Article

2005-10-01 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Israel to US: If you don't stop Iran, we will

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Jackal 2005-10-01 10:05|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "unilateral action by Israel was... likely to inflame opinion throughout the Muslim world"
If this was the biggest risk, I'd crush Iran right now. I'm more concerned with retaliation against oil production in the Gulf and U.S. troops in Iraq. That's why any pre-emptive attack by the U.S. must be massive and must obliterate Iran's military capability and government in addition to Iran's nuclear sites. Israel, on the other hand, could attack with less risk to U.S. troops and oil. But we have to let them know that we will back them up afterward.

Posted by Darrell 2005-10-01 11:33|| 2005-10-01 11:33|| Front Page Top

#2 The $64 question is would Israel be able to do this without using nuclear weapons?

One way: only attack critical areas of the nuclear infrastructure, putting the main attack emphasis on destroying the Iranian economy and severely damaging its oilfields and oil infrastructure.

That would mean igniting their oilfields and wiping out their pipelines, refineries, shipping, terminals, and other facilities. The weapon of choice would by sea launched cruise missiles and conventional missiles.

Beyond that, Israel would need significant anti-missile resources, as Iran would retaliate with SHAHAB missiles, some of which they would have to assume would be nuclear. The US would almost certainly have to assist in these shoot-downs, both as insurance that Israel would not use nuclear weapons, and in case the Iranians targeted US forces in Iraq.

By destroying critical areas of Iran's nuclear capability and denying them the resources to buy and build more, they would delay Iran's nuclear weapons program by a decade or more, assuming that they haven't already built some weapons. It would also cause a worldwide oil shortage taking years to fix.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-01 11:45|| 2005-10-01 11:45|| Front Page Top

#3 Wipe out their oil facilities and their clients will be your enemies too. Israel just needs to nuke the nuke facilities and some major mullahs. It's a limited lesson that takes out the immediate threat and verifies that Israel really does have the capability to vaporize threats.

Posted by Darrell 2005-10-01 11:56|| 2005-10-01 11:56|| Front Page Top

#4 Israel "will not live under the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb."

and this threat is a real one. interesting how iran and muslim nations never felt threatened by Israel's nukes, despite the fact that Israel had nukes for decades.

that's because there is a difference between enlightened democracies and tyrannical theocracies.

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2005-10-01 12:54|| 2005-10-01 12:54|| Front Page Top

#5 Darrell: It is worth far more for both Israel and the US if they don't use any nuclear weapons. As far as "making enemies" is concerned, other than the US, Israel is in the same position as Taiwan. In such a situation, appearance is unimportant and you must stick to practicalities. Don't worry about offending those who despise you already.

The practicality for Israel is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If it achieves that goal, not only is Tel Aviv, but US fleets and forces in the region, the Saudi and Iraqi oilfields, and even Europe is threatened.

While Europe will actually dick around even when threatened, the US certainly won't. But the US relies on retaliation, and the Israelis have no intention of letting it go that far. In this position, they now carrot-and-stick the US to help them solve the problem.

The carrot is that the US wants Iran non-nuclear, too, and no longer a threat to the region. The stick is that Israel can threaten to use nuclear weapons--and not just against Iran, but to systematically exterminate vast numbers of people throughout the region. To destroy all of their enemies in one fell swoop. And maybe even to destroy much of Islam in the process. The US would find that alternative abhorrent.

At bare minimum, the Israelis would do all the work against Iran, and just ask the US to provide a missile defense shield for the whole region, against retaliation. After pummeling the Iranian military, mostly its air forces, part of its nuclear infrastructure, and as much of its oil infrastructure as possible, then they ask that the US step in and *end* any futher ballistic exchange.

In a way, both letting the Israelis get away with it, and acting as a safety mechanism to prevent the war from either escalating or even continuing.

Publicly, the Isrealis could ask the US to do this, prevent attacks on Israel, in exchange for vetoing any UNSC actions or resolutions against Israel.

Iran would be left to seeth, facing decades of rebuilding before it could again threaten others.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-01 13:10|| 2005-10-01 13:10|| Front Page Top

#6 The US would find that alternative abhorrent

Reword that to:
The US LEFT would find that alternative abhorrent the rest of the US would be vaguely disturbed at a level below any action threshold.

