Redstate

for doing a diary on this. I just recommended it. I have been thinking a lot about this topic as well lately particularly given the recent bizzaro belligernt comments from Iran's president.

I have to assume if I am Isreal, I can not tolarate Iran to go down the road with developing nuke technology. If Isreal doesn't do anything, the phrase "Never again" is utterly meaningless.

But there was an interesting article on Drudge earlier in the week (sorry don't have link) analyzing that Isreal really has no capacity to do the kind of significant military action needed to effectively take out Iran nuke sites. Isreal doesn't have the long distance strike capability and if the Iraqi govt has any semblance of soverignty they wouldn't allow overflights anyway. Maybe Israel could pull off something like a limited 'Luke-Skywalker-one-shot-in-a-million-to blow-up-the-deathstar', but not the large sustained air assualt needed to take out multiple hardened nuke sites. I've never heard anything about Israeli subs having SLBM capability either, so seems like there really are no viable options.

I guess that leaves us, and taking the altruistic desire to protect our friend Isreal out of the equation, I think we still have to do it based on our own interests of a) Iran can not be allowed to dominate the gulf flow of oil with the threat of nukes and b) their track record of working with terrorists and threatening OUR destruction, requires us to stand behind our own post-9/11 "Never again" statements. Obviously with hundreds of thousands of troops on Iran's eastern and western borders, we have the capability to take action. I hope we have the will.

Definately seems like things will be coming to a head in 2006.

Capable of the strike on two levels.

On the sub issue you mentioned: Israel has two Dolphin class subs and has purchased three more.  They have cruise missle capability.  The three were purchased shortly after Iran announced their crazy intent.

On air strike ability: I heard an interview with the Israli Defense Minister (might have been on John Batchelor's or G Gordon's show, but I can't recall).  He stated that Israel is capable of hitting Iran at multiple sites and can take out hardened targets.  Their concern is the possibility of an ensuing conflict with multiple Muslim nations.  It wouldn't stop Israel (my words, not his).  He added that western nations are aware of Israel's ability in this area even if the abilty is not loudly broadcasted.

Here's a third more ominous note.  Let's face it, we all know Israel has some limited nuke ability.  If I were them, heck yeah.

Let's hope that Iran comes to their senses (not much chance of that) or that the west does something before Israel has to.

The biggest question looming (imho) is what the west, particularly the US, will do if Israel has to target Iran.

Today's Sunday Times (UK, World edition) which can be linked in today's Drudge (sorry, don't know how to link) confirms Israel's ability.

It states that Israeli air and ground forces would be involved asccording to Israeli Defense sources.  It includes slight information on a strategic squadron without the need for refueling.

Dec. 11 2005

the article you cite on Drudge today as well. It references that Isreal's F-15s have the capability to strike w/o refueling as you note, but I'm guessing the would have to fly through Jordanian/Iraqi or Saudi airspace to make the attack. Reflecting further on my earlier post about a soveirgn Iraq not allowing overflight, I neglected the fact that the soveirgn Iraq will have negligible air force and anti-air batteries of its own.

So it really will be our call to let the Israelis go through with it. I think we have to greenlight it for the reasons I noted above. But then we have not just the "Arab street" issue, which has never really panned out before, but the possibility that thousands of Irainian militia could infiltrate into the Shiite south and start a second guerilla war front against us under the banner of Al-Sadr types.

So to your question of what does the US/West do about an Isreali attack- we facilitate it happening and deal with the consequences as best we can. This will need to include will include being well prepared with plan to stop the presumed Iranian guerrilla incursions into Iraq that I'm assuming will happen, and being prepared to deal with oil embargo threats. Regarding threatened oil embargoes, we need to start getting the word out that we would view an embargo as an act of economic warfare against us that we would be prepared to use all options to retailate against and resolve.

Some thoughts on your last...

1. I don't think the overflight of any of the countries you listed will be much of an issue militarily or in a political vein.  No, really.  None of these countries really wants to mess with Israel, and I think they believe the US would intervene if there was retaliation.  The best they could do is shoot at the overflight (as opposed to retaliate) but they would probably rather ignore it and act surprised.  They would rant angrily to appease their populations, but all in all I believe they would rather let it go.
   
2. My only disagreement with you is that we would have to greenlight it.  Israel will do what they want.  They will at least give us a heads up a few minutes into the aircraft launch.  I wouldn't be shocked if the US has already covertly warned the listed countries that the US will defend Israel in the event of any GROUND retaliation on Israel.
   
3. I imagine there is contingency planning for a mass attack against Iraq or a massive infiltration of the type you noted.  I believe the US would then go ahead vs Iran despite any democrat opposition.  I don't think the Iranians will do it though.  They fear this would push the US too far, and even Europe has signaled its displeasure with Iran's behaviour.  I think Iran would step up terrorist measures against Israel, but not much more.

Here is how I believe this will play out.

Either:

1) The Europeans kick this down the road with a stupid truce that placates everyone and stalls (for awhile) the Iranian program (supposedly).  The Iranians continue a la N. Korea.

or,

2) Iranians remain defiant and continue talking the smack they have been.  Israel launches a major air assault (no ground forces despite the article) and it is succesful.  Everyone blames Israel for being militant, but the problem is over.  Little in the way of succesful terrorist attacks in retaliation, but the palestinian terror groups will claim that any attacks they are able to launch was for Iran whether they were planned that way or not.      

I just want to say this: It's not our call whether the Israelis get to use Iraqi airspace for such an attack.

The Iraqis have their own government, and it should be consulted before the Israelis fly over to attack a neighbor.

I think for the US to wink and nod as the Israelis did that, would be a complete betrayal of the Iraqis.

So, as much as I'd love to see Israel settle the Iranian nuclear question, I think it'll be tough.

You post touched on another point that I have been scratching my head about- is the Iranian pres. really such an irrational nutjob making these statements against Isreal to such an extreem degree that even Kofi Annan has to condemn them. My initial assumption was the obvious- yes the guy is an evil madman.

But maybe there's a method to his madness: Seeing the Gaza handover, the West Bank wall going up, Mahmoud Abbas seeming serious about coexisting w/ Isreal, seeing Assad reeling from his Lebanon activities and seeing the US succeeding in our efforts to build a free and peaceful Iraq that will not be an enemy of Isreal, maybe the Iranian Pres. views this sabre rattling against Isreal as his last hope to push things off the path of peace in the middle east because he knows that if Isreal and Palestians settle their conflict, and the other Arab troublemakers fall by the wayside, then he's the odd man out clinging to hatred of Isreal and America, and the main underpinning for his Islamofascit regime falls away.

So, is the situation unfolding now really a win-win for the Iranian regime- either a) the push forward, develop the A-Bomb, dominate the middle east and continue support terror against their enemies behind a veil of nuclear protection, OR b) bait Isreal into blowing up their nuke site, which gets the rest of the Islamic world up in arms, derailing the peace process and perpetuating the Arab-Israeli conflict which is a big part of the reason for that regimes existance.

That clarifies the question as to how do we manage option b) so that it is not an ultimate "win" for Iran. I'm going to have to think about that for a while.

Israel overflies Iraq.  Yes, America has the capability of knowing it is happening.  Do the Iraqis have that capability?  I bet it's a resounding no.  Are we obligated to inform Iraq of a non-threatening flyover of an ally?  We are responsible for the safety of Iraq from external threat, granted.  But here we know there is no threat.  Lets do what Upper Bupkas would do about this:  absolutely nothing and lodge a  complaint with the UN over this shocking, SHOCKING! breach of Iraqi sovereignty.  Maybe we will even vote to condemn this blatant disregard.  And laugh as we do it.

we might inform the Iraqis and the Iranians. By that time, the Israeli cruise missiles will have cratered all the runways in Iran. If it happens, most will be surprised by the audacity of the attack. They have been planning for this event for years, in various venues. I imagine it will be executed to perfection. We will get some notice, but I don't think they will seek a "green light". It means their very survival, so they won't concern themselves with diplomatic niceties. It is a pity that we are utterly unable to keep a secret. A couple of B2s at high altitude would not attract much, if any, attention and would simplify the project greatly.

