“We don’t have a proper national debate about strategy.” — The complaint seems universal. I’ve heard it in America, in Britain, in France, in Germany, and elsewhere. But here in Israel that complaint is even louder. The IDF is known for its “bitsuist” culture, preferring doing over thinking. And Israeli academia, leaning far to the left — so the cliché — shuns all things military like the devil runs from the holy water. Except, it’s not true. An impressive number of current and former officers write about strategy, academics too. In Hebrew as well as in English. And some are really impressive. Of course they have no shortage of questions to ponder.
One of the most difficult questions facing the State of Israel today is Iran. Should the IAF strike Iran’s nuclear program or not?
Now, many people outside Israel have very strong opinions about this question. So let’s start with some humility: Iran has not repeatedly threatened to wipe New York off the map. Iran is not delivering advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations a few miles way from London. And Teheran is not training infiltrators to sneak into Paris to kidnap soldiers there. Israel has far higher stakes in this game than the rest of us. So what do the country’s most careful strategic thinkers say?
One of them, as far as I can tell, is Ron Tira, a lieutenant colonel and reservist in the Israeli Air Force’s Campaign Planning Department. He’s also author of The Nature of War (2009), an excellent book reviewed by H.R. McMaster in Survival not long ago. Tira just published a paper at the INSS in Tel Aviv, “A Military Attack on Iran?” It is by far the best text on this weighty question that I’ve seen.*
The paper is densely written and there is no way I can do it justice with a summary. It starts off with some important assumptions (for instance that an attack could take place with a “red light” from Washington) and sober points of departure (“The attempt to generate internal processes in Iran is too unpredictable and unreliable to serve as the basis for a plan”). I’d like to highlight one point and one question.
Politically, Iran is shrewdly playing for time. Tira:
Iran conducts a threshold policy that renders the world accustomed to its positions, while red lines are eroded and Iran gains time. It adopts a defiant position, reexamines it, withdraws from it, returns to it in response to some Western move, and so forth. Thus, Iran’s position is — intentionally — unclear.
Militarily, Teheran’s potential seems to be overrated. Iran, apparently, has an outdated military “with limited operational capabilities and middling missile and naval capabilities.” Its indirect capabilities have been demonstrated by its proxies in Iraq and Lebanon. An attack would, Tira argues, undermine Iran’s shield of deterrence and expose the limitations of its military response, “probably.” He discusses possible response scenarios in some detail.
The point, and one of the main contributions of Tira’s text, is to connect the two arenas, the military and the political arena. An Israeli attack could create “desirable post-attack processes.” He compares the situation with what Sadat did in the Yom Kippur War, which turned out to be a significant political gain for Egypt. But this time, with respect to Iran’s nuclear program – unlike in 1973 — Egypt and Israel are on the same strategic side, together with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. “This is one of Israel’s most important strategic assets today,” Tira points out. An attack, in short, might only delay the nuclear program — but it might upend Iran’s cat-and-mouse game with the West.
The note of caution has to be part of any consideration, of course:
it may perhaps be possible to sketch out the first developments that would occur after an attack on Iran or after it has become nuclear, but it is difficult to characterize the long term strategic trends that would be set in motion by each alternative. The [Israeli] leadership must choose which Pandora’s box to open while the contents and volumes of the two boxes are difficult to estimate.
Which leads me to the towering question: if Israel strikes, how would it demonstrate success? Iran would certainly not admit that a strike was successful. Third parties would not know if it was successful, we can assume. And even Israel might not be entirely sure. Demonstrating success, in short, will need extraordinary political skill, superb diplomacy, and first-rate international communicators, all in very little time. Given the government’s recent track-record in these disciplines, I’m afraid that Israeli leaders might not be able to pull this off, even if the IAF performs superbly. – If I would be sitting in one of these F16s, that would be my biggest concern. After returning home.
Again, keep in mind the stakes here. They may be far higher, I would venture to say, than the stakes in Afghanistan and Iraq next door. And not just for Israel. Again Ron:
A nuclear Iran that emerges in face of unequivocal American and Israeli opposition would undercut the strategic credibility of both nations, weaken their deterrence and power projection, hasten the waning of American influence in the region, and undermine the regional order we have known since 1991.
* Please read before commenting on this post.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 47 comments }
There are the usual problems with this subject matter.
First, the ever present mistranslation of President Ahmadinejad. He never stated “Israel must be wiped off the map.” What President Ahmadinejad stated was “this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). What it means is the end of Zionism in similar fashion to the end of the USSR and the Shah’s kingdom.
Secomd, where is the 2007 NIE on Iran in any of these calculations? The 2007 NIE, representing the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, “judged with high confidence” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 (if it ever really had one). Where is Tira’s consideration of the intelligence factor, from even an Israeli perspective?
Third, as Joshua Pollack at ACW states: “you can bomb an enrichment facility, but you can’t bomb an enrichment program. (Or not one as well-developed as Iran’s.) It’s not like a reactor, with billions of dollars’ worth of hard-to-replace capital piled up in one spot over the course of several years. Instead, it’s thousands of interchangeable pieces that can be brought together and operated more or less anywhere.”
