***
Meanwhile, in the Middle East....
What is ... likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft....
In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.
Posts
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219"So my Iranian policy (if I were president) -- recognize that Iran could build a nuclear weapon if they want to and that while we will do everything to prevent it, we probably cannot. But explain, in public, that if Iran or one of its terrorist proxies uses a nuclear weapon we will retaliate, and disproportionately at that. "So Iran, you or one of your terrorist groups uses a nuclear weapon, your country ceases to exist 30 minutes later."
But why in the world would they believe such a threat, if the US refused to attack them TODAY with non-nuclear bombs.
One of the better reasons for a massive anti-nuclear bombing of Iran is precisely to restore some credibility.
New York: . They dream that Israel would disappear somehow.
I think what they dream is that Israel would quit trying to get the US to bomb Iran for it.
Marshal: Not only will Iran not respond in this manner the idea that we can't win such a war is ludicrous.
We will win the war all right. But the cost will be a thirties-style depression in the United States that will last 20 years.
>But why in the world would they believe such a threat, if the US refused to attack them TODAY with non-nuclear bombs.
For the same reason the bolsheviks thought we would attack them even though we did not attack them previously with non-nuclear bombs.
I do not think there is the will to fight Iran right now. If the Iranians set off a nuke in some western city, there will be. In any event, I see attacking Iran as counterproductive. Given the connection that Iran has with terrorist groups, I think it would unleash a wave of terrorism across the west without stopping Iran's march toward nuclear status.
Anthony: I do not think there is the will to fight Iran right now.
Yes, and the reason there is no will to fight Iran right now is that there is no reason to fight Iran right now. Even people who want us to bomb Iran admit that Iran is not a threat to us.
Former law student wrote:
Lebanon didn't want Fatah there either, yet it was the Lebanese who suffered for things they weren't powerful enough to prevent.
I guess you weren't one of the commenters here who criticized Obama for wanting to attack al-Qaeda wherever it was found, even if it was inside Pakistan.
Except, in the case of Pakistan we were getting support, though people were trying to work behind the scenes to get even more support to go into the tribal areas. In the case of Lebanon there were essentially two states within a state, one of which was at war with Israel. In the case of Pakistan, MusSharef and the govt, recognizing the precariousness of the situation didn't want to turn it into a new Lebanon type situation, considering Pakistan had been cooperative. Also, the other part of Obama's foolishness was that he announced he would simply go into Pakistan in a debate, which might ruffle some feathers in Pakistan considering we were trying to get them to do more without resorting to bombing them. But if we needed to, as I'm sure happened, we'd continue to target areas and target sites in Pakistan behind the scenes, without making it official policy that we would violate Pakistan's wishes.
And it's similarly true, that when Israel went into Lebanon, that the vast majority of the left criticized Israel for it. So, that charge of hypocrisy is a two way street.
Eric:
"There's no way Iran comes out ahead in a war with the US. The Iraqi military was stronger in 1991 than the Iranian military is today relative to US power, and recent years have seen the development of some technologies that would make it easier for us and more costly for them. You can wreck half a country with a single heavy bomber full of SDBs.
You talk about the "trouble" we had in Iraq and Afghanistan, but think about it for a minute - we conquered a country of twenty million people in two weeks and then pacified it in five years losing 4500 US military. By any reasonable historical standard that's not a lot of trouble.
Now, if you define "winning" for Iran as "surviving" when a ground invasion is off the table, then sure, we lose. You don't need war games to realize that - it's the closest thing you'll find to accepted fact in military planning. Air power alone isn't enough - you need a 19 year old with a rifle standing where you want to enforce your will as a nation."
I didn't say Iran would come out ahead.
It took ethnic cleansing and literally truck loads of bribe money to pacify Iraq, and who knows if it will stick when we leave?
Why would I define "winning" for Iran as "surviving"? The ground-invasion point I'm making is that we don't have enough troops, and the troops we have would be shredded.
Gene said...
"I don't see Obama stopping this headlong rush to war. If he couldn't stop Netanyahu from building apartments in East Jerusalem, he certainly can't keep Netanyahu from bombing Iran."
