can be forced to dismantle their nuclear weapons programme through military preemptive strikes which will not result in a radiological discharge and may not even target the nuclear facilities themselves.

So removing the radiological discharge argument of yours what is your next point?

[jmm99]

from WW
My point is that in discussing or encouraging this, we need to be honest with ourselves on 'what kind of war would it be?'

Because of technical issues (e.g., see posts, Not an easy project .... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=104169&postcount=19), and Yup, (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=104197&postcount=22)), an Israeli and/or a US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be at the least radiological (from debris fallout), and at the most nuclear.

Now, JMA, please be advised (before you toss one of your soundbites my way) that I was not a Dove during the Cold War; that I did believe in MAD (as I construed that concept - a game of Chicken); that John and Michael had a moral and ethical oblilgation to turn their missile keys to dissuade Ivan and Mikael from turning their keys; and that if either set of keys was turned first, that would result in the destruction of civilization as we knew it.

Bottom line: strategic and tactical nuclear weapons were (and are) morally and ethically acceptable to me - under the right circumstances. So far as the US is concerned, the present circumstances are not even close to the "right circumstances".

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

Because of technical issues (e.g., see posts, Not an easy project .... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=104169&postcount=19), and Yup, (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=104197&postcount=22)), an Israeli and/or a US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be at the least radiological (from debris fallout), and at the most nuclear.

Now, JMA, please be advised (before you toss one of your soundbites my way) that I was not a Dove during the Cold War; that I did believe in MAD (as I construed that concept - a game of Chicken); that John and Michael had a moral and ethical oblilgation to turn their missile keys to dissuade Ivan and Mikael from turning their keys; and that if either set of keys was turned, that would result in the destruction of civilization as we knew it.

Bottom line: strategic and tactical nuclear weapons were (and are) morally and ethically acceptable to me - under the right circumstances. So far as the US is concerned, the present circumstances are not even close to the "right circumstances".

Regards

Mike


Mike, I am vehemently anti nuclear. To the extent that I believe that we must not allow any other country to develop these weapons even at the risk of another Iraq scale war or whatever. The problem areas currently are North Korea and Iran. The line must be drawn in the sand right now.

There is enough of a problem with the regular standoffs on the subcontinent between India and Pakistan. Which should be next on the agenda for disarmament or reduction.

Thereafter it remains to continue to work with those who are signatories to the NPT along the lines of warhead reduction where it is assumed China will be the main problem.

I used the example of a strike against the Iranian ICA (parliament) as an extreme. But remembering 9/11 four carefully targeted non nuclear cruise missiles would probably give the mad mullahs in Iran the necessary wake up call.

BTW wasn't it refreshing that young David from No. 10 told it like it is? The Pakistan is exporting terror. And he stood by his guns too. Seems he has more balls than most of the western government combined. Maybe the US should let him handle the Iran nuclear matter?

[bourbon]

My point is that the Iranian leadership can be forced to dismantle their nuclear weapons programme through military preemptive strikes which will not result in a radiological discharge and may not even target the nuclear facilities themselves.
Military preemptive strikes will reinforce the Iranian leadership’s perception of a need for nuclear weapons, as well as consolidate their domestic political support.

Your "shock and awe", “demonstrations of intent”, and “message sending” will do nothing. It is little more than typical neoconservative woofing, and playing with war. It does not work, and will not coerce anybody. Only killing the enemy and breaking his tribe’s capability and will to fight does that.

[WW]

Your point seems to be that if the nuclear facilities themselves are targeted there will be a catastrophic release radiological fall-out. This may well be so.

So removing the radiological discharge argument of yours what is your next point?

JMA, before moving on from the titled ('bomb Iran enrichment...') topic of this forum, which is clearly not off the table for neo-likudniks, let me be clear why blasting high level radiation across Persia would be bad, trending catastrophic.

Firstly, the quantity of gassified uranium is quite large, and the environmental half-life of the primary über-toxin (and resulting disease) is measured in hundreds of years.

Secondly, the precedent of striking at nuclear repositories is a really really bad thing to have coming back around. Not least since most of those kinds of targets are in the West. (We are talking about tooling up a uranium-plutonium energy economy, here in the land of free movement, no?)

Thirdly, even if the strike is endorsed by the Wahabi king/GCC, and carried out by the Knesset/IDF, the USA will be seen as enabler and guarantor of this Saudi-Israeli hit on Iran.

OK, so let's accept your unsupported conjecture that Iran's nuclear material and active enrichment will be avoided, and the only radiological component will be depleted uranium DU penetrators, such as we used against Iraqi armor. The third point stands, the US reasonably being accountable; we are both Israel and Arabia/GCC's primary security partner. What will we be accountable for?

A. Both regional parties agitating for military threats are proliferators themselves. Israel is way nuclear and moving to thermo/neutron weapons. The Saudi's sponsored Islamic Pakistan's bomb/proliferation, and dual use tech for said proliferation seems to flow thru the Gulf ports. Kinda lowers the bar for moral superiority over Revolutionary Iran. Quds support for terrorism? Similar problem re the Wahabi Royals.

B. If Israeli occupation is the Jihad argument, the Saudi kingdom and Egypt is the AQSL target. Another attack by crusaders on moslems may be acceptable to our buddies in those governments, but our joint existential struggle to debunk the suicide cult may well move backwards, once again. Moslems from Pakistan to Algeria will identify with the victims, not the advanced US weapons used against them.

C. If you think we (USA) can limit a Likud led IDF to a symbolic strike on an unpopular and relatively bloodless Iranian target, then you must have missed IDF misuse of cluster munitions on mixed populations, Lebanon 06, and Gaza 09. The likudist viewpoint benefits from US ever-war with moslems, and they may well drag us as far into the briar patch as they can get away with.

D. Nationalistic populations and leadership react unpredictably to military attack. I'll let someone claiming expertise or cultural insight guess how hitting them hard or just symbolically might motivate Persians. Hard or soft, by your 'no fallout' condition, we leave their enriched uranium and feedstock to their discretion; the feedstock and design pieces of an HEU program will be intact. If they don't fold, we'll have made the hard line case for nuclear deterrent.

Remember, as in Iraq, a long war is a bad war for us, because:

E. Even rumors of war in the Gulf will spike spot prices, with long-term oil contracts going up each month the crisis continues.

I don't know how your economy is doing, but my ex lost her house, and my two girls can't parley a teaching masters into a job to pay their loans. I'm not pitching conspiracy, but there are a lot of regional powers (Russia, China, Germany, France, India, Brazil) that might give our war party enough rope to finally hog tie us.

Containment worked reasonably well against the Soviets, the Maoists, Castro and Saddam. N. Korea is a problem, but mostly for their neighbors, who are each strong enough individually to deal with the Kim's bankrupt regime.

Put this in perspective. We need to defang the salafist suicide cult, bring our two long and expensive combat occupations to some kind of a conclusion, before being stampeded into a third war, and left holding the bag by shifty ME allies.

Hezbollah's missile threat aside, there is no emergency, no imminent threat that can lay claim to 'preemption' of looming attack. Certainly not for the USA. Hez is no existential threat to Israel, nor Persia to Arabia.

Economic sanctions take time, and give time for solutions and new leadership to emerge. Where are the calls for 'strategic patience' that accompanied the 'surge' counteroffensive, when we were losing another thousand KIA's?

[jmm99]

from JMA
BTW wasn't it refreshing that young David from No. 10 told it like it is? The Pakistan is exporting terror. And he stood by his guns too. Seems he has more balls than most of the western government combined. Maybe the US should let him handle the Iran nuclear matter?

