NationStates Jolt Archive

ISRAEL: The Coming Air Raid on Iran (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=ISRAEL.HTM)
(This is from Jim Dunnigans Strategypage.com, usually a very reliable analyst.)

May 10, 2004: Israel is apparently preparing to conduct a long range bombing mission to destroy Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities.

They did it to Iraq at Osiraq in 1981. Looks like round 2 is coming...

Sure, why not bomb the facility. It is a safe action since the U.S. and George Bush will get the blame and Israel will have removed a potential threat. Make perfect sense... from an Israeli point of view.

How're they going to get there. Somehow I doubt that the US is going to let them use Iraqi airspace. If they do they're idiots. In any case, Iran's nuclear facilities are a lot more spread out unlike Osirak which was one big target.

I hope the US takes a stand on this- do those idiots in Israel really want even more chaos in the Mid-East than there already is?

How're they going to get there. Somehow I doubt that the US is going to let them use Iraqi airspace. If they do they're idiots. In any case, Iran's nuclear facilities are a lot more spread out unlike Osirak which was one big target.

I hope the US takes a stand on this- do those idiots in Israel really want even more chaos in the Mid-East than there already is?

Read the article.

Who's going to destroy Israel's nuclear weapons? They are not any more responsible to have them then any other country in that region.

Who's going to destroy Israel's nuclear weapons? They are not any more responsible to have them then any other country in that region.

For that matter, what about American nukes?

I think all these efforts to contain the technology are, generally, pointless. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's a matter of time only that Iran and anyone else will have nukes.

Good point. Except for US pressure to do the right thing, not much. BUT, the does have some significant influance (Israel gets around $3 billion in US military aid.) (http://www.cdi.org/iraq/aid-pr.cfm)
Not enough though.

Oh, and for those who may blaim the US for Israels nuclear arsenal, lets see, who did Israel get their tech from? The UK? The US? Oh yes, thats righ! It was France, and to a lesser extent, South Africa. Surprised?
(And especially note that, while the US initially accepted it outwardly, there has been pressure...)

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/593/5545.php
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/Isrhist.html

(Just a knee jerk to what I am sure will be the anti-US crowd trying to blaim the US. I know you wouldn*t do that Steph, right?)

I hope the US takes a stand on this- do those idiots in Israel really want even more chaos in the Mid-East than there already is?

Careful what you say. :(

I hope the US takes a stand on this- do those idiots in Israel really want even more chaos in the Mid-East than there already is?

Careful what you say. :(

I hope the US takes a stand on this- do those idiots in Israel really want even more chaos in the Mid-East than there already is?

Careful what you say. :(

For that matter, what about American nukes?

I think all these efforts to contain the technology are, generally, pointless. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's a matter of time only that Iran and anyone else will have nukes.

And just a matter of time before someone actually uses one for the first time as a weapon since Nagasaki.

Wishful thinking.

I will say two words on this: oil embargo.

Israel got away with it in 1981, but frankly, Saddam Hussein was not the most popular ruler in the Middle East at the time, and the other rulers had much less in the way of a public discontent problem to deal with.

Today, with the perceived American expansionism under the War on Terror banner and the ongoing mess in Iraq, the Arab world would be well and truly incensed. The House of Saud in particular would fall to an Islamist revolution in a flash, I bet, thanks to its various internal instabilities. Unless they all got together and appeased the masses by placing an oil embargo on the US, UK and Israel. Back in 1973, the US produced most of the oil it consumed. Today, with over 60% of its oil imported, even with the 600m barrels in the SPR, its economy and that of much of the world, would be crushed flat.

Something which the US should be bearing in mind when it advises its ally on such matters. It remains to be seen how far Israel would be willing to go against US national interests, and how tolerant the US would be to such a suggestion.

If we all end up nuking each other it will probably be the best thing we did for this universe

The ironic thing about it would be that if the strike was to be carried out, everyone would scream bloody murder and accuse Israel of all possible crimes- and secretly sigh in relief just like they did when Iraqi reactor was smashed. Let's face it: remove the usual hypocricy of the public statements- and you will see that no one wants Iran to have nukes. Its not even like India or Pakistan having nukes- the psychotic Iranian regime declared many times that if they had nukes, they would use them.

