US can't attack Iran, and Israel probably can't handle the response: Slate

[Abi]

India has no history of attacking other country for territorial gain. Do not worry about us.

Are you kidding me? What about your wars with China and Pakistan and your occupation of Kashmir?

 

[gambit]

In 1973, during the blockade, it got its oil from the Shah of Iran. Maybe this time they can get it from Ahmadinejad

They probably will -- indirectly. Now that would be something to boast about. Iran cannot hoard oil. Iran is an importer of refined petroleum products. Iran must export oil to survive.

 

[Abi]

They probably will -- indirectly. Now that would be something to boast about. Iran cannot hoard oil. Iran is an importer of refined petroleum products. Iran must export oil to survive.

Is Israel the only importer of oil? No they're not. So why do you assume the oil would be sold to Israel? Iran mustn't export anything to survive, definitely not in the short tern, we have one of the worlds largest forex. reserves in the world and if you haven't noticed, we're self sufficienct in most things. Besides, the blockade of the strait of hormuz won't be long term anyway, only until factories, cars and power plants all over the world come to a halt and the world pressures America to cease fire.

I am sure Israel will force America or guilt trip Germany into providing it with oil but the problem is the refineries and ports will have been blown up by the time the oil gets to Israel.

I have seen a lot of Americans talking about Iran importing refined petroleum, as if this is an indication of our military capabilities. We have no problems with refining petroleum, but because of bad planning under the previous administration, cheap fuel and a rapid rise in the number of car users allowed our consumption to go above our production. However, this current administration;

1) has made our car companies use more efficient engines
2) is paying people to scrap old cars
3) has removed subsidies to increase fuel prices
4) has invested billions into the production of new refineries
5) has invested in electric cars, public transport and gas powered cars.

Within two years we will be a petroleum exporter.

 

[S-2]

Interesting column although I see a number of false assumptions-

"No U.S. president doing a sober calculation would want to start a new war of choice while U.S. troops are still actively engaged on two other fronts"

All wars are by choice. They simply offer differing consequences for inaction. That said, if it's determined that an Iranian nuclear weapon is a certainty (or the capability of manufacturing and delivering has been achieved) and either condition poses an unacceptable hazard to U.S. nat'l interests, then war is before us. That condition also suggests that all other mitigating efforts-and there have been many-have failed.

If we've learned anything from Iraq, it is the understanding that providing the smoking gun which makes crystalline the need is difficult. Iranians have proven they're no fools. Further, a smoking gun suggests somebody has pulled the trigger already. The only question then is how many more bullets sit in the chamber.

If enough to retaliate, it's on to containment if retaliation of this magnitude poses an unacceptable consequence. That ultimate retaliation, however, isn't a certainty either despite possibly having the means. So too others and such an act of retaliation by Iran to that extent would assure its total destruction in my view.

"...and no U.S. president could expect public support for more than a nanosecond."

How the U.S. government explains beforehand to the American public both those efforts of diplomacy and economic inducement/coercement as well as the consequences of an Iranian capability or acquisition will determine to a great extent our public's acceptability for the need. If good faith negotiations and patience to assess the full effects of possible sanctions has been demonstrated then there's little alternative beside war except a fait accompli. See containment.

Containment, however, is not an assurance and poses the risk of a regional nuclear arms race which nobody in the region currently desires. Others have the means to acquire or develop their own strategic assets and have heretofore refrained. Would they continue and what are the countervailing consequences? That's not an equation I'd feel comfortable calculating accurately.

"The president will not bomb Iran's nuclear installations for precisely the same reasons that George W. Bush did not bomb Iran's nuclear installations: because we don't know exactly where they all are."

This is false, IMV. We may not know exactly where they are but we certainly know where many (if not most) of those facilities are. We also know where we suspect others. GWB didn't attack Iran, however, for lack of knowledge. There was greater certainty in 2003 than there is now. He didn't attack Iran because there still existed time and hope that alternatives to such an attack could generate the desired results. It was, however, understood then and now that the longer we proceed down that potentially failed path, the more difficult such an alternative like war becomes.

"...we don't know whether such a raid could stop the Iranian nuclear program for more than a few months..."