Whether "young David" is "refreshing" is a UK political question (as "pro-likudniks" and "anti-likudniks" should properly be an Israeli political question), as to which I neither confirm nor deny. ;)

That said, if "young David" wants to handle Pakistan, India, Iran, Astan, Iraq - and, for that matter, every other piece of real estate that once made up or was under the "protection of" the British Empire (except, of course, the Western Hemisphere) - more power to him; but please do not expect the US to be there.

However, that is my personal "Never Again, but" viewpoint, which regards engagement in an Asian land war to be as sane as a march on Moscow. But, in the reality that exists outside my viewpoint, it seems less likely that the US will stop responding to what are primarily threats against other nations (allies or not), than "young David" will accept the challenge of managing Pakistan, India, Iran, Astan and Iraq.

My position is obviously not anti-nuclear since I recognize that nuclear weapons are weapons that the US has used and can use (IMO morally and ethically) in limited circumstances. However, both their use and threat of use are patently illegal in all but very, very limited circumstances - ICJ, 1996, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (link (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&case=95&code=unan&p3=4) and link (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&p3=4&case=93&PHPSESSID=e0decdc19db7cc91baf6130ca36ff25e)).

That case seems to have been the high point of the anti-nuclear (and nuclear disarmament) movements. Since then a lot of toothpaste has flowed from a number of tubes (both of nation-states and of violent non-state actors).

I still subscribe to limitations and constraints on nuclear weapons, which go back to the Geneva Partial Test Ban Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty) in the early 1960s - and I tend in a number of areas to follow the philosophy of this guy (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dean_(lawyer)), link (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/01/obituaries/arthur-h-dean-envoy-to-korea-talks-dies-at-89.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all), link (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890805,00.html) and link (http://205.188.238.109/time/magazine/article/0,9171,872177,00.html)).

However, the nuclear picture has gotten a lot more complicated than the scenario that faced our negotiators at Geneva in the early 60s. To be perfectly honest, diplomatic solutions today will be tougher than then; but military solutions seem even less likely to solve the nuclear proliferation problem. Unless, of course, one believes that "limited war" can be effective.

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

The "Never Again, but" set of "schoolmates" developed out of the Korean War and included in the military such folks as Matt Ridgway, Jim Gavin, Dave Shoup, Sam Griffith and Lauris Norstad. Their position on when to use and when not to use military muscle is set forth in Dave Petraeus' 1987 thesis (snip):

1199

A later offshoot was Weinberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine)-Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine).

Regards

Mike

[huskerguy7]

Military preemptive strikes will reinforce the Iranian leadership’s perception of a need for nuclear weapons, as well as consolidate their domestic political support.

Your "shock and awe", “demonstrations of intent”, and “message sending” will do nothing. It is little more than typical neoconservative woofing, and playing with war. It does not work, and will not coerce anybody. Only killing the enemy and breaking his tribe’s capability and will to fight does that.

I support this assertion all the way. If Iran is challenged, they will want to compete with their opponents. Iran is a fairly decent sized country (72 million people); they aren't going to be pushed around. In fact, a strike on Iran will not only force them to mobilize their assets and react against US troops, but it will also cause Iran to put forth more resources into its nuclear program. Lastly, let's not throw away the idea that Iran may take "radical" steps to survive. What happens when the Taliban start shooting down our choppers with 3rd generation Iranian MANPADS? The point is that Iran will put forth a substantial amount of effort into developing its nuclear program and obstructing US interests.



Economic sanctions take time, and give time for solutions and new leadership to emerge. Where are the calls for 'strategic patience' that accompanied the 'surge' counteroffensive, when we were losing another thousand KIA's?

This is also completely correct. Economic sanctions require two things.
Determination by participating countries
Time

Currently, the US is beginning to get a grasp around the first requirement. The recent sanctions are a bit tougher and other countries have a limited amount of time to deal with Iran. Some people are misunderstanding "success" with the use of sanctions. For example, people expect that regime change will occur, and a government friendly to the US will rise. Don't get me wrong, this is possible, but the chances aren't to favorable. Only 23% of US economic sanctions since 1973 have caused actions this extreme. In my opinion, sanctions are considered successful if they force a country to rethink its actions. How do we force Iran to rethink its actions without dropping a JDAM on their ICA? How about we mess with their economy. US sanctions since 1973 have caused the "victim" country to suffer a 2.4% loss in the GDP-equivalent to a depression. Not only will their economy be harmed, but development will be substantially hindered (in Iran, this is important, as they are trying to develop commerce centers by the Caspian).

Look at it from the Iranian's point of view. In their perspective, the nuclear program is an investment. With economic sanctions in the way, their investment will tank.

[davidbfpo]

Another FP Blog article:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/the_weak_case_for_war_with_iran

[JMA]

I support this assertion all the way. If Iran is challenged, they will want to compete with their opponents. Iran is a fairly decent sized country (72 million people); they aren't going to be pushed around. In fact, a strike on Iran will not only force them to mobilize their assets and react against US troops, but it will also cause Iran to put forth more resources into its nuclear program. Lastly, let's not throw away the idea that Iran may take "radical" steps to survive. What happens when the Taliban start shooting down our choppers with 3rd generation Iranian MANPADS? The point is that Iran will put forth a substantial amount of effort into developing its nuclear program and obstructing US interests.

Perhaps you are correct. Immediate surrender is safest option for the US and Israel.

[JMA]

Another FP Blog article:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/the_weak_case_for_war_with_iran

David, remember in the old days of the anti-nuke movement when they used to say "better red than dead". Well that mind-set seems to have expanded to any aggressive activity by the US and the West.

In this piece a preemptive strike becomes a war. How so?

In another post we hear if the US is part of any action against Iran the Taliban will be given ground to air missiles by Iran to shoot down helicopters in Afghanistan.

Maybe we should list all these wild scare mongering exaggerations?

[JMA]

That said, if "young David" wants to handle Pakistan, India, Iran, Astan, Iraq - and, for that matter, every other piece of real estate that once made up or was under the "protection of" the British Empire (except, of course, the Western Hemisphere) - more power to him; but please do not expect the US to be there.

Mike, young David has shown remarkable courage in taking and standing by his position on Pakistan.

Wouldn't it be nice if we saw something similar from the US and other NATO countries?

Lets not be sour about this. Let him take point if he has the balls for it and let the lesser mortals follow at a safe distance, yes?

[jmm99]

in Pakistan as you see them ? Those should determine US policies re: Pakistan.

I was not being snarky about letting the UK handle Pakistan and other areas if it wished. In my limited worldview for the US, I'd be happy to see the UK, Germany, France (and whatever of the EU willing) take on Eurasian and African continental land mass situations.

Obviously, my worldview is very much a minority US view. So, someone else will have to explain why the US should take the lead in solving the problems of the countries of the Indian Ocean littorals, or in following the lead of the UK if it wanted to jump back into solving those problems.

To provide frameworks for discussion, here is Weinberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine):


1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

and here is Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine):


1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7.Is the action supported by the American people?

8.Do we have genuine broad international support?

Regards

Mike

[WW]

Perhaps you are correct. Immediate surrender is safest option for the US and Israel.

JMA, you've used that throwaway line twice, to pose a false choice:
1. Threaten, plan and execute some sort of military attack
or
2. Surrender.
Aside from using undefined terms and false logic, it also seems to imply that a containment strategy is cowardly; more faulty, inflammatory rhetoric.

Our current policy, a graduated, aggressive and so far effective economic sanction program is NOT capitulation, nor can you blindly assume that military threats strengthen its counterproliferation effects and coalition.

We have a VP that once assured his Connecticut constituents 'I am a zionist'. We have a WH chief of Staff who volunteered to serve in Israel, when the US was going to war in 1991, and is the son of an Irgun fighter. Throw in SecState Clinton, and it's a pretty pro-Israel administration, with a lot of commitment to supporting the sanctions, domestically, and diplomatically.

