What would happen if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities?

[cali]

This is an excellent O/P about the likely repercussions of an Israeli strike. Read the whole thing. It's chilling. And please refrain from making comments that will get this sent to I/P. It's not an I/P issue and it's important. Thanks.

The danger of an Israeli strike on Iran
»
By Walt Rodgers Walt Rodgers – Fri Apr 24, 5:00 am ET
Oakton, Va. –

The new Israeli prime minister recently appeared to give President Obama a blunt ultimatum: Stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – or we will.

Benjamin Netanyahu's challenge (intimated in an interview he gave to The Atlantic magazine) smacks of unrealistic bravado and, worse, it appears to be a crude attempt to bully an American president into bombing Iran's nuclear installations.

The world should hope it's a hollow threat.

The consequences of a unilateral Israeli strike would be enormous if not disastrous. Mr. Obama cannot allow himself to be intimidated by Mr. Netanyahu, nor can he wink if the Israeli air force bombs Iran's nuclear facilities.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090424/cm_csm/yrodgers24web

[aquart]

1. It's NOT an I/P issue? In your dreams.

Stop trying to force your....fantasies.... onto General Discussion.

[cali]

4. No, I don't think it's primarily an I/P issue

and it's certainly an issue that directly involves the U.S.

[H2O Man]

5. I do not think it is.

It is an article that does involve Israel, but it focuses on what a strike on Iran would mean in a much larger context. It includes the role of the new administration, and the possible consequences for our country if a strike takes places. I think the OP is an attempt to discuss the implications for the US, and what the Obama policy should be.

[cali]

8. precisely. and that's why I posted what I think is a very good

op piece about this possibility.

[H2O Man]

23. I agree.

There are advantages to our discussing the various options for "problem solving." It is important to understand the disadvantages of either nations or individuals thinking that violence is a proper, long-term solution. It should be a last resort.

[Delphinus]

2. I would hope Iran would respond

in a manner that would be befitting an unwarranted attack on its sovereignty.

I hope Israel's government is not that stupid.

[cali]

3. er, did you read the entire article?

doesn't seem like it.

[Fumesucker]

6. What is the tactic the militarily weak use against the strong?

Israel only thinks it has problems with terrorism now, let them strike Iran and see their problems multiply exponentially.

[Delphinus]

12. Yes, I read the entire thing.

The author says Iran has no need to nuke Israel. Its ruling clerics, whom Netanyahu described as a "messianic apocalyptic cult," believe time, history, and Allah are on their side. They believe the Jewish state, starting across the border in Lebanon, can be nibbled to death over the next century just as the Arabs did to the Crusader kingdoms 600 years ago.

I don't happen to believe it. I think Iran would not stand for an attack.

[cali]

13. huh? That Iran wouldn't stand for an attack is precisely what the author says

In the passage you quote, the author is saying that iran, if if gains nukes, will not first strike Israel.

[Tesha]

39. I would hope Iran would respond with a counterforce attack that utilzes...

...the usual Israeli "return attack force multiplier"
of 10x to 100x.

That might help the Israelis understand that their
violence and military belligerence will no longer
go unchallenged.

Tesha

[provis99]

7. I think the analyst is wrong on Iran's response

Frankly, I don't think the Iranians would do anything to retaliate, just as Iraq and Syria didn't do anything when Israel bombed them. And using Hezbollah as a proxy hasn't worked out too well, either. The author can't seem to distinguish between Hezbollah rockets and missles; Hezbollah has a lot of rockets, but basically the unguided kind like the Palestinians have, which tend to hit nothing but desert; not much to fear there.

And Israel isn't bluffing. They're confident there will be no Iranian response affecting them, so they're willing to bomb Iran.

[jeff30997]

14. I agree that Iran would use the Hezbollah to retaliate.

But please don't underestimate them:

By Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday,April 6,2009


"When Israel and Hezbollah battled for more than a month in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the result was widely seen as a disaster for the Israeli military."

...

"U.S. military experts were stunned by the destruction that Hezbollah forces, using sophisticated antitank guided missiles, were able to wreak on Israeli armor columns. Unlike the guerrilla forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, who employed mostly hit-and-run tactics, the Hezbollah fighters held their ground against Israeli forces in battles that stretched as long as 12 hours. They were able to eavesdrop on Israeli communications and even struck an Israeli ship with a cruise missile.