We don't do raids. An attack upon Iran will unquestionably be a comprehensive air campaign. Serious issues require serious responses. To be successful, Iran's integrated air defense system, air force, chemical retaliatory capability and delivery means, and naval forces will require neutralization or destruction. Those are simply the requirements to facilitate our prosecution of the intended targets as well as our mitigation of possible retaliation. Additionally, we'd likely strike all known or suspected IRGC facilities and assembly points to mitigate the potential assymetric responses to any nearby vulnerabilities-our and our allies seats of power, embassies, troops, military facilites, etc.

Those locations would go to an extremely high state of alert in any case. That alert would entail all American facilities/entities and other governments regionally as well as American facilities and entities world-wide. Israel would likely do the same and may, additionally, proactively prosecute its near threats in Lebanon while keeping a VERY CLOSE eye on Gaza and west bank. I would expect such. Still, by nature an assymetric response is unpredictable so we can only proactively mitigate towards that without absolute assurance that the threat has been eliminated.

Can we conduct such an attack and how would it appear? Yes, IMV, we can. First, we've a demonstrated history of both successfully interdicting Iranian naval efforts to block the straits of Hormuz (Operation Preying Mantis in 1988) and forcibly opening a hostile airspace to our complete domination (Operation DESERT STORM). The assets to do so are partially in place now and the facilities to support such a campaign of undetermined duration have never been better.

Neither our navy nor air force are "stretched". They remain fully capable to achieve our maximum effort. The plan would require the aforementioned neutralization of those described targets which would facilitate the opening and maintenance of air corridors into Iranian airspace. Once the preliminary conditions are achieved, the prosecution of the primary targets would begin-with some mitigation. Some targets would be perishable and require immediate attack to achieve the highest probability of their destruction. For all others of a more permanent nature, they'd be attacked in the order of importance and in accordance with the attack and target effect guidance established for each.

Not all attacks would constitute the same methods nor would munitions and aim-points be uniform. However the goal would be the longest term neutralization of the entire program within reasonable constraints of human safety. Collateral damage to civilians would be an important but not paramount consideration. Downwind radioactive effects would be a PARAMOUNT consideration and alternative means of neutralization would be seeked where that was a possible concern. Alternatives include the neutralization of the electrical grids, water & sewage, and other sustaining infrastructure.

The ultimate goal once the key elements of the program had been sufficiently damaged would be to achieve a negotiated settlement permitting the IAEA to fully monitor and enforce compliance IAW their requirements under the provisions of the operating guidelines and the NPT. In the absence of the Iranian government reaching accomodation, the attacks would continue until all targets had been fully prosecuted to the intended effect.

At no point would the Iranian army be attacked unless it was mobilized and threatened the integrity of its near neighbors. I highly doubt that we'd see an attack upon the Iranian leadership. I'm fully confident that Iranian oil/natural gas production and delivery facilities wouldn't be attacked. I can't say the same with respect to key supporting infrastructure however.

I'm certain that, however capable the IAF is of achieving a one-off raid, they will not be a participant in a sustained air campaign nor would they desire such. It will be America or nobody.

The alternatives are not good. Containment will pose its own problems. America has great experience with living under the shadow of nuclear war and negotiating within that environ because of the forty-five year Soviet-American nuclear face-off. Even then events like the Berlin and Cuban Missile crises pushed the levels of brinksmanship. The Iranians are great chess players. Would they prove as adept at this chess? Further, given the increased risks an Iranian nuke bring to proliferation, would other regional players also prove as adept?

My thoughts.

Thanks.

 

[SXNJ]

good luck, Iranian friend

 

[Abi]

good luck, Iranian friend

Thank you. Thanks to ASMs of Chinese origin, amongst other things America hasn't thought to attacking Iran since 2005.

 

[Creder]

Iran or any other country with a sizable defense force will probably be the last straw for the US, their economy cant take anymore of this nor can their ally's.

 

[TechLahore]

How the U.S. government explains beforehand to the American public both those efforts of diplomacy and economic inducement/coercement as well as the consequences of an Iranian capability or acquisition will determine to a great extent our public's acceptability for the need. If good faith negotiations and patience to assess the full effects of possible sanctions has been demonstrated then there's little alternative beside war except a fait accompli. See containment.