Tactical Grace- as for oil embargo, it is laughable. Where was the oil embargo when the US invaded Iraq? The dirty little secret of the Saudis and other Arab oil exporters is that they do not control the oil like they once did- the oil controls them. They cannot stop selling, or their economies will crumble.

Tactical Grace- as for oil embargo, it is laughable. Where was the oil embargo when the US invaded Iraq? The dirty little secret of the Saudis and other Arab oil exporters is that they do not control the oil like they once did- the oil controls them. They cannot stop selling, or their economies will crumble.
Same reason they didn't do sh*t when the Israelis bombed them in 1981, and the reason they actively helped out in the earlier invasion of 1991 and the 1998 bombings. The rest of the Arab world disliked and mistrusted Iraq, it's like having a nutcase for a neighbour. The only reason it enjoyed respect among the general populations of those countries is because it stood up to America and Israel, whom they consider to be far greater enemies, with which as you say they have no choice but to do business.

Iran is totally different. In the region, it is seen as a relatively respectable country, which came out of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war without degenerating into a bankrupt and suicidal totalitarian state, which has done far better than most at diversifying and strengthening its economy, and maintaining political independence from the West. If the US and UK stand aside and allow Israel to fly over and bomb Iran, it is not going to play well. It is going to be the usual suspects clobbering not the neighbourhood psycho, but one of its few genuine success stories.

The oil is not going to matter if the (inevitable) popular outrage targets the ruling elite for overthrow and revolutionary justice. Which in Saudi Arabia is a near-certainty, were something like this to happen. The assumption that the rulers would bow to the inevitable and maintain existing trade relations with the West relies entirely upon those rulers being in power. Which, unless they immediately act against the West in the one way they can, will not be the case for quite a few of them.

Whether it is a 1973 style embargo, or a 1979 style supply collapse because of civil unrest, consequences would be inevitable and severe.

Tactical Grace- as for oil embargo, it is laughable. Where was the oil embargo when the US invaded Iraq? The dirty little secret of the Saudis and other Arab oil exporters is that they do not control the oil like they once did- the oil controls them. They cannot stop selling, or their economies will crumble.
Same reason they didn't do sh*t when the Israelis bombed them in 1981, and the reason they actively helped out in the earlier invasion of 1991 and the 1998 bombings. The rest of the Arab world disliked and mistrusted Iraq, it's like having a nutcase for a neighbour. The only reason it enjoyed respect among the general populations of those countries is because it stood up to America and Israel, whom they consider to be far greater enemies, with which as you say they have no choice but to do business.

Iran is totally different. In the region, it is seen as a relatively respectable country, which came out of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war without degenerating into a bankrupt and suicidal totalitarian state, which has done far better than most at diversifying and strengthening its economy, and maintaining political independence from the West. If the US and UK stand aside and allow Israel to fly over and bomb Iran, it is not going to play well. It is going to be the usual suspects clobbering not the neighbourhood psycho, but one of its few genuine success stories.

The oil is not going to matter if the (inevitable) popular outrage targets the ruling elite for overthrow and revolutionary justice. Which in Saudi Arabia is a near-certainty, were something like this to happen. The assumption that the rulers would bow to the inevitable and maintain existing trade relations with the West relies entirely upon those rulers being in power. Which, unless they immediately act against the West in the one way they can, will not be the case for quite a few of them.

Whether it is a 1973 style embargo, or a 1979 style supply collapse because of civil unrest, consequences would be inevitable and severe.
I'm not exactly denying that some economic action will happen, but Iran isn't highly regarded in the Arab world, either. Most Arab nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia, supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. They did it not because they liked Hussein, as you pointed out, but because Iran was percieved as a bigger threat. It was strong, a Shi'ite majority, and had zeal. The Arabs and West believed a victorious Iran would mean that oil supplies could be controlled by them.
They've obviously lost that zeal, but it's no matter for the government, as they have a powerful military growing more powerful with nukes. As you said, any sanctions against the West would be because of popular sentiment, and not because their governments want it. I'm sure most of them would be happy if Iran's government fell tommarow.

Who's going to destroy Israel's nuclear weapons? They are not any more responsible to have them then any other country in that region.

Welllllllllll.....

Having a Nuke does require responsibilty. It does not give you carteblance powers. If Israel ever used it without "good" reason, even the US would not stop actions against them.

They have had more then one excuse to use them and yet they don't.