And then, there’s Tira’s bombast concerning a potential result that “undermines the regional order we have known since 1991.” That so-called order has already been radically altered since then by such things as the Israeli military retreat from Lebanon, the removal of Iran’s enemy in Iraq and the insertion of an ally of Tehran, and the removal from power of Iran’s enemy in Afghanistan, the Taliban.
The simple fact of the matter is that Israel would like to see the Islamic Republic of Iran engaged in a hot war. In a conventional sense, Israel has the capacity to initiate a war, but not much else. So it endeavors through its powerful interests groups to set the scene for a more expansive conflict, involving primarily the military and political resources of the United States.
On your first point, the “mistranslation”: the argument often comes up, sometimes adorned with Persian quotes. But I seriously don’t understand the difference between wiping “off the map” and the “page of time.” Maybe you can expand and explain why that is less of a threatening statement.
And while you’re at it: why, really, do you think would Israel like to see Iran engaged in hot war? You might want to give some justification for what you say is a “simple fact.” It’s not.
I’ve read the piece and one of my first reactions is that Tira is far too optimistic about the responses of Israel’s neighbors and the US to such an endeavor. He is vague about the tactical and operational implementation of a strike, but presumably it would, with Mark’s caveats about attacking a enrichment program in mind, be a far more complex and lengthy undertaking than the Osirak attack or the 2007 attack on Syria. The number of reactors, their locations, and their hardening would likely require an attack with flight corridors over Turkey, Syria, Iraq or Saudi Arabia being kept open for multiple days, refueling aircraft, or both.
Now there have been rumors about the Saudis allowing such an aerial corridor, but if they are not true, launching an attack with out a US green light could precipitate a serious crisis in US-Israeli relations. Were Israel to begin conducting an attack by violating NATO ally Turkey’s airspace or Iraq’s, America would face significant pressure to halt the Israeli strike and impose harsher repercussions.
The section on how attacking Iran enables a Middle Eastern exit strategy for the US seems to me either wrong or disingenuous. Tira implies that without attacking Iran, US withdrawal from Iraq will lead to an Iranian takeover. But an attack, if anything, would strengthen the hand of pro-Iranian factions in Iraq, and increase violence against American troops in Iraq, further entangling the US. Iran’s allies in Iraq would certainly face pressure to renew a high-intensity insurgency against the US, and perhaps Iran might use the Pasdaran to turn up the heat further. Without an enormous attack that is likely beyond the IAF’s ability given the material and geographic circumstances, how would attacking Iran weaken its ability to intervene in Iraq? The Pasdaran would still be there, its ability to support insurgent groups would endure, and the Iranian ties of SIIC and other groups would not have weakened. The idea that a quick Israeli strike could materially undermine Iran’s entire military establishment seems far-fetched, but it is what the scenario requires for this part of the argument to be persuasive. Attacking Osirak made no difference to Iraq’s immediate abilities to project power and national influence, I doubt it will for Iran either. The notion that attacking Iran will ease withdrawal from Afghanistan seems even more dubious, the role of Iranian strength in supporting the insurgency is minimal (compared to support from Pakistan and local support), and Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban in 1998.
The general idea that an IAF attack can only succeed if it creates favorable post-conflict processes seems about right to me. But I am not sure if I agree about some of the assumptions being made about how an Israeli strike would make those processes favorable to Israel.
The fallacy of this whole point of view is demonstrated by Netanyahu’s statement:
“The year is 1938 and Iran is Germany.”
This mindset of Israelis is brought on by their own insecurity, paranoia and a warped sense of reality. It is not 1938 and there is absolutely no analogy between Germany and Iran. I can understand that Israelis would promote this idea to delude simple-minded Americans. But, the fact the intelligent and educated Israelis actually believe this nonsense is amazing. There is zero direct threat from Iran to Israel. As Mark Pyruz commented earlier, Ahmadinejad has never threatened Israel. So, why is Israel so wound up about Iran? Certainly, Iran is probably sending arms to Hezbollah. But, Hezbollah would only use these arms to defend Lebanon. Is anyone so stupid to think that Hezbollah would attempt to take over Israel? If Israel thinks that it can bomb Lebanon at will forever, then Israel is run by a bunch of lunatics. They will have to pay the price if they attack Lebanon again.
As far as Hamas is concerned, Palestinians simply don’t know how to fight. Palestinians in Gaza have zero power. They have to fight Israel’s latest war gizmos with slingshots. So, what is Israel afraid of?
Finally, there is zero evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons would be totally useless for them. However, they will not give up nuclear technology, no matter what. So, people must come down from their high horses and accept the fact that Iran will be like Japan, South Korea or Brazil. It will have peaceful nuclear technology and there is nothing anyone can do about it. So, live and let live. And, stop making all these ridiculous “studies” about pros and cons of attacking Iran. If Iran is attacked, it will probably be the end of Israel.
