What if the retaliation wasn't just Iranian? What if a whole slew of Israel's regional foes attack? Clearly we'll be obliged to come to the rescue, and *presto!* World War III !

Bill,

Couldn't agree more with your assessment.

I firmly feel that the Israelis will go after the Iranians to take out their nuke capability.

The problem is that they will be portrayed as villains in this matter. This is especially true since no one is raising the question of 'why' the Iranians are building a nuclear site based on the fact that 10% of all the known oil is under their feet.

Don't look for favorable MSM coverage on this one. (Yeah, I know. Tell me something I don't know.)

Etoufee (is that shrimp or crawfish?):

If we are obliged to come to their rescue (which I believe we should, if it comes to that) then we can send our outdated B-52s on a Middle East Farewell Tour and have them fly in formation while carpet-bombing the camel puss out of 'em.

And I couldn't give a monkeys what Trollywood would say about it. It would be the show of force we've been needing to send out for years. Mr. Kim would be talking reunion with South Korea within days.

What if the retaliation wasn't just Iranian? What if a whole slew of Israel's regional foes attack?

If by "foes" you mean major governments, I doubt it. Remember the trump card that drives this situation in the first place - Israel has nukes.

If by foes you mean terrorists ... they are already attacking. I highly doubt that any other state players would rush to get involved in a tangle with Israel. The last few times they tried ... well ...

El Jefe -

That Daily Star article raises some serious doubts about Israel's ability to strike and weather retaliation, so it's not 100%. But in the end, a whole new set of potentially unweatherable problems would arise if the mullahs get the bomb, so I think that Israel would risk moving against their program.

This isn't a simple test of bravado and balls - innocent people will die - perhaps a lot of them - if Iran successfully retaliates with missiles into population centers.

And remember, no matter what we'd like to think, the military power of the US and Israel is finite.

I still believe that Israel would strike and risk war rather than allow Iran to get the bomb.

I don't even think this is really in question. Israel simply can't allow any of the Arab Middle Eastern countries to acquire nuclear capabilities. Even if I believe most of the anti-Israel rhetoric in Muslim countries is just posturing intended for domestic political consumption, like the "axis of evil" speech, there's no way Israel can take that chance in the current atmosphere. Unfortunately, that's really not a sustainable balance at all, and it's a big reason why the conflict with the Palestinians has to be resolved in a mutually satisfactory way. I mean, how long can Israel really maintain its military supremacy, both conventional and non, given its huge population deficit in relation to the rest of the Middle East?

There's another thing to consider, as well: I think a strike is likely to come sooner rather than later, because with U.S. troops in Iraq, their involvement in any regional war would be entirely inevitable. So, from Israel's perspective, if it becomes convinced of Iran's intent and capability to develop nuclear weapons, there is no better time than now to risk a regional conflagration. Given that situation, the threshold of "convincing" is likely to be a lot lower for both the Israeli intelligence services and any civilian power brokers with half a brain. Unless Iran makes some dramatic public gesture that conveys a radical shift in its attitude toward Israel, or makes (or has made) some backroom deal to keep the rhetorical burner on high while not taking any real steps to proceed with nuclearization, I think it's only a matter of time. Maybe shortly after the Gaza pullout, so it can be done at a sort of PR zenith for Israel. Scary situation.

That was good analysis, Walter.

It's going to come down to whether Israel has the intelligence capability to strike, I think. They also have to be prepared to take major civilian casualties in a retaliation. It's a horrible choice.

They also have to be prepared to take major civilian casualties in a retaliation.

And they unfortunately don't have much leeway with regard to civilian casualties, even in the grisly calculus of "acceptable losses". That's why even if I disagree with the way Israel handles its occupation, I have an awful lot of sympathy for its strategic position in the bigger picture of the Middle East. I really hope the combination of Arafat finally being out of the way and the Gaza pullout will provide the impetus for getting meaningful negotiations back on track. I say "hope", but I have to admit I'm not particularly optimistic right now.

And, of course, this isn't going to help, even though I'm sure it was unintentional.

In ancient days I was a civilian contractor working at the F-16 SPO at W-P AFB in Ohio. The F-16 was brand-new system, and had just started being delivered to countries other than the US. The first test of the F-16 in actual combat was the Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor. Officially, the use of the F-16 for this purpose was deplored. Within the SPO, however, the rejoicing was something to behold.

Somehow, those who live with the risks from day to day seem to have a clear preference for reducing the long-term risk wherever possible, even if the short-term cost is high.

I’m less hawkish on the Iran nuke topic than I was on Iraq. I don’t see a major rush to strike as being critical to the US, at least not at this point in time. Assuming they can even build one, they are going to have a very hard time getting a nuke delivered to our soil.

Of course, it’s a different story with Israel, other mid-eastern neighbors, and probably Europe and Russia. I would think those states would be MUCH more willing to form a coalition on this issue, versus Iraq, if they find themselves within deliverable range. I don’t think any country would need to go this one alone. But maybe I am hopelessly optimistic about European thought processes.

