Israel to World: "Suck It."

is there really any doubt there's going to be a war over this at some point?

the only scenario I can envision in which there isn't a war is if the Iranian regime totally collapses, which is not really likely.

also max OTM I don't really give a shit about what got leaked from some meeting between the US and Israel, this is all "optics" (a term I hate)

xp

when was the last time two non-contiguous, non-US countries went to war over anything?

I'm highly dubious of anything leaked or released about the Iranian nuclear program this close to a major election. I wonder, though, exactly who would go to war if Israel bombed Iran. Most of the countries in the region just not up to it at the moment: Iraq, Syria, Libya ... I'm not even sure how Iran would go about retaliating.

Atlantic piece reads like Israelis pissed the US won't give them blanket permission to bomb Iran.

As far as I understand things (and I'll admit my knowledge on this is imperfect - I don't have inside information) Israel isn't looking for permission from the US to attack Iran. If Israel does attack Iran, US will likely support them w/ fuel + ammo reserves in Negev. Obama does not want Israel to airstrike Iran (for the many obvious reasons), but the only way he can keep Israel from doing that is by a) convincing Bibi that sanctions + international pressure will work to stop the nuclear program and b) that if they do not, America will step in at the final hour (American zone of immunity is longer than Israeli zone of immunity re taking out nuclear facilities). (A) seems less likely every day, Iran is going full steam ahead w/ program acc to most recent IAEA reports. Only chance that (A) still works is with more time, but zone of immunity closing for Israel. So if you believe Iran can't still be stopped from getting nuclear weapons through diplomatic means, you need to promise Israel that you'll step in even after their zone of immunity has closed (ie: while US is still able to drop bunker busters or whatever magic war technology means that they can take out program). This whole thing rests on Obama convincing Bibi that after X occurs, he will attack. This seems to indicate that Obama has been wavering over what X is. If that is true, and Bibi loses confidence that X even exists, he will want to launch the strike as soon as possible lest he lose the chance to strike at all.

Basically, the tension is over whether the US will attack Iran before they develop nukes. Not whether US will condone Israel doing so.

I wonder, though, exactly who would go to war if Israel bombed Iran. Most of the countries in the region just not up to it at the moment: Iraq, Syria, Libya ... I'm not even sure how Iran would go about retaliating.

Major question, I think, is what Arab participation in war would be. If Israel could get Saudi Arabia to participate it would be a totally different ballgame (and a serious realignment of politics in Middle East). Obv concern for SA is that if they join Israel in attacking Iran, that might be the end of their government in SA. Oops.

Arab countries broadly support ending Iranian nuclear program tho and most would probably not get involved at all. Certainly not in any overt fashion.

I'm not even sure how Iran would go about retaliating.

^^^yeah this, hence my question about the last time a war like this happened. what, are they just gonna lob missiles at each other? Iraq and Syria are in the middle and both of those countries are handling their own internal disasters, and neither Iran nor Israel is seriously gonna mobilize troops across any of the countries in between (or through the Suez Canal for that matter). neither country can invade the other, so would this just be an aerial war? if so I can't imagine that Israel, with the US's backing, wouldn't summarily crush Iran's air force. I suppose Israel could just nuke Qom or something and be like "What? You gonna do something about it?"

The other big question is whether Israel can actually shut down the program thru an airstrike. Worst case scenario - you don't want to deploy your airforce, expend all that fuel, ammo, bodies, etc, fly home and the job isn't done.

Sunni monarchies not super fond of Iranian nukes. Would likely vocally condemn and privately shrug. Iraq would be further destabilized. Syria is a shitshow and will be for tff. Libya probably rankled and divided but unlikely to do much. Egypt is the scariest unknown here. Iran would retaliate primarily via Hezbollah, methinks.

I don't think the US will bomb Iran. I'm not even sure that would be a better option than Israel doing it, and it could end up being worse. We're just not in a postion to bomb anyone these days, and the fact that we held back so much during all the Arab spring stuff pretty much underscores that we've benched ourself barring extreme circumstances.

Is the "red line" referred to in the piece basically the proverbial line in the sand?

Iranian nukes means Assad stays in power.

Hezbollah proxy war a good call, but I'm not sure how effective that would be. Could spark another Intifada, but so could anything.

I don't think Iran loves Assad so much it would wiggle nukes at folks to make them leave him alone.

The biggest concern for non Middle-Easterners is what the Iranians would do in the Persian Gulf and the last time I looked the locals are woefully underarmed with minesweepers. 5th Fleet would bear brunt of defense of an open Gulf.

US isn't gonna bomb Iran come on now

I'm not sure. I don't think they will now, but I think they could. I certainly think they need to convince Iran and they might (whether or not that's true).

Like, when we're talking about depleted US military, we're still talking about the biggest, most expensive, most technologically advanced military in the world. It wouldn't be a great thing to bomb Iran, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

setting a "red line" for military action really worked in the region before eh

they need to convince Iran that* they might

I mean how many of these goddamn countries are we gonna try to invade anyway, so far we've chalked up two failures with nothing to show for it but a lot of collateral damage and squandered resources

Iran knows all this

Things I think I know for sure:

1. Iran is going to make a play for nuclear weapons.

2. Bibi is going to intervene before that happens.

Only chance that (2) doesn't look like an Israeli airstrike on Iran is because Bibi believes Obama when he says he'll attack before that happens. Do you believe we know something about US willingness to bomb Iran that Bibi doesn't?