Posted by 3dc 2005-10-01 13:29|| 2005-10-01 13:29|| Front Page Top

#7 i say let em nuke the fuckers why you think they tryin too build a nuke in the first place

Posted by Uninetle Hupating2229 2005-10-01 13:29|| 2005-10-01 13:29|| Front Page Top

#8 3dc: I don't care HOW macho you are. Fallout over half the planet is NOT manly. I don't care if it's "the other half".

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-01 13:39|| 2005-10-01 13:39|| Front Page Top

#9 "As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms."

Let me get this straight. Israel is a country that has maintained "nuclear ambiguity" for decades. But there is no doubt Israel has nuclear weapons. The UN called on Israel to put its nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards, as the NPT requires. And Israel has yet to sign the NPT. Now theyâre threatening to take out sovereign nations' nuclear facilities unilaterally if Big Daddy US won't. By the way that sovereign nation has signed the NPT. And, to date there still is no "hard evidence" Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
It's exactly this double standard that fosters resentment not only from the Arab world but the International community as well.

Posted by DepotGuy 2005-10-01 14:00|| 2005-10-01 14:00|| Front Page Top

#10 damage to their oil/gas infrastructure is undesirable for all except if they hide the nuke production facilities so close it's ineveitable...I don't see that happening

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-01 14:06|| 2005-10-01 14:06|| Front Page Top

#11 Agreed, this MUST be doe Non-Nuke for success.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2005-10-01 14:11|| 2005-10-01 14:11|| Front Page Top

#12 Why should Israel sign the NPT?

The NPT is a big lie. It expicitly promises that the five nuclear weapon states will disarm.

When Russia or China, or the USA for that matter, signed the NPT, did anyone really expect that they would disarm? What US President could announce that every last nuclear weapon would be gone in say 5 or 10 or 20 years? He would be impeached the next day.

But that is the promise of the NPT.

In exchange for this, and for nuclear power tech, other nations signed as non nuclear weapon states.

They were willing to surrender their security and to rely on others to shield them.

These nations then extended the NPT in perpetuity, even though it was quite clear that the nuke powers had no intention to disarm.

Well, tough luck. There is an international convention on treaties that says that states cannot be forced to join treaties.

Israel doesn't want to. Given its history, why should they rely on a piece of paper to keep their people from oblivion?

Posted by john 2005-10-01 14:19|| 2005-10-01 14:19|| Front Page Top

#13 Perhaps a reasonable ultimatum might be something on the order of:

If a single Israeli city is nuked, so also will Moscow, Peking, Paris and Berlin be nuked.

Posted by DanNY 2005-10-01 14:22|| 2005-10-01 14:22|| Front Page Top

#14 This reminds me of a thread from August 2004.

The key paragraph:

Given these considerations, I would be strongly tempted to remove my enemies once and for all, so that they couldn't strike in my moment of weakness. The way to do that, of course, is to eliminate their armies, their political structures, and critical infrastructure that they could use to rebuild. This would have to be thorough enough to keep those enemies incapacitated for at least 10 years, because it could take that long to recover Israel's reputation and (more critically) economy and supply situation. So, if I were fairly convinced that Israel was in grave danger of attack in the aftermath of taking out Iran's nuclear capability, I would most likely hit at all of the Arab/Muslim world's military facilities and large units, industrial base, critical infrastructure (including any large cities), and so forth. Some of these attacks would be conventional, but most would be nuclear. And as part of that, I would have to strike Pakistan and eliminate their military and nuclear capability as well, because they are the only Muslim state with a declared nuclear capability, and even if they didn't want to strike directly, there's no guarantee that the ISI wouldn't give weapons to terrorists for revenge attacks.

We're moving into some dangerous times here people...

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-10-01 14:23|| 2005-10-01 14:23|| Front Page Top

#15 yeah, why don't we wipe out the whole planet ?

Can someone explain to me why a Nuclear Iran by definition would be an enormous threat to Israels security ? Do you guys think they will immediately try to wipe out Israel ? And what about the detterence of a retaliation ?

Posted by lyot 2005-10-01 14:38|| 2005-10-01 14:38|| Front Page Top

#16 These dangerous times require good precedent set by the US in the present.

If ever a few nukes go off, people won't hesitate to continue using them, because the stigma will be gone, especially for a Muslim.