A mainforce air strike on sovereign territory is an act of war. A longer war may or may not follow. But lacking a convincing casus beli, the attacked party is being dared to defend themselves, hopefully in a proportional and discriminate manner. If the Israelis or US fleet sends scores of strike bombers and cruise missiles to destroy Iranian oil, air defense, or enrichment assets, what would a proportional defensive response be, after the initial dust has cleared?

Assume the proposed attack is wildly successful, Iran's regime is humiliated, shown to be defenseless; no pilots are captured, and no civilians killed or poisoned with uranium fallout. How does that prove to third world gov'ts that a defenseless Iran didn't need a nuclear deterrent? Dozens of gov'ts around the world will be asking themselves, 'would we rather be Pakistan, or Iran today?' (Hint: Where are the two arch-terrorists most Americans would really like to get at?)

The Iranians may have violated the NPT, may still practice the same deception that Pakistan and Israel used years ago. Proliferation justifies NPT sanctions by all NPT signatories. Iran proliferation is a bad thing, and could lead to further weakening of counterproliferation efforts, if/when a nuclear Arabian IRBM system is declared. Sanctions agin Arabia? Hah. Count our blessings for now, that we're getting cooperation from Russia, Europe and China.

China (An NPT holdout, and a proliferator of bomb designs and missile tech) especially would like to keep Japan, Viet Nam, S. Korea and Taiwan from going nuclear too. How will we feel if China applies Likud's 'preemption logic' against Taiwan? Tacit support from China or Russia for a strike on Iran should be looked at VERY closely for hidden agendas. Russia's 2008 war-occupation of Georgian territory was justified as 'symmetry' vis the wars against Serbia. The 9/11 Hamburg cell originally volunteered for jihad in Chechnya, where the Russian invasion was a recruiting cry for AQSL.

The hope of 'preempting' further Iranian nuclear development DOES NOT make an attack on Iran 'preemptive war'. It's a radically different use of the term, when used re the law of war. Since there is no imminent Iranian threat (Iran has no N-weapons, no credible delivery system, no rational motivation for attacking us, Israel or Arabia), then an attack on Iran constitutes an aggressive war of choice, based on an assumption that they are defenseless against a conventional attack sanctioned by a nuclear power(s).

An attack on Iran seems attractive to some because, in the candid 2002 words of VP Cheney, 'it's doable'. How did Team Cheney's two month war work out, after we won the first round? Wasn't that also justified by false claims of 'imminent threat' ?

Yes, Iran's arming of Hez in S. Lebanon is a problem; a big one for Israel, bigger for Beruit. But it's not a reason for throwing matches into the Gulf oil patch, and it doesn't give Israel carte blanche to blackmail the US into backing a war of choice against Iran- one that they wouldn't even consider without a US checkbook and arms resupply.

Blind faith in quick, painless wars is a poor way to demonstrate courage.

[JMA]

JMA, before moving on from the titled ('bomb Iran enrichment...') topic of this forum, which is clearly not off the table for neo-likudniks, let me be clear why blasting high level radiation across Persia would be bad, trending catastrophic.

[big snip]

Economic sanctions take time, and give time for solutions and new leadership to emerge. Where are the calls for 'strategic patience' that accompanied the 'surge' counteroffensive, when we were losing another thousand KIA's?

Containment? Is that the best option as you see it? So you say let them develop a bomb and then we can all keep our fingers crossed that they are never going to use it? Not an intelligent strategy IMHO.

But I agree care should be taken to ensure that there will be no radiological fallout as a result of any preemptive strike in Iran ... noting that a strike against other suitable targets would also serve to force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

Now this war you speak of? What war?

The strike takes place and then what? The Iranians or whats left of their naval capability lifts their army to attack the US homeland or Israel itself? Which US troops and where would br involved in this war?

[JMA]

JMA, you've used that throwaway line twice, to pose a false choice:
1. Threaten, plan and execute some sort of military attack
or
2. Surrender.
Aside from using undefined terms and false logic, it also seems to imply that a containment strategy is cowardly; more faulty, inflammatory rhetoric.

Cowardice or better the lack of courage is sadly becoming more and more evident in todays western world.

Containment is the course of action requiring the least amount of courage.

We have had scares in the past over the possible use of nuclear weapons and surely we need no more? The situation we have at the moment with Pakistan is bad enough without adding two countries with certifiably insane leadership to the nuclear club (who will be quite likely to share there knowledge and possibly the bombs themselves with other equally insane organsiations and national leaderships.)

No more nukes should be the unwavering position. And as far as the deterrent against attempting to develop nuclear weapons it should be the clearly understood threat that if all else fails a military preemptive strike will be used. The US and Israel should make it very clear that they hope that negotiations and sanctions would prove successful and thus avert the need for a preemptive strike.

What negotiating position does the US administration think it has when the policy is "oh well if we can't stop them then the next administration will have to make sure they can contain the threat". Some legacy huh? Stupid strategy.

[WW]

Cowardice or better the lack of courage is sadly becoming more and more evident in todays western world.


Well, at least you've come out with it. A failure to attack is cowardice, or at least a lack of courage? The courageous attack you propose would not be an act of war, because Iran lacks capacity to defend or strike back at nuclear Israel and America? Hmm.

A coupla days back, it appears that you'd never paused to consider (or were happy to ignore) the significant radiological fallout risk inherent in an air attack on uranium enrichment sites. Is it possible that there are other aspects of your 'if we haven't threatened to blow things up, we're not really trying hard enough' policy proposal that you''ve failed to realistically evaluate?

Attacking Iran because we ignored and mishandled Pakistani proliferation so badly is not a strategy, or a policy, and maybe not even a tactic. It has the feel of a bait and switch misdirect, the appearance of being internally illogical.

Before threatening a war-like attack, I want my Congress to do their duty, hold a fact-based debate, to get real about who else in the ME is nuclear or nearly nuclear, how their story plays against our options and interests. Arabia has said that if Israel admits they arm nuclear bears, then the kingdom must have parity. Well guys, everyone already knows Israel has A-weapons and delivery capability. So?

The proliferation genie won't go back in the bottle just because Israel or America does a drive-by shooting at Iran.

[Dayuhan]

But I agree care should be taken to ensure that there will be no radiological fallout as a result of any preemptive strike in Iran ... noting that a strike against other suitable targets would also serve to force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

What makes you think that "a strike against other suitable targets" would force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program? Such a strike might convince them to accelerate the program, as well as rallying support behind the regime and totally undercutting the Iranian political opposition.


The strike takes place and then what? The Iranians or whats left of their naval capability lifts their army to attack the US homeland or Israel itself? Which US troops and where would br involved in this war?

No, the Iranians use anti-ship missiles on a few tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, and oil runs to $150/bbl or more overnight. That might not involve US troops, but it would involve US citizens; it would certainly be war, and the political/economic impact, inside the US and out of it, would be considerable, to say the least.

It's easy to say "we will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons". Do we have the capacity to prevent it? That's anything but certain at this point.

[JMA]

Iran on brink of nuclear weapon, warns watchdog (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7985438/Iran-on-brink-of-nuclear-weapon-warns-watchdog.html)


Iran has passed a crucial nuclear threshold, weapons inspectors have warned, and could now go on to arm an atomic missile with relative ease.

I guess the US and Israel should just surrender and be done with this whole matter. Who was the clown (head od state) who suggested that sanctions would work?

[Dayuhan]

I guess the US and Israel should just surrender and be done with this whole matter. Who was the clown (head od state) who suggested that sanctions would work?

