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

[Jones_RE]

If by domestic and international pressure you mean the public pronouncements of various diplomats from the UN, the EU and so forth, or public demonstrations of the usual anti-war variety, then absolutely these have no impact on Israeli policy.

However, I believe Israeli policy is subject to pressure from both within and without. I'll start with the domestic side. Firstly, the Israeli body politic is famously divided: "Israel has three opinions for every two Israelis." While folks showed remarkable unity early in the crisis, that unity has since faded. Moreover, it is not reflected in the Knesset where no single party holds a majority. Kadima, the "ruling" party, may well have lost its mandate the moment Hezbollah crossed the border (before any fighting even began). In a very real sense, this war was fought to regain Kadima's political power to withdraw from the West Bank. That's one reason for the air power emphasis, to show that threats to Israel could be controlled without controlling the land around it.

Another source of pressure is from an Israeli desire to avoid casualties. This is admirable, but can hamstring operations that call for daring - it makes you fight like a coward even if you aren't.

There is also a great public demand to "do something" to rescue any Israeli hostages. Wonderful, but fewer hostages might be taken if Tel Aviv was willing to stand fast in the face of such outrages. As it is, thousands (mostly innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebannon) have died in an ineffectual attempt to secure the release of three men who may already be dead.

There is very strong public pressure not to show weakness or negotiate with terrorists or Arabs in general.

There is also strong pressure to keep fighting short. This is both political and economic - the IDF relies on reservists to supply much manpower and those reservists can't work if they're fighting, also fighting cuts into Israel's significant tourism industry.

All of this strongly shaped the fighting, and will shape future wars involving Israel. Yes, Arab strategists are very well aware of the above.

On the international side, Israel is unconcerned by the pronouncements of Chirc, Kofi Annan, etc. However, the slightest whisper from George W. Bush and they'll sit up and take notice. The IDF gets 20% of its budget and a lot of big ticket weapons from the US, it would be a grave strategic loss to endanger that. Moreover, Israel did not seek to engage either Syria or Iran at this time. They could not afford to escalate the fighting to a level that would demand their direct involvement.

I think you can agree that Israel, the Kadima government and the IDF are in fact subject to outside opinion as well as domestic concerns - and a brief examination of those concerns illustrates a number of apparently erroneous tactical decisions in the fighting. The reliance on airpower and artillery, operating from buttoned up armored vehicles, the lack of long range planning and especially the weak diplomatic efforts by Israel to secure its soldiers are all at least partly the result of both domestic and international concerns. Israel had to fight, but the IDF had one hand tied behind its back from the beginning.

[Stu-6]

It seems to me there maybe a comparison here with the US and Iraq. By this I mean it is a frustrating problem and military forces may look like a quick solution due to past victories. The problem with this, as has been seen in Iraq, is just because you can take down a problem regime doesn’t mean you can create a more favorable situation, and can easily make things worse. Obviously this is not an ideal comparison since there are a lot of differences, just a lesson about unintended consequences.

I don’t think there is any kind of limited strike option here; since the Assad regime would likely be very threaten internally if they didn’t respond very aggressively to an Israeli strike. After seeing HAMAS and Hezbollah rise to power by attacking Israel while the PA and Lebanese government were pushed aside, only a foolish Arab government would not offer a massive response to an Israeli attack, make rapid escalation all but unavoidable.

[SWJED]

3 September London Times - Israel Plans for War with Iran and Syria by Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter.

Threatened by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.

The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel’s existence, defence insiders say.

“The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defence agenda, higher than the Palestinian one,” said an Israeli defence source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.

“In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player.”

A new infantry brigade has been formed named Kfir (lion cub), which will be the largest in the Israeli army. “It is a partial solution for the challenge of the Syrian commando brigades, which are considered better than Hezbollah’s,” a military source said

There has been grave concern in Israel over a military pact signed in Tehran on June 15 between Iran and Syria, which the Iranian defence minister described as a “mutual front against Israeli threats”. Israel has not had to fight against more than one army since 1973...

[Jedburgh]

..."It's not a crisis," Gard said in a telephone interview. "To call the Iranian situation a 'crisis' connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them." ...

From CSIS, 30 Aug 06: Iranian Nuclear Weapons? Options for Sanctions and Military Strikes

Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons is not simply a struggle over issues of national prestige or "rights." It has a major potential impact on regional stability and future war fighting. If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, it is possible that it will use them largely as a passive deterrent and means of defense. It is also possible, however, that Iran will use them to put direct or indirect pressure on its neighbors, threatening them to achieve goals it could not achieve without the explicit or tacit threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Iranian possession of nuclear weapons, or of highly lethal biological weapons for that matter, would change the military map of the region. It would almost certainly lead to contingency planning by other nuclear powers to attack Iran -- certainly Israel and possibly Pakistan and India. Such planning in potentially "existential" conflicts takes place when there is a possibility, even if there is not a probability.

