Iran and Israel at War

[Divinus Arma]

Assuming this is true:

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.
Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-ex-spy.html


...And assuming that Israel does indeed act accordingly due to the forthcoming U.S. elections and probability of an Obama victory, how will this play out?

My prediction:


Israel initiates first strike, targeting Iranian airbases, SAM sites, and known nuclear sites.

Iran responds immediately with surface-to-surface missle fire into Israel.


Then it gets tricky.

Scenario (a): Iran is forced to concede its loss faced with the possibility of U.S. intervention on both its eastern and western borders. While Iran would love to spearhead a regional ground war and cut off oil supplies, it can't because of the the very real threat of a sustained and undefendable air campaign from the U.S. Russia complains loudly. China complains loudly. The conflict ends before the Presidential election and Barak Obama is elected due in part to his anti-military action rhetoric. The U.S. and Israel retain a damaged reputation, but the U.S,. reputation improves immediately following Barak Obama's election.


Scenario (b): Iran not only engages in surface to surface missle bombardment of Israel, but also cuts off oil supplies to the west. No ground offensive from any nation. The cost of oil skyrockets to over $200 a barrel, causing gas to reach $7 a gallon. Inflation explodes internationally, and national economies buckle. A global recession begins. Barak Obama is elected, with the American public blaming Bush for the economy and continued war.


Scenario (c): Iran attempts to coordinate a ground war. Jordan abstains. Egypt abstains. Elements of Hizballah are heavily involved as are Iranian regulars. Hamas leads another uprising. Syria provides supportto Iran, but no troops. Iranian military elements are quickly destroyed by a joint U.S. Israeli counter offensive. Iran, Venezuela, and perhaps a few other OPEC nations cease oil exportation. Oil reaches well over $200, perhaps $300. The United States begins bombing inside Iran. Economic conditions reach a crisis in the United States as inflation causes $10 a gallon gas and skyrockets the price of food and other essentials. Anger is directed at IRAN, and McCain is elected President because of American confidence in his war experience.



What are your thoughts?

[Marshal Murat]

I think you're giving Iran too much unanimity in actions. Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him. Mr. A seems to be losing his grip in Tehran, the support of his Parliament, and the support of the people. Just take that into account.

[Geoffrey S]

I think you're giving Iran too much unanimity in actions. Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him. Mr. A seems to be losing his grip in Tehran, the support of his Parliament, and the support of the people. Just take that into account.

Perhaps. Problem with that is, that Iran still is a theocratic dictatorship - the last word isn't that of 'democratically' elected representatives, but autocratic clerics.

[FactionHeir]

How about instead of targeting the nukes, A-S Mr A and the Supreme Leader instead?

[Beirut]

If we look at history, it's clear to see that the countries that most support an attack on Iran in the name of maintaining international peace are the same people who are starting most of the wars and doing most of the killing.

Forgive me for playing Ahmadinejad's advocate (why can't people spell his name?), but if we look at the US and Israel, for example, we see that both countries, nuclear powers, have recently attacked other countries, dropped tens of thousands of tons of bombs on heavilly populated areas, killed countless thousands of civilians, and yet maintain, with great anger and vehemence, that they are the protectors of peace while Iran is naught but pure evil. If I may I ask; in the last ten-years, how many wars has Iran begun? How many countries have had their civilian areas subject to mass bombing raids by the Iranian Air Force? How many thousands of civilians has Iran killed?

I'm no great fan of Iran's leadership or form of government, but then again I'm no great fan of anyone's leadership or form of government. I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, but then again I'm no great fan of anyone having nuclear weapons. And assuming Iran gets The Bomb, why is it assumed they will instantly use it when using it will surely bring about their total destruction? Whether we like them or not, Iran, poop agitators and human rights violators that they are, have behaved with more restraint and, dare I say, civility than some of the people accusing them.

The nuclear club contains countries with horrendous and even psychotic international and human rights records, yet none of them were attacked when they got The Bomb or even lots of The Bombs. Why is Iran so special?

[Pannonian]

The nuclear club contains countries with horrendous and even psychotic international and human rights records, yet none of them were attacked when they got The Bomb or even lots of The Bombs. Why is Iran so special?

