Israel Isn’t Going to Attack Iran and Neither Will the United States
Why should Israel attack Iran now? Because one day Iran will have nuclear weapons that might be used to attack Israel.
Does Iran have such deliverable weapons now? No.
If Israel attacks Iran now, does that mean Iran would never get nuclear weapons? No, it would merely postpone that outcome for at most a year or two more than it would take otherwise. And then it would ensure an all-out, endless bloody war thereafter.
If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations, would that ensure future peace between the two countries? Would it make it less likely that the Tehran regime uses such weapons to strike at Israel in the future? No. On the contrary, it would have the exact opposite effect. Again, it would ensure direct warfare between the two countries and make Iran’s use of nuclear weapons against Israel 100 percent probable.
Why is this different from Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities? Because in those cases a single strike by a small number of planes would be sufficient to destroy a single building. And the two regimes, precisely because of the strategic situation, would and could not respond. And if you believe Iran’s regime to be so totally irrational, then factor that point into how it would respond to a direct attack like that.
If Israel attacks Iran, would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today. The idea that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq makes an Israeli attack more attractive is absurd. U.S. forces and interests are in the Gulf and an Israeli attack would — according to the Obama administration — endanger U.S. interests there.
Let me tell you why you are wrong Barry. Israeli leaders will never allow a regime that openly speaks of a Second Holocaust to gain nuclear weapons just 63 years after the Holocaust. It will undermine everything Israel was founded on. All options, including prolonged war, are less bad than the concept of allowing Iran to go nuclear.
Sanctions have the ability to work – if Iran continues to conceal its nuclear weapons program, and sanctions continue to be tightened.
In the aftermath of the “Arab Spring” (and especially after Iran’s Syrian puppet Assad falls), how long do you suppose Iran’s population will remain content as the walls of their totalitarian prison crush and grind them into pulp?
Why do you suppose Russia, China, and India are bitterly complaining that sanctions could lead to regime change of their best clients, the Ayatollahs?
Russia, China, and India will soon need to choose between the Ayatollahs, and access to the markets of the rest of the world. Given a stark choice, I don’t think India would choose to belong to the Axis of Evil. However, I think it would help the US to bring back manufacturing jobs from China, and I can’t think of any Russian products that I’d miss.
Sorry, Jim, but sanctions only deter folks frightened by them. Those too crazy, too doped up, too angry, too stupid, too sociopathic are not deterred by sanctions. The proof lies in our gigantic prison population, and our horrific recidivism rate.
The awful fact is that a small minority of criminally inclined politicos cause almost all of our problems. If we would identify and eliminate them this world would be a much better place.
I generally agree with you but not this time.
”Never Again” does not mean ”Well, maybe one more time” ……
I don’t care if we nuke Iran off the face of the earth, and it’s fine with me if we nuke Beirut & Damascus as well.
But, these Muslim Nazis must be stopped.
You’re advocating the murder of tens of millions of innocent people.
Who’s the Nazi here?
killing in self defense is not “murder”. preventing genocide at the cost of the lives of the perpetrators is not “murder”. israelis will do what anyone else would do if forced: they will defend themselves at any cost. If iran chooses to bring about a situation where israel must ask itself “them or us?”, israel will choose the option that any sane nation or people would choose: “them”. if you cannot accept these realities, you are a fool.
“preventing genocide at the cost of the lives of the perpetrators”
You can not point to any “perpetrators” if the “genocide” has not happened, and in this case Iran has not carried out a genocide of anyone, anywhere, any time.
Or, put another way: while Israel has any number of policies it can adopt viz. Iran, one of the things Israel can’t do is impose a “pre-emptive death sentence” on Iran for a crime that Iran has not committed.
Sorry, but that’s just the way the world works.
in other words, according to you, it was only morally acceptable to stop the nazis once they had already rounded up and gassed to death six million jews and started a war that killed tens of millions of others. sorry, john. but that is no longer “the way the world works”. you and all the other neville chamberlains of the world need to step aside and let the grown-ups handle things now.
Pre-empting genocide by committing genocide: that’s really bright. People like the Nazis and KKK also said they were on the defensive end of things.
I beg you to reconsider such inadvisable positions. The other guy is right: it’s the nature of reality that you can’t just shoot someone who says he’s going to shoot you some day – you have to wait til he’s on your doorstep with a gun, like it or not.
theres ridiculous leftist moral equivalency. “wahhhh, wahhh, the nazis also said they were on the defense!” :,(
yeah, you know what the difference is? THEY WERE LYING!
and youre willing to sit here and tell me that iran is not “on [the west's] doorstep with a gun”?! let me ask you this: are you lying, blind, or both?
You imply that we are not on the defensive end of things and that implies that we, not the insane moslem hordes, are the Bad Guys.If so, you, Sissypoo, need to join up with your fellow jihadists and continuing slaughtering one another.
If you will promise never to return, I will personally buy your one way ticket to Iran- and good riddance!
And, you lie. You would NOT wait for the terrorist to arrive on your doorstep. You might cut and run. You might curl up in a fetal ball under your bed, you might call the cops, you might even get a gun and keep close watch, night and day. And, eventaully, worn down and fatigued, you would have to do that which you should have done on Day One.
Apparently you believe we should’ve dropped an A-Bomb on Japan sometime before Pearl Harbor. Wake up, Iran isn’t a threat to the U.S. unless you’ve seen Iranian warships off New York. Having big mouths doesn’t equal a real threat to America, again unless you believe America is in fact the entire world.
When an ‘innocent people’ has allowed, in essence encouraging, terrorism to be at their front door with little/no response on said people for years, decades, Centuries/Millennia in most cases I believe your ‘innocence’ badge is replaced with a ‘gutless turd’, ‘weak minded ‘imbecile’, ‘waste of life’, ‘dhimmi in training’ newly earned badge.
Innocent people. Newsflash, ExtraStout. ‘The meek’ are why entitlements, empathy, ‘fairness’ and a myriad of other gotcha words/phrases have been redefined or terribly distorted of their true intent/meaning and why countries are bankrupt, being flushed financially and the aforementioned are STILL demanding more. Pathetic.
World governments haven’t destroyed our modern day economy due to ‘wanting to help those in need’. But government wanting those same people to remove reason from their id and believe, firmly that government is the solution.
from the squatters this past Fall to the riots worldwide these same narrow minded, myopic people are a ship with no rudder when government can’t ‘provide’ as before.
Does this mean that non-Muslim Nazis are acceptable to you?
I would agree that Israel is not likely to provoke a war and the US doesn’t have the resources to opening up such an overt “operation.” Yet, there are two nagging reservations–or shall we say two “concerns” once Iran goes nuclear.
The first has to do with the motivation of Iran’s leaders. I tend to follow David Goldman’s analysis in “How Civilizations Die”: when faced with oblivion, all “rational” options go down the drain. How likely is his analysis of Iran’s position?
The second has to do with the likelihood of a EMP strike against either the US, Europe, or China (I mention the latter, because Chinese buying power is starting to price wheat beyond most North Africa countries). A nuclear Iran combined with an aggressive North Korea would make the hardening of western electrical equipment an absolute necessity along with the need to improve any missile defense system.