US and allied forces in the Gulf would have to plan for nuclear war or the risk of nuclear escalation, and for preventive, preemptive, deterrent, and retaliatory options. Iran's would target cities, key civilian facilities, and military targets with nuclear weapons and be targeted in return. The risk of misunderstandings, misperceptions, and miscalculations would be significant in a crisis or war both before any use of nuclear weapons, and during the transattack and conflict termination phases.

At the same time, the previous chapters have shown that it can be difficult to stop a truly dedicated Iran with either military operations or steps like sanctions. They might well simply push Iran into more concealment, more drastic options, or alternatives like biological weapons. This does not mean such options cannot be effective, either in slowing any Iranian efforts or even halting them if political conditions in Iran should change. It does mean that no single set of actions to halt Iran can be decisive if Iran is determined to continue and willing to pay the cost...

[Uboat509]

Some voices in the Pentagon are not impressed by that argument.

“If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” said one insider.

Which voices? The belief seems to be that if Sadaam did indeed have large stockpiles of WMD (And I believe he had some though perhaps not the massive amounts we origionally thought) the many of them were shipped to Syria before the war. Given that I have a hard time believing that anyone thinks that chaos in a country with a significant amount of WMD is a good thing. If memory serves, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused significant stress in as much as there were a lot of Soviet WMDs in the former Soviet satilite countries and there was (and still is, I think) a great deal of concern that it would be very easy to "lose" some of these WMDs. And those governements aren't openly hostile to us. Assad is most definitely our friend but at least he is an enemy we know. He is in a precarious position in his country and he knows it. He wants to destroy Israel but he also wants to stay in power which means, although he provides weapons and training to Hezbollah he has not provided any overt assistance (ie ground troops) or WMDs to Hezbollah. Anything more that that and Israel will probably have no choice but act. With Assad taken out, the ensuing chaos would probably see more advanced weaponry, perhaps ground troops and perhaps even WMDs finding their way into Hezbollah's hands. It is in effect MAD on a smaller scale.

SFC W

[Jedburgh]

From CSIS: Judging the Iranian Threat: 20 Questions We Need to Answer

Iran’s actions in the last year have unsettled many around the world, provoking an active and rich debate as to how nations should best respond. Embedded in this debate are widely divergent assumptions, assessments, and conclusions about Iranian intentions and Iranian actions.

To add clarity and intellectual rigor to this debate, CSIS has prepared a list of issues—“20 questions”—intended to highlight these points of divergence. Few people will agree on the answers to all 20 questions. They differ sometimes on the basis of fact, and other times on the basis of judgment. Yet, it is precisely those answers that determine both the threats and opportunities contained in Iran’s actions and the world’s potential responses.

In the interest of promoting a healthy debate on these issues, CSIS has not only laid out the questions, but it has also prepared two opposing responses for each question to help illustrate the vibrancy of the debate. Although CSIS as an institution has no position on these questions, the wide range of experts at CSIS provides equally wide-ranging analysis.

[Strickland]

Maybe international law, but it seems we have a new variable concerning international relations here. That would be a sovereign of a nation perusing nuclear weapons, delivery means and air-defense assets who leads a crazed Islamist regime eager for the paradise of the next world. Give me a break here, while we debate legalities of international law the tick-tock to nuclear Armageddon marches on…

I see Ahmadinejad as an Iranian populist, and thus, someone who says what he thinks his people want to hear.

Question - I wonder what the average Iranian's perception was of President Bush after his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech? I wonder how closely these perceptions match up to Americans perceptions of Ahmadinejad after he made disparaging remarks about the US and Bush.

[SWJED]

25 September Reuters - Israel Seen Lifting Nuclear Veil in Iran Stand-off by Dan Williams.

In October 1973, with its forces battling to repel invasions by Egypt and Syria, Israel did what had previously been unthinkable: It briefly wheeled its nuclear-capable Jericho-1 missiles out of their secret silos.

That, historians believe, was picked up by U.S. spy satellites and stirred up fears in Washington of a catastrophic flare-up between the Jewish state and the Soviet-backed Arabs. Message received, an urgent American shipment of conventional arms to Israel was quick to follow, and helped turn the war.

With Israel's current arch-foe Iran seen gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons within a few years, and preventive military options limited, some experts now anticipate another "lifting of the veil" on the assumed Israeli atomic arsenal.

Were that to happen, experts say, the objective would be to establish a more open military deterrence vis-a-vis Iran and perhaps win Israel's nuclear option formal legitimacy abroad...

