Will Israel attack Iran?

[Post To The Left]

Regardless whether or not you believe Iran is building nuclear weapons there is an interesting New York Times article with Barak where he claims that the Iranians are only a year away from entering the "immunity zone." After Iran enters this so called zone, " the point when Iran’s accumulated know-how, raw materials, experience and equipment (as well as the distribution of materials among its underground facilities) — will be such that an attack could not derail the nuclear project. "

Yet even if they attack before they reach this so called zone Iran will still rebuild their program and reach the so called zone no matter what. All an attack would do, yes delay the Iranians but only temporarily. An attack only invites retaliation from Iran and its proxies as well as ensuring Iranian domestic support for nuclear program, something Iranians now would rather trade for the easing of sanctions and an economic boast that the dropping of sanctions would bring. If Dagan the respected former head of Mossad doesn't see the benefits of an attack, just what are the benefits?

The most delicate issue between the two countries is what America is signaling to Israel and whether Israel should inform America in advance of a decision to attack.

“My understanding is that the United States has asked Israel not to attack Iran and to provide Washington with notice if it intends to strike. Israel responded negatively to both requests. It refused to guarantee that it will not attack or to provide prior notice if it does.” Kroenig went on, “My hunch is that Israel would choose to give warning of an hour or two, just enough to maintain good relations between the countries but not quite enough to allow Washington to prevent the attack.”

In the end, a successful attack would not eliminate the knowledge possessed by the project’s scientists, and it is possible that Iran, with its highly developed technological infrastructure, would be able to rebuild the damaged or wrecked sites. What is more, unlike Syria, which did not respond after the destruction of its reactor in 2007, Iran has openly declared that it would strike back ferociously if attacked.

Dagan, who was wounded twice in combat, once seriously, during the Six-Day War, started by saying: “There are advantages to being wounded in the back. You have a doctor’s certificate that you have a backbone.” He then went into a discourse about Iran and sharply criticized the heads of government for even contemplating “the foolish idea” of attacking it.

“The use of state violence has intolerable costs,” he said. “The working assumption that it is possible to totally halt the Iranian nuclear project by means of a military attack is incorrect. There is no such military capability. It is possible to cause a delay, but even that would only be for a limited period of time.”

Rafi Eitan, 85, one of the Mossad’s most seasoned and well-known operatives. Eitan agreed with Dagan that Israel lacked the capabilities to attack Iran. When I spoke with him in October, Eitan said: “As early as 2006 (when Eitan was a senior cabinet minister), I told the cabinet that Israel couldn’t afford to attack Iran ... “No. In the end they’ll get their bomb. The way to fight it is by changing the regime there. This is where we have really failed. We should encourage the opposition groups who turn to us over and over to ask for our help, and instead, we send them away empty-handed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?pagewanted=all

Edited January 26, 2012 by Post To The Left

[Shady]

Conversely, will Iran attack Israel?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If Dagan the respected former head of Mossad doesn't see the benefits of an attack, just what are the benefits?

He should ask Iraq and Syria.

[Post To The Left]

Conversely, will Iran attack Israel?

It would be suicide for Iran to do a nuclear attack on Israel, there is no way Iranian rulers would threaten their position in power. But of course you're just going to give me the same bullshit line about how Muslims aren't rational people.

[Post To The Left]

He should ask Iraq and Syria.

Ask them what? If Israel attacked Iran Syria and Shia Iraq would attack Israeli interests in Israel itself and around the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ask them what? If Israel attacked Iran Syria and Shia Iraq would attack Israeli interests in Israel itself and around the world.

Ask them about their big attacks against Israeli interests. Israel destroyed Osirak in 1981 (after Iran bungled the job), with no immediate repercussions. Syria didn't even want to admit it had been attacked!

[maple_leafs182]

Could the fact that Iran is trading its oil for gold instead of dollars have anything to do with the sudden urgency...

[bush_cheney2004]

[bud]

you can't compare the iraq of 1981 to the iran of 2012. dagan is dead on. he understands the situation and consequences much better than natanyahu and barak whose hawkishness are being pulled towards extremists by the far right wing zionist parties that are keeping his coalition together. israel needs a leader like dagan who is intelligent, calm and collective. the arrogant and stubborn attitude has alienated israel and in some ways, worked in the palestinians' favour as more and more nations have become vocal about their displeasure of israel's actions and inactions towards negotiations.

israel will have to learn to accept not being the only nuclear power in the middle east. the best thing to do is to encourage the iranian people to rise up against their government in a natural manner like it was on the verge of happening a few years ago and like we've seen it happen throughout the arab world.

as far as whether iran would use its nuclear weapons when it reaches that point; despite at attempts to paint the iranian government as erratic, blood thirsty jew killers, the reality is that the iranian government would not use nuclear weapons. not only would it be a suicide mission, but they'd also lose all the wealth they've accumulated and continue to accumulate through oil and control over the economy in iran. as if they'd want to lose all of that.

israelis should not worry so much about iran. they should worry about the problems they face internally and the increasing influence of the far right wing minority in the government and its policies.