Living in such a nuclear-ridden world will be interesting, to say the least.
RCB
Israel has openly stated that they will not allow Iran to get the bomb. Should we believe that Israel is willing to risk its threat credibility, and with it a portion of it’s deterrence capability? This is no small threat, and with it Israel’s regional deterrence reputation is on the line.
you better be right Barry.
you better be wrong, barry
Israel is not going to attack Iran… tomorrow. Or next week. But I think there is a serious commitment to not allow a regional enemy to get nuclear weapons. I do not know where the red line is, just that it is there.
Sanctions will not work on a totalitarian state, no matter how much they hurt the economy. Anyway, they will be leaky.
The US will not attack Iran — I agree.
So when Israel’s red line is crossed, probably within a year according to various analysts, Israel will attack Iran.
Either that or there has been a huge change in Israel’s traditional posture toward nuclearization of the conflict.
sanctions dont hurt the economy- they hurt the people within the country being sanctioned
That’s why they don’t work on totalitarian states — they don’t care about their people.
My wish is very simple. Send all war-mongers to the warfront as soon as war breaks out,and as quickly as possible. Let them taste, feel, see, and smell what is war. And when many of them get killed, we will have few people clamoring for war, and a lot of peace-loving people agitating for peace. We claim to be God’s children, yet we speak as if we are the products of the Devil himself. Why on earth, that so-called brilliant minds can’t find productive and peaceful ways to live is beyond common sense. We spend untold amount of resources creating unimaginable destructive means. Yet, we loath to spend money and time on measures that can result in peace. Are we human beings at all, or we have become zombies used to moving in a specific programed direction?
Where exactly are you going to find these ‘warmongers?’ I’ve never seen nor met one. There’s no such animal except in the deluded dreams of pacifists, who of course can’t exist without ‘warmongers’ to protect them. “It takes but one foe to breed a war, not two; and those who have not swords may still die upon them.”
“Why on earth, that so-called brilliant minds can’t find productive and peaceful ways to live is beyond common sense.”
this is bordering on the insanity of utopianism
it is because we are human beings living on earth that war will never go away and to not be ready for it is pure folly
When a man with a gun says he is going to kill you, believe him.
One little problem with your suggestion Siam: the entire country of Israel IS the front line of this war to come. They are the ones who have had to claw their way back from being overrun by invading Muslim armies since their country was founded and whose “illegally conquered Palestinian territories” were the highway that the invaders used time and again until the Jews removed that particular option in 1967. Too bad they didn’t finish the job.
Now you have a country in Iran that doesn’t even have to set foot on their territory to wipe them out if it gets nukes – and the Iranian leaders have made the point repeatedly that they have an obligation to their god to do so and they will only earn heaven for their children and themselves by dying in the effort. Ain’t much room for peace and negotiation there.
Completely made up gibberish and nonsense, the fact the world is at threat by the Anti-Goyists who will not rest until every Christian, Muslim and non-believers blood has sunk into the Earth, makes one wonder what is meant in the Bible by ‘Chosen’ doesn”t it?
Egyptian newspapers are reporting that nuclear materials were just stolen from the nascent nuke facility on Egypt’s N. Coast. That would make a low tech dirty bomb inside Israel a very real possibility.
Barry,
Could you address the following point: is it possible that the Israeli leadership views an Iranian bomb as an actual, near-imminent existential threat, and if so, is it still inconceivable to you that the Israeli leadership would conclude that such a threat warrants an preemptive attack on Iran, even if such an attack is very difficult, and even if mass-casualties on the Iranian side could be a consequence?
You are hoping that this is not 1937. I hope so too. But if you are wrong there will be war, genocide and annihilation. May God have mercy on us all.
Of course, one could argue there is already a long term war going on, at least since 1979, so it’s just a matter of time, your position, that nukes get used and regardless of any current attack on Iran by Israel or the United States. While the Islamic world may have some unique features regarding rationality, nuking the Japanese didn’t result in a subsequent second attack on Pearl Harbor, at least yet (I suppose it’s still to soon to say what that outcome will be, sort of like Zou Eniai’s observation on evaluating the historical consequences of the French Revolution.) I suppose there is some moral high ground in letting the enemy do the dastardly deed first before wiping him off the face of the earth. Would you say the pre-emptive 67 war was a “mistake” in light of subsequent events?
Israel will attack Iran, but the first-strike sorties will be aimed at regime decapitation, and not at nuclear facilities.
First, Israel’s conflict is squarely with the regime, not with Iran qua Iran — and since all the scenarios of protracted Israel-Iran conflict Barry outlines here presuppose reaction to an Israeli attack on the part of the present Khomeinist regime, the regional/global political point Israel will be making in a decapitation of Khomeinist cadres will be clear (i.e., we are fighting the Khomeinists and not the Iranian people), and the practical military impact (confused Khomeinist chain of command, new openings for Green Movement action, etc.) will be overall beneficial to Israel.
Second, speaking of practical military considerations, Barry’s arguments about the problems with hitting the Iranian nuclear installations are surely correct, at least assuming we’re talking about IAF sorties — ergo all the more reason to go after the regime leadership itself, which doesn’t exist 220 feet below mountainous ground 24/7. A decapitation hit instead of a nuclear-installation hit also saves Israel from international opprobrium over nuclear-material-related environmental mishaps.
Or put another way, there’s no point in risking the IAF’s finest in a terribly low-probability first-strike mission with such a high risk of “collateral” incidents — particularly when the IAF would very likely be needed (and better employed) against Hizballah to protect the Israeli home front in the immediate aftermath of any operation against Iran anyway. So, again, best to do a first strike that decapitates top-value regime targets with a combination of piloted and UAV assets, save most of the piloted IAF for the Northern Front, and then if a second strike actually hitting nuclear facilities seems absolutely necessary, go with long-range missiles from land and submarine.
In sum, the formulation that Israel will not allow an adversary to obtain nuclear weapons is probably a bit subtler than usually portrayed; Israel didn’t attempt to bomb the Shah’s early-stage nuclear facilities, after all.
The emphasis in the formulation is on *adversary* and not on nuclear weapons, and PM Netanyahu’s team is likely planning accordingly.
An EMP nuke burst at the appropriate altitude above Tehran would decapitate the regime very effectively – as well as their entire economy. This would be a great precursor to strikes on hardened targets. No radar, no missiles, no Iranian Air Force.
EMP nuke burst over Tehran is a “nice” thought, but as a first-strike strategy overall it would backfire on Israel in innumerable ways. Israel will stick to non-nuclear means.
Good essay. I also think that all this talk is just talk. The end-games in Iraq and Afghanistan will discourage the U.S. from unnecessary adventures for a while. Israel is too smart to get involved in a pointless missile exchanges.
Israel is far better off having a policy of Assured Destruction against Iran. Any WMD attack would have a massive catastrophic nuclear response.
can live with (ha ha) assured destruction, the mutual part doesn’t bother them too much, old soldier
Oh that’s right! Iranian leaders surely don’t care about power or money or any of those things, which is why they launched dozens of pre-emptive invasions against foes much stronger than them since their 1979 revolution!