"From 2000 to 2006 Hezbollah embraced a new doctrine, transforming itself from a predominantly guerrilla force into a quasi-conventional fighting force," a study by the Army's Combat Studies Institute concluded last year. Another Pentagon report warned that Hezbollah forces were "extremely well trained, especially in the uses of antitank weapons and rockets" and added: "They well understood the vulnerabilities of Israeli "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040502235.html

And that was 3 years ago.

[AllentownJake]

9. How about this scenario

Iran uses it as an excuse to go over the border into Iraq.

[jeff30997]

15. Iran don't need to go over the border into Iraq because

they're already there.Not in a conventional way but by proxy.I managed to find an excerpt of the

book I'm currently reading:


The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower by Robert Baer (ex–CIA operative).

"Even so, Baer has discovered that Iran is currently engaged in a soft takeover of the Middle East, that the proxy method of war-making and co-option it perfected with Hezbollah in Lebanon is being exported throughout the region, that Iran now controls a significant portion of Iraq, that it is extending its influence over Jordan and Egypt, that the Arab Emirates and other Gulf States are being pulled into its sphere, and that it will shortly have a firm hold on the world’s oil spigot."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Devil-We-Know/Robert-Baer/e/9781410411631

[KharmaTrain]

10. Netenyahu's In A Box...

The more I watch this creep, the more he reminds me of the ice-cold authoritarian of cheeney mixed with the rabid ideologue of a Rove...pandering to his base that got him elected through his belicose rantings and sabre rattling. This is what Likud expects and he served it up in spades.

But what he ran on, isn't where things are now. Most of the election was run prior to President Obama taking office and Netenyahu looked to split the moderates and liberal/"peacniks"...just like the right wing here...keeping his base together, and in the Parlimentary system, 30% can and does win elections. Just like in this country, that 30% is totally detached from reality featuring the most "conservative" and religious elements. But winning an election is one thing, governing is another. I remember Yithak Shamir running similar campaigns but was hemmed in to what he could really do by a coalition government. Netenyahu looks to be headed for that same box.

The only way Israel can strike Iran is with US support. While that option was definitely on the table with the boooosh regime and why it was such a potent threat, I don't see such a clear path now. Any strike would have to be justified. Unlike 1980, Israel doesn't have the element of surprise...it's being watched as much as its watching. Also, where do they fly? Do they jeopardize relations with Jordan by violating their airspace? Fly across Syria and risk both detection and possible interception? Over Saudi Arabia? Again...the fall out on the diplomatic side weighs a lot bigger now than it once did. And, no doubt, a unilateral Israeli attack would be condemned by the Obama administraion...isolating Israel...a place that is political suicide for Netenyahu. And unlike our government that can't toss out poor leadership, all it takes is a no confidence vote and Benji's back on the beach.

[madokie]

16. so true

[HamdenRice]

11. Pretty straightforward answer: Iran sends 10,000 underground fighters into Iraq

or some such number. This has often been mentioned as a first step, and is why the Democrats want to make peace with Iran. Iraq can't be governed, and the US cannot withdraw, without active cooperation from Iran.

Netanyahu is doing nothing except isolating Israel from the trend of a grand settlement in the ME. That's why, symbolically, Obama met with King Abdullah first. Jordan has for some time symbolized and pushed for the grand settlement.

[jeff30997]

17. K&R

Excellent article indeed.

"Stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – or we will." ?

I don't think so Bibi.

[olegramps]

18. It would signal a failure of Israel to get us to fight their proxy wars.

[cali]

19. what proxy wars have we fought for israel?

[olegramps]

20. If you don't know by now I can't help you.

[cali]

22. let me clue you in olegrampy.

We haven't fought any. It's not utterly ignorant to claim that Iraq was a proxy war for Israel. It's in the same stupid vein as suggesting that Isael was responsible for 9/11.

[Tesha]

38. Of course it is Cali. Of course it is.

You have nothing but ad hominem attacks in this area
'cause the facts are definitely *NOT* on your side.

Tesha

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Lots of people would say "bad people, don't do it again", but not much else, I suspect.

N.T.

[arcadian]

24. cali, refrain from moderating this board.

You are not a mod.

[TheKentuckian]

26. I see no indication of moderation

Cali simply did not allow the post to go unanswered. There was no edit, delete, modification, or directive on how to post.