I posted on this issue here a while back, and the only thing new that has developed is the denial of the holocaust and a "softening" tone that suggests Israel just be moved to Europe.

I know the media continues to downplay these statements and the increasingly loud drumbeats from Iran's President, but it is not lost on the rest of us.  I can't debate with you guys about Israel's arsenal and long distance strike capabilities, but I do know this much: Israel will NOT wait til the handwringing around the world stops.  They have not, in my recent memory, bowed to any international pressure to cease and desist when they truly felt their security and sovereignty were at stake.  And, I have a great deal of faith in their intelligence capabilities.

That said, while her neighbors may not want to mess with her, en masse they may be inspired to do so, especially when they get the sense from our media that we are weak and may not have the stomach for such a conflict.  This is a dangerous situation brewing, to be sure.  And an all out Middle East war is impossible for me to even put words around.  Remember how much we've learned about how this type of enemy fights...

I don't think we can notify Iran, lacking diplomatic relations, but we could notify Iraq:

"Yes, Presidents Chalabi, today American patrols spotted a group of fully-armed Israeli attack planes flying over Basra in an easterly direction.  We signaled for them to land immediately, and when they refused, our dilligent troops followed orders, and reported the incident immediately.  Our office informed yours as soon as we received the news."

"Oh, no, we didn't attack... in the interests of global peace, we did not want to start an international incident without your government's express approval."

"Oh, did the planes already leave Iraqi airspace and bomb several targets in Iran?  That's a shame..."

If A) Push forward and develop bomb - Won't happen.  We won't allow it and neither does Israel.

If B) Islamic world up in arms - Don't think it will happen.  Saber rattling yes, but not much more.  It's a lose / lose for Iran.  

That's why I think the pres. there IS a nutjob.

No way Israel consults Iraq.  They don't need the permission of a hostile nation to overfly to prevent a nuke strike, and Iraq would potentialy warn Iran.  Israel didn't consult anyone to bomb Iraq's nuke program either.

It's Kerryesque to suggest one has to consult someone to defend oneself from a hostile nuke country claiming they want to wipe you off the map.  Besides, I don't think Iraq allows any diplomatic communiques from Israel (lack of embassy, etc.)

We won't inform Iraq.  And you're right.  Iraq's airforce right now is some cargo craft and choppers.  I believe they lack much in the way of air-to-air right now.  Even so, I don't they (or ground to air) would be able to do much at all.

While I don't think we would "warn" Iraq of an impending flyover, I imagine the possibility it will happen has been discussed.  The Iraqi's (for reasons I suggested in an earlier post this thread) aren't interested in interfering with Israel's plans.  They'll complain afterwards like everyone else.

I agree with all but one minor point.  I doubt we would inform Iran.  We wouldn't betray the Israel raid to the one country with anything to gain by firing on the IDF planes.  Perhaps I misunderstand your post.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

There would not be a wider ME war, not with a 150,000+ US troops, a few aircraft carriers and hundreds of US warplanes prowling around in the region. The Arab leaders may be strange but they are not stupid. The Israelis cleaned their clocks the last time they tried something and that was without the presense of US forces in the area.

Agree with your post.  Doubt the en masse attack will happen vs. Israel though.  If it does I bet we jump in on it.  Bush would ignore the democrats to do the right thing on this one.  His foriegn policy is not subject to polls or debate in his mind and I believe he would just do the right thing.  No way this president abandons Israel if the chips were down.

was that Israel is not going ask permission. By the time IDF aircraft are wheels up, their submarine launched cruise missiles will have cratered all the Iranian runways. They will also use stand off missiles to destroy any known radar installations, which they have probably been mapping for months. Our notification will be something like - hey, did you know your house is on fire??

So some people believe that it would be ok for the US to completely violate the almost CERTAIN will of virtually ALL Iraqis and allow the Israelis to attack Iran?

I can see the headlines on Al Jazeera already "Americans allow Israelis to perpetrate sneak attack on peaceful Iran.  Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan recall diplomats from Washington and expell American diplomats from their country."

In 1991 we had to EXPRESSLY tell the Israelis to not get involved in Iraq.  Why?  Because once they get involved the war expands.  By allowing the Israelis to use Iraqi airspace we completely invalidate our "neutral" position on Iraq.  To most Arabs our actions would be viewed as a complete betrayal.  It could be the biggest recruitment point for Al Qaeda for the next 10 years.

While I'm sure that the Israeli military isn't about to admit that they can't perform the mission , this would require a tremendous effort for them.   These are hardened targets.  They don't really know the precise locations of the targets.  And they would need to go really far with little support.  While the Iranian air defense is probably rudimentary they would likely be given a LOT of chances to take these guys out.  And an Israeli failue would be absolutely horrible.

Realistically speaking the only country that could do the strikes is the US without Israeli involvement.  

Do you honestly expect us to shoot down Israeli planes should they violate Iraqi airspace?

That's what we'd have to do to stop them, I'm sure, should they go through Iraq to or from Iran.

It would all depend on how everything came to be, if it does.  No doubt we are already beefing up their military technology.  There are many other X factors in outside Arab nation involvement.  I think if Israel were to strike first, and strike hard, most outside support would sissipate quickly, like it has every other time they've wanted to come together and destroy Israel.  I also think that the US and Western allies would stay out of it, at least in the beginning.  Keep a meancing perch further discouraging outside involvement.  All the while likely assisting in air strikes against Iran.

Best case scenario, a prolonged war would be avoided.  Quick victories would keep others from jumping in, and prolonged bombing could set their military and nuclear capabilities back several decades.

But I'm an optimist.  I think all they need to accomplish is a thrashing of major targets and a presidentail assaination.

A prolonged war where many nations get involved would cause global destruction.  With a fully commited West in the Middle East, I think China would head for Tiawan, N Korea into S Korea, and India and Pakistan may start swinging at each other.  So I think we would have to rely on Israel doing most the work so we don't have to fully commit.

But even better, the religious idiots wishing for war and genocide will all kill themselves and the world can move out of the stone age of bashing each other over the head in every concievable manner possible.

that the Israelis would go through Iraq without explicit American approval?  

Certainly no one else would.  And I'm sure we want our military saying "gee we never noticed a large sortie of Israeli strike fighters flying hundreds of miles through Iraq and then back".  

What does it matter whether they get our approval or not?

What do you think would be the consequences for them from us?

What makes you think they trust us so well that they would ask us first over a matter of national survival?

Because they are invading the sovereign airspace of their neighbor and that airspace is currently being protected by the United State Air Force.

Worst case consequences would be the US inadvertently firing at unidentified fighters.  Also possible is American fighters chasing the Israeli jets.

They will ask us because without American support the Israelis are doomed.  This isn't a question of the Isrealis attack Iran without our approval.  This is a quesiton of the US actively supporting this action as the protectorate of a Muslim nation.

If the Israelis want to do this they would need to go through Jordan and deal with them.

Iran's leader IS a nut job, which is excatly why I can see him using the strike as a pretext for making trouble with us. I do not think he would have any qualms about sending masses of poorly armed infantry(somewhat like the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's) into Iraq to try to "Vietnam" us out of Iraq. We could certainly defeat the attempt, but at an enormously high cost in men and another long and costly occupation streching years into the future.

The question being, is he crazy enough to sacrifice his hold on power to make us suffer?

when the President announces the air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities we can expect you to be in the front row cheering?

what my personal views have to do with my comments.

I think that there are numerous risks with the US doing the strike.  However if it needs to be done then we are probably the only ones who can do it.  

The President will need to have some pretty compelling evidence to justify attacks on Iran, IMO.  If he doesn't have that then he will help out our enemies considerably.

I don't know how many missiles one of those subs can launch, but I am sure that all the subs combined can launch enough nukes to wipe Iran off the map. Because of the fact the Israel can be obliterated with one nuke, and given the Iranian President's statements, Israel needs to aim enough nukes at Iran to make Iran a skidmark on the map and let Iran know it. Sharon or whoever needs to make a public statement that if a nuke goes off in Israel, the first thing Israel will do in responce is destroy Iran.

