In my fantasies, they also take out Syria’s gov’t; maybe even issuing a warning, first, and even declaring war? Hard to imagine as real, though.

The commando strike, with implicit US support from Iraq, could happen. Also interesting is the possibility of Iraq supporting Israel — Iraq, too, does not want a nuclear armed Iran.

Wouldn’t it be funny if Iraq pressed Iran for a nuclear free treaty, just the two of them, first?

Martin Lindeskog

Gothenburg, Sweden.

Americans shudder at the horror of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil. Millions of people dead and injured, billions of dollars, untold long-term health consequences…all terrifying. We’ll leave no stone unturned finding who was responsible. Then we’ll turn the perpetrating state OR state host into glass and then get back to our lives afterward. Because we can.

The Israelis can’t afford to think that for a second. Two or three real nukes exploding in Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Jerusalem and they would lose the ability to defend themselves conventionally on top of losing half of their population. Any of their neighbors would gladly exploit such an attack and try to finish off the survivors.

I try to never underestimate the readiness of Israel to act preemptively where Arab nuclear capability is concerned. I don’t doubt they would commit forces, even on a one-way mission, if they satisfied themselves that Iran was in fact in possession of nuclear weapons.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2763-1182664,00.html

==============

Israel targets Iran nuclear plant

The Sunday Times

July 18, 2004

Uzi Mahnaimi and Peter Conradi

ISRAEL could launch a pre-emptive strike on Iranís Bushehr nuclear power station if Russia goes ahead with plans to supply it with fuel, a senior American official warned last week.

Amid growing concern in the US government over Iranís apparent determination to build a nuclear bomb, the official said he believed Israel would attack the plant, on the Gulf coast, if it appeared fuel rods were about to be shipped there.

Sources in Tel Aviv confirmed that the Israeli military had completed rehearsals for such a strike. ìIsrael will on no account permit Iranian reactors ó especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help ó to go critical,î an Israeli defence source said.

Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, recently called Iran the ìbiggest danger to the existence of Israelî. He said: ìIsrael will not allow Iran to be equipped with a nuclear weapon.î

Under the deal with Moscow, waste produced at Bushehr containing plutonium that could be used in bomb-making would be shipped back to Russia for storage. The procedure is to be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog.

The material must first cool, however, providing the Iranians with what Washington fears could be up to two years in which to extract the plutonium. Israeli sources believe that a quarter of a ton a year could be produced if Bushehr was functioning fully ó enough for 20 bombs.

The fuel rods, stored at a Russian port, are expected to be delivered late next year but only after the resolution of a dispute with Moscow over financial terms.

According to Israeli sources, any strike on Bushehr would probably be carried out by long-haul F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.

ìIf the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail, we are very confident weíll be able to demolish the ayatollahsí nuclear aspirations in one go,î said a source familiar with the plans.

The source said the strike could be accompanied by an attack on other targets, including a facility at Natanz where the Iranians have attempted to enrich uranium ó another route to making a bomb. A plant at Arak producing heavy water could also be hit.

A classified document delivered to Sharon earlier this year and seen by The Sunday Times highlighted the anxiety of the Israeli defence establishment over the seriousness of the perceived threat from Iran.

(snip)

It will come down to a land invasion and conquest of Iran by the US Military.

_The_Stakes_Are_Too_High!

There are nukes on the table.

They are not American nukes.

You read Strategypage.com. You know Israel has the capability to effectively nuke Iran.

Iran has the motivation and will soon have the capability to nuke Israel. Senior Iranian government officials have stated publically, repeatedly, that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it has nuclear weapons. Further, these senior Iranian leaders think Iran can win any nuclear war with the Jewish state because Iran is large and Israel is small.

That makes yesterday, today and tomorrow part of a count down to a nuclear Six Day War.

The only way to avoid a world where nuclear preemptive attack is a legitimate tool of state policy is to change the regime in Iran and do so quickly. The CIA is too incompetent to bring down the Mullahs via fomenting an internal revolt and the CIA won’t let the American Special Forces do the job either for turf reasons.

This will take the conventional ground forces of the US Army and US Marine Corps.

One more thing. You ignored the 800 pound Gorilla sitting in the middle of the living room in that story.

Russia has replaced Pakistan as the Chief nuclear proliferator in the world. Delivery of nuclear materials from Russia to Iran will be an unfriendly act against the United States verging on an act of war.

If Russia has replaced Pakistan as the chief proliferator of WMD to the front line terrorist states, then what?

The chances of _most American_ dying in a nuclear exchange had dropped tremendously since the Cold War.

