It may well be time to start thinking the unthinkable on Iran, Israel, and Afghanistan.
Consider:
* Israel may be on an inexorable path to an air war against Iran.
* With conventional weapons said by some to be ineffective against Iran's increasingly underground and hardened nuclear development sites, Israel may come to use nuclear weapons against them.
* And as this melodrama between two governments dominated by conservative religionists plays out, the US and its NATO allies may be on the verge of being run out of Afghanistan in the wake of the latest debacle there.
Israel may well have painted itself into a corner -- a metaphor which doesn't quite work in a dynamic situation -- with regard to Iran.
If the present Israeli government really does regard Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons as an "existential threat" to their nation, what would they not do to prevent it? And if conventional bunker buster bombs won't work, or at least not yet -- the Senate approved an advanced version earlier this month, but it apparently won't be ready till late this year -- why would they not use nuclear bunker busters to stop the Iranian program.
And the Iranians certainly seem bent on moving forward with their program, which they publicly insist is for civilian purposes only, despite all the moves against them and despite offers of having nuclear fuel enriched for them.
Israel has placed itself firmly on the path of brinksmanship. It is evidently in an intelligence war with Iran already and threatens overt war.
If Iran continues on its course, as it gives constant, indeed, accelerating signs of doing, especially in the past week, Israel will be faced with a classic go/no-go decision.
Follow through with the implicit threat to attack (which seems much more than implicit reading the Israeli press, as I do). Or back down.
If Israel backs down, it will be seen as a paper tiger. For a tiny Jewish island in a sea of Islam, that would leave Israel in a weaker position than before. This is the danger of brinksmanship. If one is not willing to follow through on one's threats, the military power that one has is devalued. Which might well force Israel to make an aggressive move on another line of engagement. Which gets at another danger of brinksmanship.
Had Israel taken a different stance, things might be different. But this Israeli government, clearly the most right-wing in the nation's history, has adopted a very bellicose posture.
In a brand new article, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, in his meeting next week with Obama, will urge the president to publicly back an attack on Iran and describes an elaborate campaign by Israel to use conservative US interests and the Republican presidential campaign to push Obama to a more hawkish stance on Iran.
But conventional weapons, even bunker buster bombs, which Obama provided Israel with in 2009, may well not work. Or at most, only set back Iran's program for a couple of years. Which would present the distinctly unappetizing prospect of ramping up more sequences of sanctions that may well not dissuade the Iranian leadership or of a series of strikes over a period of years to keep on severely retarding the nuclear program. Meanwhile, Iran would be working to upgrade its air defenses and further reduce Israel's air power. And of course there would be ongoing severe repercussions from all this warfare.
Congress agreed this month to fast track improvements in the biggest conventional bunker buster bomb, but that reportedly won't be ready until late this year.
While conventional weapons might not work, nuclear weapons might well be able to. Some critics say that nuclear bunker busters would not work, but it's hard to believe that there is not a way to make them work.
If Iran becoming a nuclear power really does represent an "existential threat" to the State of Israel, as many present Israeli leaders say, why would the Israelis not use all means at their disposal to prevent that occurrence?
Israel is not an "official" nuclear power, but has made plain its capability for many years. While it refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has pledged that "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Arab-Israel area." Whatever that vague statement means in practice, it's interesting to note that Iran is not an Arab nation.
In January 2007, the Sunday Times of London actually reported that Israel was planning to carry out a nuclear bunker buster strike against Iran's program. The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report and, of course, there was no attack. Then.
Last week was not a good one for those who insist that Iran is simply a benign, misunderstood nation.
The UN nuclear watchdog's mission to Iran ended abruptly when Iran refused to allow it access to key nuclear facilities. Then on Friday, it issued a report. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that, not surprisingly in light of the failed mission at the beginning of the week, it is not making progress in negotiation with Iran. And that Iran is accelerating its nuclear enrichment activities, violating UN Security Council resolutions and past accords with the the agency.
Iran's defiance of sanctions by the UN and international alliances, which are growing, has been very costly to the regime in Tehran. Popular unrest is growing along with unemployment and the costs of fuel and food. And moves by the Obama Administration and the European Union are causing a shift in Iran's oil customer base.
Meanwhile, Iran has been offered enriched uranium to run its plants both for purposes of electric power production and for medical isotopes. Which Iran has refused, choosing instead to pursue its own accelerating enrichment plans, increasingly away from the view of UN inspectors. In fact, in deeply buried and hardened facilities guarded by sophisticated anti-air defense systems.
At the least, it's highly suspicious.
As are any plans for a war.