If Israel has enough nukes under water somewhere that can be launched whenever they want (even if the state of Israel has been blown away), that is one BIG deterrent.  

And if Iran knows that Israel getting nuked means Iran no longer exists, that is motivation to to keep Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc., in check.

Israel doesn't have too many other options. From my understanding, Iran's nuke program is too dispersed and too deep underground to be destroyed by airstrikes, and an attack on Iran gives Iran a reason to retaliate against Israel.

Is the Iranian President in charge of sending that missile to Israel. All signals indicate the man is a madman and in a religious fervor. I actually don't think he'd care if Iran got it if Israel got taken out in the process. All is fair in the Love of Jihad and War.

Is the Iranian President in charge of sending that missile to Israel.

Almost certainly not. His predecessors were figureheads; marionettes operated by the Mullahs. There is no reason to think Ahmadinejad is any different. The real power in Iran lies in something called the Expediency Council, which is an unelected coven of Mullahs headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The official explanation is that the Expediency Council "supervises" and "guides" the three branches of the government. Those who are neither supervised nor guided are often found hanging from cranes.

Re: Because of the fact the Israel can be obliterated with one nuke,

Nukes may be horrendously powerful weapon, but the above is a gross overstatement. Not even the largest weapon in the old Soviet arsenal could have destroyed a country the size of Israel (ten miles is about the limit of physical destruction of a multi-megaton weapon, and at that distance we're talking mostly broken windows). But since we are talking about Hiroshima-sized fission weapons here, one could wipe out much of Tel Aviv, but still leave the surburbs unscathed.

See I think that baiting Israel into attacking Iran in an attempt to take out the nuclear aresenal may be, in his view, his surest way to maintain his hold on power. If there's away to take out the Iranian regime along with their nukes, that would change this dynamic, but my assumption here is that Isreal would have a hard enough time just pulling off the strikes on the nuke sites, let alone wiping out the regime at the same time.

If Isreal/Palestine is showing some propects for peace, Iraq is becoming a democracy, Libya now wants to be a good citizen and Assad is just trying to hang on, there is a real possiblity for a transformation of the Middle East to attain a real level of peace and freedom in the not too distant future. The Iranian regime can't allow that to happen because their own population will want to be part of it.

What's the best way to prevent peace? Pick a fight with Isreal to destabilize the region again.

China wouldn't head for Taiwan -- it's being handed to them, in due time.

N Korea into S Korea?  Somehow, I doubt it.  I think it's more likely to see S Korea into N Korea.

-TS

...that the Israelis can't take out all their nuke sites from the air, and that we'll be immobilized by our domestic opposition.

Iran has made the overt threat and presumably will have nukes soon. Iran also backs Hesbollah and Islamic Jihad either directly or indirectly.

Israel just needs to make it policy(that Iran will be destroyed first), just like Iran's policy is to see Israel wiped off the map. All Israel needs to do when the policy is questioned is refer to the Iranian President's quote.

reacted to the rhetoric of other nations in the manner you suggest, we would all be dead right now.

You are correct, one nuke can't wipe Israel off the map. One barrage of missiles may be able to wipe Israel off the map. At one point, Israel is only six miles wide. The whole country  is smaller than New Jersey.

This source pretty much confirms what you say about area of total destruction. Israel is so densely populated that a well placed nuke would probably kill hundreds of thousands of people. Plus that area the bomb goes off at can't be inhabited for years, nuclear fallout, etc. The people in surrounding areas would have to be relocated. One nuke would be devastating to Israel.

In the US we can transplant a couple hundred thousand people without any serious problems (crowding, limited resources, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of people have left New Orleans. I don't believe that is the case in Israel. Plus the Israeli economy would never recover. Look what 9/11 did to us. One nuke would probably be the end of Israel, as a thriving county that people want to live in.

If Iran knows that there is a barrage of nukes headed to Iran if Tel Aviv or any Israeli city is destroyed, I think Iran will do what they need to make sure Israel isn't nuked. I don't even think Iran's wacked out President or ruling Imams would take that trade off, one or two cities in Israel for the entire country of Iran.

that has said it's goal is to see another country wiped off the map(not in wartime) and had the capability(potentially) to follow thru with the threat. If country A says it wants to see country B exterminated and in the near future a nuke goes off in country B, I don't think too many would blame country B for attacking country A.

We invaded Iraq because they might have given terrorists WMD sometime in the future. And don't say Bush lied because I can lay out a list of quotes by Democrats showing that Democrats made a stronger case for war than Bush did. The Dems authorized the pre-emptive war.

During the cold war, do you think the Soviet Union would have let a terrorist or rogue country set off a nuke in the US if the Soviets could have prevented it?

No.

Is crazy enough to "martyr" his entire country if it mans destroying Israel.

The imams are brave as far as sending others to be martyrs, but if their family (their little grandchildren, etc.) are going to die a horrible death and if the imams themselves are at risk, I doubt they would approve a nuclear strike.

if a barrage of missiles came from China toward the US, do you think we would investigate before the US gov't unloaded on the Soviet Union?

Hey guys! I'm new to this site, and found some of the topics and views interesting and informative. Here are a few facts to consider in regard to a possible Israeli Strike on Iran or an Iranian-Israeli War.

Some Basic Demographics and Military Info

Iran is approximately 4 times the size of Iraq physically (approximately 1.6 million sq. km), has 3 times its population (70-75 million according to the most recent statistics) and unlike Iraq is for the most part mountainous.

Iran's military forces include 3 main branches: 1) The Regular Iranian Armed Forces 2) The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and 3) the Basij Militia. Their total active military forces equal no more than 1 million personnel, with a few million in reserves given military conscription in the country.

Iran also has the ability to produce and maintain light arms, artillery, armored forces and (at an extremely slow rate) offensive helicopters and aircraft. As well, the country has 3 major weapons supply depots, originally constructed and filled by the US. Only half of one depot was used during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war.

Iran's navy is for the most part negligible, and its air-force (particularly its F-4s, F-5s and F-14s) is running under conditions considered impossible by most modern air-forces.

Iran's Atomic Energy Program and the State of the Iranian Air Defenses

Thanks to a lucky chance I got to run a small franchise company and to work at a small Immigration/Civil Law Centre during my first undergraduate year, I made a lot of money one summer and had the opportunity to travel extensively and got to know a little bit on this matter (hopefully I'll get a chance to go to Japan too very soon too.)

Alright, as it's been mentioned before on news sites, Iran's atomic energy program started in the 1960's, and was interrupted by the revolution, re-starting again in the mid-eighties. As a result of this discontinuity and lessons learned from the Osirak Incident, Iran has literally a few hundred sites around the country which make up the main components of its nuclear energy program (though the numbers are sometimes exaggerated). Each site is either fortified underground or has SAM defenses (note the recent purchase of 29 Tor-M1s, as well as older radar and anti-aircraft systems purchased from Western countries prior to the Revolution), and nearly all of them are located in large urban population centers.

Furthermore, Iran has close to a hundred long range missile sights (Shahab 3s and the like, some armed with chemical/biological warheads) around the country aimed at Israel and American/hostile forces in the region. The Iranian Air-Force and radar system, despite their deplorable condition would also have to be dealt with to prevent detection and interception.

Let's assume to effective debilitate the Iranian nuclear weapons program for a considerable amount of time (10+ years), you would need to take out 10-20 sites. This would also assume taking out Iran's ant-air defenses and retaliatory missile sights, as well as certain key airbases to allow a large scale and continuous air attack (even if backed by elite ground forces, because to have surprise they would have to arrive by air and not the border which is a long distance from the sites) to go on uninterrupted and be successful.

This would require the element of surprise, plus a considerable air campaign with at least hundreds of sorties backed by fighter escorts, a large stash of bunker busting bombs and other munitions, over a long distance for a period of at least a few days, and possibly backed by a Special Forces ground campaign, to be successful. The Israelis would need to be right on each time, and try to avoid massive civilian casualties and the release of nuclear agents from the sites attacked. This is a formidable task indeed.

