The Escalating Iranian Crisis
Russia is attempting to assauge Western concerns and pull Iran’s fat out of the fire with a compromise ‘semi-referral’ to the UN Security Council, as detailed in this Newsweek piece by Michael Hirsh. The idea is to delay the real vote on sanctions as long as possible to gain time to convince Iran to conduct uranium enrichment in Russia, under supervision, to ensure peaceful usage only.
Frequent commenter Hokie Explorer argues at his own blog that we are taking the wrong approach, that we are wrong to act as if the West alone has the right to nuclear weapons, and that no sovereign nation would dream of their actual use. Furthermore, he argues that we could confound expectations and shortcircuit some anti-Western rhetoric and thoughts by complying with Tehran’s wishes.
I cannot rest so easily as our friend. There is some truth to the notion that nuclear arsenals are for deterrent purposes only, of course, but I have several objections to this view. To begin with, we must realize that Tehran is claiming until this very moment that they only want a peaceful nuclear program; Hokie’s argument is an implicit acknowledgment that we are being deceived, with the obvious rejoinder, ‘…and about what else?’…
Also, Tehran is not just any sovereign nation; it is, to my knowledge, the ONLY sovereign nation currently proclaiming the desire to drive Israel into the sea from the very mouth of the executive. It is a charter member of the ‘axis of evil’, and it has earned its membership. Yes, there are reforming elements in Iran, but the dominant political strain remains virulent anti-Semitism and radical Islamic thought.
I don’t believe we can negotiate with Iran as long as its president is a Holocaust-denying anti-Semite threatening the destruction of Israel. I don’t wish for a conflict, either. An impasse, then? Perhaps…but, though he is much-maligned now for his associations with despots and a crooked President, Henry Kissinger perhaps can show us the way on this one. During the Nixon administration, it was quite common for public consumption to show one face, but to negotiate through ‘back-channels’ with another. It is my sincerest hope that this is sometimes still the case, and that we might perhaps be hinting through some unofficial means to the Iranian leadership a simple message: You wanna deal? Get rid of the lunatic…and maybe we can talk…(and no, I’m not advocating assassination – prison or exile will do just fine, or even just plain ol’ removal from office)…
Well, as we’ve seen previously, there are many elements in Iran who are trying to achieve just those ends. The question that remains is will they get rid of him before the crisis reaches the breaking point?
Iran’s bluffing. Gotta be- Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan say so. Actually, they make a good argument that I elaborate on here.
There are some loopholes in the “bluffing” theory, but it explains the facts almost as well as taking the Iranians at their word. The bluff theory also takes into account post-Iraq invasion events.
I think the president of Iran is quite the comedian. I put him in the same category with Pat Robertson and the other wingnuts. He is all talk; I would seriously call into question whether or not he actually believes that himself, or whether it is some sort of political stunt aimed at achieving some goal unknown to me.
Calling for the destruction of Israel is nothing new, plenty of Arab countries have spit out wild rhetoric about Israel. Some have even taken a stab at it; only to find that the IDF wasn’t quite as much of pushover as they thought.
1967 Six Day War
1973 Yom Kippur
1982 Peace of Galiliee
Being the big ones, two of those were 3 on 1 events and only during the Yom Kippur war did Israel come close to losing out on thanks to Arab acquisition of Soviet surface-to-air missile systems (namely the SA-6 Gainful). The point is that no one is going to try anything because Israel is just too strong at this point. Freedom of speech is something we American prize, right?
Ummm, actually, I draw the freedom of speech line before calling for the destruction of Israel, particularly when one apparently means to carry out the threat if given the opportunity. If that makes me a reactionary, so be it…
Hokie, your examples, while correct, are over twenty years old. Currently, only Iran is ‘officially’ saying Death to Israel as a matter of state policy…and it’s no joke. Ahmadinejad is quite sincere in his anti-Semitism, as even a cursory glance at his record and public statements will show.
You may be right that Iran would find the IDF no pushover – but then, I don’t think the IDF will withstand a nuclear assault quite as well as a ground or air attack – and isn’t that rather the point?…
Oh, and one more thing. I doubt the US would ever actually try to help Iran so my little theory is just that, a theory. The problem with that is A.) it might not work, and I’d like to see what some of you all think about that and B.) we would piss off Israel
About pissing off Israel: I don’t think the US should give a damn. We’ve been supporting them since day 1 when sometimes I feel that we shouldn’t be. We’ve bailed them out of every military crisis they’ve ever faced and we don’t seem to get very much in return other than a bunch of hatred from the Arab world for supporting them. Not everything Israel has done has been by any means righteous or democratic or otherwise good. So is it really worth it?