[SWJED]

27 September Miami Herald - U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft by Warren Strobel and William Douglas.

In another indication that some in the Bush administration are pushing for a more confrontational policy toward Iran, a Pentagon unit has drafted a report charging that U.S. international broadcasts into Iran aren't tough enough on the Islamic regime.

The report, a draft of which McClatchy News Service obtained this week, appears to be a gambit by some officials in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere to gain sway over television and radio broadcasts into Iran, one of the few direct tools the United States has to reach the Iranian people.

McClatchy obtained a copy of the report this week, and it also has circulated on Capitol Hill. It accuses the Voice of America's Persian TV service and Radio Farda, a U.S. government Farsi-language broadcast, of taking a soft line toward Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and not giving adequate time to government critics.

U.S. broadcasting officials and others who have read the report said it's riddled with errors.

They also see it as a thinly veiled attack on the independence of U.S. international broadcasting, which by law is supposed to represent a balanced view of the United States and provide objective news. ''The author of this report is as qualified to write a report on programming to Iran as I would be to write a report covering the operations of the 101st Airborne Division,'' Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, said in a statement on Tuesday.

Larry Hart, a spokesman for the board, which oversees U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting, said that the radio and TV operations have covered Iran's human rights abuses extensively and have featured appearances by dissidents -- who sometimes telephoned from Iranian jails.

Surveys have shown that Radio Farda is the most-listened-to international radio broadcast into Iran, Hart said...

[Jedburgh]

It's a month old, but here's the Staff Report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, dated 23 Aug 06:

Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat

...Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte provided his assessment in his 2006 Annual Threat Report that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. America's intelligence agencies have also assessed the following about the Iranian threat:

• Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and despite its claims to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that Tehran probably has not yet produced or acquired the fissile material (weapons-grade nuclear fuel) needed to produce a nuclear weapon; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has stated that Iran will not be “in a position to have a nuclear weapon” until “sometime between the beginning of the next decade and the middle of the next decade”.

• Iran likely has an offensive chemical weapons research and development capability.

• Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program.

• Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. The U.S. Intelligence Community has raised the concern that Tehran may integrate nuclear weapons into its ballistic missiles.

• Iran provides funding, training, weapons, rockets, and other material support to terrorist groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and elsewhere.

• Elements of the Iranian national security apparatus are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

[Jedburgh]

27 September Miami Herald - U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft by Warren Strobel and William Douglas.

Here is Radio Farda, which is essentially a branch of RFE/RL's Iran section. The VOA Farsi program is unrelated, although still government sponsored.

[Jedburgh]

ICG, 1 Nov 06: Israel/Hizbollah/Lebanon: Avoiding Renewed Conflict

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 halted the monthlong fighting between Israel and Hizbollah but did little to resolve the underlying conflict and, if poorly handled, could help reignite it. The resolution has held remarkably well, with only limited violations. However, the temptation by either party to overreach could trigger renewed fighting. The greatest threats would be attempts by Israel or UN forces (UNIFIL) to use 1701 as a blunt means of disarming Hizbollah in the south or by Hizbollah to test UNIFIL’s resolve. 1701 should be seen as a transitory instrument that can stabilise the border by containing both sides’ military impulses until bolder action is taken to address both domestic Lebanese matters (reforming and democratising the political and electoral systems; building a strong sovereign state and army; resolving the question of Hizbollah’s armaments) and, especially, regional issues (in particular re-launching the Syrian track and engaging Iran). In short the international community must be modest in implementing 1701 for as long as it is not prepared to be ambitious in its regional diplomatic efforts...

[aktarian]

I just wonder how Iran could be kept out of this war. they have good relations with Syria at least since 1980s and Iran is financing some of Syrian arms purchases (mostly air defences). And once Iran gets into it it's anybody guess what their reaction will be. Making troubles in Iraq? Making troubles in Persian gulf (as in threatening shipping)? Making troubles in gulf states? direct confrontation with Israel?

[Jedburgh]

U.S. accuses Syria, Iran, Hezbollah on Lebanon

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday accused Syria, Iran and Hezbollah militants of plotting to topple the Lebanese government and warned them to keep their "hands off."

The United States has held up Lebanon as an example of emerging democracy in the Middle East.

"We are therefore increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah, and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in a statement...

[SWJED]

10 November Voice of America - Senior Israeli Official Warns of Possible Pre-emptive Strike Against Iran by Robert Berger. Reposted here in full per USG guidelines.

A senior Israeli official has suggested that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel wants tougher international action to stop Iran before it is too late.