Oh wait…
This whole “the enemy is fanatical not to care about the well being of their people, country, houses, money, wives or anything just to kill the Zionists” shtick is one of the most tiring memes out there. We got Osama. Our only enemies left are the eminently more sensible types; power-hungry tyrants.
The intent of nukes is to KILL, right?
I mean, we aren’t talking ‘nukes for freedom’ or ‘nukes for food’ or ‘nukes for OCCUPY Wallstreet’. We are talking: Nukes = Death.
Which is why nukes have always been used as a ‘threat’ but NEVER employed (kinda like a granny with a gun who waves it at an assailant and the assailant runs away).
Problems come up when:
A. Everyone has nukes and not all nuke-holders abide by nuke-holder rules of war.
B. Jihad on a ‘nuke’ scale is a very REAL and effing SCARY possibility.
C. If someone can blow themselves up to kill people, you don’t think those same whacked people will use a nuke and litter-bomb the whole world with them in ‘jihad mode’?
HELL-FUCKING-OH? WAKE UP?
Islamists don’t value their human lives or anyone ELSE’s!
They may be irrational but not THAT irrational. The leadership never comes near suicide; that’s for their deluded vassals. Offering to make them all martyrs all at once will work. The Old Man of the Mountain never went out to fight himself, he sent his assassins. The threat of regime decapitation is more effective than you might think. The ayatollahs are drunkards, drug-addicts and ravishers (what else do you call a forced, ‘temporary marriage’), violating all the rules they kill other people for breaking, the ultimate hypocrites. They won’t be willing to die for the cause.
YEAH, BUT…
What if they just nuked EVERYONE? Isn’t that how they go about bombing anyhow?
What if they nuked EVERYONE who could retaliate FIRST?
Just thinking out loud and hoping that’s not possible and just my worst fears surfacing!
It’s not possible. The nuclear powers all have a nuclear-war-survivable chain-of-command. Even in the worst-case-scenario, someone will be left alive to assume command and order a counterattack. Two days ago, during the State of the Union Address, one of the cabinet members was in a bunker outside of the city just in case somebody decided to nuke the Capitol during the Address.
mb, your answer only heightened my apprehension.
ME and YOU and a dog named ‘BOO’ would be considered ‘collateral damage’…
Of course, some whack job who hits the ‘nuke’ button will have a hidey-hole from the carnage and fallout!
UGH UGH UGH!
The real threat from nuclear terrorism lies not in the direct casualties it could cause, but rather in the destruction of infrastructure. A low yield nuclear weapon would kill only a few thousand or at most a few tens of thousands directly, but the far deadlier result is panic among the population and the destruction of the infrastructure that make urban life possible. If you are concerned about being near a target of a nuclear attack, my advice to you is to have a plan for the worst-case scenario.
Don’t expect to be able to hop into your car after an attack- the roads will be jammed and your car may not even start due to EMP damage. Anticipate needing to shelter-in-place for four to seven days. If evacuation is possible, due it as quickly as is feasible, but be prepared for both immediate evacuation and shelter-in-place based on distance from the blast and weather conditions. Rain washes fallout particles out of the air faster, increasing fallout. Wind spreads the fallout in an elliptical pattern with an eccentricity of about 91%. This means that if you are downwind, proceed crosswind to reduce your dose dramatically. Obtain a Geiger counter to be able to make judgments about the radiation levels to determine if it is safe to evacuate, bearing in mind that leaving your shelter to evacuate will increase your dose dramatically for the duration of your escape.
For radiation countermeasures: potassium iodide will protect you from absorbing I-133, and calcium should offer some protection against bone seekers like Sr-90. Glucose, niacin and sulfur-containing foods are used to form a metabolic pathway to neutralize free radicals and repair DNA damage. Ideally, you would take radioprotector drugs, but those aren’t likely to be available to the general public, so you’ll have to go the dietary route for obtaining cysteine or cysteine precursors. However, far more effective is placing shielding between yourself and the source of radiation. There is nothing special about lead; it’s just a dense, high-atomic number material. Any matter you put between you and the fallout dust will offer some protection. Nuclear power plants use water as shielding to protect workers from the radiation from used fuel rods (the water doubles as a coolant).
In an emergency, water is life. A safe source of water is critical to survival whether you are sheltering in place or evacuating. Having rations of food and water are very useful in any emergency. A first-aid kit will also be quite useful, as you or those around you may have injuries from the blast, or from people panicking as a result of the attack. Alcohol can be used as an antiseptic, both for wounds and for water-treatment.
Great info.
I have about a year’s worth of rations that I rotate throughout the year. My husband thinks I’m crazy, but, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
I don’t have iodine pills but I have bulk purchased kelp which is rich in iodine and much easier on your system to assimilate.
Always appreciate your posts, mb. You are an angel!
“The intent of nukes is to KILL, right?”
Not so far, thank God. The intent of nukes is intimidate and deter. They work very well for that purpose.
On 9/11, what were the loons trying to intimidate and deter us from? Flying?
Please notice that Al Quadia is a terrorist organization of international fanatics who are willing to die to damage the west.
They did not, and do not run a country, or have to deal with the consequences of doing so.
Hell, I’m pretty sure the Taliban leaders would have shot Osama themselves had they known what exactly he was planning.
That is the trouble with demonic soulless beasts that would dress themselves up as a local citizen and commit suicide with a bomb taking out others as collateral. True terrorists are lowlife, usually ill educated, brutal and evil…but enough about the Stern Gang & Irgun blowing up the King David hotel whilst dressed as Arabs in order to murder British peace keeping soldiers before the genocide, rape and removal of all the natives from the land which ‘man’ changed into modern day ‘Is-Ra-El’.
I wouldn’t trust these guys with a nuclear bomb!
Before deciding on an attack there are some questions to be considered:
What is the goal? – Is it regime change, eliminating Iranian nuke capability, crippling it, or degrading Iranian military capability.
It the goal achievable? – Whichever one you pick that question involves operational detail which we public do not know.
What are the potential short term consequences? Iranian missile counterattack certainly, unknown is weather Hamas/Hezbolla or other parties would join in. Would they attack US bases as well?
Will they get international / US support? No, I do not think they will.
What are the long term consequences, would Israel be more secure? Tough call.
Have all other alternatives been exhausted? Not yet.
Given the risks I agree with Barry. There are some good trends going on in Israel, relative peace, growing economy, strengthened defense, and new energy sources. They want those to continue and will keep trying other options for now. At the same time things are going very badly for the Iranian regime.
It is possible their are tens of thousands, to minimally thousands of Russian and Chinese military and civilian uniformed and non-uniformed war pro generators seeded throughout Iran. Israelis can’t just describe this as dealing with a *necessary evil*. This can only be described as breaking the worlds heart. The only way I can describe what would be the aftermath of any wrong decision.. A guess what? All decisions are wrong. John F. Kennedy is the only free world leader that came close to the emotional & psychical nexus that Benjamin Netanyahu faces. It is grim and getting grimmer everyday. Lets pray for an other worldly wisdom for world wisdom will undoubtedly not be enough.