So South Korea should surrender to the north, because they have a nuke?

Sanctions were never likely to work, but nobody had a better idea... so we're stuck with deterrence, which has worked rather well in the past. Not like it's game over or anything.

[JMA]

So South Korea should surrender to the north, because they have a nuke?

Sanctions were never likely to work, but nobody had a better idea... so we're stuck with deterrence, which has worked rather well in the past. Not like it's game over or anything.

Sanctions were the best plan all these "smart" guys could come up with? LOL

Maybe one should realise that you can't play Russian Roulette with nukes (a la Cuba back then) unless both sides have nukes. (One wonders why that simple fact is so difficult for all these "smart" guys to figure out?)

Maybe its more a case of "we haven't got the courage to handle this problem so we will pass the ball to the next generation to deal with."

[Dayuhan]

Sanctions were the best plan all these "smart" guys could come up with? LOL


I haven't seen anyone here come up with anything better. There's not a great deal of courage in following a course of action with a very low probability of success and a very high probability of adverse unintended consequences... that rather marks the point where courage crosses over into stupidity.

Maybe some of us need the courage to admit there are things we haven't the capacity to do. It's easy to bluster about what we should or shouldn't permit or allow, but declaring that we will not allow what we haven't the capacity to stop doesn't get us anywhere.

[JMA]

I haven't seen anyone here come up with anything better. There's not a great deal of courage in following a course of action with a very low probability of success and a very high probability of adverse unintended consequences... that rather marks the point where courage crosses over into stupidity.

Maybe some of us need the courage to admit there are things we haven't the capacity to do. It's easy to bluster about what we should or shouldn't permit or allow, but declaring that we will not allow what we haven't the capacity to stop doesn't get us anywhere.

No.

First you decide on the end result you want then you make a plan to achieve that.

I say that the end result is that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Now there is the easy way to do that and then there is the hard way. Take your pick.

What I am suggesting in my comments on this thread is that there seem to be many people with no plan because they have no end result. They are just making it up as they go along.

It is important to have people with the courage of their convictions to act accordingly.

What the world needs is a leader with the character Billy Graham talks of:


Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.

... then there is the other type of courage Winston Churchill talks about (which may be more applicable to those of western powers involved in the nuclear arms race):


Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.

... and by so doing proving beyond doubt that they are complete blithering idiots.

[Ken White]

What I am suggesting in my comments on this thread is that there seem to be many people with no plan because they have no end result. They are just making it up as they go along...that, unfortunately, in democratic societies, the operative problem is not that many people have no plan -- it is that many people have competing or different plans. Trying to get many people to agree to A plan is usually quite painful if it can be achieved at all, trying to get a number of societies to agree to one is even more difficult... :wry:
... and by so doing proving beyond doubt that they are complete blithering idiots.Yes, I agree -- I always categorize those who do not agree with MY superb solution as idiots or worse. ;)

[slapout9]

What the world needs is a leader with the character Billy Graham talks of:



Thats pretty interesting from a Boydian point of view (moral,mental,physical levels of war) so if God were talking to Billy Grahm would he tell him to attack Iran? Why or Why not?

[Dayuhan]

First you decide on the end result you want then you make a plan to achieve that.

I say that the end result is that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Now there is the easy way to do that and then there is the hard way. Take your pick.


If that's what you say, then then you'd better go out and stop them. I shall observe with keen interest and no little amusement.

The world has changed, and "the Western world" - even if it functioned as a single entity, which it doesn't - no longer has the capacity to impose its will on everybody else whenever it chooses to do so, or to decree and enforce rules on what others may or may not do. Acknowledging that reality requires a bit of courage, of course, along with a bit of realism.

Leaping into action with a plan that has a minimal chance of success and a very high probability of adverse unintended consequences crosses the frequently vague line between courage and stupidity.

What, by the way, is "the easy way"?

[JMA]

If that's what you say, then then you'd better go out and stop them. I shall observe with keen interest and no little amusement.

The world has changed, and "the Western world" - even if it functioned as a single entity, which it doesn't - no longer has the capacity to impose its will on everybody else whenever it chooses to do so, or to decree and enforce rules on what others may or may not do. Acknowledging that reality requires a bit of courage, of course, along with a bit of realism.

Leaping into action with a plan that has a minimal chance of success and a very high probability of adverse unintended consequences crosses the frequently vague line between courage and stupidity.

What, by the way, is "the easy way"?

Yes the world has indeed changed.

It reminds one of when the British Empire ran out of steam. They also came up with a good number of reasons why this and that were no longer possible and could not be done. (They had the excuse that they had lost the top end of their gene pool during the two world wars.)

Now as part of the recent changes we see an exhausted US willingly giving up its sole superpower status and sliding backwards into the group of major powers. (There is an excuse for this?)

I guess the definition of courage in the new US is Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.

[JMA]

that, unfortunately, in democratic societies, the operative problem is not that many people have no plan -- it is that many people have competing or different plans. Trying to get many people to agree to A plan is usually quite painful if it can be achieved at all, trying to get a number of societies to agree to one is even more difficult... :wry:Yes, I agree -- I always categorize those who do not agree with MY superb solution as idiots or worse. ;)

Plans are one thing but it is the desired end result that is important.

The plan is merely the journey to reach that destination. If you have no desired destination then how can you possibly plan a journey?

And then of course you can't expect to be taken seriously if every 4 to 8 years you change the destination before the journey has been completed.

[JMA]

Thats pretty interesting from a Boydian point of view (moral,mental,physical levels of war) so if God were talking to Billy Grahm would he tell him to attack Iran? Why or Why not?

Did I do more than merely use a Billy Graham quote?

[Dayuhan]

Now as part of the recent changes we see an exhausted US willingly giving up its sole superpower status and sliding backwards into the group of major powers. (There is an excuse for this?)

I guess the definition of courage in the new US is Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.

Yes, there is a reason: since the US is no longer the world's sole economic superpower, it cannot reasonably aspire to be the world's sole military superpower. It's no longer an affordable luxury.

The military options have been assessed and found wanting. Invasion is not realistically affordable, and would not be even in a world where we could simply go out and invade anyone who doesn't do what we want. Air attack is unlikely to achieve the desired objective and the range of potential - in fact probable - undesirable consequences is severe. No realistic option has been proposed.

It takes no courage whatsoever to propose impractical and pointless plans and accuse those who fail to adopt them of lacking courage. People who bluster about what others ought to do don't have to face the consequences of ill-advised action.

[JMA]

Yes, there is a reason: since the US is no longer the world's sole economic superpower, it cannot reasonably aspire to be the world's sole military superpower. It's no longer an affordable luxury.

The military options have been assessed and found wanting. Invasion is not realistically affordable, and would not be even in a world where we could simply go out and invade anyone who doesn't do what we want. Air attack is unlikely to achieve the desired objective and the range of potential - in fact probable - undesirable consequences is severe. No realistic option has been proposed.

It takes no courage whatsoever to propose impractical and pointless plans and accuse those who fail to adopt them of lacking courage. People who bluster about what others ought to do don't have to face the consequences of ill-advised action.

This conversation is a wonderful example of what I have been saying...

These plans? They are to achieve what?

What is the US position (the government position and not that what certain individuals would like it to be) on whether Iran can be allowed to develop nukes? It appears that they don't what Iran to have nukes but at the same time do not have the courage to make sure that does not happen. There is no doubt that if there was the required backbone amongst the politicians the military could prepare 20 possible military options and those "smart" guys in and around this administration could figure out at least one political strategy.

It would be better for the US to do like what the Brits did when they ran away from their Empire that they state clearly that they have no interest in Iran and its nuclear programme and will not get involved in the internal affairs of this sovereign state.

