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

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:

Quote:

---

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:).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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: 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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

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.

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/201...-saudi-option/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huskerguy7

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 ??? You mean it will lead to the US being defeated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/201...-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?

"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.

I posted this earlier:

Quote:

---

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/article...te_ahmadinejad

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

I posted this earlier:

This offers some help:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...te_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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 ...., and Yup,), 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

Because of technical issues (e.g., see posts, Not an easy project ...., and Yup,), 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

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?

Quote:

---

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 and link).

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 in the early 1960s - and I tend in a number of areas to follow the philosophy of this guy (link, link, link and link).

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):

Attachment 1199

A later offshoot was Weinberger-Powell.

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bourbon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WW

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.

1. Determination by participating countries
2. 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.

Another FP Blog article:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._war_with_iran

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huskerguy7

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.