It is possible their are tens of thousands, to minimally thousands of Russian and Chinese military and civilian uniformed and non-uniformed war pro generators seeded throughout Iran. Israelis can’t just describe this as dealing with a *necessary evil*. This can only be described as breaking the worlds heart. The only way I can describe what would be the aftermath of any wrong decision.. And guess what? All decisions are wrong. John F. Kennedy is the only free world leader that came close to the emotional & psychical nexus that Benjamin Netanyahu faces. It is grim and getting grimmer everyday. Lets pray for an other worldly wisdom for world wisdom will undoubtedly not be enough.
The only reason I could wish somebody would run a decapitation operation against Iran is to make sure the vile hypocrites die before their time. Any time a mass murderer like Mao or Amin (and Castro mostly likely) dies in bed of natural causes it irritates me. Some claim Stalin was assassinated and I hope it’s true. I believe that they’ll have to face the pure justice of God after they die, but I prefer they get a taste of imperfect, inexact, but good enough human justice first.
All the people clamouring for an attack on Iran put uniforms on and go do the dirty work. Israel should do this alone(illegal attack on a sovereign nation) and leave America’s kids out of it. Draft everyone in Israel to fight if necessary, but no American blood should be spilled against a nation that is no threat to America.
I really hope you are right.
Israel would only be risking its valuable airplanes and pilots to give the Iranians an excuse for all out war. By the time the iranians have the nuclear capability and the missiles, missile defense will be an adequate answer. It is much SMARTER for Israel, to wait. The Iranians will over extend themselves by causing mischief in the Gulf. They will be a problem for the West. Not Israel.
Dear Sir
Reading Mr Rubin’s comments reminds me of Prime Minister Chamberlain speaking to the British people while holding up a piece of paper signed by Herr Hitler. Mr Chamberlain said that this treaty guaranteed peace with Germany. Mr Chamberlain relied upon all of the “logic” Mr Rubin used in his article as to why, logically, Israel will not attack Iran. Unfortunately, Herr Hitler did not buy into any of this “logic” and neither will Iran. The Iranians are taunting and goading Israel into attacking Iran, then Iran can run to the UN and cry that Israel started the war-which will be true. Who will get the UN condemnation-Israel. The Iranians are master chess players. The Koran demands the killing of non muslims.Since Iran has a history of supporting bloody terrorist attacks across the entire world, I am willing to wager that Iran is committed to its avowed mission of the annihilation of Israel.
While Barry Rubin’s analysis is quite rational, it leaves me trembling. That’s because it reminds of the rationalizations European Jews made in the 1930s about Hitler and the Nazis. They thought, this too shall pass, and we’ll emerge OK. The regime has said it wants to wipe Israel off the map. Why should Israel disbelieve them?
Jack,
I think Israel leaders and general population do believe that. The question is not one of what the enemy desires. It is more about what they can achieve and what can be done to defend. Iran is hardly unique in that goal.
Israel takes responsibility to defend itself. There is no other choice. Even the most lefty Israeli will talk about their son or daughter who is serving in golani brigade, paratrooper, or some other way.
Israel does not want war and is prepared for that nonetheless. What is so hard about the Jews having this space to call their own? They have done very well in peace and trade. They contribute to technology in computer science, medicine, physics, far beyond numbers. Civil rights are beyond anything in the region including press, religion, sexual orientation, economic opportunity….what else does the world want from Israel.
Frustrating but still reality is what we get, not what we want.
Spindok – Don’t disagree with anything you said. Israel has taken a dusty, desert-like place with a dearth of natural resources (until recent gas discoveries in the Mediterranean) and turned into a vibrant, growing, almost paradise-like place. That does not prevent me from trembling when I read rationalizations by Barry Rubin because it is so 1930-ish. As I said in my closing remark, when someone says they’re going to kill you, believe them.
Nothing clouds Jews’ minds like thinking nothing clouds men’s minds like anything that has to do with Jews.
Nothing clears Jews’ minds like seeing many men’s minds clouded o’er with genocidal rage against Jews.
so tell me, please, to say never again, is it logical? no, it ain’t, it’s good that it ain’t, and let’s be very glad it ain’t
it’s an article of faith?
a vow, a statement of will, backed by action
Historically, Iran has little antagonism to Israel. Why is Iran so focused on the destruction of Israel? For centuries, Shiites have gotten the short end of the stick from Sunnis. In order for Iran, leader of Shia Islam, to prove the superiority of Shia Islam, it must accomplish something that the far more numerous Sunnis havent been able to do-destroy Israel. Therefore, it is rational for Iran to send a nuclear first strike against Israel for the following reasons a) A first strike might knock out Israels retaliatory capability and wipe Israel off the map. b) The belief that a heavily damaged Israel would be pressured by the US and EU not to respond with nuclear weapons, and c) A hope that a weakened Israel would be finished off by its Sunni neighbors, especially Egypt and Turkey. According to these calculations, it would be worth for Iran to lose several million of its own citizens in order to prove the superiority of Shia over Sunni Islam. Iran would accept a high level of casualties, because these would all be shaheeds whose martyrdom was predestined
Totally agree w/Mr. Rubin’s analysis. He could have added one more major difference between an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities vs. the attacks on Iraq’s and Syria’s: Israel’s attacks on Iraq and Syria benefited from complete surprise (a critical military benefit), whereas Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure has been set up to reduce the odds of a successful Israeli strike.
Moreover, the Israelis staged a “practice” raid over the Mediterranean a couple of years ago, and this was made public. If they actually had planned to mount an air attack, you would never have heard about the dry run.
The regime did not threaten to ‘wipe Israel off the map’.
Ahmadinejad was quoting ayatollah khomeini from the 80′s who said that,
The regime occupying jerusalem (zionist) will vanish from the pages of time.
It’s the ideology that will end,like the Soviet Union, wanting to rid the world of communism didn’t meen that you want to kill all Russians
Pure propaganda that has been de-bunked
Pure propaganda
Ah! A compatriot!
There are three factors missing in the analysis. The first one is a risk analysis which weights the probability of an event with the damage the event can cause. Rubin acknowledges that there is a very small probability that Iran may use a nuclear bomb irrationally. Multiply this by the damage this would cause, risk assessment may conclude that this damage is worse than the secondary damage to the world caused by a strike on Iran. Secondly, Rubin does not factor into his analysis that Iran’s success in getting a bomb would trigger a nuke arms race in an Arab world whose countries are not exactly poster boys for rational actions. Thirdly, while a nuke strike does not assure that Iran would stop nuke projects, they could be hit again. Best to try decapitation, tough sanctions whose economic consequences will turn the regime’s base, the small shopkeepers, aganst it, viruses, picking of their scientists etc. but keep all options open. Rejecting that is the worst thing one can do with one exception. I recall that the Nazis convinced Stalin that they would not attack the Soviet Union. . .
I am thankful the people adament for military strikes are mainly limited to the boards of this website and represent a few thousand people at most. However did not see any reference to the dreaded ” Samson” option held in the back pocket of the faithful warharwks..so that was disappointing. I always look forward to that hot cup of cocoa in these posts.