Israel like any country is a political entity. I think a lot of people have come to see it as a represenative of Judaism and I think that is incorrect. Just this evening, I read an article talking about Christians and Jewish folks who live in Iran. It is definetly worth reading you can find it over at yahoo
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs2276
Am I advocating the destruction of Israel or agreeing with some of these crazy Arabs? No, of course not. I don’t think violence is usually the correct answer for any situation. Hateful rhetoric probably isn’t very constructive either. What I am saying is that I don’t feel that Iran poses any sort of threat to the United States. Just because the president of Iran is a bigot, doesn’t mean lock n’ load. Trying to bully Iran could lead to a lot of discomfort for Americans here in the states; namely the lack of gasoline. Just look how price and supply was affected back in the Iranian revolution.
“You may be right that Iran would find the IDF no pushover – but then, I don’t think the IDF will withstand a nuclear assault quite as well as a ground or air attack – and isn’t that rather the point?…”
Israel has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Not only that, but it has more than Iran does which is probably 0. Like I said, using them would be stupid. Even if the president of Iran wanted to, the leadership that actually makes the decisions would say NO because they don’t want to die.
Well, I don’t subscribe to the notion that Israel is just another nation (and I’m not saying my viewpoint is the only correct one – just that it is my viewpoint). I don’t think we can turn our back on Israel when to do so would mean its certain destruction by its enemies. Bailing them out takes on a special context in light of the Holocaust – and while it is true that some use the Holocaust as a shield to excuse any and everything the state of Israel does, no matter how unjust, it is equally true that if ever a nation (or a people, if you prefer) held a special claim on the world’s conscience, it is Israel (and, of course, and much to our eternal shame, a very similar claim is sometimes not recognized when it occurs in, say, Africa, as in the atrocious situation in Darfur, and before that, in Rwanda)…
“I don’t think we can turn our back on Israel when to do so would mean its certain destruction by its enemies.”
You are again underestimating the IDF. This is arguably the best military in the world. They have a constant supply of recruits thanks to mandatory military service. Everyone from the infantry on the ground to the pilots in the sky have probably seen some combat. They are by far the most experienced military in terms of combat.
All of this is backed by mountains of modern and post-modern Western hardware. Israel has actually began creating some of its own weapons as well. The IAF (the air force) is the most influential and powerful branch of all of that. They control the skies over the middle east and no Arab country has anything that can remotely match them. In modern warfare, air superiority is everything. Without it, you are dead. This is why Israel is here to stay no matter who supports them or tries to attack them.
Did I already mention they have nuclear weapons? :-p
Hokie-
I hardly know where to begin, but start with these:
(1) The problem with appeasment has nothing to do with the fact that it might not make them like us.
(2) No number of skilled, dedicated and courageous soldiers and pilots will prevent a ground-to-ground nuclear missile from reaching Israel. Nor will their anti-missile missiles.
(3) President Ahmadinejad sincerely believes that the apocalypse is imminent, and probably wouldn’t mind starting it.
Do your research — especially on Ahmadinejad.
Mark’s whole point in the post, I believe, was that we need to make clear to the saner people with power in Iran that the sane-people-don’t-cross-this-line line isn’t at the point of the first nuclear blasts in Haifa and Tel Aviv, but at a much earlier point, like when Iran resumes refining plutonium, or when Iran refuses to stop as our 72-hour deadline expires, or whatever line President Bush decides is most practical.
If there’s no one with sufficient power to stop Ahmadinejad following such an ultimatum, why would anyone think that someone would be able to stop him short of nuking Israel? Wouldn’t that prove that an external military solution is the only way to avert a nuclear holocaust?
Iran won’t strike Israel with nuclear weapons because of Israel’s retaliatory capability. The Iranian president can believe whatever he wants to believe. In the end, he is not the one with his finger on the trigger.
The only practical military option is missile/limited air-strikes from stealth aircraft. Israel took out Iraq’s nuclear facilities in like 1979 or 1980 (I forget which) with airstrikes.
“In the end, he is not the one with his finger on the trigger.”
That’s really the crux of your argument, and it just seems an awful big assumption to make, particularly as it rests on assuming theocratic mullahs behind the scenes are less likely to wage apocalyptic war than the secular president. Perhaps that’s true, but I’d like to see some better evidence.
As for retaliatory strikes, we should remember how geography plays a role in all this. First off, Israel’s not going to have much warning if the missiles are launched, and second, it wouldn’t take many missiles to effectively wipe out Israel. Even if Israel does launch missiles from its death throes, there’s a lot more of Iran than there are Israeli nukes. There will still be an Iran when it’s all over.
Now are the Iranian leaders willing to swap queens and trade Tehran for Tel Aviv? I’d hate to find out the hard way.
How much control over Iran does Amadinejad actually have in the first place? From what I’ve heard the power of the Iranian president is, at best, ambiguous. When and if Iran does develop nukes, would Amadinejad control them or whould Ayatollah Khamenei?
Not that the latter is that much better than the former . . . .
I agree with Aaron. I think the presidential position is largely ambiguous. It is likely that the Supreme Council would exercise authority over the nuclear weapons and their employment. Of course, the military has the final authority over them.