The message (at the moment) to the world is that the US is indeed too weak and therefore unable to do anything about the Iran nuclear programme. It is this perceived weakness that lets those like Al-Qaeda in the Yemen and Somalia believe that they have nothing to fear from the US... and they are probably correct.

Oh yes and it takes no courage to take the course of least resistance.

[Dayuhan]

What is the US position (the government position and not that what certain individuals would like it to be) on whether Iran can be allowed to develop nukes? It appears that they don't what Iran to have nukes but at the same time do not have the courage to make sure that does not happen. There is no doubt that if there was the required backbone amongst the politicians the military could prepare 20 possible military options and those "smart" guys in and around this administration could figure out at least one political strategy.

First of all, American politicians are accountable to the American populace, not to you. The American populace is not prepared to accept war with Iran in order to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

Part of the process by which a government decides what its position on an issue will be is an assessment of capacity to influence conditions. It's stupid to declare that you will not tolerate something you haven't the capacity to prevent. You just make yourself look a blustering idiot.

I'm sure the military has put together many options. Whether or not there are 20 I really don't know, but I'm sure there are several. When assessed, it's clear that these options either exceed the level of commitment acceptable to the populace - an absolute constraint in a democracy - or are unlikely to accomplish the objective, or are likely to produce a range of unintended consequences with negative effects that exceed the value of the goal, even in the unlikely event that the goal were to be achieved. Pursuing an option so assessed would not be brave, it would be dumb.

I can't see how courage enters into it at all, unless you think that American leaders ought to have the courage to put your demands ahead of those of their constituency... an odd thing to ask of the leaders of a democracy.

As far as the leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere are concerned, there is nothing that would please them more than to see American bombs raining down on Iran. That's what keeps them in business.

[JMA]

First of all, American politicians are accountable to the American populace, not to you.

Are they accountable to anybody? They don't seem to care in most cases in the recent past (from 1945) most presidents prove to be a disappointment to voters given their popularity records (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html). Seems they say what they need to say to get elected and then do their own thing thereafter.


The American populace is not prepared to accept war with Iran in order to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

And you know this how? Seriously... is this what you would like to believe or can you support your statement with some facts?

Yes I know while you can't take the word of a US President to the bank perhaps the current incumbent is closer to prevention than you may think. Read here (http://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/obama-fine-tunes-his-iran-options/):


“Prevention” rather than “containment” was the watchword of the secret Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on Iran, which President Barack Obama signed in the second week of April, ...

Who knows. Maybe seeing you talk on behalf of the US populace you can enlighten me on this?


Part of the process by which a government decides what its position on an issue will be is an assessment of capacity to influence conditions. It's stupid to declare that you will not tolerate something you haven't the capacity to prevent. You just make yourself look a blustering idiot.

It appears the US government needs no help in putting it beyond doubt in the eyes of the world that they are indeed totally and absolutely inept when it comes to foreign policy. Many in the world outside the US see the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as the last kicks of a dying horse. I would like to believe otherwise but unless the US voters can begin to elect competent presidents there is no hope of that.


I'm sure the military has put together many options. Whether or not there are 20 I really don't know, but I'm sure there are several. When assessed, it's clear that these options either exceed the level of commitment acceptable to the populace - an absolute constraint in a democracy - or are unlikely to accomplish the objective, or are likely to produce a range of unintended consequences with negative effects that exceed the value of the goal, even in the unlikely event that the goal were to be achieved. Pursuing an option so assessed would not be brave, it would be dumb.

I'm sure the military have any number of options on the table. The problem is and always will be the limitations the politicians place upon them.

You talk about something being acceptable to the populace. Again is this really what you think or do you have some data to share on this?

Being dumb about what options to pursue is not something unknown to recent US administrations. They don't seem to care.


I can't see how courage enters into it at all, unless you think that American leaders ought to have the courage to put your demands ahead of those of their constituency... an odd thing to ask of the leaders of a democracy.

Having seen how the presence of nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent has made matters more complicated. One would have thought the lesson would have been learned. Now to allow North Korea and Iran to produce nukes is plain criminally insane and totally incompetent.

It is of course somewhat disingenious to continue the pretense that it is only I that would suggest that Iran should be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. Please don't do that.

To see just Iran is giving the P5+1 the run around read this:
Nuclear Prevention and Red Lines: The Case of Iran (http://carnegieendowment.org/files/goldschmidt_red_lines_iran.pdf)

The actions of the P5+1 is a joke.


As far as the leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere are concerned, there is nothing that would please them more than to see American bombs raining down on Iran. That's what keeps them in business.

American bombs raining down on Iran? You mean to stop nuclear weapon development in Iran one needs to carpet bomb the whole country? LOL...

... immediate surrender seems to be the best option for the US... if you can get Israel to go along with that.

[slapout9]

Did I do more than merely use a Billy Graham quote?

It didn't seem to be just a quote. It was an implication about moral character, which you seem to imply as very important(I agree with that by the way if you meant it), so that is why I asked the question. Before we talk about how to do it (attack Iran)should we spend more time on discussing whether it is even the morally right thing to do in the first place and if it is then why or why not?

[JMA]

It didn't seem to be just a quote. It was an implication about moral character, which you seem to imply as very important(I agree with that by the way if you meant it), so that is why I asked the question. Before we talk about how to do it (attack Iran)should we spend more time on discussing whether it is even the morally right thing to do in the first place and if it is then why or why not?

Lets look at that Billy Graham quote again:


Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.

The converse of this quote is also true. Fear is a cancer.

Taking this all a little bit further I suggest we look at Kipling's poem "If": (http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm)


IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
...


So only people of proven courage both physical and moral should be allowed to make such decisions for a nation. (In a democracy you get the leadership you deserve)

Ok so what to do about Iran?

My opinion which is by no means unique is that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

I would support any action taken to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon or if it does happen through the incompetence of the P5+1 then I would support an Israeli or other unilateral attack aimed at either destroying the nuclear arsenal of Iran or forcing to the Iran regime to agree to dismantle these weapons under IAEA supervision. One would certainly hope and wish that all this could be achieved without the emission of radiation.

As to whether this is the morally correct thing to do in the first place I don't think there is any doubt. I would like to see both the US and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals to the bear minimum as with the other current nuclear powers but that no additional nuclear powers be allowed to become established at any cost.

If WMD had been found in Iraq then we would not be hearing about the wasted $1 trillion and the 4,418 deaths of US servicemen. The problem was that they sold the war on the basis of there supposedly being WMD there.

For Iran I suggest that action be threatened on the basis that Iran must not be allowed to develop any WMDs.

Now once there is agreement to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons or there is the resolve from say Israel with or without US support to go ahead with a military strike should all other avenues prove fruitless then and only then does the "plan" become an issue.

I would say that one should consider the Kosovo option and the early action against the Taliban was the basis for this. Strategic bombing with little or no troops on the ground. I know and Iraqis know that this precision bombing is not as precise as everyone would like to believe but I suggest that careful target selection would reduce civilian casualties to the minimum.

I would expect a PR campaign to begin now to prepare the fainthearted western countries for this likelihood and allow them to start growing some backbone.

Remember:


It takes a brave man to stand up to his enemies but an even braver man to stand up to his friends.

[jmm99]

Please answer me just a question one.

Why should a citizen of the US want the US to have "sole superpower status" ?

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

Why should a citizen of the US want the US to have "sole superpower status" ?

An excellent question. It’s certainly not a status that I would want, or a status that's compatible with our current financial situation.


And you know this how? Seriously... is this what you would like to believe or can you support your statement with some facts?