Posted by Flirt Angeager7348 2005-10-01 14:42|| 2005-10-01 14:42|| Front Page Top

#17 Iyot (sounds appropriate) - because Iran has already threatened to do so upon completion of their first nuke. Bluff? So sad - we took you at your word.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-01 14:43|| 2005-10-01 14:43|| Front Page Top

#18 Can someone explain to me why a Nuclear Iran by definition would be an enormous threat to Israels security ?

1. They have publicly called for Death to Israel in regular military parades under the auspices of the government.

2. They fund, arm and train the most deadly terror network that has killed many Israelis through bombings and suicide attacks.

3. Those groups have as their explicit aim the destruction of the Israeli state.

Need more reasons????

Posted by Omerens Omaigum2983 2005-10-01 14:51|| 2005-10-01 14:51|| Front Page Top

#19 Can someone explain to me why a Nuclear Iran by definition would be an enormous threat to Israels security ? Do you guys think they will immediately try to wipe out Israel ? And what about the detterence of a retaliation ?

Dec. 2001: RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL
One of Iranâs most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
...
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

Also: "If one day, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession -- on that day this method of global arrogance would come to an end. This is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground; whereas, it will only damage the world of Islam." -- Former Iranian President Rafsanjani, December 14, 2001.

And Rafsanjani was the "moderate".

Posted by ed 2005-10-01 15:06|| 2005-10-01 15:06|| Front Page Top

#20 thanks for the swift answers .. I can't help but think it's just a big game of bluf .. I know they are involved in terrorist activities but that's still more or less in a "secretive" way.. Blasting Israel into oblivion is a whole different matter, no matter what Rafsanjani says.. I'm not saying Israel should take the risk, and let Iran acquire nuclair weapons, but I do doubt if taking out the military of Iran & all Arab nations is the right tactic.. I could agree on taking out the nuclear installations, but flat out bombing Iran and it's economy is another matter.

Posted by lyot 2005-10-01 16:25|| 2005-10-01 16:25|| Front Page Top

#21 IMO Israel wouldn't take out the other Arab armies or capitols or.... They would simply say - "hey. It was a matter of self-defense. If you can't accept that, then there's more where that came from"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-01 16:28|| 2005-10-01 16:28|| Front Page Top

#22 I think the scenario laid out by Anonymoose is the most likely: let Israel do the dirty work under our "passive" defense unbrella. There is no way in Hell that Congress would OK any military action against Iran sufficient to do the job, and there's no way in Hell Bush could get enough political support to make such a case. As far as I can see, a pre-emptive US strike is simply out of the question.

Posted by xbalanke 2005-10-01 17:14|| 2005-10-01 17:14|| Front Page Top

#23 Iyot. Bluff? hardly.

They don't necessarily have to send nukes in a missile. smuggling it into Israel would be easy enough. And there would be plausible deniability. How is that different from the terror they also perpetrate?

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2005-10-01 19:02|| 2005-10-01 19:02|| Front Page Top

#24 Iyot, wouldn't it be tempting for Hezbolla to turn up the terror attacks against Israel with big new weapons backing them ? Do you think that a terrorist organization would step down and take a few decades off to enjoy life ? Of course not. They will be imboldened and agressive and provocative. They will force the fight. That's why they are there. Today it's rockets going over the wall, what will tomorrow bring ?

Posted by wxjames 2005-10-01 20:16|| 2005-10-01 20:16|| Front Page Top

#25 This is not an intellectual exercise for Israel. There's no triangulation or equivalency or other quaint diploweenie game possible when you know you're ground zero and those targeting you are implacable relentless Islamonutz bent on your total annihilation.

Israel, despite US help, stands alone in the bullseye. Our sentiments and policies wax and wane - they cannot presume it will be solid when the moment of truth arrives. The MM's may shake their tiny Muzzy fists at us and call us Great Satan, but we'll always be #2 on the list, regardless of their capabilities.

Israel has never threatened anyone who wasn't trying to kill them. That they have nukes is below the radar when not being decried by those who hate them - bravado, bluff, and bluster is for fools and cowards. Where nukes are concerned, it's no game. Even moreso if you live in a very tiny land-space - a factor that hugely matters with nukes and other WMD's. A more responsible nuke power cannot be found. Their restraint has been consistently amazing - since 1948.