I am theorizing, since none of us ultimately *know*, but I reckon the US will live with a nuclear Iran. If the only alternative available is war, the US will swallow the bitter pill and hope that a nuclear Iran will be an Iran with more to lose and hence an Iran that has a greater desire for stability.

Containment, however, is not an assurance and poses the risk of a regional nuclear arms race which nobody in the region currently desires. Others have the means to acquire or develop their own strategic assets and have heretofore refrained. Would they continue and what are the countervailing consequences? That's not an equation I'd feel comfortable calculating accurately.

If you are implying that the UAE and Saudi Arabia will go nuclear... perhaps. Ultimately Israel will have 5 nuclear capable potential adversaries to contend with. Their conventional superiority will essentially be negated. Demographics will come into play as a means to "settle" the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this is what the Israelis fear.

"The president will not bomb Iran's nuclear installations for precisely the same reasons that George W. Bush did not bomb Iran's nuclear installations: because we don't know exactly where they all are."

This is false, IMV. We may not know exactly where they are but we certainly know where many (if not most) of those facilities are. We also know where we suspect others. GWB didn't attack Iran, however, for lack of knowledge. There was greater certainty in 2003 than there is now. He didn't attack Iran because there still existed

I suppose there can be several perspectives on the above. Ultimately, the fact remains that Bush did not attack Iran. If he didn't, it is doubtful Obama will. And if Obama won't then the matter is settled. Iran will have a rudimentary device or a couple such devices by the time Obama leaves office.

This is just my estimation. I might be wrong. But I don't think I am.

"...we don't know whether such a raid could stop the Iranian nuclear program for more than a few months..."

We don't do raids.

How, then, would you characterize the Clinton sponsored action against 1) OBL's camps in Afghanistan and 2) Against the milk plant/Chemical factory in Sudan?

An attack upon Iran will unquestionably be a comprehensive air campaign. Serious issues require serious responses. To be successful, Iran's integrated air defense system, air force, chemical retaliatory capability and delivery means, and naval forces will require neutralization or destruction. Those are simply the requirements to facilitate our prosecution of the intended targets as well as our mitigation of possible retaliation. Additionally, we'd likely strike all known or suspected IRGC facilities and assembly points to mitigate the potential assymetric responses to any nearby vulnerabilities-our and our allies seats of power, embassies, troops, military facilites, etc.

Those locations would go to an extremely high state of alert in any case. That alert would entail all American facilities/entities and other governments regionally as well as American facilities and entities world-wide. Israel would likely do the same and may, additionally, proactively prosecute its near threats in Lebanon while keeping a VERY CLOSE eye on Gaza and west bank. I would expect such. Still, by nature an assymetric response is unpredictable so we can only proactively mitigate towards that without absolute assurance that the threat has been eliminated.

A lot of "ifs" in the above. You are basically talking about a multi-thousand target war if you are really making the case for neutralizing all that you would need to neutralize. I don't think this is going to happen, and if it does, it will not occur without massive Iranian retaliation. The cost of such a retaliation is unnecessary for the US to bear.

At this point I believe a nuclear Iran is a reality the US will just have to deal with. And while we might find this strange and surprising, US strategists during the Kennedy era predicted a faster pace of nuclearization than what actually occurred. And as part of their hypothesis of such a future, they concluded that the US would simply have to deal with a large number of nuclear powers. Their estimate was off by several decades, but hey, what's 50 years here or there. The basic point remains valid.

Can we conduct such an attack and how would it appear? Yes, IMV, we can. First, we've a demonstrated history of both successfully interdicting Iranian naval efforts to block the straits of Hormuz (Operation Preying Mantis in 1988) and forcibly opening a hostile airspace to our complete domination (Operation DESERT STORM). The assets to do so are partially in place now and the facilities to support such a campaign of undetermined duration have never been better.

This is not just about military capability. It is also about selling it to the American public and dealing with the response that such aggression will beget. There are many theoretical possibilities. This one is incredibly remote.

At no point would the Iranian army be attacked unless it was mobilized and threatened the integrity of its near neighbors. I highly doubt that we'd see an attack upon the Iranian leadership. I'm fully confident that Iranian oil/natural gas production and delivery facilities wouldn't be attacked. I can't say the same with respect to key supporting infrastructure however.