The US has never liked admitting others into the nuclear club. Not Britain, not France, not Israel. Britain and France were big-name allies whom the American public would never in a million years agree to attack. The USSR and China were too big to bully. Israel, India and Pakistan took the world by surprise with their revelations (or hints of, in Israel's case). North Korea and Iran, in normal circumstances, would be small enough for the US to push around if they didn't have nukes, so steps are taken to ensure they don't.

[Marshal Murat]

When I reference Mr. A's support, it's in a general sense. He has moderately size support, but it's not a majority. So if Mr. A does act in some undue fashion, and some might just say no and begin a coup.

I would also tender the idea that Israel (or US) might insert Special Forces and take the Iranian Nuke stuff before they could weaponize it. Get the doctors, etc. It's more feasible than the previous attempt on the U.S. Embassy. The US bases are closer, so they get more air cover, less ground to cover, and more gear can be taken. Israel could strike the Syrian nuclear site because they knew Syrian didn't have the guts for war. With Iran, they have the guts, but it's just how their triggered which is going to be the difference.

Also, Beirut, I just don't want to spend time looking up the name, then pasting it in appropriate spots.
To try and answer your question, it's more that Iran seems set upon throwing Israel into the wastebasket. To those who've held the bomb (and some who've actually used it), it's about preventing new members from coming in (what's the use of power if everyone has it?), the possibility of also stopping a genocidal madman, icing on the cake.

It's also that Iran has contacts with Hezbollah, and might smuggle such a weapon into Hezbollahs hands?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I would also tender the idea that Israel (or US) might insert Special Forces and take the Iranian Nuke stuff before they could weaponize it. Get the doctors, etc. It's more feasible than the previous attempt on the U.S. Embassy.

I'm sorry, I had to indulge my inner Tribesman. My bad.

(You do realise the "Iranian Nuke stuff" doesn't fit into a carrier bag, don't you?)

[Ice]

Assuming this is true:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-ex-spy.html


...And assuming that Israel does indeed act accordingly due to the forthcoming U.S. elections and probability of an Obama victory, how will this play out?

My prediction:


Israel initiates first strike, targeting Iranian airbases, SAM sites, and known nuclear sites.

Iran responds immediately with surface-to-surface missle fire into Israel.


Then it gets tricky.

Scenario (a): Iran is forced to concede its loss faced with the possibility of U.S. intervention on both its eastern and western borders. While Iran would love to spearhead a regional ground war and cut off oil supplies, it can't because of the the very real threat of a sustained and undefendable air campaign from the U.S. Russia complains loudly. China complains loudly. The conflict ends before the Presidential election and Barak Obama is elected due in part to his anti-military action rhetoric. The U.S. and Israel retain a damaged reputation, but the U.S,. reputation improves immediately following Barak Obama's election.


Scenario (b): Iran not only engages in surface to surface missle bombardment of Israel, but also cuts off oil supplies to the west. No ground offensive from any nation. The cost of oil skyrockets to over $200 a barrel, causing gas to reach $7 a gallon. Inflation explodes internationally, and national economies buckle. A global recession begins. Barak Obama is elected, with the American public blaming Bush for the economy and continued war.


Scenario (c): Iran attempts to coordinate a ground war. Jordan abstains. Egypt abstains. Elements of Hizballah are heavily involved as are Iranian regulars. Hamas leads another uprising. Syria provides supportto Iran, but no troops. Iranian military elements are quickly destroyed by a joint U.S. Israeli counter offensive. Iran, Venezuela, and perhaps a few other OPEC nations cease oil exportation. Oil reaches well over $200, perhaps $300. The United States begins bombing inside Iran. Economic conditions reach a crisis in the United States as inflation causes $10 a gallon gas and skyrockets the price of food and other essentials. Anger is directed at IRAN, and McCain is elected President because of American confidence in his war experience.



What are your thoughts?

not going to happen

[LittleGrizzly]

Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him

Not sure if you mean the population is behind Mr A or the nukes, im pretty sure most Iranians want nuclear weapons.... can't blame them myself...

[Fragony]

Iran already has major gassoline shortages and they can't refine the oil theirselves, tanks don't run on prayers.

[Divinus Arma]

not going to happen

Wow. Impressive and well-articulated argument. You are truly a scholar and I have been enlightened by your contribution.

