Can Israel Take Out the Mullahs' Nukes?

Front Page Magazine ^ | 02 February 2006 | Michael Karpin

[unionblue83]

The idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of a dangerous enemy like Iran is unacceptable to nearly all Israelis. There is no chance that Israel will reconcile itself to living with nuclear threats from the ayatollahs. If Iran continues on the path to atomic weaponry, is Israel capable of acting to eliminate that danger?

Israelis hope for a diplomatic solution leading to cancellation of the Iranian nuclear program. But what if negotiations fail? Israel would prefer American military intervention, yet the prevalent opinion among Israeli experts is that the U.S. would be very hesitant to use force against Iran. Meanwhile, political and military leaders in Israel have repeatedly declared that if and when Iran reaches the point of no return, Israel will not hesitate to take military action against their bomb-making capability.

[LucyT]

Bookmark.

[dennisw]

bttt

[dennisw]

Israelis will start it and America will finish it

[JustDoItAlways]

Once Iran builds three or four bombs, ...

- one or two of them will be smuggled into Israel and set-off; or,

- hidden for later remote-controlled activation when Iran thinks Israel has gone too far (on any issue let alone attacking Iran).

If I was Israel, I'd take out the installations before its too late if the Security Council doesn't act soon.

[pennboricua]

nukes don't kill people, people kill people.
The nukes in my mind would not be the objective, but those in charge of the nukes would be.

[BookaT]

I think the people in charge and the nukes would both be the objectives. Because an unstable country no matter what doesn't need nukes. If they get nukes and we take out the leadership there will still be nukes available to the highest bidder or maybe some other crazy b@stard will gain control of that country.

I think Israel can take out what needs to be taken out. I believe the facilities are within range of their F16's. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

[NickFlooding]

I see six possible outcomes in order of best senarios.

1. Iran blinks and gives in. Not going to happen.
2. The West blinks and gives in to Iran having nukes. Not going to happen.
3. Britain, France and Germany (EU-3) bombs Iran's nuclear facilities. Will be like kicking a fire ant hill. The Islamist religious zealots will be swarming.
4. America joins the EU-3 in the bombings. Same as 3 above but more angry ants will be out looking to bite.
5. America bombs the sites alone. Now you have the whole Islamic community focused on America as a target.
6. Israel waits till the last moment and goes it alone and they would be fools not to. The whole Islamic world will throw everything it has at Israel and demand that the UN send all it has. In this crazy world the UN would agree to retaliation for the so called unprovoked attack.

[pennboricua]

Granted I still believe the target will be the mullahs, and I believe the go ahead has already been given, the President just two days ago was very specific as to what the problem in Iran was.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Your outcomes pretty much lays it out.
I don't think either side will blink (eliminates 1&2)
I don't see the Europeans acting alone, especially since they know we will join in on the attack. Also, the US has the stealth aircraft that would be needed to attack anti-aircraft missile sites and deliver bunker buster bombs. Germany in particular will not join in on an attack, except perhaps with intelligence support. (#4 is a possibility)
#5 is the most likely result. I don't think that Israel alone can take out the necessary facilities, since it will be necessary to attack for some days.
There is another option, which is highly likely (#7) The UN will vote sanctions against Iran, and the one of two things will happen (a) Iran will not attack us in Iraq or attack Israel or close the straits of Hormuz, but will try to evade sanctions; or (b) retaliate with either terroristic attacks or all out attacks on the US, Israel and European interests.
I predict either #5 or #7(b)

[aegiscg47]

Smuggling nukes into western countries and setting them off isn't as easy as everyone thinks. One of my friends who served in EOD said that he couldn't reveal why it's not easy to do because it's classified, but did say that the necessary agencies would be alerted. This was back in the late 80's,, so I'm sure the technology has improved quite a bit since then. My guess is some kind of "sniffer" technology, but maybe someone else who is more of a science guy could explain this for the rest of us.

[jdsteel]

Granted I still believe the target will be the mullahs, and I believe the go ahead has already been given, the President just two days ago was very specific as to what the problem in Iran was.

I'm with you; our best bet is for the Iranian people (with help) throwing the mullahs out of power. U.S. military right next door stops the mullahs from doing what Saddam did 10 years ago. Voila, another Arab democracy.

[stocksthatgoup]

Israel Can......But We Will!

[Publius6961]

This reminds me.
It should be sufficient to say that certain things don't need a whole lot of analysis or thought for most people to know instinctively when the "fight" option of the human "fight or flight" is appropriate.

That's why it's called "instinct". All animals, and most normal human beings, possess it.

Civilization corrupts, distorts and atrophies this instinct. There's not much point in analyzing why, when there is a mortal crisis. And there is no compelling perceived need to do so when there is not.

Take the subject of nuclear weapons. If we read a report that a certain country has decided to develop them, the instinctive normal reaction should kick in.

Iceland? No problem. With hardly a cosmic ripple, most of us would continue petting the cat and watching the football game.
China? Korea? Cambodia? Venezuela? Cuba? Sanity would predict panic mode.

Why?

Knowlege. Experience, and I believe, instinct. But that is not enough to be a satisfying explanation. The significant issue is, is that reaction justified? In this PC world, where reason and logic are distorted beyond belief, the answer seems to be yes, although I also believe that it is a fatal flaw, not a normal and natural defense mechanism.

I often wish experts might guide us or reassure us.
Victor Davis Hanson from a historical perspective, competent psychologists from a contemporary human behavior one.

I believe that a certain amount of paranoia is not only healthy, but crucial for survival.

[Publius6961]

nukes don't kill people, people kill people. The nukes in my mind would not be the objective, but those in charge of the nukes would be.

It's a question of priorities. Insane people can not kill us. Nukes can.

The nukes and delivery systems first.
The mad ayatollahs second.

No nukes? No threat, no matter how deep the madness. So, any rational plan demands the permanent destruction of the nuclear weapons accessible to the nut job culture.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.

..................

[jiggyboy]

"Diplomats! The best diplomat I know is a fully-charged phaser bank!"

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Israel is too busy self destructing to defend itself.