What do they say about the first casualty in any war? You have sketched a very "neat and clean" scenario which will not unfold as planned. It never does. Hezbollah, Shia parties in Iraq, Iranian influence with the NA, Hamas, Dirty Bombs, C-802s, Quds force's international capabilities, Oil prices, Qassams, Iranian ballistic missiles, attacks on US forces in Europe, ME and Afghanistan etc. etc. are all factors to be considered. This is just a very concise short-list. The full list of variables would be far more complex and lengthy, requiring an analysis of first-order, second-order, third-order etc. cause/effect chains.

I'm certain that, however capable the IAF is of achieving a one-off raid, they will not be a participant in a sustained air campaign nor would they desire such. It will be America or nobody.

Completely agree. America or nobody. And I don't think it's going to be America. Qed, it will be nobody.

My thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[Vassnti]

If you are implying that the UAE and Saudi Arabia will go nuclear... perhaps. Ultimately Israel will have 5 nuclear capable potential adversaries to contend with. Their conventional superiority will essentially be negated. Demographics will come into play as a means to "settle" the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this is what the Israelis fear.

If the UAE and Saudi were to go down the nuclear path would Israel have new nuclear adversaries? Is the Arab-Israeli confict becoming less important than the Arab Persian one?

Israel has had nuclear capabilities for years yet most Arab nations felt no threat and no neeed to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Yet the talk of Iran with a bomb stirs talk of a middle east arms race. Israel may be a pain to the palestinians but all things considered it is at least in recent times of little trouble to most of the arab world.

Perhaps the thought of a nuclear Iran promoting a Shia caliphate across the middle east worries the Saudi's more and if Isreal were to put a few spanners in the works they would be far from unhappy?

 

[Abi]

If the UAE and Saudi were to go down the nuclear path would Israel have new nuclear adversaries? Is the Arab-Israeli confict becoming less important than the Arab Persian one?

You speak as if they have the capability to go nuclear. They wouldn't even have the ability if their masters allowed them to develop it. This Arab-Persian so called conflict is overrated. Around 70% of the people that live in the Persian Gulf are Iranian. That includes Bahrain, UAE, KSA, Kuwait and Qatar.

Israel has had nuclear capabilities for years yet most Arab nations felt no threat and no neeed to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Yet the talk of Iran with a bomb stirs talk of a middle east arms race. Israel may be a pain to the palestinians but all things considered it is at least in recent times of little trouble to most of the arab world.

That is because these dictators running the arab countries do not dare say something against their master.

Perhaps the thought of a nuclear Iran promoting a Shia caliphate across the middle east worries the Saudi's more and if Isreal were to put a few spanners in the works they would be far from unhappy?

They would be very happy if Israel did such a thing, but only as long as Iran didn't retaliate against KSA, but Iran has already warned that it will retaliate against countries that are involved, which includes allowing another country to use their airspace.

So of course KSA will never allow this as Iran has the capability and has already said that it will destroy Saudi oil fields. We could also cause trouble in their eastern province.

 

[TechLahore]

Perhaps the thought of a nuclear Iran promoting a Shia caliphate across the middle east worries the Saudi's more and if Isreal were to put a few spanners in the works they would be far from unhappy?

Shia caliphate? Are you serious?

When you talk in these terms it just makes it plain how little you know about politics within the Islamic world. This is the sort of thing I would expect a westerner with nothing under his belt other than a couple of fashionable books on the subject to say.

The Saudi monarchy is very practical and survives by maintaining a balance within the region and their country. They will never in a million years be seen as supportive of or allied with Israel at the expense of other muslims... they are the keepers of the two Holy Places. Their partisanship will put everything at risk. They are far more perceptive and practical than what you imagine.

 

[super_star]

Are you kidding me? What about your wars with China and Pakistan and your occupation of Kashmir?

Both war are self defence and attacked by them.

 

[S-2]

"Their partisanship will put everything at risk."

There is a common connective element your harsh words discount.

Thanks.

 

[Spitfighter]

I agree with S-2 in that while the Israelis are more than capable of pulling off a raid on a couple of Iranian nuclear sites, they don't possess the means to cripple the Iranian nuclear program so if anyone's going to do it, it'll have to be the Americans.