Edited January 26, 2012 by bud

[Post To The Left]

Ask them about their big attacks against Israeli interests. Israel destroyed Osirak in 1981 (after Iran bungled the job), with no immediate repercussions. Syria didn't even want to admit it had been attacked!

Ahhh got ya. The Iranians are already beyond that point though. My understanding is that Saddam was never able to able to enrich Uranium and after the attack Iraq was never able to rebuild the reactor as it couldn't get any foreign help. Iran has the know how and materials to make ten of thousands of centrifuges and can by itself repair anything the Israeli destroy. An Israeli attack can't stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Who knows what the Syrians were up to.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Post To The Left

[bud]

j street demonstrates a degree of maturity and sophistication which is often hard to come by, where it comes to the mid east.

Edited January 26, 2012 by bud

[Shady]

It would be suicide for Iran to do a nuclear attack on Israel

Why would it be suicide? Not if Iran successfully attacked first.

you can't compare the iraq of 1981 to the iran of 2012.

Why not?

[DogOnPorch]

They're building their atomic ability right-up to the point where they can put the parts together as needed. They already have a decent MRBM which will become an ICBM when they add the new boosters as planned. I suspect they'll need to test their fission device's design (shot-plug I'm guessing)...so that'll be something to listen for...feel for. Getting atop an ICBM might be the real trick. But in today's world, a container ship might prove to be a far better method of delivery...allows for much larger yields, as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfM_6t-GnEI

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/01/missiles-and-warheads-where-could-iran-deliver-a-bomb-1.html

[bud]

Why would it be suicide? Not if Iran successfully attacked first.

there are american subs with nuclear weapons pointing at iran. one hint of a nuclear attack by iran and they could be launched.

Why not?

because iran's plants are not as easy to hit and iran is capable of a response to a military attack. iraq was not able to do that. not only that, but experts have said that an attack on iranian plants would only slow down the process and not stop it.

[Wild Bill]

there are american subs with nuclear weapons pointing at iran. one hint of a nuclear attack by iran and they could be launched.

because iran's plants are not as easy to hit and iran is capable of a response to a military attack. iraq was not able to do that. not only that, but experts have said that an attack on iranian plants would only slow down the process and not stop it.

Would American subs nuke Iran if the target was not clearly American? And the source was not clearly Iran?

What if Iran nuked Israel? Does Israel have nuclear armed submarines? Is their response ability guaranteed?

I would think that Iran would be far too smart to let things be clear and obvious. And even if they were, who says retaliation would be guaranteed?

Suppose Iran nuked Israel. Being such a small country, the damage would be very extensive but a first strike could very likely eliminate retaliation. Would America launch a nuke on behalf of Israel? It wouldn't undo all the death and destruction of an Iranian strike. What if Iran used a terrorist group as a proxy? Without proof, could any ally take the responsibility of raining nuclear destruction down on Iran? On citizens who had no say in the decision anyway?

Meanwhile, the Iranian rulers KNOW this! They may face some heavy retaliation, possibly even being ousted from power. Still, Israel would be wiped from the earth! Even with surrounding Arabs as collateral damage, to some it could seem worth it.

Things are not so straight forward as some think.

[Post To The Left]

Suppose Iran nuked Israel. Being such a small country, the damage would be very extensive but a first strike could very likely eliminate retaliation.

There is no way a nuclear strike would damage Israel's retaliation cabilities. First of all a missile launch would be seen by Russia, America and Israel itself. Second Israel's nuclear arsenal is deeply bunkerized and could withstand a direct hit. Third Iran's missile's guidance system are basic at best they have just as good chance of hitting Lebanon as they do Israel. Finally each bomb has a signature where they can tell where the Uranium came from and who enriched it.

Meanwhile, the Iranian rulers KNOW this! They may face some heavy retaliation, possibly even being ousted from power. Still, Israel would be wiped from the earth! Even with surrounding Arabs as collateral damage, to some it could seem worth it.

Yeah millions of surrounding Muslims and the third most Holy place in Islam. Not going to happen.

Things are not so straight forward as some think.

Yes it is.

[DogOnPorch]

There is no way a nuclear strike would damage Israel's retaliation cabilities. First of all a missile launch would be seen by Russia, America and Israel itself. Second Israel's nuclear arsenal is deeply bunkerized and could withstand a direct hit. Third Iran's missile's guidance system are basic at best they have just as good chance of hitting Lebanon as they do Israel. Finally each bomb has a signature where they can tell where the Uranium came from and who enriched it.