Mr. Rubin is correct.
Russia, China, India have signed off on limited surgical removal of facilities and individuals. This is what has been occurring the last 36 months, research facilities and scientists are being liquidated by US, European and Israeli interests.
Israel has Russian support so long as it does not attack Iran, Once it breaks with Russia there is only the USA…counterbalanced against Russia, China, India, Most of Europe. There will be too much pressure by the worlds industrial interests to settle the ME issue once and for all and Israel will pay the price for the break.
Alex, are you experimenting with the same kind of opiates Ayatollah Khamenei is said to favor, or were you born with your synapses functioning that way?
MY QUESTION IS THIS…WHEN IRAN BUILDS ITS FIRST NUCLEAR BOMB , WHERE WILL THEY TEST IT ??
Wouldn’t surprise me if the scientists in the hardened bunkers in Iran were working on biological weapons and not nuclear.
It’s much too risky applying our Western trained logic towards anticipating the future actions of a people brainwashed….repeat….brainwashed…in the tenets of such a totally alien, dogmatic, faux-theocratic, belligerent, murderous mindset such as Islam, as we’ve experienced Islam for the last fourteen centuries.
The wiring of our brains and our personal C-drive’s “apps” is simply not compatible with that “application” or “app” machine called “Islam” based upon that hyper-alien Koran.
So, I don’t see how one can say firmly that the Israelis or we Americans will not attack Teheran.
▲THIS!▲
Danny,
do you have any substantive ability to respond, or do you enjoy posting as a child. That’s your understanding of the world…opium..?
Charlie Griffith presents a coherent response based on philosophical / religious influences that divide the Mid-east from the West. This is a good point and would certainly explain logic of Saudi Arabia funding Wahhabi terrorist schools, while extending business outreach to western governments and corporations at the same time.
Iran’s research programs are being dismantled one scientist and facility at a time through bombings, assassinations, software virus’s, and who knows what else. Keep this avenue active and quietly support overthrow of the regime if that is the goal.
The problem as always is the people clamoring for war are the first to disappear when war begins. The PNAC group ran like rabbits when the invasion of Iraq went sour, until then they were cheerleaders in the White House bending the ear of a too willing President to Invade.
Given those conditions which I don’t disagree with my move if I was Israel would be to either limit my enemies ability to strike me and/or get the US to leverage their ability to used campaign strikes and maybe even ala Saddam long term air cap surveleance strike inspection to chain the beast.
I would strike at Hezbollah along with some side strikes on Syria with the goal to destroy the Hezbollah military might for Lebanon and also same on Syria. If hamas jumps ditto. If Iran jumps in then push up the war to force them to hit the US see part one.
Of course, if the US did participate in a strike with 2 or 3 carrier strike groups, cruise missiles , drones, B2, etc. the Iranian air defenses would be eliminated in short order allowing multiple follow up strikes. The under ground installations would be either destroyed or rendered nonfunctional due to lack of power, supplies and personnel. Thriw in regime decapitation strikes and special forces along with support for Iranian opposition, I think this is much more doable than Rubin thinks but it does take full American involvement.
…thanks, Alex.
…re your:…”and would certainly explain logic of Saudi Arabia funding Wahhabi terrorist schools, while extending business outreach to western governments and corporations at the same time.”
I’ll extend this Saudi hypocrisy a bit to add that it’s my guess that the Saudi’s don’t see that as the same “hypocrisy” as we do in our accustomed Western outlook; these madrassas are right now in Northern Virginia.
[Joseph Stalin was inscrutable; he couldn't hold a candle to the likes of an Iranian imam-honcho, or a Saudi oil Minister.]
Our strategic planners are faced with choosing among the least awful option-choice among potential “allies” of the moment.
That could be a reason for our backing Mubarak, and that past massive “aid” to him which certainly should be stopped now. Times change, our Islamic enemies are very fluid, we’re unaccustomed to the rapid changes forced on us by irregular-seeming armed factions, without uniforms, and across those artificial colonial-era borders.
Hence, I think all of this new warfare which we used to call “guerilla”…. makes it difficult for anyone not privy to the closed-door meetings to say that we will, or will not, attack Iran. The variables are just to vague and shifting for us outsiders to grasp accurately in these new trans-cultural contexts.
One poster above stated the key ingredient for Israel: Nuclear EMP over Iran.
A series of such bombs very carefully placed at the right altitudes would stop just about all electrically controlled machinery in the country in a second, and it would last for quite a long time, and be done again and again.
Few paid attention to that post, but it is exactly how Israel would attack a much larger Iran, and not suffer the immediate or longer range penalties of counterattack, while allowing the IAF absolutely free rein over everything military in Iran.
The first objective in my view would be the complete destruction of Iran’s military hardware: trucks, tanks, personnel carriers, artillery, airplanes, missiles, ships, subs–everything they might use to fight. With anti-air defenses shut down and retaliatory missiles incapable of being launched, the IAF would take its time to hunt down everything, and then hunt down the nuclear sites with MOABS and gases (also not mentioned as a means for getting to deep underground facilities) after the military destruction. The EMP bombs would be repeated as many times as needed to ensure that virtually no Iramian military hardware survives and operates during the repeated raids.
This was not taken into account by Rubin or others, so his piece is really an attempt at calming the waters with sweet(but wrong)reason.
Iran will fight back, of course, using their network of terrorists, Syria, Hamas, and Hesbollah to lash out at her enemies, and I firmly believe that they would include attacks on US facilities worldwide, and in the US itself. We would therefore be drawn into the war almost from the beginning act, if only to defend ourselves.
The key line From Barry’s excellent anaylsis was his analogy between Iran and the USSR. People often forget that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was every bit as ambitious, aggressive, ruthless, brutal, bombastic, millenarian, ideologically fanatical, confident of ultimate victory–and anti-Semitic–as today’s Iran. Yet in retrospect, its nuclear arsenal was essentially a sideshow, built up to be large enough to almost, but not quite, make a first strike thinkable for them, yet ultimately of barely any significance at all in shaping the trajectory of their rise and fall.
Rather, it was on the conventional and (non-nuclear) unconventional fronts that the Soviet Union won its greatest victories. It turned country after country into pliant proxies throughout the Third World; nearly took over several Western European governments, via their electorally highly successful Communist parties, without firing a shot; planted spies at the highest levels of virtually every Western government; won the support of wide swaths of the Western intelligentsia, culturati and media elites; and all the while maintained a totalitarian police state that murdered its opponents with impunity, both internally and abroad, cruelly repressed dissent throughout its empire, and produced more lies, slanders, crime and terrorism than just about any regime anywhere, before or since.
And conversely, its demise was largely unrelated to nuclear threats, let alone actual nuclear combat. Rather, merely by abandoning “containment” and daring to shift to offense, the US exposed the brittleness of Soviet hegemony. Within a decade of the start of the Reagan administration’s “rollback” initiative, an exhausted, reeling Kremlin gave up the ghost entirely of its own accord.