Before Iran can officially “join the club”, they have to actually build a bomb and test it. Having the capability to whip one up in a couple weeks time isn’t quite the same as having one in the can ready to blow. Until they put one together and detonate it, this is all speculation based on intelligence, counter intelligence, counter-counter intelligence, etc. US intelligence apparently ain’t what it used to be, and I suspect most other Western agencies are in a similarly weakened state. I’m not sure I would want to risk actually starting WWIV (or are we up to V now?) over marginal intelligence.

And what is Iran going to do in the mean time? Build 3-4 untested bombs, put them on tips of unproven missiles, aim them at Israel, push a button, and pray to Allah that all their calculations were correct? They don’t seem to be that stupid.

On the other hand, if a test blast occurs, then I say its go-time. But I suspect we and Israel would have a lot of allies on board at that point.

1. If a test blast occurs, it's too late.

2. Assuming they can even build one, they are going to have a very hard time getting a nuke delivered to our soil.

They can already essentially hit Europe, and China is selling them the tech that may give them the ability to reach us. Also, a suitcase nuke is easier to deliver than you may think.

3. Yep, you are optimistic about Europe. Certain swaths of Europe know that they aren't the primary focus of Iran's ire and have extensive economic ties to Iran. A fractured Europe won't be an effective diplomat against Iran's nuclear development.

JMO.

Bill,

On point three, you are probably right.

On point one, I disagree completely, but that’s purely opinion.

On point two, I think I have the realities of engineering on my side. Again, at least for the foreseeable future (12-18 months), Iran might be able to construct a serviceable bomb, but I don’t think its possible for them to develop something that could be delivered here in anything less than a boat.

It might work OK as a terrorist weapon, I’ll give you that. But only once. They know what the response to that would be, especially since Bush is back for 4 more years. And there is no way they could stop that response. Surely they can’t be that stupid, right?

Also, the suit case nuke threat has been practically debunked.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

The smallest nukes ever achieved were in the 100-150 lb range. Those were made in the US and the USSR, and the technology involved was significant. Most likely, Iran could build something in the 1,000 lb range. MAYBE 500-600, worst case. They could again, MAYBE get a 500 pounder to Europe in the forseeable future. Thats a very big Allah be willing....

For the record, I am not a nuclear weapons expert. I am an electrical engineer. My area of expertise often brings me together with scientists and engineers who work on nukes. Some of them are actually customers of mine. I have worked on missile subsystems, so I am familiar with those challenges. And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night (sorry, that just seemed to fit).

Any real experts out there, please correct me if I am wrong on this stuff. I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing here. I really want to know.

There is some good info on nuke basics here too, especially section 4:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html

Thanks for caring.

O I L B L O C K A D E

Starting...... NOW!

That's the ticket.

They know what the response to that would be....

Maybe they feel reasonably sure that we wouldn't know who bombed us.

What kind of a punch does Iran pack in (conventional) military terms - and I mean realistically - are they a match for Israel and are they insane/deluded enough to risk a first strike knowing what the response would be?
I must admit I'm puzzled as to why the Iranian nuke facilies aren't smoking craters already.

jmaster -

I'm definitely no expert either, but you have to have pretty strong confidence that

A. Iran can't hire the expertise to build an approx 500 lb. after obtaining the ability to develop fissile material. I think this is merely a matter of time and effort. The Sum of All Fears is an entertaining primer for dumb people that has some basis in reality, as far as I'm aware (being an engineer, you may not be one of the "dumb people" and it may be a stupid look, I'm not sure :-).

B. That terrorists wouldn't be able to sneak a 500 - 1000 lb. bomb across our borders. Porous dude, porous. People bring in 500lbs worth of drugs in by boat all the time:

http://washington.news.designerz.com/us-seizes-nearly-two-tonnes-of-cocaine-in-caribbean.html

How many got through?

Also, commonly 18 wheelers sneak Mexicans and other illegals into the US.

It's also conceivable that a nuke doesn't necessarily have to literally fit in a suitcase to be delivered to a Western country. It could also be delivered in parts in assembled here. Of course they'd have to get personnel in, etc. The machining equipment isn't too hard to get, from what I understand. This would probably be admittedly complex, but I wouldn't be shocked if a foreign intelligence service could pull it off.

As I said, I'm no expert, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about it.

Dom -

What kind of a punch does Iran pack in (conventional) military terms - and I mean realistically - are they a match for Israel and are they insane/deluded enough to risk a first strike knowing what the response would be?

Not much, no. Their retaliation to an Israeli strike would be terror or missiles.

Israel would smoke Iran in a conventional war.

Here's one link: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/exec/mikeexec.htm

Intelligence is everything. Targeted assasinations of key people may be a better way to go. Bombing is a hit and miss affair at best. If the threat is a dispersed as the Iranians say it is you have to know exactly where the sites are. Bunker Busters don't go as deep as you might think. I know we cannot wait around for a peaceful revolution of the masses but any attack would probably cause the Iranian people to solidify around the central government.

If the Israeli’s are to be believed, things are further along than most suspected. Also note the discussion of some potential US war plans in the works.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=940