Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

Do I need to link to Mordechai Vanunu again? Dude was in prison for decades for revealing the Israeli plan to get the bomb in the British press.

The fact of the matter is that the Israelis have done the following:

Assassination of physicists
Hacking into Iranian computers
Threatening to invade Iran now
Obligatory invocation of Godwin's law; I'm starting to think the Israelis are taught that Arabs killed 6 million Jews in the early 40s.

Every last one of these, except for the last, is an international crime.

[image=http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/000/151/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg]

Is this like how in the 1950s, Jewish leaders here in the States referred to miscegenation as the "silent Holocaust" (and Godwin again)? Also, the Arabs are calling for a two-state solution. The Israelis' solution is "Palestinians don't exist". Kinda like how Bush said there were no Indians in Texas.

 

Jon Stewart has a funny take on the current battle of words and saber rattling that is going on.

ThinkProgress has an article about former MOSSAD director Efraim Halevy accusing Mitt Romney of making the situation worse. That article itself links to this full interview with Halevy in The Huffington Post, so if you want the longer version, read the HuffPost piece.

 

44, don't you think a targeted strike by the IDF could result in a shower of rockets raining down on Tel Aviv? For starters. Of course Hamas will join in. Then maybe war with Egypt? Syria could certainly use a good war. And don't you think one targeted strike might not actually be enough? You'd risk war on all sides of Israel, with Iran still on course for the bomb. And you think that's the best option?

No, not really. Neither Egypt nor Syria would get involved over Iran. I'd say neither country would want to, but even if they did, neither is in the position to. Iran would undoubtedly provide Hamas with third party support, but Hamas has no capability to undertake a shower of rockets. At best. it'd be the sporadic attacks that Hamas does anyway, of which the IDF counter-battery technology would respond to. Iran itself is even in a difficult place, because the best course of action for it would be to bring an Israel attack to the UN, but any serious UN action would be vetoed. If Iran actually attacked Israel in kind, it would loose all moral standing, and the West would certainly side with Israel, to which Iran would have a serious problem. Even if the US administration did nothing else but launch 180 cruise missiles into Iran like it did in Libya under the auspices of a UN strike, Iran would be blown back to the dark ages.

The best course of action would be to have the IDF engage in a secret strike against selected targets within Iran. Of course, everyone would assume Israel did it, but unless Netanyahu stood up and gave a press conference announcing that the IDF did so to protect its interests, they're wouldn't be a response. When the IDF bombed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, the strongest response the UN did was issue a couple of resolutions which basically said the UN wished that Israel had not done that, but other than that, that was the extent. In fact, way after it occurred, President Bill Clinton issued a statement which plainly outlined that he thought Israel did the right thing in attacking the plant. There would be no reason for a US President to issue a statement decades after something had occurred except to show US support for Israel. Hillary Clinton is supposed to be an even bigger supporter of Israel than Bill was, and she's the current SecState, so there would be an excellent chance that the US would offer Israel clandestine support.

 

Hamas has already publically declared itself neutral in any Israel-Iran conflict.

 

That's the smartest thing Hamas has done in a really long time...Assuming they would hold to it.

 

I'm not sure all elements in Hamas would. I'm not sure Hezbollah would. I'm not sure of anything as soon as it becomea a prolonged conflict. And I'm not sure it doesn't become a prolonged conflict the moment the first shot is fired. Also, I'm not sure the rocket rain (from Iran, not Gaza, mind) is imaginary, as it's a very real Israeli fear.

I'm pretty sure Iran would be in their right if they retaliated, but if they do, they're probably going to overreact and will try to slaughter civilians. I don't see them attacking military installations only. They will lose their moral and judicial rights, but then Israel will probably react in kind and we'll just have an ugly, nasty war. Still not guaranteeing a nuke-free Iran.

The best option?

 

Keep in mind that Israel has missile defense systems that are technologically advanced second only to the US, and Israel's are more tailored to their specific needs.