Today’s Iranian regime isn’t one-tenth as solid as the Soviet Union was in 1980. If the West merely had the gumption to build up anti-Iranian forces in the region, the way the Americans built up anti-Soviet forces around the world during the 1980s, the regime would collapse like a house of cards. What a shame that they haven’t the wherewithal to try…
Dan Simon,
We are dealing with people who are of a ‘like’ mind to fly planes into buildings for maximum DEATH tolls, who ‘cloak’ their women out of a system of ‘shame’, who ‘honor kill’ even in the USA, who kill fellow AMERICAN soldiers in the name of “allah”, who slowly saw heads off for maximum torture effect, who are more pedo than hetero or even homo, who ultimately HATE the USA and would gladly, GLADLY die as a martyr to destroy every ‘Western first world’ country they can.
Most muslim countries are filled with inbred semi-retards and have very low intelligent quotients and most can’t even read. These people are violent and stupid to boot.
Watch the end of the movie, “The time machine” and you’ll see what I mean.
Unfortunately, people forget just how intolerably cruel and inhuman the Soviets were…
I have no doubt that the rulers of Iran are capable of breathtaking monstrosities, and that they are driven by a fanatical ideology that justifies an insatiable hunger for naked power. What can’t be denied, though, is what Barry pointed out: that their hunger and fanaticism have bred caution, patience and a single-minded focus on the long-term expansion of their power–not reckless, purposeless enthusiasm for mayhem. Rather than murder people on a whim, they have consistently and meticulously husbanded their resources to ensure that their every murder benefits them to the maximum. They would without a doubt annihilate Israel (or any other country, for that matter) in a heartbeat if it were in their power and without significant risk to themselves and their plans. But not a moment sooner.
The Soviets were exactly the same way. And the strategy that worked so well against them should work at least as well against the Iranian regime.
…re: your:
“And the strategy that worked so well against them [the Soviets ] should work at least as well against the Iranian regime.”
Seconded.
There’s something inherently very dull and dimwitted about the American penchant for erasing the near past and charging on forward with lances lowered against what ever threat is “new”…i.e. Islam.
Perhaps this is because those who remember previous wars die off, natural attrition, and the younger one’s think History is ….”so yesterday”….
This is in distinct contrast with the adage that “we’re always fighting the last war again..”, or words to that effect.
These two concepts and groups of thinkers should be merged…..there’s so much valuable experience simply discarded.
So many have died fighting the Soviet horror; why can’t we apply these terrible lessons so dearly learned?
The geographic area of the Soviet Empire we contained, along with their vaunted stock of nuclear weapons, was much greater that the Islamic controlled area of our current existential enemy…Islam.
The Soviets tried, with some success, to infiltrate and subvert America and American institutions. Our Islamic enemies are doing the same thing…right this hour….only this time the “cells” are called madrassas attached to their mosques inside our urban areas…successfully
This was not tolerated in early 1942.
Read all about it.
not with this president, that’s for sure, hard to say even what side he’s on
For once,I do not agree with Mr Rubin.
I think Israel will attack Iran before the US elections.
Given the huge sympathy obama harbors toward us,Israel will be compelled to act in the short opening windows before a possible reelection… ( my heart freezes !)
I disagree with the author. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor back in the 80s because they felt threatened. Israel feels threatened now by the Iranian nuclear program. Further, Israel knows it has no friend in the White House, and that essentially she is on her own to face Iran, contrary to the lies Obama told in the SOTU about ‘military cooperation’ with Israel.
Israel knows that if the West was going to do something to prevent Iran from going nuclear, they would have done it by now. But because the US has a weak, naive, muslim-sympathizing President, and other world leaders seem to be embracing anti-semitism to various degrees as well, Israel knows it will have to face Iran alone.
The 54% who voted for Obama in 2008 may well bring about an atomic mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.
I agree with the author, based on the actions of Israel in the prior two defensive wars, one involving Lebanon, the other involving Gaza. In both cases, the fighting ended before any victory could be achieved when the heat of world opinion became too hot for the Israeli government to handle, and governments began accusing Israel of committing war crimes and promoting a “humanitarian crisis.” Even under the administration of a pro-Israel president like Bush, Condeleeza Rice was pressuring Israel to end the war. The Western world is far more PC and dhimmified than it was even a decade ago, and would stop at nothing to appease Muslim anger, even if that meant sacrificing Israel. It would take a mushroom cloud over an American city for any effective response to be mounted against Islamic terror, but even then, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Rather than demostrating that Israel will not attack Iran, you are putting somewhat sound arguments as to why it is not in the best interests for Israel to attack Iran (many liberals have you position too, which is surprisingly, or even ironic). My problem with your postion is that you look too much at Israel and too little at Iran. The problem here is not Israel, never was: it is Iran. About Iran you do fail to undersand that due to internal politics both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei -do- need an external factor to improve their stand, their very low popularity with the people of Iran (people that are highly educated contrasted to the rest of the Middle East with exception of coursee of Israel). Both of them, who are virulent adversaries of each other, do need that, especially due to the upcoming parliamentary elections this march (and also for the presidential ones in 2013). On top of this, the ruling interests of Iran need a war, also because their power is a petro-Islamicist Fascist one; therefore, as predicted by Robert Paxton´s “Anatomy of Fascism” and his further work on the nature of Fascism, Iran is on the 5th. stage of Fascism and in that stage it -has- to look for war. It is a similar situation to the one which the Fascist military Junta of Argentina was 1982: it was so unpopular that had to initiate the Falklands War with Great Britain to unite the Argentinian people behind then very unpopular them.
So my point is that both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs -need- a war to stay in power. Not that the war hawks and the military industrial complex of the USA and Europe wouldn´t mind making trillions with another war, as well there are also geo-economic oil interests that would appreciate a war against Iran because Iran does not want the dollar to be the main currency for oil exchange (it sells its oil to India in rupies, etc.).
Lastly, I do disagree comparing the ruling power of Iran to Stalin, as on this I take the position of my respected and brilliant friend Pilar Rahola that considers Ahmadinejad a Hitler but with the atomic bomb (http://www.pilarrahola.com/3_0/ARTICULOS/default.cfm?ID=1972&SUBFAM=34 -Re-aceesed 27 January 2012).
Thank you.
Israel will not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities, for a reason that no one has mentioned so far: unlike Osirak in Iraq, the facilities are fueled and in operation; and some of them are located relatively close to cities. An air attack would cause many thousands of civilian radiation casualties. The Israelis would never do that just on humanitarian grounds; and if they did, the reaction from Iran and from the rest of the world would be the end of Israel.
The Iranians are unlikely to ever employ nuclear weapons in a direct attack – barring something like a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war (which I think is part of their incentive in going nuclear). However, their gaining a nuclear capability would be a terrorist threat similar to Pakistan’s being taken over by the Taliban: sooner or later, terrorists would erase a city. When that happens, it will take time to trace the source of the weapon back to Iran, so what form would a retaliatory strike take? Whatever form it took, it would simply serve to precipitate a world war of Islam versus the West.
