Israel and the Iranian nukes

Two major articles have been written in the last few days regarding whether or not Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

The first is in the Jerusalem Post.

Israel currently has invested most of its intelligence-gathering resources into the Iranian issue. The Mossad holds the “Iran File” and the Foreign Ministry is spearheading diplomatic efforts.

There are additional, top-secret committees, whose members are appointed by the prime minister and include senior officials from the intelligence community and former politicians with a strategic background. These committees, one participant says, meet from time to time and are responsible for amalgamating all of the details gathered by the different security branches and brainstorming on strategy.

At the end of the day, however, as one former IAF commander involved in the successful strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 points out, it is solely up to the prime minister to decide what course of action Israel will take – military or diplomacy.

The way things looks now, D-Day might not be too far away.

Then there’s this one in the Sunday Times of London:

In an Israeli air force bunker in Tel Aviv, near the concert hall for the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra, Major General Eliezer Shkedi might one day conduct operations of a perilous kind. Should the order come from the Israeli prime minister, it will be Shkedi’s job as air force commander to orchestrate a tactical nuclear strike on Iran.

Two fast assault squadrons based in the Negev desert and in Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, are already training for the attack.

On a plasma screen, Shkedi will be able to see dozens of planes advance towards Iran, as well as the electronic warfare aircraft jamming the Iranian and Syrian air defences and the rescue choppers hovering near the border, ready to move in and pluck out the pilots should the mission go wrong.

Another screen will show live satellite images of the Iranian nuclear sites. The prime target will be Natanz, the deep and ferociously protected bunker south of Tehran where the Iranians are churning out enriched uranium in defiance of the United Nations security council.

If things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete. Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole. The theory is that they will explode deep underground, both destroying the bunker and limiting the radioactive fallout.

I’m not quite convinced that America is going to stand back for this one.

Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former National War College professor who has wargamed airstrikes on Iran, believes an American attack remains a possibility. The current deployment of a second US aircraft carrier strike force to the Gulf region, as well as British minesweepers, is a “huge deal”, he said. “It is only necessary to do that if you are planning to strike Iran and deal with the consequences” — including an attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz, the sea route for much of the world’s oil from the Gulf states.

Iran threatens more than just Israel. All of the Middle East, and much of Israel, are also at risk. But the blowback of an Israeli attack would be profoundly dangerous for all the world’s Jews, what with the assholes in Iran perfectly willing to murder Jews in, say, Toronto, in retaliation for an attack on Iran. From the JPost article:

During this summer’s war in Lebanon Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, head of Military Intelligence, warned one night during a press conference at military headquarters in Tel Aviv that Hizbullah sleeper cells abroad, directed and supported by Iran, had been “awakened” and were preparing plans to attack Jewish and Israeli sites.

The assumption within Military Intelligence took into account Iran’s long-reaching terror arm. Iran is held responsible for the bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building in Buenos Aires in 1994 in which 85 people were killed. Hizbullah is also believed to be behind the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 in which 29 people were killed and 242 wounded.

“If Israel decides to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, it will have to take into account a response in kind,” Brom wrote.

The Iranians would most probably utilize Hizbullah to ignite the Lebanese border like they did this past summer when 4,000 rockets pounded the North. While Hizbullah refrained from firing long-range Iranian-made Fajr and Zelzal missiles, it would most probably launch the missiles – which can reach south of Tel Aviv – following an attack on Iran.

Iran has also developed its own ballistic missile, the Shihab 3, which is said to have a range of 1,330 km. and gives Iran the capability to strike directly at targets in Israel. In mid-December 2005, it was also reported that Iran had acquired 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea which have a range of 2,500 km. Iran is also said to be in the midst of developing missiles that would be capable of carrying heavier payloads for increased distances: 2,000 km., 2,500 km. and even 4,000 km.

No solid evidence of these advanced Shihabs is available, and it is unclear whether the Iranians have moved beyond the initial planning phase. But if they are being developed – and MI believes they are – then they indicate that Iran also has its sights on European countries – possibly even US military bases in Germany, one diplomatic official speculated.

While the Shihab is deadly when carrying a conventional warhead – its payload is up to 800 kg. – Brom warned that Israel would also have to take into account Iranian use of chemical weapons. For that purpose, the Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile defense system, which according to senior IAF officers is capable of intercepting all of Iran’s missiles, was developed.