Nations that glorify death should never be allowed to be a nuclear nation.

someone actually uses one for the first time as a weapon since Nagasaki.

Can you use them for any thing else? :?

Well I guess if you remove the firing pin and do a couple modifications, you can make a nice table! :P

someone actually uses one for the first time as a weapon since Nagasaki.

Can you use them for any thing else? :?

Well I guess if you remove the firing pin and do a couple modifications, you can make a nice table! :P

Sure. The most common use has been as a test subject (nless you believe that the US, USSR/CIS, PRC, and others are really, really angry at deserts and islands :wink:) or as a deterent.
(Yeah, I know. split those hairs! :P )

someone actually uses one for the first time as a weapon since Nagasaki.

Can you use them for any thing else? :?

Well I guess if you remove the firing pin and do a couple modifications, you can make a nice table! :P

Sure. The most common use has been as a test subject (nless you believe that the US, USSR/CIS, PRC, and others are really, really angry at deserts and islands :wink:) or as a deterent.
(Yeah, I know. split those hairs! :P )

And underground caves. :wink:

;) Yep, caves too.

Actually there have been proposals and tests done for the use of nuclear explosives for purposes other than weapons. Plowshare looked into the use of nuclear demolitions to, among other uses, widen and "flatten" the Panama canal or to build an Nicarauguan canal. Project Orion proposed "nuclear pulse propulsion". (Medusa is another possible propulsion system.) Both were discontinued due to contamination issues. However, both could be revived in the future for use in space exploation, where contamination would be less of an issue...

Tactical Grace- as for oil embargo, it is laughable. Where was the oil embargo when the US invaded Iraq? The dirty little secret of the Saudis and other Arab oil exporters is that they do not control the oil like they once did- the oil controls them. They cannot stop selling, or their economies will crumble.
Same reason they didn't do sh*t when the Israelis bombed them in 1981, and the reason they actively helped out in the earlier invasion of 1991 and the 1998 bombings. The rest of the Arab world disliked and mistrusted Iraq, it's like having a nutcase for a neighbour. The only reason it enjoyed respect among the general populations of those countries is because it stood up to America and Israel, whom they consider to be far greater enemies, with which as you say they have no choice but to do business.

Iran is totally different. In the region, it is seen as a relatively respectable country, which came out of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war without degenerating into a bankrupt and suicidal totalitarian state, which has done far better than most at diversifying and strengthening its economy, and maintaining political independence from the West. If the US and UK stand aside and allow Israel to fly over and bomb Iran, it is not going to play well. It is going to be the usual suspects clobbering not the neighbourhood psycho, but one of its few genuine success stories.

The oil is not going to matter if the (inevitable) popular outrage targets the ruling elite for overthrow and revolutionary justice. Which in Saudi Arabia is a near-certainty, were something like this to happen. The assumption that the rulers would bow to the inevitable and maintain existing trade relations with the West relies entirely upon those rulers being in power. Which, unless they immediately act against the West in the one way they can, will not be the case for quite a few of them.

Whether it is a 1973 style embargo, or a 1979 style supply collapse because of civil unrest, consequences would be inevitable and severe.
Nope. If they stop, even for a short time, to sell oil, they will simply not be able to maintain the state. Its not 1973 anymore. Not the same economic balance worldwide. There are other oil exporters willing (and quite desperate) to sell to the highest bidder- Russia and the surrounding states, for example. Arab oil industry, on the other hand, is entirely West dependant, and it is their only source of cash. Saudi Arabia only exports three kinds of products- oil, sand and Wahhabi Islam. The Saudi army will desert en masse if salaries are not paid- making them more vulnerable to civil unrest than if they try to quell the said unrest by the force of arms.

How're they going to get there. Somehow I doubt that the US is going to let them use Iraqi airspace. If they do they're idiots. In any case, Iran's nuclear facilities are a lot more spread out unlike Osirak which was one big target.

I hope the US takes a stand on this- do those idiots in Israel really want even more chaos in the Mid-East than there already is?

I did. So Israel is going to risk displeasing the US (which in all sanity can't afford to let them do this*) as well as risking combat with Jordanian forces- when Jordan is one of the most pro-western states in the region.

<Clap. Clap. Clap.>

Well done. Gotta love the Israeli government.

*Having said that, the US government is not well known for making sane decisions regarding stability in the Middle East.