DPT: Your points about the often-ignored or minimized practicalities of trying to “stop” the Iranian nuclear weapons program (assuming there is one of course) are spot on. For better or worse, the seemingly interminable “diplomatic” efforts have afforded the Iranians sufficient time to disperse and harden their critical nodes of their program so that an air-only (conventional) attack or even a “campaign” IMHO will not be effective except insofar as the end game is instead only intended to demonstrate “seriousness” or whatever rather than to actually destroy or substantially disrupt the Iranian effort.
@Quinterius – you’re living in a dream world buddy. Iran will not be like Japan, SK or Brazil. It is looking to establish itself as the leading power in the ME. Israel is not the only country concerned. And we do have justification to be so threatened. Hezbollah wont take over Israel, but together with Syria, Iran, Hamas, etc… it wouldn’t be pretty.
Israel is not going to sit on its hands while there are missiles galore pointed in its direction from the multiple enemies that do want to see it destroyed.
As I said, you’re living in a dream world.
To Daniel: You are the one who lives in a dream world created by Fox News, Wall Street Journal and Israeli propaganda. What on earth is the justification for any of the sanctions or a potential idiotic attack. If you think Iran is building nuclear bombs, please provide the evidence. Obama and Gates now only complain that Iran is building nuclear “capacity” which is what Iran needs to do to be self-reliant in production of nuclear energy and development of nuclear medicine. The nuclear weapons are just an excuse just as WMDs were an excuse to attack Iraq. Wake up. All this nonsense has absolutely NOTHING do do with nuclear weapons. It is only to prevent Iran from being an independent power in the Middle East. Yes, I agree with you that Iran will be a leading power in the Middle East. It has the largest population, largest land except for the arid deserts of Saudi Arabia and a very well educated populace. Iran is making great progress in science and technology in even fields like nanotechnology. The US and Israel do not want another independent and developed country in the Middle East. Besides, the US and the UK still have illusions of controlling the Iranian oil. So, don’t fall for this nonsense about Iran developing nuclear weapons. There is not a shred of evidence for that. Again, please show the evidence if you don’t agree (no speculation please, real evidence).
Now, on the other hand, Israel has more than 200 nuclear missiles and is the most belligerent and crazy country in the world. It massacres Palestinians practically every day of the week. However, in the eyes of the idiots in Washington (both in the Administration and Congress), Israel is a wonderful peace loving country and is a beacon of democracy even though Palestinians in Israel are less than 2nd class citizens and their homes are being destroyed every day. Please stop the world, I want to get off!
Yes, and Iran’s well-documented support for Hizbullah and the Taleban isn’t important. Ignore the man behind the curtain! They just want to be good world citizens*.
* Who logistically support those who murder and terrorise civilians, but doesn’t everyone?
To Ed: I am sorry to inform you that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists only in the eyes of the US, Israel and their lackeys. Do you know that the US is now sponsoring the Jundullah terrorists in southeast Iran that led to the death of 27 Iranians just a couple of weeks ago (by two suicide bombers). The US Congress allocated $400M during Bush’s presidency for subversive activities in Iran. So, please don’t talk about support for terrorists. Hezbollah was created because Israel had been occupying Lebanon for 20 years and wouldn’t get out. Hamas is the elected representative of the Palestinians. Fatah was also considered as a terrorist organization. The US and Israel label anyone that they don’t like as terrorists.
Terrorists are those who use terror as a tactic, commonly by murdering civilians. That’s what the word “terrorist” means. And the US is also wrong if it is sponsoring Jundullah. That doesn’t excuse Iran’s actions. Interesting that you don’t even address Iran’s support for the Taleban or Hizbullah, or those organisations’ tactics.
By the way, you seem also to be confused in your facts on Hizbullah: they formed (according to Wikipedia) in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion, not 20 years after.
OK, picky, picky. Hezbollah was formed to fight Israel which occupied part of Lebanon for 20 or 22 years. Obviously, it was not formed in one day.
As far as Taliban is concerned, Iran and the Taliban were mortal enemies. If the US had collaborated with Iran, as it did in the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan, then Iran would not help them. There were all kinds of statements that Iran was “killing our boys in Iraq” which turned out to false. See
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html
Iran is probably still not working with Taliban. However, I would not be surprised if some elements of the Iranian government might be helping them. But, they still don’t have real evidence. Have you heard that “an enemy of my enemy is my friend?” When the US is threatening to attack Iran, it should be no surprise that Iran will do anything in its power to make trouble for the US. Why not? Do you expect Iran to be like a sitting duck?
Now, you still don’t have an answer about Jundullah. The US is also sponsoring the terrorist groups PJAK and MKO to make trouble in Iran. So, he who is without sin …, let him throw the first stone.
“Iran is probably still not working with Taliban. However, I would not be surprised if some elements of the Iranian government might be helping them. But, they still don’t have real evidence.”
Given your other statements, I doubt this will mean much but perhaps others will appreciate it. Of course, it is I suppose in your view yet another aspect of the US/UK conspiratorial cabal to besmirch that paragon of peace, freedom, justice and transparency that is the modern Iranian government and even if not, such weapons are no doubt being sent by the average Iranian in solidarity with the Taliban against the evil infidel crusader invaders rather than through any official Iranian government effort.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/exclusive+iran+supplies+weapons+to+taliban/3582967
@Quinterius:
The International Atomic Energy Agency had reported Iran as non-compliant to the United Nations Security Council. The UNSC had ordered Iran to halt their enrichment programme. Iran refuses, calling the ruling illegal and immoral. The UNSC has imposed sanctions as a result.