But he tried to stop the building in the West Bank. What if he really meant it? What if during Netanyahu's last self-satisfied, smug visit to D.C. Obama quietly said to him, 'If you fly over Iraq on your way to bomb Iran, you will be shot down.' From what I understand, the Pentagon is against the Israeli attack, presumably because it would put our forces in harm's way. So if the Pentagon has Obama's back, maybe he will have the stones to resist being drawn in. A pipe-dream, I imagine. But after all of his butt-kissing in Cairo and Riyad, maybe he really is a pacifist at heart, and not the Neocon's dream-come-true. I am not an Obama fan, I voted for McCain, but jeeze, if he'd just step up to the plate and say no.
exhelodrvr1:
"Those of you discussing Iran's options about closing the gulf need to consider the impact that would have on Iran's economy - it would affect them more than the rest of the world, and the resulting problems would cause their government to crash. So them doing that is highly unlikely. Much more likely would be terrorist attacks worldwide."
Also, Iran doesn't have refinery capabilities to produce their own gasoline.
bagoh20 said...
"What's next, is someone gonna suggest that Iran will delivery the mother of all defeats to the U.S. And install Amanindinnerjacket as mayor of Pismo Beach?
An incredible level of strategeristicle misunderstanding displayed here, but hey, we read it on the internet..."
Please enlighten us.
Marshal said...
If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will attack any US ship within range, including any aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.
"The worst analysis I've ever read. Not only will Iran not respond in this manner the idea that we can't win such a war is ludicrous. Such a reaction would be the absolute worst step Iran could take.
Iran will respond by appealing to its allies, the western left and the authoritarian world to condemn Israel first and the US for allowing Israel to attack second. It will authorize its surrogates to increase terror attacks against Israel and the US, especially within Iraq. And they will use the attack as a recruiting tool to sponsor new actions, in the US and Europe if they can. And they will try to organize an oil embargo of the US and Israel."
I think you might be right.
Jason said...
"I don't like the way this wargames, either.
Iran sits astride U.S. lines of communication with our Army in Iraq. It's a smaller Army than it used to be, but we still need to supply it through Kuwait.
Eventually, Iran loses. But it's very ugly."
And we bribe the local population for safe supply passage in Afg/Pak, too.
New York said...
"You mean how Israel invaded an independent nation called "Palestine" in 1967?"
I think there's more to the whole story than just the Israeli side.
former law student wrote:
Lebanon didn't want Fatah there either, yet it was the Lebanese who suffered for things they weren't powerful enough to prevent.
I guess you weren't one of the commenters here who criticized Obama for wanting to attack al-Qaeda wherever it was found, even if it was inside Pakistan.
So are you saying that those who support Obama's unprovoked excursion by voting for him after saying he would attack Pakistan unprovoke are hypocrites for holding Israel to account for attacking Fatah in Lebanon? Because that does appear to be the default american liberal position on Israel. Or are those critical of Mcain's Bomb bomb bomb Iran, obviously made as a joke hypocrites for holding him to account for a joke, but not holding Obama to account for threatenining to target attack an ostensible ally in the war on terror?
Also, since the libs are now on board for targeted bombings in countries that haven't attacked can we do away with lib talking points 51-75. They didn't attack us, it doens't pass the international test, it will only cause more terrorism, it's not a proportional response, it's a diversion from the real war on terror, since you dn't even know that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, where are our allies on this, should't we consult the UN,are we using phosphorous, and of course we have to stop air raiding villages and klling civilians?
And it was a stupid move on Obama's part because you don't telegraph that you are going to target Pakistan if they don't accede to our wishes in the middle of a debate (and shouldn't he have offered to speak to the tribesman in the outskrts of Pakistan before threatening to bomb them? I thought he was all about the unconditional talks). You tell them behind the scenes and play hardball behind the scenes, but also try to get cooperation so that you dn't have a three front war and maintain your allies and not alienate them. If Bush were able to locate OBL in Pakistan don't doubt that he wouldn't have taken him out with or without Pakistan's consent. BUt he wouldn't telegraph his move ahead of time so as to remove any ostensible support we might get from Pakistan to assist us as opposed to turn against us. As, I'm not sure if you were aware, but Pakistan was helping in Afghanistan. Is that what Obama meant by his smart diplomacy?
Deborah, here is one argument I don't understand by people who want us (or Israel) to attack Iran. Their justification for attacking Iran is that it is a wild, reckless, irrational state which, if it had nuclear weapons, would threaten the stability of the region, give the bomb to terrorists, attack Israel or threaten US forces in the area.
At the same time, some of these day people say there is no big danger of a wider war if Israel launches an attach on Iran because Iran is way too savvy to risk total annihilation by shooting missiles at US ships.