Those who want a pre-emptive war, rather than a strategy of containment, have a very high hurdle of credibility to cross, not the least of it because they've offered little but hysteria.
And when you consider that the advocates of a war with Iran also advocated the war with Iraq -- which actually empowered Iran, in addition to being not only a massive distraction from the problem of jihadism which 9/11 brought into such tragically sharp relief but also a driving factor in the growth of jihadism -- that high hurdle becomes a pole vault.
As for Afghanistan, with our commander there, Marine General John Allen, having to pull NATO advisors out of the supposedly secure ministries in the wake of Saturday's murders of two American officers, and the country in a convulsive uproar over the idiotic burnings of Islamic holy texts at Bagram Air Base, how much longer can we be in Afghanistan carrying out a mission which, even in its scaling down aspect, can't be carried out? We may be effectively run out of the country as a result of this latest debacle.
Stunning news from Afghanistan, where two relatively high-ranking US officers, a colonel and a major, were murdered early Saturday in a highly secure area of the Afghan Interior Ministry headquarters in Kabul. The Taliban have claimed credit for the killings, apparently carried out by an Afghan officer. It came after days of protest across the country, including the killings of two Americans at a base in eastern Afghanistan, part of an upsurge of "green on blue" violence, as it goes down in the US military reports denoting attacks by Afghan personnel against their supposed US/NATO allies.
Just hours later, Marine General John Allen, ordered the end of all regular US/NATO advisory missions inside Afghan ministries. The fact is, if there is no such transitional advisory mission for US and NATO personnel in Afghanistan, there is no future mission there, as it's obvious we aren't staying indefinitely.
This may just have been our "Night of Allahu Akbar." That's what the Soviets called a stunning event which took place in Kabul in 1980 just a month after their invasion.
At dusk one night, an Islamic leader cried out "Allahu Akbar!" meaning "God is great!" And the cry was taken up across the city, until all across the Afghan capital, where the Soviets had supposedly secured their friendly government, the cry of jihad echoed over and over for hours on end across the night.
Many added an extra chant, in a sort of counterpoint: "Marg, marg, marg bar Shurawi!" Which means "Death, death, death to the Soviets!"
Of course, it ended and did not repeat every night as the Soviets tightened their grip on the capital city. But the message had been sent, and received.
I talked once with a former Red Army officer who was there and this very experienced Russian soldier described the experience as one of the most chilling of his life. It seemed, he said, as though the enemy could be anywhere and everywhere.
This is the situation in which our troops may be finding themselves, one in which they can seldom be sure if they are dealing with friend or deadly foe.
Our mission in Afghanistan has long since bloated beyond any especially clever use of power to disrupt and destroy Al Qaeda. We will be fortunate if our departure is accomplished in a decorous fashion, with some rudiment of alliance remaining. Leaving by helicopter from the roof of the embassy is not really the way to go.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
William Bradley Huffington Post Archive
Martin Middlebrook: Diary from Kabul - Mosquitos and Bacon!
1) Which “key nuclear facilities”?
The IAEA requested access to Parchin -- described by the IAEA itself as a “military site” and therefore beyond the bounds of sites that the IAEA has permission to inspect under Art.77 of the NPT. According to the IAEA, consultations on the “modalities” of obtaining this permission are ongoing (see link below).
Parchin has, however, been inspected in the past: “in January 2005, free access was granted to Parchin Military site. Environmental samples were taken. The Director General then reported that the results showed no indication of presence of nuclear material and that the Agency's inspectors did not see any relevant dual-use equipment or material”
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc657.pdf
2) In what respect was the mission “ended abruptly”?
The IAEA team returned from Iran, as scheduled, on 22 February 2012.
This visit was initially announced by the IAEA in a press release dated 1 February 2012, stating that a meeting would take place in Tehran from 20-22 February 2012.
A second press release, dated 7 February 2012, amended those dates, stating that "the meetings are in fact scheduled for 20-21 February 2012.”
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/mediaadvisory/2012/ma201202.html
Saying that a site was inspected seven years ago and thus there is no need to inspect it now reveals all that need be shown about your stance.
Which is quite a waste of my time responding to.
The IAEA mission ended abruptly when the Iranians refused to allow the UN inspectors access to the new nuclear site.
The ultimate goal of the Israeli/USA initiative is that the Iranian people assemble against the current regime and revolt. An Israeli strike could ruin this opportunity and have the Iranian people turn against Israel and side with the Ayatollah. At the same time, an nuclear Iran is not an option as it would increase a proxy war with Israel. Israel is in the hardest situation it could possibly imagine. I pray that Iran comes to some sort of agreement in July, But I will not hold my breathe.