There had been two ominous developments in this year alone. The IAEA reports that Iran are making modifications to ballistic missile nose-cones – increasing payload ability as well as adding more sophisticated fuse mechanisms. That is the first incident. The second was when recently, Iran refused access to two IAEA employees on reasons that were flatly rejected by the IAEA. So it is not looking good right now.
So far, the IAEA had reported that they’ve found no evidence of any weaponisation programmes, but as any person knowledgeable will be able to tell you, it is a matter of process iterations – that is, for a Light Water Reactor, you’d expect enrichment of about 5% U-235 (so more or less the quality that Argentina had been selling Iran). Weapons-grade requires U enrichment of up to 85%, though you could technically create a device from much lower enriched material – the critical mass of the device will just have to be much greater than that of a device made of higher-grade material, and will therefore be of a bigger size. Important though is that the process of enrichment remains the same throughout – regardless of the purpose.
Please note that in all of the above, I have yet to mention any entity other than the IAEA, Iran and the UNSC. Nor have I used the word “oil” once.
In the international community, if you want to be respected, you should act respectable. There is no other way. And for all your protestations, we have yet to see such consistent behaviour from Iran. What we do find, is that Iran plays games with the IAEA and UNSC. Always the wise guy, always the clever little response, but they are way out of their league, regardless of how highly educated their population may be.
On considering their motivation for pursuing these games, I can only conclude that they are playing for the sake of the Arab Gallery, where regardless of the shared religion, Iran is considered to be an outsider. Iran tries to out-Arab the Middle-East but will never succeed in gaining the inner-circle acceptance they so desperately crave. In spite of this, they will continue their pursuit by upping the ante.
To Quintin: Please don’t talk about IAEA reports since you don’t know what you are talking about. I have studied them carefully. The UNSC resolutions asking Iran to halt enrichment are illegal because they have no basis on facts. UNSC cannot just pass any resolution because the US can ram it down the throats of the members. So, IAEA complaining that Iran is not stopping enrichment is ridiculous.
IAEA has no business talking about Iran’s missile systems. It is none of its business. IAEA is limited to dealing with nuclear issues. Besides, the report in the British press about Iran’s missiles was phony. It was just like the “laptop of death” which contained phony reports manufactured by Mossad.
You say, “as any person knowledgeable will be able to tell you, it is a matter of process iterations.” So, you admit that you are just making assumptions and if you see A you think B always follows. Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons. What would it do with them? The first sign that it has one will result in massive bombing by the US. Do not believe all this propaganda. Iran must be self-reliant because other countries are not reliable. Iran bought and paid for interest in a French nuclear concern, but they won’t let Iran get anything. If they rely on the West, whenever a dispute arises on any subject, the West will withhold the nuclear supplies. Iran is not going to be a two-bit country that follows the US and says yes to whatever Uncle Sam says.
I suppose you forgot about the 2007 US NIE that said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. However, Bush did not “believe” it because probably God told him. Now, Republicans are all gung-ho about changing it but so far the intelligence community has resisted it seems. They have NO EVIDENCE. If you have any, please present it.
As I said earlier, Obama and Gates now only say that Iran “may” decide in the future to build nuclear weapons. It is like executing someone now, because he may commit murder in the future. In the meantime, Pakistan, India and Israel which have nuclear weapons and are not NPT members are like murderers that go Scott-free.
The UNSC resolutions asking Iran to halt enrichment are illegal because they have no basis on facts. UNSC cannot just pass any resolution because the US can ram it down the throats of the members.
I must admit, I’ve heard many criticisms of the UNSC before, but never the one that they pander to the delights of the US. In fact, with so many case studies to the contrary, I fear that your statement regarding UNSC compliance with the US political will is based on opinion, rather than fact. With that you seem to miss a salient point: the UNSC has passed a resolution instructing Iran to halt enrichment. Iran refuses to do so. According to Iran (and you), these International organisations are acting illegally. But there cannot be illegality without a legal system. Since there is not such legal system at this level, (other than self-regulation), I’m afraid that your (and Iran’s) arguments to this effect are shaky, to say the least.
IAEA has no business talking about Iran’s missile systems.
Since you are so familiar with the IAEA documentation, you’ve no doubt seen this one: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2010/gov2010-10.pdf. Read Section E. They do have business discussing Iranian delivery systems. Such enhancements are required elements of any weaponisation programme. Now you may say that they have no business, but everybody else seems to think they do. Now what?
So, you admit that you are just making assumptions and if you see A you think B always follows.
Not assumptions. In 2006, an IAEA report refers to traces of highly-enriched Uranium contaminants found at a university in Teheran (see para A.1.1. in http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-27.pdf). Here is the thing: HEU (+20% U-235) has to be manufactured, it doesn’t occur naturally or accidentally and is enrichment way beyond the 5% U-235 required for Light Water Plants. But you should know this. Haven’t you studied these reports?