[skepticscott]

37. Uh, yeah there was

Read the OP: "And please refrain from making comments that will get this sent to I/P."

If that's not a directive on how to post, what is? The fact that she can't enforce it is irrelevant.

[cali]

28. excuse me? I made a request of posters on this thread.

Clearly I can't enforce anything, nor did I make any claim to. Face it, you're beef is a personal one. That's why you snipe at me. Feel free, btw. No skin off my back.

[arcadian]

30. That's is so funny.

You claim I have something personal against you when it's you who has made little nicknames for me. Again you contradict yourself.

[cali]

31. well,

I don't particularly care for you as a poster. I don't think you have anything original or interesting to say. I wouldn't deny that. But you obviously don't like me and you can't even be honest about it.

[arcadian]

32. I think you are pompous and self absorbed.

You clearly live for this message board but contribute very little over all. All you have is vitriol and forced contrary opinions in your arsenal. Your opinions float on the winds of what ever happens to be popular at that moment. I don't know you not to like you. I'm pretty indifferent to you honestly, but when I see you trying to beat up on another poster, I like to jump in and say what's on my mind. I think you'll find that most people on this board do not like you. In a way, I feel sorry for you, but that doesn't excuse your behavior.

[cali]

33. told you it's just a personal thing for you.

and you call me spiteful? your post is justs as vitriolic as it gets. you're not even remotely indifferent to me, and that couldn't be clearer. hate oozes out of your post. you really shouldn't deceive yourself like that. you need a long look in the mirror.

p.s. you're the one doing the rule breaking and name calling here. please refrain from doing so.

[arcadian]

35. Pot, Kettle, Black

"I don't think you have anything original or interesting to say." sounds an awful lot like a call out doesn't it? Oh, but cali doesn't break the rules, in fact in most instances it appears that she absolutely CAN NOT break the rules, even though there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

[cali]

36. again. you need to refrain from expressing the hate you clearly feel.

what I said is not bubbling with hate. I don't run around telling you how much others dislike you. I didn't name call. you came into this thread to disrupt it and call me out. here's an idea: If you don't have anything to contribute substantively to a thread of mine, and you're just coming into it to disrupt or call me out, why not just pause, check your hate for a moment, and pass it by? Just a suggestion.

And you're certainly one who does plenty of rule breaking. You're doing it in this thread.

Now I'll bid you adieu. I think this little conversation has run its course. I'll leave the last word to you.

[Hanse]

25. I can't imagine Iran wouldn't retaliate against Israel's nuke facilities.

And it'd just escalate from there.

[TheKentuckian]

27. Israel acts as a proxy for the US, the reverse is exaggerated.

If they hit Iran it will very, very, very likely because that is how we wish to play it. Though, I'd argue that if inclined Israel COULD act without US endorsement. At this point they have enough hardware to be given a wide berth by thinking governments. There's little question that Israel has nukes and advanced rocketry. Right now, it would take a lot for interests to differ enough for cooperation to break down.
They want the cover of our Security Council veto, so commerce doesn't suffer and whatnot. At this point, that is our biggest check on our friends in the Middle East.

Relax, for now they will only hit Iran if they reasonably think they have to, we want them to, or both. There is no reason think they are going "off the reservation".

Now, if the arrangement is one you disagree with that's fine but there is little reason to fear that Israel will "drag" us into anything.


We'll go along willingly or send the marching orders.

[rucky]

29. You're right.

If there is a "unilateral strike", it'll be Israel playing the crazy uncle.

[DFW]

34. I can think of only one scenario where Obama would tolerate such a strike

If Israel provided incontrovertible evidence that Iran had nukes and was planning
for a proxy (Iran would never use them for a first strike on their own) to use them
against Israel, THEN Obama would give his blessings to such an action.

As I am rather confident that no such evidence exists, and no such plans are in the
making, I see no way Obama would bless an Israeli strike on Iran. It would pretty
much destroy Obama's hopes of the next generation of Iranians, many of whom are
already fed up with the mullahs running their country, electing and supporting a
far more moderate government than the arch-conservatives now in power. Just as
France and Germany did not join Bush's invasion of Iraq because the WMD evidence
was lacking, so, too will Obama turn Netanyahu down flat. Obama would demand
solid and verifiable evidence, and I very much doubt it's there.