I think that the main problem with Iran going nuclear is simply the fact that it would cause Saudi, and possibly other Gulf states to do the same to defend themselves, thereby putting too many nuclear players into that very volatile area.
If Iran did a pre-emptive strike against Israel, this would give a legitimate reason for Israel/USA to launch a military strike with international backing. However, Iran is not this dumb and I do not think It would put itself in a situation. A proxy war is a much more plausible action, most likely in the form of finances to Hamas, Hezz, IJP, ect.
I do not want to fully dismiss a proxy war but I am still going to keep my eye out. Your absolutely right about the nuclear arms race. A nuclear Iran has no limits, It could even dictate Iraqi borders or conquer oil fields. The truth is nobody knows because this power has never been seen in this region.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/jerry-brown-makes-some-sp_b_1314993.html
Am I the only one who finds Netanyahu’s protestations against US intervention into Israeli internal affairs slightly amusing? I hope he doesn’t push that particular line with Obama and Biden because I have sneaky feeling that it will go over about as well as any threat he may make about this being an election year with a bunch of Republican candidates ready and willing to call Obama an appeaser, or something.
It’s high time that the Israeli part of the US-Israel relationship demonstrates a little love, respect and appreciation for its real American friends who have Israel’s real interests at heart.
Since the Likud and their right-wing allies are all about interventions in American domestic politics, turnabout is certainly fair play.
That's what you advocated for as long as I've had the misfortune to read your posts.
But rest assured, Israel wouldn't be, regardless of how much you are worried about your own purse.
Israel's American support is now down to the bribing AIPAC does. Voters are not with them anymore, but helpless to find candidates to actually represent them instead of taking the money. It's disgusting. My own US representative stands up for justice, and the Repubs gerrymandered the whole state with the #1 aim of ejecting him. By Tuesday night it will be done. Not one voice aloud is permitted to speak up.
>My own US representative stands up for justice, and the Repubs gerrymandered the whole state with the #1 aim of ejecting him. By Tuesday night it will be done. Not one voice aloud is permitted to speak up.
I think that was meant as a little joke, sort of ... a kind of tongue-in-cheek commentary on the relative threat it poses. It's my quote of the week.
Do you have any spin on Iran's refusal to allow IAEA inspections, threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, etc, etc, etc?
Enriched uranium has repeatedly been offered by Western nations under carefully controlled circumstances to ensure that weapons grade enrichment has not been carried out.
In what way did these unspecified offers by unspecified "Western countries" differ from the Turkey/Brazil?Iran agreement?
Why was the Turkey/Brazil agreement rejected?
In what way did the Turkey/Brazil agreement justify additional sanctions?
Why was Iran's September 2011 offer to stop enriching dismissed?
No, I don't think so. But I DO think that even an Iran with nuclear arms does not necessarily mean they would use them.
In can rationally make sense that they would like to have the capacity ... for the same reason that Israel sought them: It is the one thing, the one insurance that does prevent overwhelming conventional force to suppress you.
I find the "dirty bomb" argument quite silly. If that was their aim, they would surely have had the ability to get that from other sources.
Furthermore - that's something you don't discuss at all - we/ the West/ the US is pretty much as close as Iran is to built the bomb as we/you are to develop/ built hypersonic cruise missiles. From that point, it's mere physics: Launching an (unsophisticated) nuclear rocket gives us today so much warning time that several of these hypersonics can prevent the launch.
In the end, especially taking into account the current political environment, I am not willing to accept the consequences of such a decision. I am German. I would in general without doubt and with regards to history volunteer (as a former German army officer) helping to protect them. But if in the current environment they chose to start an preemptive strike, I say no. Then the situation is not worth the bones of one Grenadier.
For what it's worth, my money is on the president.
> ... the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, in his meeting next week with Obama, will urge the president to publicly back an attack on Iran and describes an elaborate campaign by Israel to use conservative US interests and the Republican presidential campaign to push Obama to a more hawkish stance on Iran.
More hope but no change apparently... but hey, at least we still have the banks. Am I right? Am I right?
Linking to other sites is not a useful form of comment.
No country would accept it.
Even though Israel has implied it would launch multiple nuclear strikes on Iran, killing upwards of tens of millions of innocent people, just a simple attack on Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant would unleash hell and chaos as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Look where Bushehr Power Plant is located on a map, right the middle of the Gulf, then look at the interactive map of the radiation plume from Fukushima.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/03/fukushima_crisis_latest_maps_o.html
Please anyone explain to me, how will that not kill innocent people in surrounding population centers and, that an huge nuclear disaster in the middle of the Gulf will not pollute shipping lanes thereby sending they price of oil to $300?