If you have any, please present it.
See above.
To Quintin:
On your first point, there are two problems. First, you claim that UNSC never panders to the delight of the US. You must be joking. I agree that the UN General Assembly does not pander to US demands. But, the USNC is essentially an extension of the US Government as joined by the UK and sometimes France. Resolutions passed are essentially introduced by the US and there is arm twisting until everyone votes for it. The last time, at least Brazil and Turkey did not fall in line. There was enormous pressure on Lebanon which finally abstained.
Secondly, you essentially contradict yourself. You say that there is “no legal system,” yet you claim that the UNSC resolutions are legally binding. Both cannot be true. To repeat, UNSC cannot just pass any resolution, they have to have evidence to provide validation for any resolution based on the charter of the UN. Incidentally, the US controls the UNSC in negative ways too. Anything against Israel, it vetoes or turns it to a slap on this wrist. Or, it just delays it endlessly. Delay was the weapon of choice when Israel was massacring Lebanese in 2006 and Gazans in 2008-9.
As far as the IAEA report of 18 February 2010 is concerned, I am quite familiar with it. This was the first report of Amano when he did not know what he was doing. Please see
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9431
for a detailed refutation of all its contents. In particular, as noted there, all these “alleged studies” are based on phony documents that independent observers have noted probably came from Mossad. They had no SECRET markings on them, they were in English and the US will not let anyone have copies of them. Even IAEA and Iran cannot have copies. So, this is old hat. Apparently, they just show PowerPoint presentation on them and they expect Iran to jump up and down for them. Amano really showed his inexperience in bringing these up again.
As far as the 2006 IAEA report is concerned, you are really grasping for straws. This is an old story. The contamination amount was insignificant and if there was anything to it the 2010 report would have mentioned it again. I have no idea where it came from. IAEA could spend 10 years studying it if you let them. Like in the case of Iraq’s WMD, no amount of information is enough for people like you. You want to analyze everything to the minutest detail, yet you miss the big picture. The fact is there is zero evidence for attempts to develop nuclear weapons in Iran. Read Obama’s own statement to Harry Smith of CBS or Gates recent statements. They only complain that Iran is developing “capacity.” Now, on the other hand, Pakistan, India and Israel already have numerous actual nuclear weapons and nobody says anything about them. Also, a key part of NPT is that the countries that have bombs promised to disarm. The latest START treaty with Russia is a joke. Finally, IAEA is supposed to provide services (e.g., fuel) to member countries. The US and its pals won’t let IAEA help Iran now. For example, the Tehran declaration was exactly what Obama had demanded, yet he rejected it. The whole thing is a joke.
Finally, I should note that if Iran stopped enrichment tomorrow, the US would not remove any of the sanctions and would make numerous other demands. Its goal is to humiliate Iran. Do you deny it?
Can you amplify on this: “Its goal is to humiliate Iran.”?
Look it up in the dictionary. The US wants only subservient countries in the Middle East like Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. Iran will not toe the line so they have to try to destroy it.
The “dictionary?” Even as a no doubt intellectually challenged American I think I know what the words mean individually but as I am confident was sufficiently apparent from my question, what do YOU mean by your assertion and on what facts do you base it?
I already explained it to you. The US wants a yes-man in Iran. Humiliation occurs if Iran has to eat its words and back down from all that it has been advocating, for example by giving up the idea of having an independent nuclear energy program.
Quinterius 3 August 2010 at 15:43
” I already explained it to you. The US wants a yes-man in Iran. Humiliation occurs if Iran has to eat its words and back down from all that it has been advocating, for example by giving up the idea of having an independent nuclear energy program.”
I noted with some humor your use of the word “energy” in describing Iran’s “idea.” I wonder if that includes the “energy” involved in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv or beyond? You still are merely stating your conclusions based I suppose on assumptions. “The US wants a yes-man in Iran. ” I still await your facts on which you base your opinion and more clarification as to what in your mind constitutes a “yes” man (or even a woman-though I suppose not in Iran).
But, the UNSC is essentially an extension of the US Government as joined by the UK and sometimes France.
Quinterius, you can repeat that as often as you like, but no amount of trolling will convince me that the UNSC is an extension of US foreign policy. Please give me and the others on this forum a little bit of credit. I for one, am capable of performing my own analysis and drawing my own conclusions.
yet you claim that the UNSC resolutions are legally binding.
No contradiction. The UNSC are bound by charter, treaty and convention regarding its operations and functions, but there is no system for prescribing to members how to vote. That would defeat the issue. The bottom line is: the IAEA submitted an issue to the UNSC and as a result, the UNSC drafted a resolution on which the members (including Russia and PRC – traditionally very partisan on these matters), voted in favour of acceptance and implementation, And that is binding.
all these “alleged studies” are based on phony documents that independent observers have noted probably came from Mossad.
I was not referring to the alleged studies, but to the missile adaptations and your statement that the IAEA has no business talking about that. So why do you steer away from that topic?
The contamination amount was insignificant and if there was anything to it the 2010 report would have mentioned it again. I have no idea where it came from. IAEA could spend 10 years studying it if you let them. Like in the case of Iraq’s WMD, no amount of information is enough for people like you. You want to analyze everything to the minutest detail, yet you miss the big picture.