Does Israel have the number of planes, fuel and weapons supplies to carry out such an attack (remember, it is the F-15s which have the required range and technology, and how many of these do they have, given that these need to be precision strikes and other air-craft/long range missiles might not be up to snuff)? Lets say this massive air campaign went off without a hitch, is it likely that Iran is just going to sit there during these (at least 2-3) days and take it? I don't doubt the Israeli Air force's obvious talent and high-tech edge, but can large civilian casualties and the release of nuclear agents into cities and the civilian population be avoided, given the scale? Wouldn't America's explicit complicity become obvious after the first day, making the "What do you want us to do President Talabani? Oh! Look its too late all the Iranian nuclear sites are destroyed" scenario mentioned earlier a little unlikely?

Unless carried out on a smaller scale (making it much less effective), this campaign is bound to be messy, and could result in other things that should considered, which leads us to our next section...

Other Considerations

Under the NPT (which Israel rejected, preferring to pursue a weapon's program), Iran has the right to the uranium enrichment cycle and atomic energy. As mentioned earlier no precise evidence of misconduct or a "smoking gun" has been found, making such an attack illegal by international law. Let's say however that given the Iranian President's recent comments, the international community would not go beyond simple words to admonish Israel for its behaviour. Would this in an of itself be right? Let's look at the Iranian President's recent comments.

The first stated that "Israel should be wiped off the map". Okay, this is the wrong thing to say, especially by a national leader. But what most people don't realize is that high Iranian government officials say and have said this almost everyday. It's nothing new or special. Heck, Khomeini, Iran's revolutionary supreme leader said this in the eighties and at this time Israel was selling Iran weapons and spare parts!! A big deal has been made of this issue because of Iran's rising power in the region, and for propaganda purposes. Imagine some of the things that US officials have said which would by no means be appropriate. Now imagine the international media picked this up and made a big deal out of it, even though it was clearly meant for the consumption of a narrow support base. This is the case in Iran.

The second comment has been construed as a) denying the Holocaust and b) saying that Israel should be moved to Europe. Granted that Iran's President is an idiot, these are some interesting points to reflect on. If you look at the first statement (see original sources, and even many English language sources), what Ahmadi-Nejad is saying is that it is stupid that in some countries (i.e. Germany) Holocaust denial is a crime, given that these countries are democracies and free speech is considered sacred. The second statement is saying that if the Europeans (and especially the perpetrators of the Holocaust, Germany and Austria, and other countries which committed atrocities against Jews) really care about the Jews and regret their treatment of them in the past, why didn't they give them some European land to live on and instead push the Jews on an area which had already been inhabited by a people, the Palestinians, thus displacing them. Remember, Europe was the home of most Jews, and the implication is that why couldn't the Europeans just accept them.

Still, the fact that he denied the Holocaust is pretty stupid.

These comments, don't mean much, but are simple rhetoric, meant as a token support for the Palestinians. As mentioned earlier, the President isn't very powerful without the support of the Supreme Leader's Office, the Guardian and Expediency Councils, Parliament and the Revolutionary Guard's. He is in fact their puppet. The main reason behind the Islamic Republic's hostile stance towards the US and Israel is fear, fear of its own people, and fear these two strong powers. The Islamic Republic is intensely corrupt and as a result illegitimate, and so it needs to find alternative ways to remain in power. Nuclear energy (and in extension nuclear weapons) will serve as a deterrent for powers like the US or Israel, and in all likelihood prevent a military attack on the IRI. However, this has an added bonus, in that if in the process of acquiring atomic power/weapons, Iran is attacked, this would allow it to become even more entrenched because: (a) It could claim emergency war powers and crush its opposition like it did during the Iran-Iraq War and (b) it could regain the support of the public, which strongly supports the atomic energy program, if not the regime itself. Remember, the IRI won't attack Israel with nuclear weapons directly or through a proxy, as this would no doubt mean destruction for itself.

Attacking Iran would be very stupid on the PR side. Familiarity breads contempt, and as such, no one hates the regime more than Iranians. However, like in the past, Iranians will forgo their hatred and unite to fight a common enemy which for illegitimate reasons has attacked/invaded its soil. Iranians are extremely pro-American and feel no hatred for the Israelis, as ancient Persia and Israel had a strong bond (Cyrus the Great freed the Jews from exile and helped build the Second Temple). Unless Israel and America attacked Iran. This would be insanely bad, as the regime could continue its wretched existence on a wave of nationalism.

The smart thing to do would be to support the democratic Iranian opposition, which is slowly uniting and will no doubt overthrow the regime in the immediate future. Of course, the free world must avoid another Ahmed Chalabi, which in the Iranian case is personified by the MEK. Although the MEK claims to be a pro-democracy group, a closer look at the organization reveals its cult-like tendencies (read more about Massoud and Maryam Rajavi), its terrorist acts against Western interests in the 1970s, its bizarre ideology which mixes Islam and Marxism, and the fact that Iranians hate them more than the Islamic Republic, given the damage they did to Iran by joining Saddam Hussein during war, and the atrocities they carried out against Iraqis for pay under Saddam. The MEK is the Khmer Rouge of Iran.

Major Implications

Now, I've seen a lot of you guys claim that the US has been very successful in creating a democracy in Iraq, which by its very success and existence poses a threat to the Islamic Republic, but this is almost hilarious given the facts on the ground. First of all, the Insurgency has if anything, grown in the last little while and the US's popular support among Iraqis declined. Second, the Iraqi government is strongly tied to Iran, if not outright controlled. Look at the top parties controlling the Iraqi government (Islamic Dawa Part, The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, etc). They were almost all exclusively funded and trained by Iran during their exile from Iraq (especially the Shia groups, with the case being less valid in regards to the Kurds, who nonetheless got lots of cash from Iran) and/or are of Iranian origin. The most popular Shia Grand Ayatollah, al-Sistani (remove the "al-") is Iranian, and has not taken Iraqi citizenship. Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, despite disliking Iranians nonetheless likes Americans less and is now mainly funded by Iran. So is the Badr Brigade, another powerful militia in southern Iraq. Iran and Iraq have also signed a number of major economic and political accords, and Iranian agents and pilgrims have flooded Iraq by the thousands. If America were to become involved (directly or indirectly) in a military conflict with Iran, things could turn very ugly. Remember that most Palestinian and Lebanese Shia (and some Sunni) terrorist organizations are funded by Iran, namely Hezbollah, and this brief period of relative peace could be shattered, resulting in huge casualties for Israelis.

What most here seem to forget is that while Iran's regular armed forces does not resemble the arsenal put together by the previous Shah, and cannot compare to that of America or even Israel, Iran is a major asymmetrical power and would have the advantage of the defense since it is being attacked on its ground. What asymmetry means is that Iraq and Israel, as well as other US bases and allies, would be bled dry by an unleashing of forces which could not be easily countered in conventional way. Even if the US and Israel, nuke, bomb, and invade the hell out of Iran, they'll only be killing their own supporters in the form of the Iranian people, something the IRI doesn't really care about. If every Iranian had to die to allow them to maintain their hold on power, they would gladly oblige.

One final thing you guys have to consider is the world wide economic case, as many European and Asian countries have major economic agreements with Iran and rely heavily on Iran for oil and natural gas, given that Iran now controls 10% percent of the world's proven oil reserves and +15% of the natural gas. As the second largest producer in OPEC, the instability an attack on Iran would cause would be devastating to the price of oil and a potential calamity in the making.

Obvious Conclusions

It is questionable whether Israel has the capability to carry out a long term (days), long-range, large scale air campaign with the precision necessary to both effectively debilitate (not destroy) Iran's nuclear energy program, prevent large civilian casualties and prevent a nuclear disaster which could have effects all over the region. The potential consequences are huge, not only for Israel, but for the US, and could include a large scale asymmetrical campaign against both powers in the region with obvious negative results, major instability in international energy markets and wide-spread international condemnation which could lead to isolation for both, especially given the US's blatant unilateralism and mismanagement of the occupation phase of the Iraq war (though this could be mitigated by increases support for both powers and emerging opinion against Iran, because of Ahmadi-Nejad's incompetence).

An attack, if carried out, could very well work in favor of the regime, as it would be able to consolidate its hold on power and prevent the revolution that is in the works.