"Israel must disappear from the face of the Earth." -- April, 1991. Imam Mohsen Rabbani.[Iran's representative cleric in Argentina, who became a "diplomat" 4 months prior to the AMIA massacre, which he was behind]
"It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in January 2001
"One bomb is enough to destroy Israel. . . . In due time the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device." "Israel is much smaller than Iran in land mass, and therefore far more vulnerable to nuclear attack." ...(explaining: a nuclear attack on Israel would obliterate the state, but the Israeli retaliation would only cause damage to the much larger Muslim world). -- Iranian president Rafsanjani in December 2001
"Rafsanjani Says Muslims Should Use Nuclear Weapon against Israel."
"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on October 26, 2005
Ahmadinejad: "The pretext (Holocaust).. is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim, This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end."
Iran's president M. Ahmadinejad in August 2011: "Annihilate Israel."
Does that question really need answering? Because the consequences of a nuclear attack on Iran would be a much bigger existential threat to the State of Israel than anything the Iranian leadership could or would decide. You don't generally kill yourself out of fear that maybe, possibly, someone is planning to kill you.
This is a crazy world, but not THAT crazy.
It may be expedient for most to ignore Iran's very public and very clear threats, but when half your entire population has been exterminated while the world stood silently by, you learn not to depend on anyone to come to your rescue.
Israel will do what it needs to do to survive. If the rest of the world wants to pretend Iran isn't serious when they speak of annihilation, they are certainly free to do so at their own peril
Should Israel use nuclear weapons on Iran, there will be Blow Back. The very first aspect of "Blow Back" will be the lack of moral outrage should Israel get one back. The first strike has already happened and in the western scenarios dealing with a first strike against the soviet union, no one really complained how morally repugnant the Soviet response would be.
When you are the first to use Nuclear weapons you cannot cry foul and expect the world to come to your aid if you get repaid in kind. While Iran does not have Nuclear weapons, there are a few Islamic countries that do. No one knows what their reaction would be to nuclear weapons being used on Iran.
This article is specifically designed to gin up more hatred against Israel and drive internet traffic.
As for there being any reality to the premise?
Garbage in garbage out as this thread demonstrates
As far as the purpose of the article. Israel has the weapons it is reasonable to discuss to what use they are to be put. Even though Israel had promised not to be the first to use Nuclear weapons in the middle east in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Which was fought on the Arab side with conventional weapons.
Israel put its nuclear detachments on alert. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. At the point where the alert was made, the battles were being fought on the Egyptian Sinai and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel proper was never threatened or breached.
Whether this was a standard operational procedure or a show of intent will be up for debate. However with Israel being the only Nuclear power in the Middle East and having the ability to use them without apparent consequences especially with the current government in power, makes me extremely nervous.
>>> The Russian military predicts a Western strike against Iran by summer.
Personally, I believe that we will have a drone that looks all the world like a little bluebird long before Iran has a nuclear weapon, and a missile that could actually hit Israel. This little birdie-drone, in the near future will fly through Ahmadinejad's bedroom window early one morning chirping loudly. Ahmadinejad will sit up all startled from his sleep, and the colorful little drone will say to the president in perfect Farsi, "This is your last warning."
You are playing pollyanna again, I'm afraid.
Israel would be starting a war with WMD's, it could be expected that Iran would respond with WMDs
Iran not have nuclear weapons, but they do have chemical and bio weapons. Maybe some of them are attached to missles that Hezbollah has.
A nuclear attack on Iran could likely produce a WMD response by Iran.Tel Aviv would be a literal ghost town if that happens. Iran's own missles plus Hezbollah's could destroy much of Israel with chem or bio weapons.
I stated what I believe COULD *possibly* happen in the worst case for Israel should they be stupid and immoral enough to attack Iran with nukes.
Doesn't mean I advocate it.
It's funny how some people can't separate "is" and "ought" statements, but Hume knew that long ago.
To be clear, Mr Bradley, here's an analogy:
If you go into a bar and walk up to every woman and tell her she's monstrously ugly. you coudl expect that you'll be punched by someone--husband, boyfriend, friend, or the woman herslef.
Don't blame me for warning you that you might get a black eye if you carry out that hypothetical action.
Also, since the topic was a nuclear strike on Iran by Israel, a WMD reponse to a WMD attack is not disproportionate. (And that's an "is" statement, not advocacy for a WMD attack against Israel).