« The Czar's Big Mistake | Main | Biden for State? »
An Israeli Strike?
Even the liberal New Republic is wondering what's going on in Iran:
So it's easy to understand why Iran wants to send a message to its neighbors. But the Islamic government's efforts to gain respect in the Middle East could carry the seeds of its own destruction. Israelis (correctly) view their country's bombing of Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 as an unqualified stroke of wisdom. If Israel sees Iran's nuclear ambitions turn into a tangible threat to its existence, there is a possibility that Israel would act again, this time in Iran. In the Middle East, playing for power is a perilous game.Diplomatic worries aside, there are some feasibility issues here. The Osirak raid was not easy to pull off, and the greater distance between Iraq and Israel would only complicate the logistics. What's more, my understanding is that during the 1982-1990 program Iraq was very successful in reconstituting its nuclear program in such a way as to be immune to that sort of narrow strike. Not that the diplomatic issues should be ignored. Though it was widely condemned at the time, Israel pulled off Osirak without suffering any real adverse consequences. That was then, however, and this is now -- the regional situation is much more tense.
July 2, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342d3c2d53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An Israeli Strike?:
Comments
Along the lines of really crappy scenarios, I wonder what it would take, besides very good targeting intelligence, for Israel to believe they were in imminent danger of a nuclear strike, and thus convince them to pre-empt with their own nuclear weapons? How imminent would the danger have to appear?
From the mullah's vantage point, this the downside of describing one's enemies as servants of Satan, fit only for slaughter or enslavement. Such a position doesn't leave any room for interpretation, and one's enemy may conclude that one really believes it, and thus set out to do the slaughtering himself, prior to one attaining the ability to slaughter him first.
Posted by: Will Allen | Jul 2, 2004 4:54:10 PM
Israel has the arrow anti missle system, which with luck would protect it if the Mullas launch a first strike. It's much more advanced than even the upgraded patriot.
Hopefully, the US will take action before it gets that far. And hopefully, President Kerry won't send Jimmy Carter protect us by getting assurances from the Mullas like Clinton did with North Korea.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 2, 2004 5:06:26 PM
Gees. Demonization hasn't even started in earnest - and you already arrived. How old are you, folks?
Posted by: abb1 | Jul 2, 2004 5:22:37 PM
Poor Iraq. Poor Raed and Zayed.
The line in Gulf War I was that the fall of Saddam would "destabilize the region." Likely what that means is the major players will make themselves directly unassailable ( thru nukes, or oil, or diffusion with al-Qaeda) and use the factions in Iraq as weapons against each other. As the Israelis are in training and supplying the Kurds, or the Iranians with the Shia.
Iraq may become a battleground of terrorism, assassination, militia battles with the prize being prestige and influence within the Arabic/Islamic world.
However, for example, Iran is not monolithic, and I believe there are different Iranian factions supporting separate Iraqi Shia factions. And we will do well to try not to focus too much on nation-state aspects of the coming war.
Mercenaries, proxies, religious wars, balance-of-superpowers, treachery and shifting alliances. Gotta go read up on the Thirty-Years War. Iraq as Germany. Poor Iraq.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 2, 2004 5:54:31 PM
bob, my attribution of "the mullahs" was probably still too general. Within that group there are certain to be factions within factions. Still, I wonder what it would take to frighten a Sharon government sufficiently so as to convince them to do something very, very, rash.
Posted by: Will Allen | Jul 2, 2004 6:12:53 PM
As Will Allen says:
Demonization of enemies probably not a good idea. As recent reports from the erstwhile USSR had it: Reagan's demonization of the Commies almost contributed, at one point, to a strike against the US because they became convinced Reagan was ready to strike.
Oh, wait a minute, Will probably just meant it was bad for THEM to demonize US, not the other way around. Nevermind.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 2, 2004 6:16:44 PM
Hey, epist, I don't recall Reagan saying that Soviets were only fit for slaughter or enslavement, as the Islamic theocrats say about the Jews. In fact, I remember Reagan saying that it was ther destiny of people in the U.S.S.R. to live in liberty. Well, the people of the former U.S.S.R. have a decidedly mixed record of accomplishing that, but I doubt that is Reagan's fault. On the other hand, if Hezbollah was saying "Israel is an evil empire, and one day they will hold free elections in which Arabs participate", the Israelis might be a little puzzled, and perhaps send some video tapes over to Iran, but I don't think they would be nearly as concerned.
Posted by: Will Allen | Jul 2, 2004 6:37:04 PM
Even the liberal New Republic
The New Republic was called by one former editor "a sort of Jewish Commentary.
They have always been a hawkish bunch anyway on every subject but they all have the religion when it comes to the Israeli narrative on the way they view the Middle East.
They remind me of the democratic elected establishment vs. actual democratics.
Posted by: absynthe | Jul 2, 2004 7:02:25 PM
I think we need to transform the middle east. Our war in Iraq is like the Israeli wars in the late 60's-early 70's that crushed arab military power. Democracy has been on the rise and terrorism has been waning ever since those wars.
Posted by: ykl | Jul 2, 2004 7:06:12 PM
"Democracy has been on the rise and terrorism has been waning ever since those wars."
Your reasoning is horribly simplistic. In addition, I fail to see how 1967 and 1973 prompted democratic reforms in Israel's Arab neighbors; I suspect other factors had much more of an impact. Secondly, where are your statistics that "terrorism has been waning?" Considering that the modern Palestinian terrorism was born in the 1970s (after the wars you talk about), you are going to need some serious numbers to back your claims.