While continuing to condemn Iran, the US and other nations should support legitimate and democratic opposition groups, and help to free the Iranian people from the clutches of these evil Islamic fundamentalists. Iran has the potential to become a world class super-power in the region, acting as a moderating factor in the Middle-East and a model world citizen. Mistakes of the past have to be avoided (i.e. beware of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran) and the possible global disaster on the horizon prevented.

I know this is kinda long and a bit hastily done, but thank you for the chance to write and keep up the great work!

Actually, the Soviet Union's largest nuke, nicknamed the Tsar, was also the biggest nuke every created and detonated in an isolated region of the Soviet Union. It was several times the size of Hiroshima and given the concentration of the Israeli population and urban centers, could probably destroy most of Tel-Aviv-Haifa and a considerable part of Jerusalem, leaving only a few Kibbutzes to deal with the post-apocalyptic nightmare that would be the Holy Land.

Luckily, this isn't the kind of weapon Iran could make at this point, so its not really a worry.

Aleks311 is right in that it would probably take a few nukes to wipe out Israel completely, though this would not necessarily prevent Israel from being able to retaliate.

If you have some spare time take a look at the Iraqi airspace pubs. .  The whole FIR is practically closed, but look at the Class E space in the low FL's (15000 to 20000feet).  That and the requirements for /R or better nav equipment, and the use of mandatory reporting points, can let you (or me) infer that there is no primary radar coverage for civilian ATC in Iraq.  So if a foreign air force wanted to fly over Iraq all they would have to do is intercept a pre-cleared over-flight outside of the Bagdad FIR and take its place.  Naturally the E-3's and Patriots would notice the diff between 4 F-15's and 8 F-16's and one DC8 if they were looking, but why would they bother to look?  After all nobody cares about a DC8 on the airway, which presumably steers well clear of Coalition Air Force concerns.  But if the leader or one not-random fighter were to dial up the proper Mode3 code, not a secret after all, nobody would have to admit to being the wiser-- whether one were a Kurdish Kirkuk based center controller or a Australian ATC at BIAP (or ORBI as you might say).

The Israelis have done this before vis a vis Iraq, and they had the wink and the nod from Jordan... who never suspected that fast flying Airbus was really eight-plus military aircraft despite having a modern ATC system.  I am sure that the IDF have enough spies in Iraq to make sure that the flight doesn't intersect with any planned military flights, and I am sure the operators on the E-3's will have enough interesting work to keep any nosy CAP's from inspecting innocent civilian flights.

Sovereignty is a tool for achieving national goals, like territorial integrity, not an overarching responsibility.  You can bet if the IDF is going shooting for nukes the USAF doesn't want to officially know until after.

not, Isreal. Really. Israel.

/pedantic

I hate seeing Isreal, too.  It's just another one of my menagerie of peeves.

will use planes for this hypothetical attack scenario they would most likely use Israeli Subs to get the job done and not have to get anyone's permission.

...Sorry, just had to be a smart ---.  The opening was just too good to pass up.

them to do anything.  Our troops in Iraq signed on to fight terrorists, not Israelis.  Now Iraq has it's own army, and its own airforce (snicker). If the Iraqi government chooses to "stop" the Israelis from attacking Iran's nuclear weapons facilities (big snicker), it can send its own planes to shoot down the Israelis flying over their country.  If for some reason they are unable to do so (really big snicker), they can complain to the United States ambassador who will explain that that the U.S. had nothing to do with the affair, which would probably be true, and in any event the United States needs an explicit request by Iraq in order to use deadly force against any enemy besides the terrorists (probably not true).

some of the knowledge claims you make really need support.  I can't possibly respond to this whole post, but I'll single out the following: "Iranians are extremely pro-American and feel no hatred for the Israelis, as ancient Persia and Israel had a strong bond (Cyrus the Great freed the Jews from exile and helped build the Second Temple)."

Mr. Gallup wasn't around when Cyrus the Great was freeing the Jews, and Cyrus the Great isn't around now.  If your going to say something like "Iranians are extremely pro-American" you need proof.  Otherwise, we'll have to rely on the evidence of observation. Similarly, the other statistics / facts you cite need documentation (links are the preferred method).

Moreover, regarding your overall argument, I would counter that it is not a matter of the United States approving an attack on Iran.  The real question is whether we have the responsibility to prevent it. Not one U.S. soldier signed up to fight the Israelies, nor did any of them sign up to die fighting for Iran. If we fail to act, that would not be complicity, it would be common sense.

Finally, I disagree with your contention that it would require two to three days to neutralize Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done this before, and on an even larger scale.  Remember the 1967 "hail mary" attack against Egypt. That operation involved hundreds of Israeli planes striking dozens of installations in a country with, by the standards of the time, had a respectable airforce. That main objectives of the assault, including the destruction of almost the entire Egyptian airforce, were accomplished in roughly 24 hours.

For more information on the air war phase of the Six Day War, see Michael Oren, Six Days of War.

Several of your remarks are comment-worthy, but this caught my eye:

The real question is whether we have the responsibility to prevent it.

You don't explicitly say so but I think you're arguing that we don't have the responsibility. Why don't we?

One of the aspects of power is the maintenance of order, and of order that advances our own interests and those of our friends, among whom Israel counts at the front of the list. Iraq is now among our friends. Many people have argued at many different times that America is not the world's policeman, and there is a lot to recommend this view. But I think it's far more important, given the tectonic geopolitical movements now afoot, for America to keep our big bootprints on the important chokepoints.

I know this is controversial from multiple points of view, and I have not the slightest interest in starting yet another discussion about military tactics, or about how to deal with our domestic enemies on the Left.  But I do think it's right for America to stay strong and to stay engaged. Count me as a Realpolitiker. I think in today's world that's no longer a dirty word.

Re: "You don't explicitly say so but I think you're arguing that we don't have the responsibility. Why don't we?"

Of course, that is exactly my argument, and I don't think I was being subtle about it. We have many responsibilities in Iraq, and to the Iraqi people, but not one of them involve fighting Israelis (and make no mistake, that is what we will probably have to do if we want to prevent an attack on Iran).  The following are what I see as our responsibilities in Iraq:

1. Fight Terrorists.  That goal can hardly be advanced by defending the formost terrorist regime in the world.
   
2. Rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel, surely, but also to all of Irans Middle Eastern neighbors (not to mention the United States). There is no reason to believe that Iran would not use its nuclear weapons against its old enemy Iraq, potentially costing millions of lives AND destroying the very infrastructure we are trying to rebuild.
   
3. Defend Iraqi territory from external threats. I think this is the sticking point for most people who disagree with me on this issue.  But a moment of thought dispells the notion that Israeli planes in Iraqi airspace constitute a "threat" to the Iraqis. They aren't going to bomb Iraq anymore than they would bomb New York. Their concern is Iran, which also happens to be the only real "external threat" Iraq faces right now.

Now I'd like to issue a challenge to you blackhedd.  If you were the President, and you found out that Israel had launched an attack on Iran, what would you do?  Would you really send American pilots to intercept and destroy Israeli bombers? And to what purpose? To protect Iran? Back in 1990 there were many well-meaning anti-war citizens who asked: "Is Kuwait worth one American life?" In 2003 many of those same people getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the same price. I ask the anti-war types on this forum, if saving Kuwait and deposing Saddam was not worth one American life, why would protecting the Iranian government merit such a sacrifice?

When I see Ahmenjabid(I know that is not how it's spelled, but it's too late) I see a crazed suicide bomber type and I think his words belie that assumption. I think you see him more as an Assad/Saddam/Quaddfi type, not willing to sacfifice the stabilty or survival of his regime to strike a blow at the enemy.

Someone who would stick his neck that far out by saying some of the things he did is either stupid or would like to get it chopped off.  

You are very right to ask for evidence to back these claims. However, certain facts are assumed knowledge, especially among international relations/middle-east circles. While I acknowledge that the majority of people are not necessarily aware of what I have assumed to be a fact, most news articles on Iran in the recent past generally agree that the Iranian population is very pro-American for a number of reasons. While I could provide a number of links to back this, a single source can be easily argued away as bias or otherwise. For arguments sake, here are a few links.

