Nuclear Exchange between Iran and Israel

[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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I imagine it would be part of a "moderate" axis - Jordan, Israel and Egypt, the first and last having somehow dealt with the problems an alliance with Israel would pose for parts of its population.

[Samurai Waki]

An Egyptian-Israeli Cooperative would be a very scary military machine. But unlikely, Egypt has some Extremist Problems as it is, and they would make every effort to silence the moderate voice. It would be a struggle to even get their military to cooperate with government, considering a large part of it are Paramilitary and controlled by an outside branch of government.

[Brenus]

some wackjob in Serbia killed a guy? in Bosnia, Sarajevo, Gavrilo Princip was a Serb, but from Bosnia

[Geoffrey S]

I imagine it would be part of a "moderate" axis - Jordan, Israel and Egypt, the first and last having somehow dealt with the problems an alliance with Israel would pose for parts of its population.

Egypt, moderate? It's a practical dictatorship scared witless of the large number of religious extremists amongst its population. For the last few decades it's been practically paralyzed in trying to keep a small clique in power.

[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.