That said, I've pointed out several times that you don't have to hit everything the MM's have, just the strategic points in the process to bring it to a stop. The more, the better, of course, but it only takes a couple to set it back.

Lastly, gee, should Israel worry about what people will think of them if they act to avoid annihilation? Lol. That's precisely the situation they've faced for 60 yrs. I figure they, literally, have nothing to lose by surviving the MM's - and I'm certain they do too.

Fuck Iran if they get what they are obviously asking for.

Posted by .com 2005-10-01 20:39|| 2005-10-01 20:39|| Front Page Top

#26 exactly .com. The Israelis aren't about to let Nazi's under different management send them under.
Screw Iran, sounds like the Jews are going to give them what they've long had coming.

Posted by JerseyMike 2005-10-01 21:00|| 2005-10-01 21:00|| Front Page Top

#27 zactly so, PD and JM - Israel will see that the ME is a smoking hole should the MM's try their games. One would think the rest of the ME would be happy at a surgical strike by the Jooooos, but per Arab logic, no way...

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-01 21:27|| 2005-10-01 21:27|| Front Page Top

#28 .com: agreement except for the "strategic points" concept. The level of technology is unknown, the dispersal and redundancy are unknown, and the effectiveness of attack will also be questionable. No way of making accurate damage assessment.

It boils down to "how sure can Israel be, and for how long, that the attack worked?" Strategic points just isn't enough.

So between that as a minimum and nuclear annihilation as the maximum, is why I speculate that Israel will shoot for "strategic points" plus the reduction of their oil business. Perhaps also attacking some infrastructure targets that *have* to be repaired at great cost, to burn up their currency reserves.

The idea is that they will be denied the tools they need to re-start their programme for many years. Their "strategic points" will be hard enough to replace, not being able to get the technologies externally any more. But their electrical grid may be damaged, delaying both their nuclear efforts and repairing of their oil infrastructure.

Oil terminals, shipping, burning oilfields, all are terribly hard, time consuming and expensive to rebuild. But they must have that hard currency.

At the same time, they may become terribly belligerent, making enemies around the world in their efforts to attack Israel and the US. They are injudicious in this way (remember the shooting of the British policewoman from their embassy in London). As such, it would be much easier to create a UNSC embargo, until they agreed to play nice.

Of course, once a successful attack had taken place, they would be much less able to mount an aggressive conventional war. The US would be more than happy to smite them if they stray outside of their own country.

A big question is how much and how fast can Israel pull this off? It really has to be a blitzkrieg attack, with aircraft, ballistic conventional missiles and conventional SLCMs all at the same time, plus coordinated ground attacks from all the forces that have been sneaked into the country.

If the CIA is in on it, we will give the signal for the Kurds, Arabs, and Balauchs to rise up with everything they've got, along with any saboteurs and spies we have planted in Tehran. Maximum chaos in minimum time.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-01 22:36|| 2005-10-01 22:36|| Front Page Top

#29 If the CIA is in on it, we will give the signal for the Kurds, Arabs, and Balauchs to rise up with everything they've got, along with any saboteurs and spies we have planted in Tehran. Maximum chaos in minimum time.

the new CIA maybe, the old.... I sure hope you're right, moose

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-01 22:55|| 2005-10-01 22:55|| Front Page Top

#30 Big talk, but not possible without the cooperation of the US. Look at the map. Israel can't get at Iran without flying through either Iraqi or Turkish airspace. And even with F15Is will have to tank going and coming. No way to do that over US controlled airspace without prior coordination and approval. All in all, this is hot air intended for public consumption.

Posted by RWV 2005-10-01 23:01|| 2005-10-01 23:01|| Front Page Top

23:14 Oldun
23:01 RWV
22:59 Frank G
22:55 Frank G
22:51 Classical_Liberal
22:36 Anonymoose
22:30 Biff Wellington
22:27 Frank G
22:25 Frank G
22:18 .com
22:16 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:16 Robert Crawford
22:08 Robert Crawford
22:03 Silentbrick
21:57 Alaska Paul
21:52 ed
21:48 Al Aska Paul
21:45 ed
21:45 Ptah
21:42 Flinelet Sherong3513
21:40 Flinelet Sherong3513
21:40 Flinelet Sherong3513
21:39 Frank G
21:38 Flinelet Sherong3513