Obama's Nuclear Downpour

President-elect Obama is prepared to offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" to protect against the possibility of -- to stay consistent with the metaphor -- an Iranian nuclear downpour, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz. The so-called umbrella would guarantee an American nuclear strike against Iran if the Islamic Republic were to stage a nuclear strike against Israel.

One response from an Israeli defense official questioned the notion of a guarantee from a US administration willing to engage in diplomatic talks with the Iranian regime (actually, it should be noted, more diplomatic talks with the regime, as there have been literally dozens of talks between the US and Iran at the ambassador level or higher in the past decade).

"What is the significance of such guarantee when it comes from those who hesitated to deal with a non-nuclear Iran?" the Israeli official asked. "What kind of credibility would this [guarantee have] when Iran is nuclear-capable?"

The concern is a real one but is hardly even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the alarming implications of Obama's "nuclear umbrella". The first of these is that the nuclear umbrella implies the Obama administration is on some level resigned to the possibility of a nuclear Iran. While the counter-threat of an American second strike would seem to protect Israel from an Iranian attack, what does this mean for all the other countries within range of a regime armed with nuclear weapons and driven by an admittedly apocalyptic worldview? Should Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, India, and the countries of southern Europe (to name just a few) all kiss their collective national security goodbye?
But, getting back to Israel, what would be the actual value of a "guaranteed" American second strike (granting for the sake of argument that such a guarantee could be guaranteed) when Israel itself has second strike capabilities? While Israel has an official policy of opacity regarding nuclear weapons it's widely known that it in addition to land-based nuclear installations, the Jewish state also has submarine second strike capability. If accepted, Obama's "deal" to provide for Israeli security in a way that Israel can already provide for itself would make Israel the kind of US-dependent client state that many falsely accuse it of being today.

However, there's another scary implication of this disastrous "umbrella" policy that outstrips all the others in the scale of its absurdity. It takes only a few seconds to think this one through. Obama's policy assumes first that Iran will get nuclear arms and second that there is a real likelihood of that country using nukes against Israel. In such a situation, the US would respond with another nuclear strike. This kind of scenario has a name: nuclear war.

An Iranian government that has already crossed the boundaries of geopolitical sanity and launched a nuclear strike against a country with nuclear capability (and the world's pound-for-pound strongest airforce) is not likely to stop the nukes on account of an American strike. Actually, it's likely to ramp up. The Iranians are not idiots - they will prepare for an American strike on Iranian soil by providing for their own second strike capability and, importantly, by positioning a large number of terror cells to strike at the US domestically and at US assets around the world.

The downward spiral of this policy is dizzying. If the "umbrella" is a real consideration on the part of the Obama administration then Israel actually should feel reassured: it should confidently understand that not just its own security but regional (and possibly global) security rests with its taking action to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Even if it's not a serious policy consideration of Obama, if the policy was misstated or misinterpreted, Israel - just as much of those within Iran's strike radius, as well as the rest of the globalized world - should be alarmed at the extent to which absurdism now characterizes the discussion on a near-nuclear Iran. The critical question, it now seems, is no longer about how far the Iranians are willing to go. It's about how low the Americans are willing to sink.

Comments

[xxnounxx]

Really some western governemnts are totally ignorant.

IRAN NOT IN ITS WILDEST DREAMS WOULD STRIKE THE THIRD ISLAMIC HOLLIEST SPOT ON EARTH WITH NUCLEAR..N­EVER NEVER NEVER.
IGNORANT SHOULD INVESTIGATE MORE .

[Javani]

Israeli press is worthless.

From writings and a primary debate between Hillary and Obama it was clear the thinking is for an umbrella for the entire region from Iran. Go back, you will see Obama, or was it Hillary, correct a questioner and say the shield would be not just for Israel, but the Gulf Arabs too. Even some UAE press a ways back speculated on such a deal for them with Israel!

The Israeli shield idea is anyway insane. The Iranians are far more likely to lob a nuke into Riyadh than Tel Aviv.

[Ezekiel18]

Israel was re-established for the Jews to be once again masters of their own destiny...­.self reliance. The fact is that this "umbrella" is overkill..­.Israel is supposedly to have between the 5-7th largest stock of nuclear weapons, from tactical nuke capability to strategic. It also has the means to deliver (Jericho, dolphin and satellite guided munitions). What is disturbing here is why this offer occurred now and why specifically designed to counter Iran. Why wasn't this offered to Israel during the cold war against an enemy that actually has a nuclear arsenal competing with the US.

Obama wants to appease and he's short selling american security guarantees to soften the blow.

[larry278]

BHO shouldn't be surprised when Israel rejects a US nuclear umbrella. A lot of Jews died needlessly when gentile rulers offered to protect Jews. As I understand it, Israel was founded to prevent that from happening again, never again. Jews are rightly wary of assurances of protection by gentiles.

[Michale32086]

I can speak intelligently to this matter..

Israel, as a country, would rather perish than to cede their security to the graces of another...

Michale...­..

[arvay]

If this is correct, it means that:

Obama and the US intelligence community have concluded that nothing short of a preemptive nuclear strike can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Israel's unconscionable introduction of nuclear weapons into this explosive region has boomeranged on Israel. If Israel launches a preemptive strike, the world economy will take a catastrophic hit as 40 percent of the world's oil is cut off. China may be very unhappy with this, and nuclear-armed Pakistan is an ally that owes them a few favors. With all the guerilla groups on its borders and within its borders, Israel would also face war on its own soil. certainly massive missile strikes.

Israel's "second strike" would send fallout and maybe a few stray nukes across other borders. Israeli survivors can look forward to "third strikes" by upset nations like Pakistan and China. Certainly missiles, troops, air attacks, maybe more nuclear strikes.

MA, we can hope, would restrain everyone. But the only real way out of this is a regional conference in which Israel trades its nukes for verifiable assurance that no one else will develop them.

[Michale32086]

So, what's the better solution?

Granted, the MAD solution that "kept the peace" for 50 years of cold war has little effect when dealing with religious zealots and fanatics.

I don't think that this "umbrella" (if true) is being used as a deterrent, but rather as a signal to Israel that, should Iran attack, there will be nothing left of Iran to worry about afterwards.

But what other possibilities are there? Diplomacy and sanctions have proven completely ineffectual and are likely being used by Iran to give them time to complete their work...

So, I don't know what the best solution is.. But simply giving up and letting things run their course is not an option.

Michale...­.

[FalconX2000]

This info was published by an Isreali newspaper that used an unnamed source. While people are sure to write articles about it, stop going into such doom and gloom while treating this info as fact. There are no qualifiers in your article about who said what. You just tried to establish inr eader's minds a piece on info that came from an anonymous source of a third party. This is one of the worst kinds of sensationalism.