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh says Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In a newspaper interview, Sneh said he is not advocating a pre-emptive strike and sees it as a last resort. But sometimes, he said, "the last resort is the only resort."

It was the clearest threat yet by a senior official, and underscores Israel's growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. A year ago, the Iranian president threatened to "wipe the Jewish state off the map," and since then Israel has warned repeatedly that it cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb.

Miri Eisen is spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"The Iranian issue is a core issue," she said. "The prime minister has defined it as an existential threat. This is a potential threat to the destruction of the state of Israel. This is an impossible situation."

Analysts here say Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike, because it believes the international community is moving too slowly to stop Iran. Europe has opted for negotiations and Russia and China oppose U.N. sanctions. And now, Israel fears that President Bush has been weakened by the Republican defeat in the U.S. elections.

"The president's ability to do anything military in terms of Iran has been somewhat diminished as a result of the Democratic victory, because the Democrats will be much more vigilant that the president does not do anything unilateral," said Israeli analyst Alon Pinkas.

Iran will top the agenda when Mr. Olmert meets with President Bush at the White House on Monday.

[Culpeper]

They did it against Saddam in Jun-81. I would take the threat as a real warning if I was in Iran. Iran talks a lot. Israel doesn't. What confuses me is that Israel said anything at all.

[Rob Thornton]

This goes against many regional animosities, but I wonder how many Middle Eastern Governments really think Persian, Shiite Tehran having their finger on a nuclear button really benefits them? To accept Tehran's good will what will it cost them? How many think Tehran being the big man on campus is a good idea?

Israel is at least a known quantity. They are also subject to international opinion, financial ties, and generally have an understanding with their block after the last 40 years. They may not be the perfect neighbors, but they're not trying to convert the rest of the neighborhood either.

Since the problem with worthwhile sanctions seems to be China and Russia who both are more concerned with sealing good deals on short and long term energy needs vs. concerning themselves with enhancing the regional position of a radical Shiite Islamic state that has given birth to some leadership that seem to have the manifest destiny aspirations of Darius, perhaps the people we should be engaging on this are the petrol producing Arab states and the border states around Iran.

Iran alone cannot meet China's and Russia's energy needs for the long term. The Arab petrol producers need to consider how an Iran with regional primacy will affect them. Unless they wish to play to the tune of Tehran, they should act in their own best interests and assist in limiting Tehran's influence to something more manageable. A nuclear ICBM equipped Tehran is not manageable. If they threaten a reduction in exports to those states on the basis of protecting their security needs, Russia and China may reconsider their relationship with Iran as its Security Council pair of aces.

Unless something is done to thaw the progress on sanctions and help Iran see that they have to pursue other instruments of regional power such as economics, etc., Israel will act as we know they will. No one should feign surprise when it happens, and we should all have a plan that considers the fall out (no evil pun intended)

[aktarian]

They did it against Saddam in Jun-81. I would take the threat as a real warning if I was in Iran. Iran talks a lot. Israel doesn't. What confuses me is that Israel said anything at all.

What confuses me even more is that this is at least third such announcement in past few years

[Martin]

What confuses me even more is that this is at least third such announcement in past few years

Prepares international public opinion before action is taken, and people tend to forget. They are pushing the danger of the threat while diplomatic approaches are still on the table, which shows both that they have given diplomacy a chance as well as motivates the immediacy of nuclear development removal. It puts pressure on the negotiating parties that it needs to be resolved or they will be forced to defend themselves, IMO drawing clearer lines in the sand of Who's Who. In this way, they have the chance to frame perception of the conflict as a continuing and increasing problem where they are active participants, but less likely to be seen as aggressors.

Perhaps they will still be chastizised, but at least they move some people towards an understanding of their position instead of letting others define it for them.

On the other hand, that's just first impression gut feeling, and I did get a kick to the head two hours ago...

What do you think?

[SWJED]

While the question was not directed to me, I thought I would chime in.

Personally, I believe Israel has determined it cannot abide (or survive for that matter) a nuclear weapons capable Iran. Under immense pressure now (much more than during the pre-emptive Iraq strike) Israel is sending an IO message to the world (not Iran) - to, at the very least, have that "warning" to fall back on post-strike during the world opinion fall-out. Will it lessen the fallout? Probably not, but at the least they can say "we told you."

Moreover, these warnings also serve as a means to survey Israeli public opinion - very important these days considering the grief the government and IDF took following the recent Lebanon operations.

As far as the U.S. position – it is probably a bit of damn if you do, damn if you don’t. An Israeli strike will of course cost the U.S. political capital world-wide but at the same time might be of a relief of sorts in that “we didn’t have to do it ourselves.” Eventually it would have to be done considering the recent rhetoric emanating out of Tehran.