The argument seems to be we need to attack Iran because she's too reckless to be trusted with the bomb. Well if Iran is so reckless, why is it assumed by some that, after an attack on her nuclear facilities, Iran would never be so recklessly suicidal as to do anything that might lead to her destruction, such as sinking a US Navy aircraft carrier?
It was suicidal of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in WWII, but they went ahead and did it anyway. In the aftermath of an Israeli attack on her nuclear facilities, Iran would find it hard not to attack American ships in the Persian Gulf.
Gene says "We will win the war all right. But the cost will be a thirties-style depression in the United States that will last 20 years."
More silliness. An open war after and Iranian attack on our military assets would likely be the cheapest outcome. With a moderate sized professional class ready to manage a non-Islamist government it might lead to our shortest involvement as well.
No, our worst case outome is a proxy war.
And someone upthread said just because something is stupid doesn't mean it won't be done. Obviously that's true. But we're not dealing with unknowns in this case. Iran has been waging a proxy war against us and Israel for 30 years. It's clearly their preference.
To claim they will move to direct war you have to believe they will change thei current tactics. No analysis I know of provides any reason to suspect this. The evidence points to their understanding that only after achieving a nuke can they take this risk.
Gene, yes it is a huge contradiction, but that's what makes it fascinating; all this speculation is equivalent to a football pre-game show. I wonder if actual bets are placed in Vegas, and such. I think exhelodrvr1 and Marshal have it about right. They won't close the straits because they need the money for oil, and won't overtly attack us, but will up the aid to Iraqi and Afghanistani insurgents so there will be a pointed uptick in road-side bombs and downed planes.
As far as Pearl Harbor, if I have my history correct, they bombed us because we were embargoing them from importing oil, which put a crimp in their plans for imperial expansion.
Marshall: An open war after and Iranian attack on our military assets would likely be the cheapest outcome. With a moderate sized professional class ready to manage a non-Islamist government it might lead to our shortest involvement as well.
It sounds as if you are hoping we do attack Iran. Given that Iran is no threat to us (or wouldn't be if we didn't have aircraft carriers on her borders), I don't know why you think we should go to war now, or at all.
Deboral: I think exhelodrvr1 and Marshal have it about right. They won't close the straits because they need the money for oil, and won't overtly attack us, but will up the aid to Iraqi and Afghanistani insurgents so there will be a pointed uptick in road-side bombs and downed planes.
Well, as you point out, this is indeed what makes a horse race. My point of view is that Israel will attack Iran, probably before Christmas (or before the US elections in November). Neanyahu gets what he wants (a delay in Iran's getting the bomb) and Obama gets to look like a decisive commander in chief (with all the upwelling in public support the US president always gets when US forces are attacked).
Obama and Netanyahu must have come an agreement on something the last time he came to Washington. Otherwise they wouldn't have been draping their arms around one another in the photo ops.
The Atlantic article is to prepare us for an Israeli attack (and to deflect criticism that Israel went off half-cocked without asking our "permission"). Now they can say, "heck, it was an open secret that Israel would attack on its own without checking with the US first. There was even a widely discussed article about it in the Atlantic."
Gene says "It sounds as if you are hoping we do attack Iran. "
It doesn't sound at all like I want to attack Iran. Perhaps you're unaware but many people understand there are differences between what we want to happen and what will in fact occur. But I suppose when one's only purpose is to create fear of alternatives to drive support to your preferences truth and accuracy are the first casualties.
The question isn't what whether I want to go to war, but if Israel attacks Iran what will Iran do.
Marshall: Perhaps you're unaware but many people understand there are differences between what we want to happen and what will in fact occur.
You know, I'm sure, that when it comes to the mid-east many people have hidden agendas. The important thing is to make sure these agendas don't end up involving the US in an expensive and unnecessary war. My goal is to protect the US.
We shall see, Gene. ;)
It sounds as if you are hoping we do attack Iran. Given that Iran is no threat to us (or wouldn't be if we didn't have aircraft carriers on her borders), I don't know why you think we should go to war now, or at all.
How incredibily short-sighted. A psychotic cult with nuclear weapons will not be a threat to America? By the time you realize your mistake, it will be too late to correct it.
The important thing is to make sure these agendas don't end up involving the US in an expensive and unnecessary war.
Hitler could have been stopped in March of 1936. But we followed advice like yours, and look what it got us.
Fen: How incredibily short-sighted. A psychotic cult with nuclear weapons will not be a threat to America?
You're seeing ghosts under the bed.
Frankly, I'm a lot more afraid of young female drivers with cellphones in their ears than anything Iran might do in the next ten years.
Post a Comment