That being the case, it is unlikely the Iranians would give terrorists a bomb to be used against Israel. The retaliation from Israel would be no less than the retaliation that would come from the US, if the US were attacked. So it’s more likely that an Iranian bomb would be used to erase New York than Tel Aviv; a lot more bang for the buck, so to speak.
The “Iran problem” seems to only be a tool for all those countries to get MONEY from us and to make the situation seem tense so they can keep the price of oil high. I’ve read (and it would make sense) that the leaders are all buddies (even Israel) and they’re just playing a game for the reasons I said above.
You have heard that the Saudis and the Iranians are buddies? Your hearing must be a little bit funny.
One thing is very obvious reading here. The tail wagging works. Wars make money for somebody. The world is almost broke. Greed has brought us there. The result is going to be war. No one wants to admit to wrong doing so fingers are pointed and hate sets in. War is inevitable. Doesn’t really matter who attacks who. Somebody will do something that will set it off. And Iran and Israel and Syria are gonna be right in the middle ans Russia and China are gonna get involved.
Tiger stalk people downwind because they believe have as keen sense of smell as they, there this premise goes bad.
Islam does not care how many die as long as the aim is achieved, loving death more than others love life, or so they say. Moving to destroy Israel, no matter the cost, is worth it if there is a chance of achieve the goal.
No neither will attack Iran, Israel because of the ideology of the author, believing things not true. The US and the West because it will not fight until it can stage a war based on a universal consensus which would probably mean suffering a nuclear attack.
The long term goal is to wait for events to ripen to the point where there is a consensus that Islam must be destroyed in its current form. Islam will provide the pretext, never fear: all revealed religions contain the same seeds of destruction.
I agree that Iran wants nukes, and will use them as a shield for terrorists. Iran has already shown they are perfectly willing to use blackmail. But that is a nightmare scenario.
Iran can threaten Israel if Israel works to remove Hizballah from Lebanon. Meanwhile, Iran can supply them with conventional rockets that make normal life in Israel impossible. But if Iran says an attack on Lebanon is an attack on Iran, what does Israel do? Attack, and risk a nuclear retaliation?
Iran could state they recognize “Palestine” and will retaliate should Israel invade to stop terrorism.
In both of these cases, Lebanon and “Palestine” could go to the UN, and ask for a resolution supporting the use of force against Israel. Would the US veto this, if Iran said they would attack the US with nuclear missiles or nuclear terrorist bombs? What if Iran did so, and Moscow said that an attack on Iran is an attack on Russia, as they recently did? Would the US risk nuclear war with Russia, too?
And finally, Iran could threaten nuclear attacks against countries that support Israel, leaving Israel isolated. What countries would risk selling weapons to Israel or supporting Israel at the UN if they were threatened with nuclear attacks?
Simply, Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. A big conventional war is better than even a small nuclear one.
Bim, bam, boom, kerzow, ratatatatat! This is fun. Can I join the war room planners? Let me throw in my two bits. I don’t know any better than any of you or even Barry Rubin if Israel will attack or not or if the U.S. will attack or not but I know what I’d like to see. My dream involves a sky filled with UAVs or RPAs or whatever they are called with no risk to any Israeli or American pilots, and these planes take out all Iran’s leaders while avoiding any civilian targets and then the Iranians who must be ready for a real revolution do the mop up work.
Let’s try to summarize it:
- There is no 100% safe missile defense system. And even a 1% probability that an Iranian nuclear missile gets through is TOO MUCH! Israel is a VERY SMALL COUNTRY!!!
- Logical assumptions don’t help when dealing with demented fanatics! MAD worked between USA and the Soviets – the Russians are (after all!) Europeans and (way back – now again) Greek-Orthodox Christians. And even admitting that the Ayathollas intend to be rather careful.. it’s enough to have a deranged fanatic down the line to press the button!
- Rubin’s assumptions that an Israeli preemptive attack will only set back the Iranians by 1-2 years is totally wrong! Other REAL experts estimate it at more like 5-6 years. And this time they won’t find any Western hardware providers…
- Likewise wrong is Rubin’s assumption that Israel won’t find any allies subsequent to the attack: the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates (while not applauding publicly) will be overjoyed! And so will (“Cahmberlanian”) Western Europe & the US – thx G-d, someoane did the “dirty job” they didn’t have the guts to!
- Even so, if the Iranians (provided their regime survives) rebuild in 5-6 years, Israel will have to attack again! They’ll have no choice… they understand that: there is barely one Israeli family that did not lose a relative in the Shoah or in one of the 1948-1967-1973 wars!
Mr. Rubin is right here.
The covert and protracted war against the Tehran regime will go on, and will
be much more efficient than any massive attack against Tehran nuclear facilities.
If the moll-ahs decide out of religious fervour to throw their future nukes
at Israel, they could well end up atomized.
Besides, it is not at all improbable that their own nukes won’ t blow up
in their faces as a result of cyber-warfare and their scientists’ incompetence.
Were There No GOD, Israel would not even exist and the “Samson Option” is no option since it would inflict only limited regional damage, but result in total annihilation of Israel.
But THERE IS GOD, and we can clearly see the result in the enemies of Israel happily killing each other.
AND THE SAME GOD DECLARES THAT No weapon forged against Israel will ever prosper, except on their own makers… Isaiah liv : 17
Sorry, I meant “…it’ s not at all improbable that their own nukes will blow up
in their faces…”
Pardon the bad syntax.
I don’t think Barry really knows what Netanyahu or any Israeli PM will do. While you have a very solid strategic grasp, there are unknowns. What is known is that we are not prepared to be sacrificed for others’ fears of a world war ’caused by the Jews.’ It’s obvious from a minority of posts here that the world is never short of people who think that we are the cause of all problems anyhow, and who ‘religiously’ ignore our many contributions to the world.
The bottom line is if Israel’s leaders indeed consider the state something that must be preserved. That means its sovereignty, the life of its people, culture, and, yes, Judaism.
Where I live, the Hizbollah is in (or just out of) view each day. I have no fear that these agents of the Iranian regime will descend on this moshav ‘any day now’; but we will not play with this kind of enemy.
Thank you Barry Rubin. This is posted from your multi-million-dollar casino you’ve built with the tremendous wealth acquired by winning bets on future sports events, right?
Mr. Rubin, I must disagree. I’ve been writing about the Iran, its nuclear program, and the possibility of a conventional preemptive strike since 2005. A piece I wrote 15 September 2005 is on point Playing Chicken: How Iran might win a nuclear war. Here’s an excerpt:
In later articles I expanded on the ideas discussed both here and in an earlier piece in which I argued for preemption. What’s important here is how Israeli policy makers will percieve Iranian actions in a crisis. The likelihood of a miscalculation is very high and the response time is only a few minutes. Elsewhere, I’ve demonstrated that 7 one megaton thermonukes deployed in such a way as maximize casualties would easily kill half the population. The Iranian IRBMs and warheads are based on old Soviet designs that carried one megaton warheads.