Yes, that is what good scientists do, we analyse. And that is what provides the basis of our knowledge. But do not concern yourself – I maintain a good grasp on the big picture: The presence of contaminants indicates that at some point in the past, there was a body of HEU present at that location. The amount of contaminants is not applicable. What is more important is: How was it enriched? Where is the HEU now? How much of it was there? What is it being used for? Why was it there in the first place? You see Quinterius, you accused me of drawing assumptions on the statement that enrichment is a matter of iterations. What were your words again? That I see A, and I think that B always follows? But look… B turned up entirely of its own accord. No assumption was required.
Finally, I should note that if Iran stopped enrichment tomorrow, the US would not remove any of the sanctions and would make numerous other demands. Its goal is to humiliate Iran. Do you deny it?
In all my posts, I have deliberately concentrated on the UNSC and IAEA. You are the one that tries to steer the conversation to the US, not me. As far as sanctions are concerned, it is not a matter for the US, but the UNSC. We have already covered that and I do not believe that repeating myself will convince you. So stay with your conclusions if you so wish.
I have grown accustomed to a particular conduct on this blog. I’ve grown to appreciate it for its intellectual value, the opportunity to reason with world-class contributors and to learn. In all the time I’ve been here, I’ve always strived to adhere to the two guiding principles of this forum: to be polite and sensible. I am finding it increasingly difficult to do so within this thread, in particular when faced with repeated emotionally-laden, foam-around-the-mouth rhetoric, charged with personal challenges. I find it difficult to reason with an individual who believes in apparent anger and indignation, that anybody who dares not to religiously trust the word of Ahmadinejad regarding his nuclear ambitions is either inept, stupid or brow-beaten, yet by contrast has a clever little answer to every concern himself.
To Quintin: I don’t have to stay within the tight limits of what YOU want to talk about. You are ignoring the basic issue that Israel and the US are the driving forces behind the UN sanctions. If you believe that the UNSC by itself came up with the idea magically there is no point in talking to you. Even the original IAEA referral of the issue to UNSC was instigated by the US. I am not interested in rehashing the issues endlessly. The facts are that there is no concrete evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The 2007 NIE said so and, as I mentioned earlier, even Obama and Gates now way the same thing. If you want to spend 10 years studying some trace material in the desert, that is your problem. No one is going to give you permission to do it. So, you might as well give up the idea.
My final point was that if Iran stopped enrichment tomorrow, the US would not remove any of the sanctions. You choose not to discuss this point. I want to see how we can solve problems and how to go forward and you are interested in analyzing things endlessly. Another point was the Tehran Declaration. It was an attempt to make progress by satisfying practically all the demands of Obama. Yet he rejected it. There is no point in arguing with unreasonable people. Good luck to you!
@Quinterius
Where to start? I live in Israel pal. I don’t need to watch Fox News or read the WSJ to know the threats my country is facing.
Yes, I think Iran is building bombs. Do I have evidence myself?…the simple answer is “no”. I am no secret agent who can infiltrate the highest echelons of Iran’s leadership to get the crucial evidence for the all powerful Quinterius. By the way, where is your evidence that it isn’t developing nuclear weapons?
I think there were a couple of folk who said “where’s the proof” when people were trying to bring attention to the Nazi concentration camps. You don’t have the mindset of a Jew, and we will not let the world make the same mistake again. The whole world learnt a valuable lesson, but maybe you forgot. If there is some madman (or irrational actor) who says that he has a grand plan, he will attempt to make it happen the moment he has the means.
Listen, Israel is not perfect. No country is, but please show me a country in the Middle East where Palestinians are 1st class citizens….
To Daniel: You are the third Israeli that I have attempted to discuss the subject recently on-line. All of you seem to be far more reasonable than the die-hard American supporters of Israel, although I suspect you are not typical.
There is a well-defined way of showing something exists, how can I prove that something does not exist? You are asking an impossibility. It is not possible to prove a negative. So, what you bring up is a moot point.
When Israelis bring up the subject of Hitler and the Nazis in relations to Iran it shows that they live in a dream world. Admittedly, they are so traumatized by the WW II experience that they have lost all sense of reality. There is absolutely no comparison between Germany and Iran. Jews have lived in Iran for hundreds of years without any significant problems. Even now, 25,000 Jews live there. When has Iran made any threats against Jews? They are of course against the Zionism, but that is a very different issue. There are even many Jews who are against Zionism. So, I don’t understand what the fear of Iran is about.
As far as these so-called “grand plans” are concerned, these are the figment of the imagination of Israeli politicians. As far as I know, Iran has no grand plan for the Middle East. On the other hand, Israel does have a grand plan of dominating the region and taking as much land and resource from its neighbors as it can. So, the problem is with you. Unless Israel solves the Palestinian problem, it will not remove the animosity towards it. Iran has said many times that it would accept any solution that the Palestinians accept. So, the ball is in your court.