The Israeli "Iron Dome" shield is a more short-ranged, pinpointed system, which has already intercepted rockets fired from Gaza. To a degree, it's what has allowed the IDF to dial back on their previous tactic of detecting a rocket launch, and then shelling the area as a response. (which brings with it collateral damage) The Iron Dome has been pretty successful at neutralizing sporadic, unguided rockets.

The Arrow system (it has a couple of different upgrades, Arrow1, 2, 3, and so on..) is a longer range defense which targets harder to hit guided missiles. The Arrow has a more difficult task, but the latest version is also dialed in to intercept Iran's Shehab (Meteor in Persian) and Sejjil (Persian for "baked clay" which represents the missiles solid propellant) missiles. There's no doubt that the Arrow system was designed specifically for Iran. Realistically, some Iranian missiles would get through, depending on how many they could actually launch at once. But again, if Iran targeted population centers, then Iran would turn everyone against them, not the other way around. Other than that, Iran has no capability to project power to Israel, while the IDF is extremely capable in long range strikes.

 

The first part of Jon Stewart's interview from yesterday with the head of the National Iranian American Council, Trita Parsi, about diplomatic efforts and lack thereof with Iran in the decade behind us.

 

Considering how ineffective the rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah are, is it really worth it to develop and deploy an expensive missile-intercept system (probably paid for by America?) as opposed to building a lot more bomb shelters?

 

Absolutely. The price of the Iron Dome system has paid of more in public relations than anything. Previously, the IDF would utilize directional ranging and counter-battery fire to neutralize the rocket launchers, which always had the side effect of destroying the neighborhoods around the targets, causing civilian casualties. There is also a psychological effect to the Israeli citizens to "simply build more bomb shelters," and allow their homes to be destroyed and rebuilt, and so on...

With the missile defense system, the actual rockets can be destroyed before they cause any damage to either side. Of course, no defense system is completely effective, but even if a majority of rockets are rendered ineffective in the air, it boosts morale in Israel, and diminishes the rationale to even use the rockets in the first place. I'm sure the IDF will still use counter-battery fire in conjunction with the defense system if a rocket attack is particularly "robust," but it means that the IDF can rely on more passive methods and use the more violent methods with less frequency.

 

(CNN) -- Is it possible that a terrorist organization that has killed Americans and tortures its own members could organize a massive lobbying campaign to manipulate U.S. national security decisions?

It's happening before our very eyes.



One of the commenters beneath the article summed up my position on the matter quite succinctly:

 

Perhaps, but missile defense is still hitting a bullet with a bullet. It's easier theoretically (It's the whole point of Missile Command, which, by the way, was made as a political statement: It's unwinnable because...nuclear war is.) than in reality.

That said, Israelis also have MAD, but really, the entire world can rest assured that if they're attacked with a nuke, the whole world will be set ablaze.

 

Well, I'm back! I hardly ever post anymore, except when I have some new opinion piece or video debate on Iran to share. Maybe I should just change my name to Iran...

Today, I have two links to share. The first is a 30 minute long debate on Al Jazeera English's debate program called The Stream. It's about how sanctions are currently affecting the lives of ordinary Iranians, and whether or not economic sanctions are an effective foreign policy tool at all. There are some great points raised about the track record of sanctions and the amount of success sanctions policies have had historically in persuading regimes to change behavior. Link here.

The second link is an amusing article in The Daily Beast, by the same Trita Parsi that is in the video above, entitled Israel and Iran's Contest in Incompetence. The first paragraph reads:

 

I just find it ridiculous. We should remove sanctions. Make the average Iranian's life happier and it'd probably end up reducing everyone's unhappiness and desire to attack other countries. Economic entanglement is a great way to prevent war.

 

Who is Bibi preempting - Obama or Iran?

 

How would something like that even hurt Obama?

And how could Israel even get to Iran, anyways? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Turkey have all said they wouldn't all their airspace to be used. Nevermind the fact that the bombing wouldn't work since the sites are so spread out and deep underground in the mountains

 

Syria and northern Iraq are basically one big direct path from Israel to Iran by air now. Not to mention that the IAF has the institutional know-how for a mission this long.-it'd be an extended variant of the strike on the Iraqi reactors in 1983 or so.