Are there factions in Iran? Of course. There are religious fanatics, pragmatists (possibly even Strangelovian game theorists), and probably groups in between. Unless Israel develops a near-impenetrable missile defense, once Iran has nukes, Israel will have to be on a hair trigger. In that event, what are the odds that someone makes a mistake resulting in 10′s of millions of deaths?
Is anyone getting tired of guessing if there will be an attack? Sit back, relax and the future will tell.
“Sit back, relax and the future will tell.”
Take all military options off the table, and that is what you are left with. Russia and China would cooperate with serious sanctions only if they believed it necessary to head off a US/Israeli strike.
Be in no doubt: Learning to live with a nuclear Iran means learning to live with genocide.
I do not understand the source of your certainty that “…the attack will not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”
Is it really that easy to build a nuclear weapons program while your weapons facilities are being bombed? Has anyone ever done so?
It seems as if the bar is set a bit high here. Must a single attack take out all weapons development capacity forever? Can’t the prospect of the next in a series of strikes be a serious deterrent?
Yes, we know that some of Iran’s facilities are deep underground. We’ve been hearing that for years from those urging inaction.
The indestructability of the Iranian facilities seems always to be the default assumption of those who want to pull the teeth from our rhetoric about “all options remain on the table.”
But even underground bunkered reinforced arsenals must rely on massive above-ground support facilities.
So why this constant effort from across the board to reassure Iran?
A single MOAB can reach 200 feet underground. With today’s technology, you can place another MOAB in the hole of the first one, and thus reach perhaps another 200 feet down. And yet another MOAB would reach to 600 feet down. The shock waves through the ground would likely interrupt the facility and make it uninhabitable.
Then, once the EMP bombs have neutralized Iran’s military, one can search carefully for the ventallation shafts for the other underground facilities, including the use of smoke bombs or generators to discover where the smoke is being sucked in, thus marking the vents accurately. One could even insert special forces to aid in the search. Would Iran move troops to the vicinities of their underground facilities? Doubtful on two counts: 1)it would give away the approximate locations; and 2)those areas would be under extensive attack anyway. So the areas would likely be open for special forces to search, so long as air support was available to hold off any surprise troop attacks. The result would be deep tombs for the air-starved underground workers. Blocking the vents would be a relatively simple task.
The deep facilities may not be such a stumbling block as has been made out by those wanting to deter an attack.
Mr Rubin you are focusing too much on Israel’s options while trying to paint Iran face with a heavy layer of cosmetics called logic: I agree with you that Iran slow but tenacious conquest of the nuclear weapon is made with logic ( exactly like a chess player should act ) but their behaviour once their goal is obtained will run totally contrary to their previous (utilitarian)logic ( HOW to get the nuclear weapon ?). Erdogan once said that he sees democracy only as a train to reach the goal of the islamist regime, meaning openly that there would be no use of the train backwards towards democracy.So when the nuclear weapon will be finally in the hands of Iran, you will be confronted with a much more agressive regime, who will show you Mr Rubin( the western thinker still petrified in your ” singular,peculiar,egoistic logic of life ” their WHY we shiites reached that nuclear weapon: Why ? To be able to attack Israel, able of challenging the Saudi predominance in the oil flow,able to bend the Gulf Sunni Emirates into submission( it already started in Bahrein),able to upset the US $ trade-off wih Saudi Arabia and to eliminate gradually the $ as the predominant trade instrument, to be able to threaten Europe with cultural defeat in front of islamic immigration ( as is now the case in France, Belgium, Netherlands,Spain..), able to show the world that the USA are ” chicken ” like very aptly pointed out by comment 52 by Mr Hager. The last 10 years behaviour of the USA since 2002 ( including President Bush and its grotesque endorsement of the NIE report that Iran WAS NOT looking for a nuclear weapon ) then the clownesque behaviour of the Obama-Panetta-Clinton in front of North Korea nuclear test, then the chamberlainesque declaration by Panetta that an israeli strike would have bad economic effects ( but obviously the contrary- an iranian nuclear attack on Israel would have almost no consequences ! ), then the Obama knee-jerking during the ” green pro-Musavi ” revolt against the treachery in the presidential elections , then the fearful abstention of Obama support for the syrian sunni uprising against the Alawites-pro Iran regime of Assad – well all those examples clearly demonstrates that both Bush and even more Obama are paper tigers, trembling of fear when confronted with a NOT YET nuclear Iran.It is pretty evident that Iran understands since the last 10 years that it has a free tollroad towards its nuclear weapon.And it is totally LOGIC for the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad to feel over-confident about their next chapter once they will be a nuclear power.So given the fear and inertia of the USA , there is only the very tiny Israel to stand up for its own survival in the way of Iran’s drive towards world domination ( step 1: eliminate Israel-step 2: reach capitulation from the Sunni world and most of all of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates- step 3: playing bully with already weakened and fearful Europe – step 4 : reach the status of Superpower equivalent of China, Russia, USA ( France and Great-Britain having been downgraded to the rank of dhimmi nations ) Step 5: repeat the operation on the south american continent thanks to Chavez and cronies..So It is pretty clear Israel must be either eliminated or badly wounded to ” mollify ” the rest of Teheran’s targets. Israel is only the small satan and it is easy to maim it deeply given its tiny surface.So now Mr Rubin what kind of ” logic ” should Israel government should opt for ? Do you still think that a cost-profit logic would be chosen by Teheran , even their ” moderate ” previous president Khatami told that he would welcome a 25 million iranian dead for the sake of destroying Israel ?
Concerning your analysis of Israel’s advantage in delaying the premptive attack on Iran leaders , Iran nuclears installations, Iran armies, I do not see any logic in the chicken waiting for the oven to be hot enough to be rosted.
Merci Philippe – excellent plaidoyer! Mr.Rubin is dead wrong attempting to induce the element of (Iranian) logic in his arguments. He obviously never lived in Middle East, hence is waxing philosophically “ex catedra” without the slightest understanding of the Islamist or (for that matter) Israeli mindset. I can only hope reality will never prove how wrong he is!
Hi Joe, thanks for your compliment but hope is not enough to stop the iranian drive. You american have the possibility to press your congressmen into action. You have the duty to vote and to unseat the radical crook sitting now in the white house. Please use my ” plaidoyer ” freely ( no copyright ) to wake up your fellow citizens, it is urgent to act now.
Actually, Joe, he lives in Tel Aviv. So he has a personal stake in what happens.
I agree that simply hoping just isn’t enough…
I’m running a personal “campaign” to promote public understanding of this. I compiled contradicting comments on the subject of nuclear intentions by Iranian leaders- Let me know what you think, as this is about cold facts- not just opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE_bhDahczA&feature=plcp&context=C3c2f025UDOEgsToPDskI3D8AhS-TF9H8360Urcpdt
Thanks for your valuable post. Over time, I have been able to understand that the particular symptoms of mesothelioma are caused by the particular build up of fluid between your lining of the lung and the chest muscles cavity. The illness may start within the chest vicinity and distribute to other limbs. Other symptoms of pleural mesothelioma include fat loss, severe respiration trouble, a fever, difficulty eating, and inflammation of the neck and face areas. It should be noted that some people having the disease will not experience almost any serious indicators at all.