I don't think the US is looking for another war at the moment, they undoubtedly have the means but I doubt the public has the stomach for it. However, I believe they aren't willing to contend with a nuclear Iran either. If Pakistan is anything to go by, a nuclear Iran may well decide to blackmail the rest of the world with implosion. Israel will lose its conventional edge and will almost certainly have to contend with a sustained proxy war as India has for over a decade.

The fact is that while America can cope with a nuclear Iran, Israel definitely cannot. A nuclear Iran will have a direct bearing on Israel's future as a nation. I know India would have done everything in its power to stop Pakistan from going nuclear if it possessed the means to do so, our options today are severely limited simply because we know that a war with Pakistan could turn out to be more than we bargained for, at least for the moment we have no choice but to sit back and absorb blow after blow. I think Israel realizes the pitfalls of such a situation and as such an attack on Iran isn't really a matter of if but when.

I think the Israelis would be counting on American intervention, its clear that they cannot succeed without it. I only wonder how they'll manage to create the necessary conditions to compel military intervention. Contrary to what Abi had suggested in his post, the Iranians simply aren't foolish enough to block the strait of Hormuz as that would invite swift and decisive action on part of the Americans. It's plausible however that the Iranians would assume tacit American approval and use their proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan to retaliate against them and thereby invite a devastating aerial assault.

Israel cannot afford to let the Iranians stockpile enough U for even a single bomb, so if anythings going to happen I think it'll be now (2010) or never. IMO, it'll happen, India's sorry state is clearly not worth emulating.

 

[Abi]

The fact is that while America can cope with a nuclear Iran, Israel definitely cannot. A nuclear Iran will have a direct bearing on Israel's future as a nation. I know India would have done everything in its power to stop Pakistan from going nuclear if it possessed the means to do so, our options today are severely limited simply because we know that a war with Pakistan could turn out to be more than we bargained for, at least for the moment we have no choice but to sit back and absorb blow after blow. I think Israel realizes the pitfalls of such a situation and as such an attack on Iran isn't really a matter of if but when.

Israel can survive with a nuclear Iran, but it can't carry on with its actions when Iran is nuclear. It will be in a weaker position and will be forced to negotiate with other countries. This will be good for the region, especially for the Israelis themselves. At the moment, they are making very stupid decisions because they can and no one had the power to stop them until Iran started Hezbollah.

Israel needs to be defeated and put in a weak position for it to finally sit down and seriously consider a peace solution.

Contrary to what Abi had suggested in his post, the Iranians simply aren't foolish enough to block the strait of Hormuz as that would invite swift and decisive action on part of the Americans. .

Do you know what the strait of Hormuz is? How wide it is? Iran has thousands of very advanced mines and very advanced ASMs with very long ranges that can reach any part of the Persian Gulf from deep within Iran. We have tens of FACs, 10 small and slow submarines that can hardly be detected, perfect for the PG, filled with mines. We also have about three thousand fast speed boats armed to take out oil tankers.

If worse comes to worst, we'll just bomb oil fields and stop the oil flow that way.

I agree with S-2 in that while the Israelis are more than capable of pulling off a raid on a couple of Iranian nuclear sites.

Why don't you have a look at a map of the M.E, see how many countries are in between Israel and Iran, see the range, see how scattered Iranian nuclear facilities are, how well protected they are and have a look at Iran's retaliation capabilities and threats. Iran has said that it will take both the US and Israel responsible if one attacks. America wouldn't allow Israel to try something that stupid as it knows it will be dragged into the conflict.

To demonstrate how easily we can block it, lets say Iran has no anti-ship missiles, no frigates, no FAC, no submarines, no planes, no missiles, just mines. We have so many mines that it would take at least a few weeks to clear them, lets also say that Iran doesn't disrupt the mine sweeping operations. Those three weeks will cripple the world economy.

Now add to that thousands of advanced ASMs, thousands of 500kg payload zelzal rockets that will aim for ports, over 300 warplanes, loads of submarines, thousands of small boats armed with rockets capable of disabling oil tankers.

There is a reason why the US hasn't attacked Iran. If it could attack Iran, it would have done so at least 5 years ago when we weren't as capable and they weren't as weak as they are now.

This thread should have been had 5 years ago, today isn't the time for it.