We hold these truths to be self-evident… seriously, if you’re following the American mood at all you will see quite clearly that the prospect of another war in the Middle East is going to make a lead balloon look like a peregrine falcon. The 9/11 impetus only carries so far, and it is gone.


It appears the US government needs no help in putting it beyond doubt in the eyes of the world that they are indeed totally and absolutely inept when it comes to foreign policy. Many in the world outside the US see the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as the last kicks of a dying horse. I would like to believe otherwise but unless the US voters can begin to elect competent presidents there is no hope of that.

You are welcome to your opinion. I am presumably welcome to my opinion of your opinion, which I shall tactfully decline to state.

I personally hope (not sure I dare believe it) that the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are the last time this living nation needs to be reminded that kicking ourselves in the balls is painful and counterproductive. Maybe this time the lesson will sink in.


Having seen how the presence of nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent has made matters more complicated. One would have thought the lesson would have been learned. Now to allow North Korea and Iran to produce nukes is plain criminally insane and totally incompetent.

You seem oddly fixated on this notion of “allowing”. Who is supposed to be doing all this allowing and not allowing? The US? What are we supposed to be, parents to the world, sending nations for time-outs - or bombing them - whenever they do what we have unilaterally decided that we won’t allow? This seems, in all honesty, a rather bizarre way of looking at the world. We are not a global legislature or a global police force. It’s not a responsibility any sane nation would want, or that any sane world would allow one nation to claim. The farthest I'm willing to take that is a clear statement that those who attack us or our allies will have the $#!T kicked out of them. Beyond that, we have no business trying to run the world. All moral considerations aside, we can't afford it.


B]American bombs raining down on Iran[/B]? You mean to stop nuclear weapon development in Iran one needs to carpet bomb the whole country? LOL...

Actually one might have to… none of the proposed plans for air strikes seem at all likely to accomplish the objective, and you've been notably reluctant to suggest anything that you think would work. The point, though, is that an attack on Iran is not going to intimidate Al Qaeda, it’s going to play directly into their hands. There are few things we could do that would make them happier, or that would help them more.


... immediate surrender seems to be the best option for the US... if you can get Israel to go along with that.

Why should anyone surrender to anyone? Should South Korea surrender to the north? By that “logic” (to use the term very loosely indeed) we should already have surrendered to the Soviet Union, and to China…

[JMA]

Please answer me just a question one.

Why should a citizen of the US want the US to have "sole superpower status" ?

Regards

Mike

Well I can believe that there are a lot of US citizens who are happy that the US is the King-of-the-Castle.

It is not a question of sole superpower status as that is quite temporary if not passed already... it is a question of whether the US losses its superpower status and slips down the order to the status of "major power". I can think that many US citizens would not like to see that happening.

Sadly history will record that when the Soviet Union imploded the US squandered the opportunity it had as the sole superpower to do good in the world. Instead it alienated itself from many nations who were genuinely non-aligned and wanted to be friends of the US.

When the US was the sole superpower it believed it could still pick and choose what it wanted to get involved in and what not. As the sole superpower you need to be involved everywhere otherwise you create a void for others to fill.

[Entropy]

JMA,

There is only one way to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, and that is regime change. Pretty much everything else will only result in a delay or leave them on the cusp. Stupid actions will ensure they DO get the bomb. At best, airstrikes will delay Iran, at worst they will prompt Iran to nuclearize as quickly as possible.

So does the US have the capability to do the only sure thing - regime change - and if not, then what's the alternative?

In my opinion we don't have the capability.

[Rex Brynen]

There is only one way to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, and that is regime change.

Even that might not work. The Iranian nuclear program was started under the Shah, after all--when Iran was a US ally. It was stopped by Khomeini after the revolution. It was restarted after Iran was invaded by Iraq (with the tacit acceptance, and later support, of the West). I certainly agree that regime change is effectively beyond US capabilities.

With regard to bombing, there are three sets of issues to be considered. The first is how much damage it can do the program--an issue of force capability, intelligence, the configuration of the Iranian program, and the success of Iranian CCD efforts. The second is how bombing affects Iranian cost-benefit analysis. While in a material sense it would hurt, in the political sense it would probably strengthen the regime and undercut the opposition. Finally, there is the issue of what to do if the Iranians simply keep reconstituting the program week after week, start putting key infrastructure in or under densely populated areas, etc. Is anyone prepared to bomb Iran monthly for years on end, with all the costs (increased terrorism, high oil prices/global recession) that entails?

[Entropy]

Rex,

Sure, nothing is completely certain, but regime change is about as certain and one can get while realizing that things can change dramatically over long time-scales.

Not that I'm advocating for regime change - far from it. Your other points are well made. Destroying the Iranian program is not an Osirak or al Kibar redux - enrichment is a much more difficult target set. Iran has certainly prepared for such strikes. Unfortunately, Iran's centrifuge production facilities are not under IAEA purview, so it's entirely conceivable they are cranking out spares which could be hidden anywhere. Airstrikes can only delay the program and would probably drive it underground.

Not many good options for our side, unfortunately.

[JMA]

JMA,

There is only one way to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, and that is regime change. Pretty much everything else will only result in a delay or leave them on the cusp. Stupid actions will ensure they DO get the bomb. At best, airstrikes will delay Iran, at worst they will prompt Iran to nuclearize as quickly as possible.

So does the US have the capability to do the only sure thing - regime change - and if not, then what's the alternative?

In my opinion we don't have the capability.

If you believe that the regime in Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons then all the options are on the table... surely.

The US military will do a full appreciation (which they most certainly have done) to establish what the best course of action would be to prevent Iran developing nukes - i.e. the military solution or a series of military options.

The State Department would be looking at diplomatic options for the same purpose. Whether regime change would be an option I don't know.

The problem is that the military is the same crowd which failed miserably to plan for a post invasion Iraq with catastrophic results... and the State department is sadly little better.

The US most certainly has the capability to prevent Iran developing nukes but it does not appear to have the smarts in the right places to choose the best course of action.

Its a real problem.

[JMA]

Rex,

Sure, nothing is completely certain, but regime change is about as certain and one can get while realizing that things can change dramatically over long time-scales.

Not that I'm advocating for regime change - far from it. Your other points are well made. Destroying the Iranian program is not an Osirak or al Kibar redux - enrichment is a much more difficult target set. Iran has certainly prepared for such strikes. Unfortunately, Iran's centrifuge production facilities are not under IAEA purview, so it's entirely conceivable they are cranking out spares which could be hidden anywhere. Airstrikes can only delay the program and would probably drive it underground.

Not many good options for our side, unfortunately.

Question. If you want to kill a snake is it better to strike it on the body or tail or a sharp blow to the head?

[Rex Brynen]

Question. If you want to kill a snake is it better to strike it on the body or tail or a sharp blow to the head?

I really never was a big fan of the Crocodile Dundee school of international relations.

[JMA]

Even that might not work. The Iranian nuclear program was started under the Shah, after all--when Iran was a US ally. It was stopped by Khomeini after the revolution. It was restarted after Iran was invaded by Iraq (with the tacit acceptance, and later support, of the West). I certainly agree that regime change is effectively beyond US capabilities.

With regard to bombing, there are three sets of issues to be considered. The first is how much damage it can do the program--an issue of force capability, intelligence, the configuration of the Iranian program, and the success of Iranian CCD efforts. The second is how bombing affects Iranian cost-benefit analysis. While in a material sense it would hurt, in the political sense it would probably strengthen the regime and undercut the opposition. Finally, there is the issue of what to do if the Iranians simply keep reconstituting the program week after week, start putting key infrastructure in or under densely populated areas, etc. Is anyone prepared to bomb Iran monthly for years on end, with all the costs (increased terrorism, high oil prices/global recession) that entails?