[Ice]

Wow. Impressive and well-articulated argument. You are truly a scholar and I have been enlightened by your contribution.

Well, this thread deserves such a response.

Edit:

I'll humor you.

Israel's air force doesn't have the ability to do what you just said. Now they could use missiles strikes, but I'm betting that's going to be less effective than an air strike. The Iranians will see these missiles and will fireback. Both sides will suffer massive causalities probably in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Israel will not start a war that will cost millions of lives of their own citizens. Not only that, but Iran will throw everything they have at Israel suicide bomber wise.

a) will never happen

Iran will retaliate if attacked

b) seems plausible, but you forgot the suicide bombers

c) won't ever happen- Iran knows they will get crushed

Just because some ex nut is talking about blowing up Iran's nuclear program, does not mean all out war. It's fairly easy to see.

[PanzerJaeger]

Israel hits Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran throws a fit. Done.

A single hit works in everyone's best interest. Israel is happy, America is happy, and Mr. A's power is firmly re-established.

Iran won't cut their oil, as they need the cash just as much as we need the energy. There certainly won't be any prolonged war.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's not currently possible for Israel to conduct such a first strike, but if it were, I suspect PJ is near the truth. Iran would not react except through her proxies.

However, before basing any discussion on the ex-Mossad agent's wind-up (hasn't America tired yet of being scared into foolishness by nutters with agendas?) let's ask ourselves a question:

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

[rory_20_uk]

Using a person not in a government agency, but still with gravitas is a way of sabre rattling with plausible deniability.

I imagine (maybe I'm wrong) that Iran has a decent amount of AA missiles probably from Russia or China. So using F-16 / F-15 attacks would be very expensive in resources and manpower. saturating air defences with planes works - as long as you accept high attrition rates.

Firing missiles from Israel would be cheaper in many ways but probably less accurate.

Surely Iran has as far as possible planned for the eventuality that the plants must be able to withstand several air to ground missile strikes?

A ground war is non-sensical as it plays to Israel's strengths: tanks would be picked off at range by missiles, planes and drones. The unsupported troops then have to withstand cluster bombs, enemy tanks and troops. This even ignores the logistics of having the supply train mauled every inch it goes forward.

Iran IMO has two options and they are rather "boom or bust"

Do practically nothing, but increase funding to Iraq / Afghanistan forces (bleed America / allies) and utilise suicide bombers and rockets (hurt Israel).

Germ / chemical weapon attack - missiles laden with VX / sarin etc etc in a attempt to break Israel's back before it can react.

In the second instance there is a slight chance that others such as Syria might also launch a missile attack as well...

The first is the 99% option, the second is the "fingers crossed the nukes leave more of us intact than the nerve gas leaves the intact".

China will sell arms to whoever has cash / oil for them. Russia will sell for cash.
America give so much aid to Israel it can not make a difference in the first scenario, and in the second there's little to do ecept send in the cleanup crews.

[Whacker]

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

Yes, I'm sure they do love their children, as much as we love ours. It's not the average person that's to worry about, it's these insane fools currently in power, i.e. Bush, Ahmadinejad, Putin, etc.

[Lemur]

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

Unlike most other countries, Iran has a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups, supplying them with money, weapons and training. Hezbollah has direct ties to the Iranian government, and is responsible for some outrageous stuff. We don't have any reason to believe nuclear weapons would not be passed from Iran to Hezbollah, or another proxy group.

Keeping Iran away from the nukie-nukies would be a good thing.

[Tribesman]

After much thought and weighing all the various considrations of this question as put I really cannot see the possibilty of any answer apart from bollox

Unlike most other countries,

Well bugger me Lemur , when your government doesn't support arm and train frigging terrorists perhaps you can shout the odds about Iran doing it

[Lemur]

Well bugger me Lemur , when your government doesn't support arm and train frigging terrorists perhaps you can shout the odds about Iran doing it

Since when did hypocrisy become a cardinal sin? I don't deny that we have funded and trained violent groups in our time. However, Iran's proxies have been exceptionally violent and unrestrained. Furthermore, I am insulted, gravely insulted that you would say "bollox" to me without using at least ten smileys.