Think convincing Iran is not out of the question. Iran might have issues, but it's not some psycho despotic regime. Not exactly. Often unreasonable, but mostly talks a big game. It's no hermit kingdom.

Iranian nukes means Assad stays in power.

Meh. They might mean the civil war doesn't end and the country gets partitioned but there's no way he 'stays in power'. I predict someone's going to have to off him at some point, prolly someone in his own camp. You can fight to the death but at some point Syria or Alawia or whatever have to eat and want to make a pound or two.

but it's not some psycho despotic regime

I dunno they look pretty psycho to me. I can't really figure out what they think they'll gain from their nuclear program, the entire reasoning behind it is specious ("we need it to make sure no one fucks with us!" except by pursuing the program you are GUARANTEEING that people will fuck with you! so uh)

Iran might be fundamentalist but there's a rationality there born of many, many years of playing the game.

Assad's leaving in a bodybag, this is a foregone conclusion.

I'm pretty sure after last IAEA report that Iran is making a play for nukes. They are really out of plausible deniability about their program. If diplomacy + sanctions can still make a difference - which are the ones the world haven't used yet?

I dunno they look pretty psycho to me. I can't really figure out what they think they'll gain from their nuclear program, the entire reasoning behind it is specious ("we need it to make sure no one fucks with us!" except by pursuing the program you are GUARANTEEING that people will fuck with you! so uh)

― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, September 6, 2012 4:48 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

TBF, doesn't that almost exactly describe the Cheney Doctrine?

In light of '03, I can't see the US acting pre-emptively. Israeli cabinet and defense ppl are ambiguous about an attack. If push comes to shove and Barak and Bibi get their way, they attack pre-emptively with or without US foreknowledge and we end up beating the heck out of the Iranian airforce and navy.

TBF, doesn't that almost exactly describe the Cheney Doctrine?

ah yes Dick Cheney, the model of rational foreign policy

One of the weirder optics things re all of this is the attempt to reposition Iranian leadership as reasonable despite all indicators to the opposite (rhetoric, actual nuclear development, etc) and Bibi as unreasonable (despite what looks to me like a ton of patience considering his position).

I didn't say it was rational! I was half agreeing with you!

If Iran is 100% going to get nuclear weapons w/out intercession, I don't see how Bibi can not intercede. When a country says that your country is a cancer that needs to be wiped off the map, and they're trying to gets nukes, you're painted into a corner.

NB I'm not sure violent Iranian rhetoric means they'll def drop a nuke on Israel if they get a chance. I'm just saying that if you run the country of Israel and your job is to make sure that doesn't happen, you don't have many options.

I think "crazy" is a dangerous word to throw around in foreign policy. Are they "crazy" enough to pursue nuclear weapons no matter what we do? Seems like there's a good chance of it. Are they "crazy" enough to launch a nuclear attack on Israel? Sincerely doubt it.

yep. MWhite's scenario seems the most likely to me. inevitable even.

why pursue nukes at all if they have no intention of using them? seriously, idg why they are so fixated/dedicated to their nuke program. it seems thoroughly irrational/self-destructive.

If Israel took every bit of OTT rhetoric at face value, it'd be bombing more than Iran.

I think MWhite is right. Israel attacks using airstrike and US doesn't commit troops but does open fuel/ammo reserves to Israel until the job is done. I don't know what happens after that. Not good stuff, I'm sure.

I think it is a good question to ask what game Iran is playing. Obviously Iran knows Israel will not allow it, and that the US will support Israel. So why beg the conflict?

why pursue nukes at all if they have no intention of using them? seriously, idg why they are so fixated/dedicated to their nuke program. it seems thoroughly irrational/self-destructive.

― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, September 6, 2012 4:55 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is a little too foreign policy 101 to even warrant a response, come on Shakey.

I get why Israel is scared of Iran and their rhetoric, but anybody who thinks they want nukes only to kill Israelis is dumb. Israel does have nukes so MAD makes a certain amount of sense to the IRI regime. Being able to tell the Saudis to fuck off and telling the Turks to leave Iranian Kurdish questions and Iranian influence in Syria alone makes sense, too. Everyone here gets Israeli fear/paranoia but can you fathom what it's like to be a Shia and a Persian surrounded by ppl who aren't? Esp after several thousand years of rooted history where everybody from the Greeks to the Romans to the Arabs to the Mongols to the Russians, Brits and Americans have either conquered you or fucked you over?

why pursue nukes at all if they have no intention of using them?

Hey, the PRK have nukes...

I think those are good points, but I also don't buy that the Israeli regime's fear of Iran having nuclear weapons is limited to "they'll nuke us"

yeah yeah I get all that, but the short-term politics dictate that their program will never reach the stage where they get to flex their regional muscle with their nukes, because that will all be preceded by a massive conflict with the US/Israel which is likely to destabilize their regime and country and relegate them to an even weaker position.

xp

Hey, the PRK have nukes...

right but someone suggested that the IRI is NOT a crazy despot regime, unlike the PRK.

Let's separate crazy from incapable of acting rational. Hitler was crazy and irrational. Stalin was crazy and quite rational. The way the IRI has played the West isn't the fruit of smoking pcp; it's been quite clever even if the goal is one I can't quite figure out.

it's been clever in a "courting disaster" way... I think you spelled out what their goal is in a previous post, it's just that their present course has no chance of getting there. that's the disconnect I can't fathom.

What if their real goal is to sprint past the post, get the nukes, and brandish them in view of keeping Turkey/US/Israel/SA/maybe even Russia at bay?

Can't imagine any of those players allowing Iran to be in that position.