Well I guess the people involved such a planning cycle would not include the likes of the naysayers we see around here. There are most certainly ways of achieving the aim if that is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, both military and political. The question is only whether the President and Congress have got the courage to follow that through.

Interesting that comment around here is centered upon how efforts to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons are bound to fail while very few people state their position on whether Iran should be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. What do you believe Rex?

[Entropy]

If there are military and political ways of achieving that aim, then what are they? The military option most discussed is some kind of air campaign which will achieve the aim only temporarily.

Personally, I don't want Iran to develop nukes, but I'm not so naive as to believe the only thing necessary to prevent that is "courage" by our political leaders. As I recall, Saddam Hussein believed courage and the Arab warrior spirit would defeat the infidel American invasion and we all know how well that strategy worked. The point being is that political courage doesn't mean much without a valid means to achieve an end.

So you might consider that part of the reason our political leaders are reluctant is because the military and political means are limited and any success is likely to be transitory. At the same time a these options, particularly the military options, will create all sorts of negative consequences. Suggesting that the consequences might not be worth transitory success does not demonstrate, in my mind, a lack of courage, but something quite different.

You might also consider the attitudes of the American people (this is a democracy after all) and the fact that politicians fear them more than an Iranian bomb. While the American people probably do not want to see Iran get a bomb, they are unwilling to spend the many hundreds-of-millions of borrowed dollars and possibly thousands of American lives to for what would be an uncertain gamble on success. And I can tell you for certain there is no way the American people would support the sure method for ending Iran's program - invasion and regime change - even if it were militarily possible to do.

Finally, can we retire the "all options are on the table" nonsense? Everyone understands that all options are not on the table. We're not going to invade Iran and we're not going to nuke them. There's a whole list of things, political and military, that we're not going to do. Talking tough is a lot different than being tough....

[Rex Brynen]

What do you believe Rex?

I would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. I would also prefer that we don't do something stupid that damages Western interests and increases the chances that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

[jmm99]

The December 2009 Pew-CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Poll examined the attitude of USAians to various foreign affairs issues.

Here is a general article on the poll, Op-Ed: Turning Away (http://www.cfr.org/publication/21009/turning_away.html), Author: James M. Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair:


December 17, 2009
Baltimore Sun

As President Barack Obama moves ahead with his plan to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, his overall approach to foreign policy looks to be losing favor with the American public. ...

Pew's Overview of its poll is here, U.S. Seen as Less Important, China as More Powerful - Isolationist Sentiment Surges to Four-Decade High (http://people-press.org/report/569/americas-place-in-the-world) (3 Dec 2009):


Overview

The general public and members of the Council on Foreign Relations are apprehensive and uncertain about America’s place in the world. Growing numbers in both groups see the United States playing a less important role globally, while acknowledging the increasing stature of China. And the general public, which is in a decidedly inward-looking frame of mind when it comes to global affairs, is less supportive of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan than are CFR members. ....

The entire 122 page poll report is here, AMERICA’S PLACE IN THE WORLD 2009 (http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/569.pdf).

Answers to the specific questions relevant to this thread are found at p. 18 pdf, "U.S. Leadership Role":

1253

and "Fewer See U.S. as Important Leader":

1254

but "Most Favor Keeping U.S. as Only [Military] Superpower":

1255

Now as to Iran (which was regarded as the greatest danger to the US by 21% of the public - the highest figure for any potential enemy p. 26 pdf), at p.2 pdf:


Using Force in “What if” Scenarios

A majority of the public approves of using U.S. military forces in several international situations. More than six-in-ten (63%) approve of using U.S. forces if it were certain Iran had produced a nuclear weapon while less than a third (30%) disapprove. Opinion among CFR members is nearly the opposite; only 33% approve of using force in this situation while 61%disapprove.

The answers to this poll (as with any poll) depends on the questions asked; and the answeree's perception of the questions asked.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

I would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. I would also prefer that we don't do something stupid that damages Western interests and increases the chances that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

Thank you; that's about what I was going to say, though I'd have taken a lot more words doing it. The distinction between doing something brave and doing something stupid is, I think, blurred in some quarters.

[JMA]

I would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. I would also prefer that we don't do something stupid that damages Western interests and increases the chances that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

How do I summarize that response?

Not going to take a stand and be content to chirp from the bleachers?

[Cole]

Finally, can we retire the "all options are on the table" nonsense? Everyone understands that all options are not on the table. We're not going to invade Iran and we're not going to nuke them. There's a whole list of things, political and military, that we're not going to do. Talking tough is a lot different than being tough....

If Iran started getting frisky around the Straits of Hormuz, would venture we might invade there to secure the coastal areas most at risk for attack origination. Really don't believe we will try to cross the Zagros Mountains...but never thought anyone would try to land a C-130 in a soccer stadium either.:eek:

The real issue is what will Israel do. They bombed a potential nuke site in Syria...and the Syrians are less radical than Iranian leaders, both secular and religious. You've probably seen Charles Krauthammer's prediction at the Air Force Association today. He's usually pretty rationale but might be outside his area of expertise here. Still, the Israelis are not known to adhere to U.S. or world opinion, so polls and diplomacy are largely irrelevant if the Saudis give them a route.

Finally, would Israel use a nuke designed to explode deep underground to make a point and take out a hardened location? Obviously, Iran gives Hezbollah all the rockets/missiles it can handle. Why wouldn't they give them or some other terrorist organization a nuke?

[Rex Brynen]

How do I summarize that response?

Not going to take a stand and be content to chirp from the bleachers?

No need to summarize, JMA. Most everyone else understood it. :D

[Rex Brynen]

Obviously, Iran gives Hezbollah all the rockets/missiles it can handle. Why wouldn't they give them or some other terrorist organization a nuke?

Iran's relations with Hizbullah are of a qualitatively different sort than those with other groups.

Moreover, Iran already possesses non-conventional weapons capabilities (chemical, radiological, possibly biological) which it has chosen NOT to pass on to Hizbullah. Tehran understands very well Israel's deterrent capabilities, and the likely consequences of any such transfer.

[Cole]

Iran's relations with Hizbullah are of a qualitatively different sort than those with other groups.

Moreover, Iran already possesses non-conventional weapons capabilities (chemical, radiological, possibly biological) which it has chosen NOT to pass on to Hizbullah. Tehran understands very well Israel's deterrent capabilities, and the likely consequences of any such transfer.

Supposedly we require missile defenses in Europe because of Iranian threats of missile attack. That would be suicidal for Iran, too. The point is that religious extremists who may believe in the coming of a leader who will save them if they take some first step, may do something not rational to most of us.

Plus, skimmed through four CSIS reports just now. While none said Iran was giving CBRN to Hezbollah, they are readily giving them the type of missiles and rockets that can launch such weapons if they get the CBRN somewhere else or through their own production (see slides 42 and 43 of 3rd report).

http://csis.org/files/publication/100812_IranGulfThreatBrief-Asymm.pdf

Difference is that Israel hands out gas masks to its civilians. Persistent chemicals are largely point weapons and can be decontaminated or evaporate in heat. Nukes...not so much.

Skiimming/searching the CSIS reports also revealed that Israeli Jericho missiles could be part of their attack as well. Add to that sub missile attacks and the air-breathing range issue may not be as critical to ensure engagement of multiple targets. If it buys time for Saudi Arabia to buy $70 billion in new weapons from us and for Israel to get F-35 and better missile defenses, it may be worth it to them both?

[Entropy]

Cole,

A raid on some Islands or coastal areas for tactical reasons is not the same thing as a strategic decision to invade Iran and replace the government.

