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

[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 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.

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?

with the source doc:

A Military Attack on Iran?
Considerations for Israeli Decision Making
Ron Tira

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

[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 (I wrote the article. All of the facts are sourced).

Also, some people 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:

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).

The WEU treaty has stronger wording about what to do in case of an attack, but it's limited to Europe (see article V).

Well, what was the extension of our collective defence commitments .... See the Treaty of Lisbon:

Article 42:

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/p...nt/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

Entry Excerpt:

The Saudi Option

by Tristan Abbey and Scott Palter

Download the full article

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

Tristan Abbey and Scott Palter are senior editors at Bellum: A Project of The Stanford Review.



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ 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.