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue1/jv8n1a2.html

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/120905/120905w.php

http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/019413.php

In regards to the question of Iranian sentiment towards the Jews, a special relationship has always existed between the two peoples, and even today's Islamic Republic is not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist. Both Israel's President and Defense minister come from Yazd, a city in mid-east Iran, and a number of Iranian pop-stars and leading figures are either Jewish or married to Jews. In fact, Iranian public sentiment is more anti-Arab than anything else (except for maybe anti-IRI). This is due to the fact that it was the Arabs, united and fired by a newly minted Islam that destroyed the decaying Persian Empire and facilitated the conversion of Persians to Islam (some would say by force of arms). During the early Iranian dynasties in the wars against the Greeks and later the Romans, the Jews were traditionally Iranian allies. Anti-Zionism in Iran is for the most part state sponsored and not inherent to the population in anyway.

You bring up the very interesting case of Israel's strike on Egypt during the 6 days war. This is a very relevant example, but you've missed some key factors involved in this debate.

First of all, Israel had total surprise over the Egyptians, as the Egyptians believed they would probably be the ones to strike first and were not especially concerned with a pre-emptive Israeli attack. The case is almost the reverse here. Iran fully expects to be attacked, and is making preparations and carrying out maneuvers to combat this possibility (note recent massive maneuvers in the Persian Gulf that is all over the news). They cannot achieve the same degree of surprise here, no matter the timing, especially given the next factor...

Which is Israel's proximity to Egypt. You cannot in any way compare the distance it took for Israeli planes to reach Egypt to the distance it would take for Israeli planes to reach Iran (Egypt is also approximately 5/8 Iran's size, with flat desert terrain as opposed to mountains (see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/eg.html)). Egypt is Israel's neighbor, and the Egyptian air fields were practically next door. This allowed Israeli's to have almost exact data on everything, from what time security was laxest to when base commanders were stuck in traffic (and base responses least efficient). Despite Israel's undoubted technological edge over Iran in gathering info, the same level of HUMINT simply doesn't exist. As well, the Six-Days War is exceptional in that Israelis had practiced scenarios for a long time, and performed at an efficiency unmatched by practically anyone since. This air campaign would be a lot more complex, with the Israelis facing much more complex weapons systems than the relatively simple stuff owned by Egypt at the time. Israel gained complete air supremacy in a total of two days (or rather 1 and some fraction), destroying or dehabilitated over 300 Soviet built Egyptian planes which were very exposed and very heavily concentrated.

As well Israel was able to neutralize a possible Egyptian retaliation through the use of its strong conventional ground forces. This option doesn't exist for Israel this time. If Israel wants to prevent the Islamic Republic from retaliating through its conventional air and missile forces, it has to achieve the kind of air-superiority outlined earlier, something that, even at peak performance would at least take 2-3 days given the distance, fuel and ammo required, and would in no way blunt the much more lethal asymmetrical response that would be sure to come (not to mention the certain rupture in the fragile peace process).

You should also take into account the experience of the Iranian air force, which is much more than anything that could be said for the green Egyptian one at that time. The Iranian air force, despite its numerous shortcomings, nonetheless has the lessons of the Iran-Iraq war in mind, and is a much more seasoned force in comparison.

Finally, the nature of the operation would be much different and not exactly comparable. In the Six-Days War, Israel hit a lax, off-guard and inexperienced Egyptian air force which was heavily concentrated on military bases and more or less exposed to the elements. In Iran, Israel is facing 10-20 major research and production facilities which are widely dispersed, and either fortified underground or located in densely populated urban centers. As well, the critical interceptor and bomber components of Iran's air force are protected by American built hardened airfields. It's a stretch to say that the Israeli attack on Egypt was on a much larger scale, all things considered.

The nature of the strike would much more complex and messy, although I'm not saying that the Israelis wouldn't be up to it. It's just that the strike wouldn't end there, and could potentially lead to much larger scale war in the Middle-East which could end badly for everyone, especially American and Israeli forces.

You make an interesting point about America's obligations to do or not to do. Although American soldiers are not necessarily in the region to fight Israel or Iran, they do have a responsibility to protect Iraqi sovereignty and air-space as the major potent and legal military force in Iraq, and not doing so over a protracted period (given that they mght somehow be unaware or surprised of the first few strikes) violates this duty that has been undertaken.

My position is that America (and Israel) should both support regime change in Iran, but not take hostile military action unless absolutely necessary.

In the case of Iran's atomic energy (and weapons) program, Iran is years from attaining full competency and self-sufficiency in uranium enrichment and atomic energy production, even by most conservative estimates. It is Israel's fear of losing its nuclear monopoly that has led it spread alarmist lies about the level of Iran's nuclear program.

Let's take a more rational approach. Just like al-Qaeda was created by America and is now being dealt with by America, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a direct result of America's decision to aid British greed and overthrow Iran's 3rd true democratic order (the first on being the first government of the Constitutional Revolution and SSRI of Mirza Kuchek Khan Jangali) and thus a responsibility of America. Let us not forget that the most important condition of great power is responsibility.

The likes of Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Sam Brownback have got the ball rolling with the Iran Democracy Act. Rather than helping the Islamic Republic become more entrenched, the root of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle-East should be removed by the cheapest and most effective weapon: Support for the internal democratic revolution that is brewing and could erupt any day (more on this later).

Good night to all!

Slightly longer answer: It's never going to come down to fighting Israelis. We never came close to that, even in 1956. You're misreading me seriously. If I were President and I heard that Israeli warplanes were in the air and it was the first we knew about it, I would call my SecState and tell her that she'll be accepting a senior faculty position at the Kennedy School, at the end of the crisis. If it gets to that point, all kinds of things have already failed.

The Middle East is an enormous cauldron of interlocking problems, with a geopolitical backdrop that involves Russia and China. We dare not cede the primacy of our influence in this region. That requires statecraft of the highest order. We have already taken a strong step by committing to pacify Iraq. I don't know what it will take to defang Iran. I don't even know what the game really is in Iran. For Israel to take out dozens of sites in Iran at the edge of aircraft range will be a logistical nightmare. It's not as easy as bombing Osirak or wiping out the Egyptian airforce, which was a quick hop across the Sinai. If the military option is right for Iran, then Israel will need our involvement, certainly covert and possibly overt as well. If we screw this up (as Britain screwed up the Suez crisis), then our influence in the ME will ebb, and there are plenty of others who are waiting in the wings for just that to happen.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you think we should just let Israel pop off and start bombing whenever they feel like it. In the first place, the Israelis are far too sophisticated, both politically and militarily, for that. They will certainly do this if they feel that there's nothing we can or will do to solve the problem. At that point, as I said above, all kinds of things have already failed.

that you've decide to be against it before you are for it? Or for it before you are against it?

what my personal views have to do with my comments.

The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the poster

------------------

Re: Plus that area the bomb goes off at can't be inhabited for years, nuclear fallout, etc.

This is not necessarily true. Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have remained inhabitable since Aug 1945. It all depends on where the bomb bursts. If at or near ground level then you're going to have lots of fallout downwind  (which of course could mean Lebanon, Syria or Jordan too). If at sufficient height then there is virtually no fallout (the case with the Japanese nukings in WWII). As a rule, military targets are supposed to be destroyed with ground bursts since they are "hardened" while civilian targets are targeted with air bursts since they spread destruction over a greater area. However if we are talking terrorists then they are unlikely to have the means to loft a warhead into the air and we would be looking at a probable ground burst no matter the target.

Re: It was several times the size of Hiroshima

Actually, over 3000 times the power of "Little Boy". It was 60 megatons (vs 18 kilotons at Hiroshima). The Russians were so appalled by its strength taht they never actually developed it in weapon form. I think their strongest weapons were in the 10-20 megaton range. Due to greater targeting accuracy most US nukes are now under a megaton in strength.

Do you have any proof for this?  He probably has a higher tolerance for casualties than we do, but is he willing to see 12 million Tehranis reduced to 3 or 4 million balding, burnt survivors?  

