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

[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.

[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.

[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

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]

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.

"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.

[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.