The chances that _some American_ will die from a nuclear strike are now far higher.

It’s simpler than that. We would be trying to fight in the middle east with 45-year-old M60 tanks, firetrap M113′s, bolt-shedding Hueys and creaky-winged Phantom jets, since Kerry voted against the replacements for every one of those weapon systems.

Kerry is not a 9/10 politician; he is a 1974 politician, like most of his peers. Their policies and worldviews ossified after Viet Nam and they are incapable of moving past them or seeing that the world has changed. When a boomer politician boasts that he was in The Big One, he means Woodstock or Chicago 68, not Normandy Beach or Okinawa…

It’s simpler than that. We would be trying to fight in the middle east with 45-year-old M60 tanks, firetrap M113′s, bolt-shedding Hueys and creaky-winged Phantom jets, since Kerry voted against the replacements for every one of those weapon systems.

Kerry is not a 9/10 politician; he is a 1974 politician, like most of his peers. Their policies and worldviews ossified after Viet Nam and they are incapable of moving past them or seeing that the world has changed. When a boomer politician boasts that he was in The Big One, he means Woodstock or Chicago 68, not Normandy Beach or Okinawa…

Kaus: Let’s win the war, apologizing all the way.

Liberals. Yecch.

China historically is not expansionist, but they did annex Tibet, which is not historically Chinese. They tend to want buffer zones along their borders, which is why a democratic Korean reunification is a pipe dream. It is also why the US did not invade North Vietnam, although Johnson was overly scared of the Chinese and hence failed to use adequate force against the North.

That they add Korea to their list is odd. I suspect, given the timing, that they are doing to justify conquest of North Korea – especially if it is true that we recently threatened them with a nuclear armed Japan and Taiwan if they failed to end Nork WMD proliferation. The .8 kt explosion at the train station the Dear Leader had recently been through is another clue – the Chinese knew he was going to be there. An added bonus was that some Syrians, probably missile scientists, were vaporized in the event.

Notice that if Taiwan were to become nuclear armed, the PRC leadership would have major problems. A properly armed Taiwan could prevent a conquest and punish China terribly. This would mean the current leadership “lost” Taiwan.

Since they really do consider Taiwan a wayward province, taking North Korea would not be an adequate substitute

A nuclear armed Japan would be a nightmare for them also, although the Japanese seem loathe to do so. My Japanese sister-in-law, for example, has a strong reaction to the idea of nuclear weapons. But to counter North Korea, the Japanese might consider nuclear arms. And to the Chinese, with their memory of a long and terribly brutal Japanese invasion and occupaton, this would be very frightening. In my travels in Asia, I have found that the Japanese are still greatly feared and disliked, which is appropriate since they appear to dislike and feel superior to everyone else (with exceptions such as my sister-in-law and her father, but not her mother).

It is difficult for a westerner to adopt Asian thinking (or at least, in my experience, Japanese thinking – and I am far from competent). For example, imagine you have a want a raise from your boss. Just asking for one causes a big problem. But if you explain some economic hardship (which you and the boss both know is nonsense), then the boss has a way of saving face and you get the raise.

China has some very strong imperialist strains in its culture, along with Confucianism, which teaches submission to authority. Japan is ruthlessly hierarchical and sexist, and is only 150 years past true primitive feudalism. Arab cultures tend to be shame cultures, and there seems to also be a strong element akin to machismo, which is why it was so wrong to shoot cruise missiles at Bin Laden and why any kind of serious ground force actions would have had a dramatically different psychologicla effect (I was arguing this during the Clinton Administration, btw).

Beyond North Korea, Taiwan and Tibet, China’s aims would appear to be more that of regional hegemon than conquerer. In some sense, they would create their own version of the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” but do so by trade, economic warfare and military intimidation rather than conquest.

At the moment we have an odd relationship with China. We have strong economic interdependencies. We are serious opponents on the Taiwan issue. We need the Chinese to solve the North Korean problem. The Chinese are building more, and more survivable (mobile) nuclear weapons targetted at the United States (or India). The Chinese represent a competitor with many countries in the South China Sea, which has potential oil and gas.

In other words, like has been frequently true throughout history, nothing simple can be said about China.

Here’s a good summary of where the carrier groups are heading (with citations).

“Imperialism” means some a little different for China, I think. I don’t think I believe that China is expansionist. But they do insist on retaining what they believe belongs to them. And that could conceivably include Southeast Asia and the Korean peninsula as well as substantial chunks of central Asia. As well as Taiwan, of course.