...a nuclear game of chicken. After all, it's paying off for NoKo, and Iran has a whole lot more cards to play. What makes it dangerous is the whole theocracy aspect of it. No one knows if those old mullahs really believe they will be rewarded in heaven for killing millions of infidels. That makes this a much more dangerous game. So far, Iran is winning on points.

but the other half of the equation is- does Israel play chicken?

If I had to put my money on it, I would guess that Iran is blustering right now to try to destabilize the region to shore up internal support for the regime, and wouldn't actually have the guts to launch a nuke attack against Israel that would likely result in M.A.D.

But if I live in a country that was founded by my holocaust survivor grandparents and our national motto more or less is "Never Again," I would have little appetite for taking that gamble and playing the waiting game- it certainly panned out poorly for the Jews the last time around.

So while we can speculate "what are the mullahs really thinking," to a certain degree it doesn't matter because I think I know what the Israelis are thinking.

I'm not sure about the Iran leadership's motivations for playing this game. If they are concerned about staying in power, they picked a heck of a way to go about it. I think it's just as likely that they're trying to step into a bigger regional role now that Saddam Hussein is going to spend the next twenty five years on death row. Maybe both motivations are at play.

I think you have to play this "game-theoretically" but without the normal assumption that your opponent is playing with a full deck. The mullahs might actually be nuts. Now it's also possible that we might totally mis-play our own hand, which would leave Israel with no option but a high-risk military operation. That's a total disaster, and if I were Russia or China, I'd be wargaming ways to exploit that possible outcome right now.

Am I the only one who thinks Israel has done a weird thing by telegraphing their punch? They didn't do that in 1981, or am I not remembering correctly? That makes me wonder if they are concerned about the logistical problems and are playing some kind of a bluff. Any comments from the militarily knowledgeable folks here?

Now can you imagine if Gore were President and Richard Holbrooke were SecState right about now? (...shudder...)

Slightly longer answer: It's never going to come down to fighting Israelis. We never came close to that, even in 1956. You're misreading me seriously. If I were President and I heard that Israeli warplanes were in the air and it was the first we knew about it, I would call my SecState and tell her that she'll be accepting a senior faculty position at the Kennedy School, at the end of the crisis. If it gets to that point, all kinds of things have already failed.

Your blithe self-assurance on this point doesnt reassure me. We didn't give the Israelis permission to attack Egypt in 1967, or to attack Saddam in 1982. As a matter of fact, the Israelis hardly ever ask for our permission to do anything. It's nice to think we have a veto over Israel, but right now that veto is the American airforce. Once again, would you use it? Yes or no? Saying anything else is a cop-out.

Under no imaginable circumstances would I, as President, ever use military force against Israeli forces. That's a straight answer to a trivial question.

Israel is not the problem in our geopolitical calculations in the ME. Just about everyone else (including the continental Europeans) is the problem. If the Iran crisis is to be managed or solved, then we need to be in the middle of the action. I'm not the one to say whether military strikes are the right solution, but they are most definitely on the table. What I was originally reacting to is your blithely self-assured position that Israel should be allowed to exercise a free hand in the region. (Even though there are a lot of really good reasons why that should seem to be the case.)

I think we're talking past each other. You originally questioned whether we have a responsibility to prevent an assault on Iran. To me, just by asking that question you're showing a predisposition to disengagement in the region that I fundamentally disagree with. That's why I said that if things ever get to the point of asking whether we should prevent an assault on Iran, we've already failed. That puts us nearly in a replay of the Suez Crisis, with us playing Britain's role.

If you think I'm arguing against striking Iran, all I can say is: you don't know me very well.

disengagement in the Middle East.  As my comment history would suggest, I fully support the war in Iraq and an aggressive, confrontational posture towards terrorism in general.

For political as well as military reasons, American policymakers seem to have ruled out preemptive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. That does not mean we should prevent someone else from doing it. Nobody (certainly not me) is suggesting that we sign a piece of paper giving Israel explicit permission to attack Iran. In fact, it would be a huge mistake for the administration to even suggest such a thing in public.

That said, if the Israelis are determined to act, you may be sure that they will do so. Over 50 years of historical experience prove that, and if you can't see it you haven't read enough about recent Middle Eastern history. Did Israel ask us for permission to attack Egypt in 1956 and 1967? Did they ask before retaliating against Black September in the 1970s? Did they ask before going after Hezbollah in Lebanon? Did they ask before going after Saddam Hussein in 1982? No, they didn't. And they didn't have to. Why? Because they know that deep down in the dark corners of our Western, middle class souls, we (and you) want them to do the cruel things, and the dirty things that allow the rest of us to live in relatively free and open societies.

Mark my words, Israel will not allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons without a fight. If Iran persists on its present course (and I'm always hopeful that they might yet come to their senses) there will be war. If we are determined to stop them we will have to use force. If we are not so determined, we had better make up our minds to sit this one out.

to this very good post since I am writing a term paper right now.  Let me say at the outset that I concede the point about Iranian public opinion concerning America, since you seem to have very good evidence on that issue.  I am not sure how relevent that is to our current security situation since the Iranian government is obviously not representative of their people's views on this subject, but I concede the factual point you have raised.

The only other thing I will say is that my own readings on the Six Day War do not indicate that Israel had the advantage of total surprise.  That's not to say the Egyptians weren't surprised by the outcome, or the scale and intensity of the attack, but they were certainly aware of the possibility of an air assault. Logistically they were just not very imaginative.

More on that, and other issues later. For now, I must write something else.

You're aggressively asserting Israel's right to defend herself by whatever means she deems fit. I never suggested otherwise.

Our commitment to the ME should not be limited to confronting terrorism. We have even more important concerns at stake in the region. You're not really listening to me, but I've made this point several times now.

I am reminded of the situation when Israel sat tight duing previous attacks from Iraq that were intended to provoke a wider war. Meanwhile the US did what was necessary, in order to prevent a local meltdown. They also sent Israel anti-missile systems, which is another story -- but I suspect that it would be very much easier for the USA to do the job, because what would follow if you let the Israelis do it would be far more complicated and troublesome.

I am one of the very few people in this country who rejoiced when Israel blew Saddam's reactors in 1981, and I will rejoice over whoever blows away the Iranian capability; but in practical terms I expect that Israeli action really could bring about the most serious consequences, as opposed to US action, which would bring about a variety of cowardly acts as well as hypocritical condemnation from all quarters.

Wouldn't it be neat if an elected Iraqi government asked the USA to do the job for them, given former problems between the two countries? I'm not hoping for this, though.

1. The United States did not create Al Qaeda. A Saudi playboy with entirely too much time on his hands did.
   
2. The Israelis are not afraid of losing their nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They are afraid of losing their lives. Check out some of the post-strike photography from Hiroshima and Nagasaki- try Google.

Putting nuclear weapons aside for a moment, to what extent could Israel damage Iran's nuclear research facilities?  As at least one person above has pointed out, these facilities are scattered across a large country, and sometimes buried deep underground.

I'm not knowledgeable on military capability, but perhaps some here are.

As someone else suggested, never mind the nukes, kill the Mullahs.

For what it's worth I'll stick up for Kaveh on the "pro-American Iranians" issue.

In the army I had to study Farsi and Iranian culture in particular.  The man on the street in Iran loves the west and the US in particular.  There is much underground loathing for Arabs and Islam.  There is a huge disconnect between the people and the mullahs.  The younger generation is particularly defiant.

The US wants to avoid overt warfare with Iran because the culture of Iran is still nationalist (ie, this is our home for better or worse).  But it is reasonable to assume that someday there may be a general uprising.

With Afganistan and Iraq moving towards democracy light, Iran is left squeezed in the middle.  Let's watch and wait.

hard of hearing.  It's not a matter of what Israel has the right to do. It's a matter of what she can do, and what we are willing to do to stop her.

I certainly agree that we have more interests in the Middle East than fighting terrorism. I do not agree that Israel bombing Iran threatens them, and therefore I would not expend resources to stop such an attack.