Posted by: Martey | Jul 2, 2004 7:20:38 PM
Will:
You are surely right on that. I was just trying to be provocative. Though I think that more understanding is needed on all sides, and not GW Bush's stance that our enemies are just evil devils.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 2, 2004 8:04:35 PM
"Democracy has been on the rise and terrorism has been waning ever since those wars."
Martey, my guess was that this was irony or sarcasm.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 2, 2004 8:11:40 PM
It's hard to see how Israel could launch an airstrike against Iran without the knowledge and consent of the United States, given the extent of US military presence in Iraq and the Gulf, interposed between Israel and Iran.
Certainly, that's how it would look to the world.
Posted by: rea | Jul 2, 2004 9:15:34 PM
Matt writes: "and the greater distance between Iraq and Israel would only complicate the logistics."
Did you mean Iran, rather than Iraq?
Personally, I don't think the Israelis mount an Osirak like strike. From what I've read, much of Iran's production facilities are deep underground, and widespread throughout the country. They could hit the main Busheir reactor, but it's not clear how that would affect Iran's program, and unlike Iraq, the costs could outweigh the benefits, especially if the Israelis can't level a knockout blow in one strike.
ABB1 writes: "Gees. Demonization hasn't even started in earnest - and you already arrived. How old are you, folks?"
Right.
From the Guardian, which is no friend of Israel:
"Iran parades new missiles daubed with threats to wipe Israel off map"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1047815,00.html
"Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme."
"At the climax of a military parade marking the outbreak of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, "We will crush America under our feet' and "Israel must be wiped off the map.""
Ahh, demonization.
ABB1, How old are you? How old should one be to take the Mullahs at their word?
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jul 2, 2004 11:36:22 PM
Iraq was accused of having WMD and punished severely for it, even though they didn't have any.
Korea and Iran got the word. They're going to be accused no matter what. They'll be marginally safer if they really do have a WMD, which at least gives them a bargaining chip.
Nobody wants to be Iraq, and different countries are using different strategies of avoiding that fate. (Before Iraq there was Yugoslavia, another non-nuclear state which was dismembered).
Posted by: Zizka | Jul 3, 2004 12:09:29 AM
Zizka,
God forbid anyone remove a dictator from North Korea who let 20 million of his own people starve to death.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 3, 2004 1:19:24 AM
"God forbid anyone remove a dictator from North Korea who let 20 million of his own people starve to death."
Right, Dave. Let's go for it. I'll bring the cheetos and beer. You get the airline tickets to Seoul. We'll just go kick Kim's ass, huh. Your tough talk has really inspired me.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 3, 2004 1:29:17 AM
What's going on in Iran? Iran is provoked into speeding up its nuclear capapbility and, probably correctly, bets Bush is too distracted with the Iraq debacle (loosing the dogs of war in the form of young Muslim extremists) to forcefully oppose them.
What's going on in Iran? The domino chaos from Bush's pointless warmongering in this volatile region.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 3, 2004 2:09:16 AM
The mullahs want Israel to launch an air strike. It won't be successful. It will give them the opportunity to consolidate their power for another decade. It will allow them to gain more control over the Shiites in Iraq.
I doubt Bush wants it.
If Israel does launch an air strike against Iran, then the Iranians move troops to the Iraqi border, the Shiites in Iraq go apeshit and a few hundred (maybe more) Americans die.
I realize that there are people in the Israeli government who want to bait the US into a war with Iran. But this isn't the way a country acts towards its allies.
Fortunately I don't think Sharon is stupid enough to believe that that the US has enough troops in Iraq or the capability to increase troops levels to deal with more active Iranian involvement. What I'm worried about is that he doesn't care.
Posted by: SWR | Jul 3, 2004 2:41:18 AM
How old should one be to take the Mullahs at their word?
What exactly is "their word?" They're parading missiles through the streets of Tehran and making no effort to hide their nuclear program. Perhaps they're even exaggerating it.
Clearly they're trying to bait the US and the Israelis into an aggressive move. From what I've seen so far, the Mullahs in Iran have played Bush like a violin. Why stop now?
Perhaps you're taking them too literally at their word?
Posted by: SWR | Jul 3, 2004 2:48:24 AM
SoCalJustice,
Isn't it amazing how "Israel must be wiped off the map" rhetoric sounds just so much more PC and so much less fundamentalist than "axis of evil" and the things that some of the top Orthodox Israeli Rabbis say about Arabs and the gentiles in general (about gentiles being different species, not having soul and all that)? And these crazy Rabbis have a lot of political power too, they are a part of the ruling coalition.
Posted by: abb1 | Jul 3, 2004 4:51:45 AM
Abb1,
Got a source for the thing about gentiles being sub-human, not having souls etc? Thanks.
Posted by: WeSaferThemHealthier | Jul 3, 2004 9:59:50 AM
"Clearly they're trying to bait the US and the Israelis into an aggressive move."
They would have to be morons to do so. Do they really want to go up against the US millitary just to , what, make Bush look bad for attacking another country? Do you really think that if we took millitary action against Iran we would pull "a Clinton cruise missle attack in afghanistan" and then allow them to consolodate power?" No we'd have to destroy the Mullas completely.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 3, 2004 10:50:42 AM
Iran will fall from the inside within a year, I'm hoping.
Posted by: j.scott barnard | Jul 3, 2004 11:22:30 AM
It's kind of silly to believe that the leadership in Iran would want Israel to be gone. If Israel were in fact gone, they wouldn't have Israel around as a whipping boy.
Posted by: raj | Jul 3, 2004 12:19:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