[Entropy]

Cole,

It's quite a stretch to go from rockets to nukes. For all the talk of religious extremists in Iran, when you look at how they actually operate around the world, they are very astute and calculating. The allegations of unhinged religious extremism simply do not fit with Iran's visible actions.

[Cole]

Cole,

A raid on some Islands or coastal areas for tactical reasons is not the same thing as a strategic decision to invade Iran and replace the government.
I hear you, but nobody is saying you must replace the government to occupy terrain or make something a long term no fly/no occupation zone. Of course we saw how the "no fly" thing worked the first time but really doubt we would try to cross the Zagros or airdrop/air assault/MV-22 into Tehran.

[Cole]

Cole,

It's quite a stretch to go from rockets to nukes. For all the talk of religious extremists in Iran, when you look at how they actually operate around the world, they are very astute and calculating. The allegations of unhinged religious extremism simply do not fit with Iran's visible actions.

There is a chemical, biological, and radiological component to CBRN as well. Plus wasn't there news speculation about North Koreans near the bombed Syrian site?

How much control does the "rational" Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah have over the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah? Where are these chemicals coming from that are poisoning girl's schools in Afghanistan. Seem to recall some chlorine gas use in Iraq, too.

Would feel a whole lot better with you Reaper guys flying over the Straits of Hormuz and its adjacent lands for as long as it takes to arm Iran's Arab neighbors.

[JMA]

No need to summarize, JMA. Most everyone else understood it. :D

The fact that it appears for some that everything is negotiable needs to be exposed.

[JMA]

Cole,

A raid on some Islands or coastal areas for tactical reasons is not the same thing as a strategic decision to invade Iran and replace the government.

Iran appears to have as inept politicians as do so many western countries.

Playing into the hands of those who want to skip the diplomacy and move right onto military action Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz.

As an Iran analyst puts it here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LH06Ak02.html):


... the Strait of Hormuz is the "hanging rope" of the American economy.

This plays right into the hands of those who would like the US to put on a "shock and awe" demonstration for the Iranian leadership. Say Take out all naval facilities (down to the last naval vessel) and all military airfields (down to the last military aircraft). ... don't put any boots on the ground and then when the dust settles take it from there.

No invasion necessary ... unless other Gulf States want to band together to take the regime down.

Then after all this if the Iranian regime is still in power and wanting to push ahead with their nuclear weapons programme then let Phase Two of "shock and awe" begin...

The bottom line is not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

[Dayuhan]

How much control does the "rational" Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah have over the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah?

Enough to be sure they don't do anything that would provoke significant retaliation. Iran will not, for example, use a nuclear weapon on Israel. The retaliation would be devastating... and really, what would Iran gain? Enormous risk, no reward, hardly a likely scenario.

[JMA]

Thank you; that's about what I was going to say, though I'd have taken a lot more words doing it. The distinction between doing something brave and doing something stupid is, I think, blurred in some quarters.

Did you understand what he said?

[JMA]

Iran's relations with Hizbullah are of a qualitatively different sort than those with other groups.

Moreover, Iran already possesses non-conventional weapons capabilities (chemical, radiological, possibly biological) which it has chosen NOT to pass on to Hizbullah. Tehran understands very well Israel's deterrent capabilities, and the likely consequences of any such transfer.

Israel's deterrent is only good as long as Iran does not have a nuke.

[JMA]

How much control does the "rational" Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah have over the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah?

Who said these two were "rational"? LOL

[Entropy]

Cole,

Obviously one can come up with any number of scenarios where the US might do this or that tactical action in a hypothetical war with Iran. My point was simply to demonstrate the "all options are on the table" rhetoric is needlessly counterproductive because all options are not on the table. We're not going to send Cavguy to lead an armored column to Tehran. We're not going to nuke the place. There are, in other words, a lot of options that are "off the table."

JMA,


The bottom line is not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

So that statement would indicate you are willing to pay any price to prevent that from happening? You should seriously consider the implications of such an absolutist viewpoint.

On the question of means, your understanding of what is possible and what isn't appears quite flawed:


No invasion necessary ... unless other Gulf States want to band together to take the regime down.

"Taking the regime down" requires invading Iran. If you think that is something the Gulf States would be interested in "taking on" then all I can say is that you have a lot to learn about the Gulf States.

The same goes for your belief that "no invasion is necessary." You'll have to explain how destroying the Iranian Navy and Air Force or even the Iranian economy (all of which is certainly possible) is going to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon - if anything it's going to do the opposite. Additionally, the idea that the Iranian leadership will acquiesce in response to the destruction of their Navy, Air Force and economy is a completely unsupported assertion. I do acknowledge that it might work, but hope that it will is not a viable strategy IMO. The history of bombing campaigns as a tool to compel enemy leaders is generally not a favorable one - and I say this as an Air Force guy myself.


Then after all this if the Iranian regime is still in power and wanting to push ahead with their nuclear weapons programme then let Phase Two of "shock and awe" begin...

And what if "phase 2" doesn't work either? The problem here is that you don't seem to have a plan that would result in your desired end-state. What you do have is a formula for endless escalation based on the dubious assumption that repeated applications of "shock and awe" will be enough.

So, if you want to convince me, you need to explain how, specifically, the military means will achieve the desired ends.

You also might consider that perhaps your desired end-state isn't achievable militarily except through extreme measures (ie. invasion, nukes) and that fact is the reason some of us may appear accepting of an Iranian nuclear capability under some circumstances. In other words, it's not because we are soft on Iran, as your comments seem to allege, but because we have an appreciation of the limits of what American military power can do. And what I don't want to see is American blood and treasure wasted on a half-assed fool's campaign with dubious prospects for success where we FAIL to achieve the objective but still suffer all the negative consequences of military action. A "shock and awe" campaign is just such a half-assed measure in my view.

So, it's time for you to share your plan for decisively prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[slapout9]

We're not going to send Cavguy to lead an armored column to Tehran.

Maybe....then again maybe not:D:D

[bourbon]

Israel's deterrent is only good as long as Iran does not have a nuke.
No. Israel’s status as strongest tribe in the region is only good as long as Iran does not have a nuke – which is what I believe this is really about.

Someday we are going to wake up one morning and Iran is going to have a government friendly to the US, and there will be a rush to re-establish the strong ties we previously held with them.

What is Israel going to do then when they are no longer the strongest tribe in the region, and are no longer the US’s principle ally in the Middle East? These are key tenets of Israel’s national security and foreign policy.

The US only started to give aid to Israel in significant amounts annually after Iran’s 1979 revolution.

[Entropy]

Maybe....then again maybe not:D:D

I think we might have a viable plan if Cavguy is backed up by Ken White and his endless capacity for ass-kicking (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=9219). :D

[Dayuhan]

Israel's deterrent is only good as long as Iran does not have a nuke.

Why should that be the case? The point of deterrence is not to make it impossible for anyone to attack you, the point is to raise the cost of an attack far beyond any possible benefit. Since there would be no benefit at all to Iran from attacking Israel and the cost would (given Israel's presumed capacity for nuclear retaliation) be extremely high, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel seems pretty low.

Iran's leaders seem perfectly willing to promote suicide among others, but there's no evidence to suggest that they are willing to embrace it themselves.

I've noticed more than once that when people want something accomplished by any means and at any cost, they generally propose to employ someone else's means and they generally expect someone else to cover the cost.

[Dayuhan]

Did you understand what he said?

Yes.


Well I can believe that there are a lot of US citizens who are happy that the US is the King-of-the-Castle.

Who said the US was King-of-the-Castle? We don't like kings, remember?

I'm sure there are some Americans who would like the US to be a sole superpower, or king of some castle. There are lots of Americans who would like to drive a Ferrari... until they look at the price tag. Americans who aspire to sole superpower status generally have yet to look at the price tag.