Banquo, you make excellent points. I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be. The regional history of fighting Israel whether it made a lick of practical sense or not doesn't encourage. "It's not whether you win or lose, all that matters is fight the Jews" leads to some depressing lines of thought.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be. The regional history of fighting Israel whether it made a lick of practical sense or not doesn't encourage. "It's not whether you win or lose, all that matters is fight the Jews" leads to some depressing lines of thought.

The important thing to realise is that for most Middle Eastern countries - the more so for Iran, as they are not Arab - Israel is little more than a shibboleth used to keep their populations in check.

These countries tried to eradicate Israel militarily a couple of times and failed spectacularly. They know there's no point in trying - they have got the lick of practical common sense some time ago. But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

They use proxies to continue the feud, because the last thing most of these governments want is a solution to the Palestinian problem. Israel continues the feud because it benefits enormously from subsidies. The West keeps excusing Israel from its international obligations because we're self-hating Gentiles. Everyone is happy, and the casualty rates kept acceptable to the purpose. Waving willies is part of the game.

Iran wants to be the regional power. The Arab nations are uneasy about this, especially since the invasion of Iraq has already tilted the balance very firmly toward Iran. If we stopped demonising the Iranian Republic and took advantage of their desires, we might find a valuable ally to help stabilise Iraq, offset the fundamentalist Wahabism of the Saudis and help guarantee Israel's borders. We managed to do a deal with the Egyptians to this end, despite their history of violence towards the State of Israel. As I noted, Iran was very supportive of the coalition offensives against the Taliban after 9-11 - hardly Islam United, was it?

[Geoffrey S]

The important thing to realise is that for most Middle Eastern countries - the more so for Iran, as they are not Arab - Israel is little more than a shibboleth used to keep their populations in check.

These countries tried to eradicate Israel militarily a couple of times and failed spectacularly. They know there's no point in trying - they have got the lick of practical common sense some time ago. But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

Let's hope we don't go far in the same direction with generic terrorist threats.

[Adrian II]

I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be.

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?

States are unlike individual people. States are not happy or depressed, they are not suicidal or buoyant. States serve aggregate interests, and they do this well or not. They make mistakes, but they do not go mental. States aren't funny either, except maybe Belgium*.

None of the so-called 'madmen' summoned by the White House in the past twenty years has been really mad. Kim, Moammar, Slobo, Saddam, all were rational by White House criteria, that is: if it is considered rational to go to war halfway around the world on the basis of false reports and kill tens of thousands...

Really, this talk of 'mad' leaders who 'can not be trusted with nukes' is so counterproductive, it isn't even the start of a notion that could lead to a sound policy.

EDIT
* and that's a compliment

[Conradus]

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?
States aren't funny either, except maybe Belgium*.
EDIT
* and that's a compliment

Well, enjoy it while it lasts :p

And it seems our current politician are driving us to the abolution of our state

[Louis VI the Fat]

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?

Plenty. They are not around anymore, which is probably owing to their suicidal nature.

While I agree with your assesment that states should not be described in antropomorphic terms, I do think that you place too much confidence in the rational behaviour of states. Especially of states run by dictators - where the line between 'person', acting with all the irrationalities and whims of the human character, and 'impersonal state' can be very thin indeed.

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.


FactionHeir, thanks for your interesting article.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.

How delicious. No-one has implied my neo-con tendencies for some time now.

I believe that the natural state of Mankind is to be free. So yes, remove these governments and the nations of the Middle East will tend towards their natural state.

Your straw man is to suggest that I would encourage outsiders to effect this change, rather than to allow those people to discover liberty themselves.

[Adrian II]

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

Democracies can be just as irrational as autocracies. All are given to mistakes. However, no state in history ever wanted 'to end it all'.

The situation that came closest to having a madman in control of a nuclear arsenal would be the democratically elected Richard Nixon in his final years in office. He was paranoid, permapissed and extremely angry.

Come on, Louis; either you agree with me, or you must be barking mad.

[Adrian II]

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency [..]

Oops..

The Messrs Shavit of this world never, ever retire from Mossad. And they never, ever openly discuss genuine Israeli foreign and military policy issues.

Have a nice day with the article though.

[KarlXII]

Well, you first have to know that Iran has the capacity and the will to go to war. Then you have to count their fears of foreign retaliation. Iran knows it will not stand up against a combined Israel/US, which is why it has yet to "Wipe Israel off the map".