Can you point out a few of these missile silos on Google Maps for me? Thanks.

Yeah millions of surrounding Muslims and the third most Holy place in Islam. Not going to happen.

Remember, Jerusalem is only important to the Muslims because it is important to the Jews. Omar, very much a human, not a god, was the one who claimed the old Jewish temple site to be the furthest mosque after taking it from the Byzantines by force. It's a form of iconoclasm which shouldn't fool anybody with the correct information. But, because it is a major religon, we pander to the idea that this result of a Dark Age conquest was actually something holy. I'm sure it doesn't impress the rank and file Jews anymore than Christians are thrilled that Jesus was made into a minor prophet by Islam.

Yes it is.

Really? Then solve it for us, would you?

[Post To The Left]

Can you point out a few of these missile silos on Google Maps for me? Thanks.

Hahaha that's the basis of your defense? That Israel would be so stupid as to a have a "silo" that everyone could see? No Israel couldn't camouflage one, no that's beyond Israel's capability? Please. Plus Israel's main strike capability would be aircraft that would be launched at the first sight of a missile launch.

Remember, Jerusalem is only important to the Muslims because it is important to the Jews. Omar, very much a human, not a god, was the one who claimed the old Jewish temple site to be the furthest mosque after taking it from the Byzantines by force. It's a form of iconoclasm which shouldn't fool anybody with the correct information. But, because it is a major religon, we pander to the idea that this result of a Dark Age conquest was actually something holy. I'm sure it doesn't impress the rank and file Jews anymore than Christians are thrilled that Jesus was made into a minor prophet by Islam.

Whatever the reason that Temple Mount is the third most holy site in Islam, it is now the narrative of the Islamic world, you can't change that.

Yes it is

Really? Then solve it for us, would you?

I was talking about Israel's retaliation ability. It is very simple: There is no way Israel could be defeated.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Post To The Left

[DogOnPorch]

Hahaha that's the basis of your defense? That Israel would be so stupid as to a have a "silo" that everyone could see? No Israel couldn't camouflage one, no that's beyond Israel's capability? Please. Plus Israel's main strike capability would be aircraft that would be launched at the first sight of a missile launch.

You're the one claiming that these bunkers exist. This even though Israel's Jericho program is top secret and all known launches originating @ Palmahim. So where'd you get your information?

Whatever the reason that Temple Mount is the third most holy site in Islam, it is now the narrative of the Islamic world, you can't change that.

That's nice. I'm betting the Jews really do not care that the Muslim think that the Jewish Temple site is theirs push-come-to-shove.

I was talking about Israel's retaliation ability. It is very simple: There is no way Israel could be defeated.

You speculate. For all we know, Israel's nuclear program is a paper tiger. There have been no tests of this unproven design of theirs apparently based on Teller-Ulam's design...which is not the "simple" shot-plug design.

[dre]

You're the one claiming that these bunkers exist. This even though Israel's Jericho program is top secret and all known launches originating @ Palmahim. So where'd you get your information?

That's nice. I'm betting the Jews really do not care that the Muslim think that the Jewish Temple site is theirs push-come-to-shove.

You speculate. For all we know, Israel's nuclear program is a paper tiger. There have been no tests of this unproven design of theirs apparently based on Teller-Ulam's design...which is not the "simple" shot-plug design.

We have nothing BUT speculation from all sides.

[DogOnPorch]

We have nothing BUT speculation from all sides.

Explain further.

[dre]

Explain further.

Just that. We have a bunch of guess work going on about if Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and what they might do if they did in fact build a nuclear weapon, and what Israel might do, and what kind of weapons Israel might have, and more guesswork around if Iran would respond to airstrikes or not directly or through various proxies.

And the really scary thing is intelligence agencies make the same kind of wild guesses as people on this forum make, as we saw during Iraq.

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...Iran is developing ICBMs...it is pointless to arm one with a conventional warhead.

[dre]

Meh...Iran is developing ICBMs...it is pointless to arm one with a conventional warhead.

George Bush thought there was a point.

Robert Gates thinks theres a point.

We have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent today, a couple of things we didn’t have in the Soviet days… And we have prompt global strike affording us some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we didn’t have before.”

The US Navy thinks theres a point.

The Navy has been working on a conventionally-tipped D-5 Trident II missiles for at least a decade, says naval strategist Craig Hooper. Since 2002, Lockheed Martin has “quietly tinkered” with Trident II reentry vehicles, providing new maneuverability and guidance packages.

[DogOnPorch]

Not on a Jericho III or a Shahab...waste of a booster as the payload is under a ton.