Obama quashed Israel military option against Iran

[Behind the Aegis]

Israel's military option against Iran has died. The death warrant was issued courtesy of the new U.S. administration led by Barack Obama.

All the administration's senior officials, from the president to his vice president, Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others are sending strong, clear hints that Israel does not have permission to strike Iran. Yet, given their familiarity with the Israeli client, they have not made do with simple hints and intimations. Washington dispatched the new CIA director, Leon Panetta, to Israel. Panetta made clear to Netanyahu, in so many words, that an Israeli attack would create "big trouble."

Perhaps Israel at one point had just a small window of opportunity to exercise the military option, or, in other words, the possibility of attacking sites in Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. This is assuming, of course, that Israel indeed has the military capability for carrying out such a mission - an assumption that raises many questions. This is a mission that requires gathering pinpoint intelligence, to identify the precise targets without harming thousands of innocent civilians.

Simply put, one of the targets of such a strike is the uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan, which lies in the heart of a congested civilian population. A realistic military option is also contingent on fighter jets finding undetected routes, as well as carrying a sufficient payload of bombs and missiles to inflict heavy damage on the targets.

Let us assume that Israel does, indeed, have a reasonable military capability which would enable it to strike at the targets, inflict heavy damage and set Iran's nuclear program back a few years. The opportunity to realize this capability arguably presented itself to Israel a few years ago. Iran at the time was subject to an intense international offensive. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly exposed its lies and levied sanctions against the Tehran regime.

more...

[aquart]

1. And...?

Some days the collective naivete on DU just boggles my mind.

We do NOT have the military availability to defend Israel if it starts a war with Iran. Can't afford it. Can't pay for it. Iran's military-age population dwarf's Israel's TOTAL population. Israel can neither afford nor sustain a war against Iran.

Without American protection (Never mind we said no, we ain't got it to give)the ever so much larger Muslim countries like Persian Iran could wipe Israel out if they chose. Would it be bloody? Yeah. And maybe even nuclear at the last ditch. But they could do it.

So we've just seen a formal little dance that gives Obama a leg up to negotiate all sorts of goodies with the non-Jewish parts of the Middle East.

I simply adore the fantasy of surgical strikes on Iran with zero anticipated retaliation. Maybe in the previous century before the United States had been wrung dry by corruption, but now?

[Xipe Totec]

2. Good analysis n/t

[Chemisse]

5. What collective naivete on DU? You were the first to post!

[bemildred]

7. Indeed. The OP is a load of drivel. Let me change that, it's drool.

It seems to be more about domestic butt-covering than anything else. It piles hypothetical implausibility on far-fetched assumption over and over to pretend that the notion of such a strike was not always a fantasy. And that's just the feasibility part. Then there is the obvious fact that the US is (uncomfortably) in cahoots with Iran on it's various middle-eastern reformation projects, and cannot afford to piss them off too much, and then there is Russia, and China, and the EU, and so on. "Containment" is about all you are going to get with Iran, unless they do something stupid, and they have shown no sign of doing that.
:thumbsup:

[lapfog_1]

3. If Israel or the US had executed air strikes against suspected nuclear

facilities...

1) How long would that delay Iran from getting nukes?

2) would the subsequent facilities be just as easy to target or much harder?

3) What would the reaction in Iran be to such strikes? Would the moderates prevail and take over the government and sue for peace?

4) What would the reaction be in the rest of the middle east to such air strikes.

5) If air strikes are insufficient to long delay the development of nukes or to cause a downfall of the government with more moderate elements taking over... would a ground invasion be required? And, if so, how large of army would we need to do a ground invasion of Iran?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but I would sure want to know... and contemplate those answers before ordering an air strike.

[aranthus]

8. Excellent questions.

Here my go at some answers.

1) How long would that delay Iran from getting nukes?

A: Hard to know. Could be one or two years or maybe longer.

2) would the subsequent facilities be just as easy to target or much harder?

A: An easy one. The new facilities would be more numerous, spread out and more hardened against attack.

3) What would the reaction in Iran be to such strikes? Would the moderates prevail and take over the government and sue for peace?

A: Almost certainly pro-Mullah government.

4) What would the reaction be in the rest of the middle east to such air strikes.

A: This one is more complicated. The Arab street, and Pakistan, would be incensed. The elites would on the one hand be relieved that the Iranian nuclear threat would be set back, and angry at having to now deal with their outraged subjects. Is this where the situation could spiral out of control? Yes.

5) If air strikes are insufficient to long delay the development of nukes or to cause a downfall of the government with more moderate elements taking over... would a ground invasion be required? And, if so, how large of army would we need to do a ground invasion of Iran?

A: No one is even thinking about a ground war against Iran. The troops and the logistical capability aren't there.

[lapfog_1]

9. So, to summarize your analysis...

air strikes would delay Iran's nuclear program by 2 to 4, maybe 5 years.

There is no possibility of following up the air strikes with a ground invasion.

The leadership of Iran would remain hard line reactionary, possibly even going more in that direction, now supported by an angered population (sort of like the United States right after 9/11... and what did WE do in that climate?)

Islamic leaders would be silently relieved but would have to deal with likely populist uprisings. Of particular concern (to this humble correspondent) would be the possibility of nuclear armed (with "long range" missiles) Pakistan. A populist uprising sweeping a hard line radical group into power there would be disaster. India would feel (rightly) threatened over such a move and a war would be very likely between two nuclear countries.

So... upside is a delay of 2 to 5 years, downside is likely large increase in the probability of nuclear war between Pakistan and India.
Or, at the very least, more Muslims angry at the US and Israel.


What's the point of kicking the can down the street for 5 years? The upside just doesn't seem appealing enough to risk the potential downside.

So what is the Neocon answer to the analysis? Can anyone articulate a different set of answers to the question or further analysis to show how air strikes would be the logical choice?

[Chemisse]

4. We are lucky

I think we are lucky Israel did not attack Iran in the last half-year of the Bush administration. They were certainly making war talk and the Bush crew did not appear to be discouraging it.

[madrchsod]

6. is it worth starting world war three?

those who believe war in israel and iran has to face reality- neither side will win.

[Ken Burch]

10. So Obama prevented a regional war that would have killed millions of innocent people

And ended up with Russia intervening on Iran's side: this is a bad thing?

[varelse]

11. I find the op ed to be very interesting, especially the last two paragraphs

The supreme tenet of Israeli defense policy states that Jerusalem must not launch any strategic initiative that stands in contradiction, or places in harm's way, the clear interests of the United States. This stance has underpinned every fateful decision taken by Israel relating to matters of war and peace. Israel embarked on the Six-Day War only after it was convinced that the U.S. would not oppose. In the hours leading up to the Yom Kippur War, Israel refrained from launching a preemptive strike for fear that Washington would blame it for starting the war. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 only after Defense Minister Ariel Sharon came under the impression that the U.S. would view the move with understanding. During the first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. did not permit Israel to respond to Iraqi scud missiles, and Israel obliged.

I understand that this is just the opinion of the author of the op ed piece (Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent) - but I wonder how many others in the Israeli public, government and media share that opinion or a reasonably close variant of it.

[bemildred]

12. There is no 'supreme tenet of Israeli defense policy".

Israeli defense policy is all about political expediency.