And we don't really know what any hypothetical Iranian weapons site is actually like.

 

There aren't any weapon sites, but we know the locations of the nuclear energy research sites spread out through the country and deep underground.

And I'm saying that Iraq would refuse their airspace to Israel. Of course Syria would too. They'd tell Israeli warplans to turn around, and escort them back. With Syria, maybe even open fire.

 

Israel has tangled with both those country's air forces before. And shot them down, in droves as a general rule. Any IAF strike package on its way to Iran would not be getting turned back by either the Syrians or the Iraqis; I don't doubt they'd be flying under orders to avoid confrontation if possible, but fully able to defend themselves under a very loose ROE.

There is no Arabic air force capable of fighting the IAF and winning, IMO. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's a reality of the region.

 

But does Israel really want to go to war with 3 countries at once, and really hurt relations with dozens more?

If Israel strikes Iran, they're fighting back. Do we really want a US/Israel vs Muslim World war?

If we want to weaken Iran, just concentrate on toppling its closest ally in Syria. That war would actually be just, and it would be a lot quicker and less bloody than a war against Iran.

Though I still think the only way Iran will ever embrace the international community is if we stop hurting it and stop cutting them off from the international community. We should never expect them to give up nuclear power.

 

Israel has always done what it considers necessary, regardless of the international response or potential danger. Iraq is not a military threat right now. Syria is enmeshed in an unending civil war.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not for an Israeli strike on Iran, because I'm not a moron. I do however think Israel is more than prepared to go it alone simply because they always have been.

 

I just don't think Israel is really prepared for the consequences. When they've struck other countries before for nuclear weapons, those countries didn't fight back. Iran and its allies will. Hezbollah will probably start the missile attacks from Lebanon again. Syria has threatened to use chemical weapons against Israel if their regime goes down. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey probably won't get involved... but they'll be no help to Israel. I'm not sure what Russia and China's response would be, and even India is growing dependent on Iranian oil.

 

I'm unfortunately sure Israel has assessed those possibilities. Hezbollah rocket attacks are a joke. All they create is Lebanese civilian casualties in the face of the inevitable Israeli counterattack. Syria can try chems. I can guess what the Israeli response would be:




I don't think you're really crediting Israel as the regional hegemon it is. It has overwhelming military capacity against any other country in the region, save perhaps Turkey. And it's extremely unrestrained in the use of that force, even more so than now, given the combination of its own nuclear arsenal and the current domestic mess most of its potential rivals are in. And that is bad.

 

Israel might have overwhelming military capacity against Egypt, Syria or Jordan, but power projection decreases dramatically over distance, and Iran is very far away.When Israel bombed Iraq's Osirik reactor, their planes were already flying at the very edge of their range limit. Not only is Iran farther away, but they have multiple nuclear sites, defended by an air defense network that's on high alert (unlike the Iraqis who were sleeping on the job), and also the Iranians are willing to rebuild their nuke sites even if bombed, compared to Saddam who just gave up on nukes after the Osirik raid. The risks would be huge for such a paltry gain. Also, an Israeli raid would give Iran the excuse it needs (and probably wants) to weaponize their uranium. Politically, Netanyahu's panic-mongering would also make Israel appear to the world as the aggressor. There's just no way this could be a good idea.

 

Just to horn in, this is a pretty good analysis of what would be involved with strikes on the Iranian nuclear program:
http://csis.org/files/publication/120906_Iran_US_Preventive_Strikes.pdf

Short form - the Israelis can't go it alone. It's a matter of getting bombs on targets, and big enough bombs to actually damage said targets. Most estimates have the IAF at best knocking back the Iranian nuclear program 1-2 years. An all-out US strike might knock it back a decade. That's if everything goes as planned and the Iranians don't have more hidden research sites or the big 30,000-pound bombs on the B-2s can actually crack all the underground facilities. Then you have the potential follow-on effects such as Hamas/Hezbollah counterattacks on Israel, Iran's ballistic missile force, and potential attempts to close down the Strait of Hormuz as a "**** you" to the oil markets and the rest of the world. That's a lot of bases to cover.