I'll try starting from the beginning. Israel may certainly try to knock out Iran's nuclear capabilities. It's very very far from given that this is something we should hope to see, or be pleased to see. The post-attack scenarios are very messy and possibly very bloody. If you disagree, then you and I are looking in different crystal balls and that explains why we're talking past each other.

Now, notice, I haven't said a word about whether or how we should stop an action by Israel if they should start one. That's nearly unthinkable and not worth discussing.

that in those historical instances the United States did NOT have a large military force that is ostensibly providing defense for a nation.

By allowing the Israelis to use Iraqi airspace we are explicitly showing that we are more concerned with the interests of the Israelis than the interests of the Iraqis.  How will the Shiites of Iraq react to this?  

Most Middle Eastern Muslims feel that we are beholden to the Israelis and that we protect them.  By allowing the Israelis to go through Iraqi airspace we would give that belief far more weight than it already has.  

There are so many negative conequences to this I don't know where to begin.  As Blackhedd mentioned we would be diminishing our influence in the region as the controlling authority.  We would harden opposition to the US in the region.  We would appear impotent when it comes to the wishes of Israel.  We would strengthen the view that we are completely indifferent to the ACTUAL will of the Iraqis.  

And what would be the beenfit.  The Israelis MIGHT be able to temporarily halt the Iranian production.  But the Iranians WILL get nukes.  Short of invasion and regime change there is little that can be done to prevent them.  So the Israelis get a delay and we deal with a political firestorm.  Doesn't sound too good for us.

BTW, the Israelis will MOST certainly listen to us if we really want them to.  They sat back and did nothing when Saddam was lobbing missles at Israeli cities.  You think they didn't want to respond?

Personally I don't think the Israelis are seriously considering any sort of attack of Iran right now.  The success rate would be too low and the military and political risks too high.  They would much sooner try to prod the US to do it.

I've done some studies of a similar nature.

I was hoping to be deployed in psyops in Afghanistan this summer or next, but it looks like that's going to have to wait...

Forgive the delayed response; I've had exams and interviews up to my neck.

Anyway, to address Section 9's well articulated post, I suggest reading up on the MAK (Maktab al-Khadamat).

There will always be those who blame the US for the world's problems, by virtue of the fact that it has been a super-power for the last century and a hegemon in this one. Many of the attacks are unjustified.

Many however are not. It's easy to be an arm chair patriot and look down on others. When you see the result of your country's foreign policy in full light however, it's hard to deny certain truths.

In the Cold-War, the Soviet Union and its allies supported rebel groups and uprisings in every region, and the US rightfully responded. Unfortunately, we backed traditional elites and reactionary powers who, rather than work towards the progress of their country and respective peoples, sought out what was in their own personal interests (see: Chile, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

This doesn't mean that US policy makers were evil. It means that they were political realists.

One thing a student of history (and especially Russian history) will note is that Russia has been seeking access to warm waters since the days of Peter the Great. The lack of the above has always been one of her greatest weaknesses. This lay behind the numerous wars of expansion against the Qajar Persia, the Ottoman Empire and British India during the rule of the Tsars. They have always met with failure, usually blocked by one of the other great powers.

Afghanistan was to be a bridgehead to one of the most strategically important regions in the world. This was one of the reasons behind the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The US saw a chance in this to humiliate the USSR, and give it its Vietnam. What was the best way to do this? To use the latent ignorance and superstition of the Afghan people, in the form of Islamic "fundamentalism" to combat the godless heathens (Soviets and their communist Afghan lackeys).

Thus the Mujahedeen were born. The MAK was at the forefront of the struggle against the Soviets. The MAK is especially significant because it is from here that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were, metaphorically speaking, born.

Section 9 claims that a Saudi playboy with entirely too much time on his hands created the phantom we call al-Qaeda. We're going to completely ignore here the debate on whether al-Qaeda, as conceived by the international media and national governments (i.e. a well organized, well funded, cohesive organization), actually exists. Section 9s argument is flawed on one fundamental point.

No matter how wealthy bin Laden (I'm assuming this is who Section 9 is talking about. Last time I checked he wasn't a prince) and other major Saudi supporters of the Mujahedeen were, they lacked almost entirely the faculties to create a well financed, trained and organized guerrilla campaign against the Red Army. Anyone familiar with the Saudi state and its military infrastructure feels nothing but contempt for them; all their money can buy them is great tools and weapons, not the proficiency to use them. The war to bog down the Red Army brought fighters from all over the world, necessitated a wide range of financial schemes and logistical expertise to supply them with weapons and a thorough propaganda campaign to help turn Afghan displeasure of the Soviet presence into the willingness to kill. The bulk of the program commenced under Jimmy Carter, and was channeled through the Pakistani ISI. In many ways, the modern Sunni Islamic terrorist networks are rogue CIA assets, monsters turned on the creator. Here is some light reading for the weekend, if you're interested in knowing more about this.

1. Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to Sept. 10, 2001
   
2. Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History
   
3. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia

If you're interested in more sources (or on-line resources, though you're better off sticking to print material), or just need more info on a particular aspect, just ask.

Now we come to the 2nd point by Section 9. Losing nuclear monopoly means (in extension) losing access to the sole means of mass destruction in the ME, which in effect threatens Israel's existence. Nuclear monopoly is crucial for Israel to prevent a total conventional war between itself and the states that oppose its existence. The IRI and its Palestinian allies have little interest in seeing the prize (the "holy land") utterly destroyed. Their aim all along has been to push the Israelis "into the sea". A nuclear counter-balance to Israel's arsenal means that the Israelis would be forced to accept an increasingly deteriorating political and demographic situation as well as greater intervention from hostile outside powers. This could in effect bring about the collapse of the Israeli state as we know it.

Perhaps we'll delve in a little further later.

It's been a long night... and I'm home at last. Good night (morning) all!

It is very perceptive of you to have noticed that the pro-American sentiment among Iranians is in no way reflected by the Islamic regime in power. A pat on the back for you.

This is relevant to the current US security situation because a pro-American public in Iran means that we can exploit the endless abyss of hatred against the IRI to destabilize the regime and counter-act their meddling in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere. This, not military power is our main advantage. If anything, Iran has benefited from the exercise of American military power in the region. The Taliban and Saddam and his Ba'athist were two of Iran's greatest enemies. Now they've been replaced by pro-Iranian regimes (you may want to refer to my earlier post which outlined the powerful connections between the IRI and the new Shia dominated Iraqi government. As well, America cooperated extensively with Iran to stabilize the security situation in Afghanistan, resulting in a slightly more than friendly relationship between the Iranian and Afghan governments). Our massive military commitments mean that we don't have the strategic reserves to carry out massive operations against Iran, and must limit ourselves to smaller special operations, a situation that leaves us vulnerable in our occupation zones.

My assertion is that America wants to be on the good side of the next Iranian revolution.

As for the comparison between Israel's pre-emptive attack in the Six Days War and a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, I think I've made my point. Of course, the Egyptian high command would have at least acknowledged the possibility of such an attack. But the same books will tell you that they did not take it seriously, a mistake Iran is unlikely to make given Israel's history and the IDF leadership's comments in the last few months.

Hope your paper went well.

Re: "BTW, the Israelis will MOST certainly listen to us if we really want them to.  They sat back and did nothing when Saddam was lobbing missles at Israeli cities.  You think they didn't want to respond?"

Capital letters do not necessarily make a good argument where none existed before.  As for the Gulf War analogy, you're forgeting two very important things:

1. The U.S. was in a position to deal out a righteous a**kicking to Saddam, and Israel was content to wait and watch us do it.  We are clearly not in a position to do the same to Iran at the present moment
   
2. The U.S. deployed Patriot missiles to Israel to protect her from the Scuds.  There is no such defense available, at the moment, against Iranian nukes, especially of the backpack variety (which, come to think of it, is a good reason for us to be worried about a nuclear Iran as well, don't you think?)

BTW, Blackhedd at least had the honesty to answer my question (although he doesn't think it is important, for some reason).  Now I will pose it to you.  If "allowing" the Israelis to bomb Iran is so dangerous to our interests, what do you propose we do about it?  Because you may rely on it that we have very little time left to decide if saving Iran is worth using force against our oldest ally in the region.