As I have commented before on other threads that have touched on this, it seems to me that we need to also address the larger view in terms of the intractability of this situation that at least to me reminds me in so many ways of the situation created by Saddam’s intransigence and deft manipulation of the “hand wringing” world community as it dithered and eventually stumbled into the “iraq War” that has engendered so much angst, outrage and brilliant criticism in the bright light of hindsight.
I also find it interesting as always in watching these debates and discussions how deft the pundits and other eminently wise persons are at finding support for their varying positions. Just in this thus far short thread for example we see a 3 year old NIE (further bolstered by the number of intelligence agencies involved in its producttion that is eerily reminiscent of the asserted collective assessment of US, UK, French and others about the now derided WMDs In Iraq) cited to support a view suggesting the threat now posed by Iran to Israel, much less to the US and rest of the “west” is exagerrated.
My point is not to argue the relative merits of this and other arguments here and elsewhere but rather to pose the larger one (or more) about just precisely how do these same pundits and wise persons suggest “we” (Israel, US, UK, NATO, UN etc. Etc.) address these siuations? Perhaps it is just me, with my pre-Modernist view of the “nature of man” (individually and collectively) but my review of both recent and more remote history tells me at least that these “confontations” borne of national desires for power etc. Will never end in spite of our ever increasing post-Modern wisdom and sophistication.
If that is (or even may be) so, just what do we say about how these situations should be handled? For example, on Ken’s likely Clausewitzian continuum, just exactly when, much less “how,” are “we” to know when the point is reached where “diplomacy” must be augmented or supplanted by military force and as was starkly shown in Iraq, when and how do we shift back to other than kinetic means?
We seem to continue to stumble around with these situations in much the same ways but, I suppose rather aptly like the tongue in cheek definition of “insanity” always expecting a different (“better”) result than the last that the same pundits and wise persons are still railing against.
You are meandering around in your philosophical musings without really saying anything. What was wrong with the 2007 NIE? Bush did not believe it because God told him it is not true. Do you have similar communications with the almighty?
You talk about “Saddam’s intransigence” just as people talk about “Iran’s defiance” of the “international community.” These are all nonsense. Who is the international community? It is just the US, UK and a few of their pals. The more than 100 members of the non-aligned movement have repeatedly supported Iran’s nuclear program. The fundamental problem is that people sit in Washington, London and other places and pontificate on what Iran should do thousands of miles away. They are planning bombings that will lead to hundreds of thousands of Iranian deaths. Do any of you care? Do any of you have the slightest idea about the wonderful historical sites in Isfahan which is a short distance from Natanz? The US being essentially a baby country has nothing comparable. The ignorance and audacity of people are simply astonishing.
Not until the Iranian nuclear-tipped MRBM are fuelled and on the pad.
I am also of the opinion that the situation could benefit from statements by key Western players that, should Iran ever acquire and use nuclear weapons, those nations that had supplied it to them, or assisted them in any way, will be held directly accountable.
How would they be held to “account” any more effectively than we have tried to hold nations to “account” during the last 20 years or so when they have “acted out” or otherwise ignored the “world community?”
Are you talking about Israel, or Iran?
Take your pick. I was not referring to any one situation but more broadly to the relative impotency of the “world community” to cause a obstreperous nation to behave merely through diplomatic efforts or even “sanctions.”
Fair enough.
This is not quite on the same level as supporting a terror organisation or a similar action. The world had not seen a device applied in anger since the conclusion of the Second World War. So such an event is unprecedented in these times, to an extent that none of the conflicts since the Second World War can offer a basis for comparison.
The old saying that familiarity breeds contempt is perhaps applicable here in that, as the Nuclear Club grows in membership, so too the chances of one of these members being incapable of grasping the gravity and associated responsibility of ownership will increase. It is the job of the existing members to educate them in the same way that they had educated themselves and one another in the Fifties and Sixties.
In doing so, and in the same manner of education, the protocols should reflect that the use of these devices are so unacceptable in these times, that all nations that had been party to a detonation, irrespective of how indirect their contribution may have been, will be held accountable in a way that will fit the contribution.
Quintin,
Would you care to comment on how to prove that other nations have been party to a detonation? And who makes the final decision? Consider the Cheonan; the evidence seems strong that North Korea sank it, but not much seems to be happening at all. I severely doubt that the evidence regarding a nuclear detonation would be that strong or unambiguous.
Hi Ed,
Yes, the Cheonan is a shameful incident on two accounts: in the first place, that this act of war had occurred, and in the second, that the PRC had requested moderation and ROC and its partners conceded to this request without extracting concessions.
But we are not talking about the appropriate response to torpedoed destroyer and a small number of hands lost in the process, tragic as this is. We are talking about a response to an event not seen since Nagasaki – the levelling of a city and the deaths of millions, if not as a result of the initial effect, then for years thereafter as a result of the long term effects.
I am not proposing a formal international body for the purpose of response. The current convention of alliances and treaties should suffice. For most parts, the Nuclear Club members of the West extend the deterrent value of their systems beyond their own territories – in the manner as we have seen during the Cold War. What I am suggesting is that this same nuclear deterrent umbrella should be extended not only to a response guarantee, but also that those that had assisted the aggressor will be held accountable for their contribution.
