Nuclear Exchange between Iran and Israel

[rory_20_uk]

You're missing the point that such an Iranian-Israeli war would likely exacerbate religious tensions to the point where it would re-ignite the Pakistan-India conflict. That's where their involvement (and possibly China's) comes into play. NATO nations would likely be forced to intervene if a general regional war broke out to protect their own interests, as an Iranian-Israeli war would be almost guaranteed to shut off the oil supply to the west. Russia could see such a conflict as a distraction to allow them to settle some unfinished business in the Caucasus region, most notably with Georgia and Chechnya.

I doubt that India-Pakistan would get involved merely as one lot of Muslims are fighting Jews - especially in light of what Nuclear weapons can do. Equally, if not more likely would be a situation where both sides engage in talks to prevent this happening.

China? Unless they decided to attack India on the offchance that an army with more than 1 million troops can't fight on two fronts and there are no nuclear tipped missiles left, their direct involvement seems remote at best.

NATO would not be keen in loosing masses of troops and equipment in the malestrom - let alone would there be public sentiment.

As Russia is almost already at War in the Caucasus that is more likely, but this distraction no more than any other.


The big power blocks would be first ensuring that they had adequate supplies from areas that weren't nuked, then after the conflict was over would look to help in the area. This is where life differs from Risk.

[Divinus Arma]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

[Vladimir]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

You say that now but Redleg is going to bust in here and give you the blast radius of varions nukes.

[Geoffrey S]

Pakistan's the sore point. That could go at any time when things start moving.

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

Considering Arab treatment of Palestinians over the decennia, I doubt they'd particularly care.

[Vladimir]

Pakistan's the sore point. That could go at any time when things start moving.

Considering Arab treatment of Palestinians over the decennia, I doubt they'd particularly care.

Iranians aren't Arabs!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of all the nuclear scenarios, a strike by Iran presents Israel with the "cleanest" options. Iran is a nation-state and has targets of value as well.

Israel could not simply stand down -- politically unacceptable -- but Iran has a number of primarily military site that could be targeted in a counterstrike producing fewer civilian casualties than would any strike in Israel. For example, the Iranian naval drydocks for their diesel sub fleet would likely not last long. Thus, Israel could counterstrike as would be a political necessity, but could do so at a "counter-force" target and avoid the approbation of a "counter-value" strike.


Of course, the most likely scenario for an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would be a truck or cargo container driven into Tel Aviv (comparatively little arab/palestinian presence but lots of Israelis) by a jihadi from one of the militant sects available. Even if the nuclear signature were linked to an Iranian facility, Iran would claim that the material/device had been stolen (actually, this could even be true given the odd relationship between Rev Guard and formal military/security organs), that they had not notified anyone for fear of embarrassment, and that they had no responsibility for the heinous act. Israel would be unlikely to attack the terrorist base responsible for the direct attack, as it would be sited in a major urban area just chock full of innnocents, and would be viewed as a nuclear agressor if they struck at Iran after Iran had said they weren't responsible and apologized for their poor internal security.

Most likely result would be no counterstrike. This lack of response would be followed by a rapid vote of no confidence, ushering in a new and decidely conservative/hard-line governing coalition. The inevitable crackdowns in the territories would generate increased "hero" status for Hamas, Hezbollah, and whatever other group (if any) pulled off the physical attack. Since this
would increase recruiting and polarize the situation further -- both of which would enhance the power of these non-state actors -- it is very much to their benefit to carry out such a strike as soon as they can procure the materials. For them, it is win-win.

[PanzerJaeger]

Since this would increase recruiting and polarize the situation further -- both of which would enhance the power of these non-state actors -- it is very much to their benefit to carry out such a strike as soon as they can procure the materials. For them, it is win-win.

There is one loss, and that would be of lives.

If such an attack occurred, Israel would disrespect as many borders, kill as many civilians, invade as many nations, and incur as much collateral damage as necessary to hunt down and kill every single person even remotely involved with it. We're talking no holds barred here.

As much as Hamas and Hezbollah like to talk up martyrdom, the leaders are just as invested in their power as any others. While they're happy to send young fanatics to blow themselves up, they may think twice about threatening their own survival in such an attack.

Of course, one shouldn't underestimate the insanity of many in the arab world.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is one loss, and that would be of lives.

Would be Great Captains -- of nation-states or non-state actors -- have historically been willing to accept this as a cost of achieving their objectives. This is especially true of the leader of a "jihadi" effort, since they know, not believe, but KNOW, that death for such a cause ensures that individual's salavation.

If such an attack occurred, Israel would disrespect as many borders, kill as many civilians, invade as many nations, and incur as much collateral damage as necessary to hunt down and kill every single person even remotely involved with it. We're talking no holds barred here.

As much as Hamas and Hezbollah like to talk up martyrdom, the leaders are just as invested in their power as any others. While they're happy to send young fanatics to blow themselves up, they may think twice about threatening their own survival in such an attack.