“The fallout of a preemptive attack would be painful,” admits a high-ranking security official. “But we need to think of the trade-off: A nuclear bomb could destroy the State of Israel.”

Any way you look at it, things are going to get ugly this year. Unless someone manages to knock off the mad mullahs, and take away Amanutjob’s power base.

I have a bad feeling about this spring.

This entry was posted in Iran, Israel. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Israel and the Iranian nukes

  1. Sabba Hillel says:

    The first is in the Jerusalem Post.

    At the end of the day, however, as one former IAF commander involved in the successful strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 points out, it is solely up to the prime minister to decide what course of action Israel will take – military or diplomacy.

    Then there’s this one in the Sunday Times of London:

    Should the order come from the Israeli prime minister, it will be Shkedi’s job as air force commander to orchestrate a tactical nuclear strike on Iran.

    I hate to have to point this out, but this puts the decision on Ehud Olmert, the Israeli who makes Neville Chamberlain look good.

    Perhaps the fact that George W. Bush cannot run for election again may mean that he will make a decision.

  2. Ed Hausman says:

    I find these analyses by journalists to be naive and short-sighted.

    If attacking Iranian nuclear facilities will set off retaliatory strikes by Iranian forces and their allies, I would expect Israel to take out those forces first, thereby leaving the nuclear sites more vulnerable.

    If Israel seriously damages Iranian defenses, especially air and naval forces, especially security forces, the Iranian regime would be helpless, and might even be vulnerable to internal dissension.

    While we are afraid of Iran taking over a Shiite Iraqi state, Iran itself is at risk with its primary oil fields in ethnically Arab Khuzestan province, whose people might prefer to be part of an Arab state.

    In fact, such a strike against Iranian military and security forces would relieve pressure on Iraq by cutting off support for the militias. I wonder if the Iraqis would send a thank-you note. Huh.

    I would worry more about Lebanon. The US and Europe are committed to a democratic Lebanon, so a pre-emptive strike against Hizballah is currently a near-impossibility. UN troops are all over the south, and strikes against Lebanese infrastructure were politically problematic the last time.

    On the other hand, an attack by Hizballah on Israel might be more than they could get away with, also. This leaves the Diaspora, notoriously security-impaired, as a primary target of the Enemy.

    I don’t think we should wait till the war starts to begin praying.

  3. cond0010 says:

    Crossing the Nuclear threshold is deadly in a political way. Being that Israel is at the focal point of Information War against the West, I think it will make it even more of a target than ever before.

    But then, with the hatred of the Arabs against Israel as bad as it is, its kinda hard to imagine if an increase to the hatred is actually possible.

    “I hate to have to point this out, but this puts the decision on Ehud Olmert, the Israeli who makes Neville Chamberlain look good.”

    Heh, no kidding…

    http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001010.html

  4. I’ve posted on this topic at The Moderate Voice.

  5. Michael Lonie says:

    If there are a small number of key points to attack and you are going to cross the nuclear threshhold anyway, blow them away with a couple of ICBM/IRBM warheads each. Don’t dork around with aircraft which may not be able to carry enough weapons to achieve success or penetrate defended airspace. You’ll need all the planes for fighting off the retaliatory attacks by iran and its proxies.

    There are six Sunni Arab countries which have declared they will build nukes to offset Iran’s, somthing they did not bother to do when it became accepted that Israel had nukes. They know Israel is really no threat to them if they stop attacking Israel. They are terrified of an aggressive Shi’a revolutionary state in possession of nukes seeking to dominate the region, and who can blame them?

    The Iranians have a brief time to overthrow the Mullahs before they are caught in the nuclear crossfire. They put these clowns in power 27 years ago, their consent, tacit or active, has kept them in power, it is their responsibility to be the primary ones to take them down. That’s if the Iranians want to live. If they are content for these suicidal fanatics to take them to Hell, well then they can keep the Mullahs in power longer.

    Finally something longer term must be done. Destroying several nuke sites now will buy time but make the Mullahs even more determined to get nukes and gain what they see as their ticket to the Great Power Table. There is no help for it, they must be overthrown sometime soon, by internal revolt or external attack. To paraphrase Michael Ledeen, faster dammit. It has gone on far too long to keep saying please.

Comments are closed.