For that part, Iran’s path to this technological point in time is well documented. We know who supplied them with their P-2 centrifuge technology. We know who supplied them with ballistic missile and guidance technologies. I believe that the West should say to these nations: look, you’ve made your quick buck but now you had better find a way to get the genie back in the bottle, because if the possession of this technology should lead to the destruction of a city or worse, we will remember your assistance in bringing that about when we construct our response – whatever that may be. I envisage that this should be very much along the same lines as the warning JFK gave Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis: that a missile launched from Cuban soil would be responded to as if it was launched from within the Soviet Union.
For me the most interesting thing about the OP was the point it made about how to confirm if the attack was truly “successful”, I guess that an attack could go ahead and planes could hit their targets but as pointed out its going to be a lot harder and take a lot longer to confirm if the whole thing was worth it (and this is ignoring the potential fallout and blowback from such an attack).
I also look forward to the OP’s undoubted follow up post titled “Should Iran strike Israel?”
And while I am not a big fan of the regime in Tehran nor am I a big fan of the regime in Jerusalem, nor Washington for that matter.
In my own humble assessment I can’t see a successful attack making the situation in the region any better for the following questions.
1.) Will any attack actually prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear capability (peaceful or otherwise) or will it just delay the inevitable while raising a lot of bad blood and trouble? I have not seen an estimate yet that gives any clear indication that it could be gotten away with, even the US is holding back on such a shot.
2.) Will any attack have a greater payoff than the probable blowback? All indications from almost all sources acknowledge that neither Iran nor many others in the region will sit still and let such an attack go unanswered. Yet someone seems willing to gamble on making a play out of this course of action.
3.) Who is really going to gain from this? I freely acknowledge that I am not an Israeli or have what my Israeli friend described as “the Israel mindset” (be that for better or worse) and I may not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of sneak attacks and surgical strikes in military history but it seems unlikely that anyone is going to draw down any real benefits from this, Israel, the US or Iran.
The only real possible payoff I can see is if Iranian nuclear program could be truly be beheaded by such strikes and the fallout from such strikes be fully neutralised and no one (at least no one sane or making straight arguments) seems to be saying that it can be done.
At the end of the day I think the Israelis are smarter than some media gives them credit for and all of this sabre rattling is just that, sabre rattling, trying to scare the situation to go their way, I know its popular to paint them as the mad dogs but that’s just it they want to be seen as mad dogs but they are not really mad dogs, they know better than that. Don’t they?
“The only real possible payoff I can see is if Iranian nuclear program could be truly be beheaded by such strikes and the fallout from such strikes be fully neutralised and no one (at least no one sane or making straight arguments) seems to be saying that it can be done.”
Then I think you do not have access to select conventional weapons programs, targeting data, intelligence information, communication intercepts, imagery, as well as strategic and COA discussions. Just because you haven’t read about them doesn’t mean they are not taking place or that the capability does not exist.
Your right I dont have that kind of access to that kind of information (although the sources I read and have access to might) but if you do please expand your point a little as I assume your indicating that such capabilities do exist.
I do note that I am aware of the possible weapons either the US or Israel will use, the planes they are likly to fly and the various approach routes/flight corridors and refuling points that that they may take (such information is available open source and has been widely speculated on).
But if you have some extra stuff it would be interesting to see what else is being considered.
Also the point you raised (valid as it is) doesnt deal with my question regarding the possible fallout being fully neutralised (purely a coincidence that I used such a word for possible strikes on nuclear facilities), even if Israel or the US could get the clean hit can they deal with the possible backlash or probable response from Iran or from anywhere else?
The most urgent question for Israelis now is the return and obedience to God.
Even if they get/create the maximum assurances of living the best of lives by overcoming all their enemies, still their spirit would remain in trouble.
In a few short words, re Iran; “back at ‘ya.”
Utter nonsense. That is the problem with some people. Israel is destroying them and they talk about God! Please, get a life!
Pot…kettle…black.
You better pray since you don’t seem to be able to make up your mind about anything.
Any Koranimal nation that attacks Israel, or poses a threat to Israel will be properly thrashed.
Our Quran tells us about the fate of past and future nations who disbelieve in God’s messages.
Israel is a God’s message disbelieving nation.
If the faithful on earth will be incapable to stop its crimes and be thrashed in any war with it, then God will send hundreds of men who will do the job, which is exactly the reality of prophecy I believe in.
It is good to note that the one who is thrashed is indeed the one who is thrashed deep in eternal hell after failing the Judgement day.
I am a fan of this blog – I find that the discussion is always interesting and often insightful. However this string and a couple of others over the last few weeks raise the question whether, in the interests of maintaining the utility of the KoW blog, it’s time to consider moderating the comments. Perhaps it indicates that KoW is reaching a wider audience, but the signal to noise ratio is starting to slip.
Anthony, I agree with you. To be honest, I haven’t even read most of the comments. Partly that is because any mention of Israel and Iran is bound to produce stupid comments. But the fact that I didn’t proves you right: the noise ratio is starting to slip. — We will consider the options.
And with that I’ll close this thread.
Comments on this entry are closed.