Of course, one shouldn't underestimate the insanity of many in the arab world.

Potentially, but they would face the same problem -- hunting a small number of the "responsible" among a great mass of innocents possessing a varying degree of sympathy for the anti-Israel cause. Israel lacks the resources to methodically eradicate all of those responsible on an individual basis, and massive military response would involve a slaughter of the (mostly) innocent that would parallel the kind of pogrom Israel was founded to prevent.

The Mossad hunted the planners of Munich and got many, but not all.

The IDF has invaded Lebanon several times, but not squashed the terror attacks.

Israel is only a small place, and for all its pluck can do only so much.

I suspect that Israel will, one day, be absorbed into some greater Middle East collective. What will be interesting to see will be the terms under which that occurs.

[Ironside]

Of course, the most likely scenario for an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would be a truck or cargo container driven into Tel Aviv (comparatively little arab/palestinian presence but lots of Israelis) by a jihadi from one of the militant sects available. Even if the nuclear signature were linked to an Iranian facility, Iran would claim that the material/device had been stolen

The inevitable crackdowns in the territories would generate increased "hero" status for Hamas, Hezbollah, and whatever other group (if any) pulled off the physical attack. Since this
would increase recruiting and polarize the situation further -- both of which would enhance the power of these non-state actors -- it is very much to their benefit to carry out such a strike as soon as they can procure the materials. For them, it is win-win.

I think you severely underestimate the responce of the use of a nuke, no organisation would survive taking responsibillity. None would dare sponsor them and I suspect that most Palestinians on the street would also feel that it's one hell of an overkill (aka support dropped to zero). It's an open declaration of war, where the Israelis will have all the western world as support and the Arab world will stay very quiet.

And Iran's nuclear reputation would be severly damaged. At best (for them that is) no bombs will fall.
But still either they lie (dropping their trustworthyness to about zero) or they cannot control their nuclear material. Both cases spells the doom for any influence in the region outside pure bullying.

[Geoffrey S]

Iranians aren't Arabs!

Sad as it may be, that probably means they'd care even less.

[JR-]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

if iran were mad-dog crazy enough to initiate a first strike, i really don't think the plight of palestinians would sway the matter either way.

[Samurai Waki]

if iran were mad-dog crazy enough to initiate a first strike, i really don't think the plight of palestinians would sway the matter either way.

I think the Palestinians would cease to exist in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank. I think either by extermination, or more likely getting expelled on a tragic scale, and forcing countries like Syria, Egypt, and Jordan to accept such a measure and these countries all the while being completely hamstrung by the international community.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

That would certainly settle some problems, wouldn't it?

[TinCow]

The problem is that most level-headedness will go the way of the dodo once nuclear warfare erupts. That's what we're talking about here, not a conventional war. Once nukes start popping off over Tel Aviv and Tehran, the rules have to be re-written. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria are likely to join in the attack on Israel, threatening a general Middle-East War. Muslims across the region will probably take up arms against Israel on a massive scale. Militant groups in many nations will gain a signficant number of followers and begin attacks on local governments that are seen as supporting the West, notably in Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan. Fundamentalist groups could easily overthrow the governments of several of these nations, most notably Lebanon and Pakistan.

A nuclear armed Pakistan controlled by fundamentalist muslims in the midst of or recent aftermath of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange would pose an immense threat to India, possibly resulting in an Indian pre-emptive strike to prevent the fundamentalists from gaining control over the nuclear weapons in the first place. China is an unlikely participant, but it has long had tense relations with India and a possible nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would greatly threaten stability in the region, possibly inciting them to intervention. At the same time, increased islamic militantism across the region will certainly result in attacks on Russian interests in the Caucasus, with the inevitable response.

On top of it all, the massive losses that Iran is bound to suffer will greatly weaken the power of the Shi'ite community at large, which will probably result in sectarian warfare across the region between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

I'm not envisioning a world where NATO is fighting Russia and China, more of a general hodge-podge of many small to moderate sized wars all occurring at the same time across the broader region. However, such a situation poses a real risk that these conflicts will bleed into one another, resulting in unfortunate incidents which incite some of the larger belligerents into war against each other. It is very plausible that China would supply military aid to Pakistan. In turn India defeats the Pakistani navy and blockades the Pakistani coast. Chinese ships then hit mines laid offshore and sink, with many lives lost. This is how small wars turn into large wars. WW1 and WW2 both had similar chain reactions that dragged multiple smaller conflicts into a single overarching war.

Once the nukes start flying, it will be very hard for any nation to maintain a level head.

[Adrian II]

The problem is that most level-headedness will go the way of the dodo once nuclear warfare erupts.

I don't think so. I think such an exchange will be a tremendous shock to the world system, but it will initially result in a deafening silence of public opinion, followed by frantic attempts to control the damage and prevent further escalation. In the longer term there will be a drift toward authoritarianism, inspired by the sense of doom that will have spread in the wake of the episode.