“Much” warning in terms of missile attack is relative. If Russia decided to launch a missile strike on the US from Russia, you are talking about 20 minutes from launch to impact. It is a matter of minutes no matter where you are.
In the United States missile warning system, launches are picked up by a geostationary satellite constellation known as the defense support program. Launch and warning are nearly simultaneous events.
Israel has had a space program for awhile now, since 1988 they have no longer depended on US satellites for information. It is very likely that they have a satellite(s) with similar capabilities. In addition to the space based aspect, Israel has deployed an early warning radar system known as “Green Pine.” I think that Israel would have as much warning as it could expect when talking about Iranian missile launches.
Yes Dennis, Iran is larger than Israel but I think you are overestimating the effects of nuclear weapons. There is a world of difference depending on yield, terrain, air burst/burst height, ground burst, and accuracy of the weapons. Geography is very important, a small hill depending on burst height and yield can reduce a bombs destructiveness by a huge amount. It would take a large number of weapons to “destroy” Israel. Not only would it take a large number but they would have to be relatively high-yield.
Israel has been doing the nuclear weapons thing since as early as 1948. There is every indication that they have an advanced weapons program including high-yield strategic bombs. Thermonuclear weapons are difficult to develop without testing but the alarm clock/layer cake design is relatively more simple and I bet Israel has several. Israel’s doesn’t rely on silos to house their MRBM’s. Instead, it uses missiles mounted on TEL (transporter-erector-launcher) platforms. These are mobile vehicles and they are parked in hardened bunkers usually built into terrain. This makes them very difficult to destroy without a direct hit and gives Israel tremendous second-strike, assured-destruction capability. In addition to its missile forces, Israel has a very capable air force that I’ve already mentioned.
Because of the likelyhood that Israel has plenty of early warning capability, this also gives them the option of something known as “launch on warning.” Launch on warning means they would retaliate before the Iranian missiles even reached their targets. This means that Israel could retaliate in full before they ever reached their “death throes.”
Iran on the other hand doesn’t have nearly the weapons program that Israel has. Although, this entire debate could be a moot point. In the early 1990′s it was rumored that Iran acquired nuclear weapons from breakaway Soviet states. They might have nuclear weapons already. Despite this, they do not have numerous nuclear weapons or a large program already in place to make them (that we know about). Iran’s Shebab-3 and Shebab-4 MRBMs can hit anywhere in Israel. The Shebab-3 has a circular error of probability of about 200~ meters and it is not known what the Shebab-4 can do but it is thought to be based on later Russia missile technology.
[...] I’ve been having a decent discussion with some fellows on Decision08 about the Iranian nuclear situation and it has taken a turn towards discussing Israel-Iran impacts. I thought I’d post one of my comments here so more people could read it. [...]
Hokie, I will defer to you on the knowledge of missile systems and warning technology, although I think you’re being a bit cavalier in treating any potential Iranian nukes as primative. It really wouldn’t take many nukes to essentially end Israel as anything resembling a functioning, first-world nation. I wouldn’t want to be an Israeli hoping that maybe only half of Tel Aviv will become a radiation-poised hellhouse for millennia.
But that still raises the question of whether the Iranian leadership can be trusted. You’ve got over 25 years worth of evidence of the Iranians doing their level best to cause mischief in Israel at best, and being more than willing to scatter about as many apocalyptic statements as they can. Perhaps it’s all a ruse to keep a few lucky mullahs living in comparative luxury, but I haven’t seen much to convince me that the “moderates” are really pulling the strings.
The danger is never that your enemy is crazy. The danger is your enemy is deluded about his own abilities. Even under the best-case scenario, there’s little guarantee the moderate string-pullers can keep the monster tied to his strings forever, especially when they tacitly encourage the monster to keep roaring.
Hokie-
Granted, it would take a great many bombs, even nuclear ones, to “destroy” any nation, even one as small as Israel, but keep in mind that much of Israel (like Iran) is desert, and the population is considerably more concentrated in metropolitan areas than is the case in the U.S.
There are a little over six million people in Israel, between two and three million of them in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area (a ten mile sprawl along the coast) — and another million in the Haifa metropolitan area. (source) So more than half of the population of Israel could potentially be devastated with a half dozen or so atomic bombs — without any falling remotely close to Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem.
You make much of the fact that Iran’s President isn’t the ultimate power in Iran — but recall, he is the spokesman chosen by those who are. So his sanity and beliefs aren’t likely to be that far from those of the people who put him in power, and keep him there.
The elite mullahs who rule Iran, and their families, would certainly be outside of Iran’s major metropolitan areas during such a strike, and probably in hardened bunkers. And any Iran’s oil wealth would remain, whatever might happen to her population in Israel’s return strike. Is it really impossible that Ayatollah Khameni might anticipate gaining more followers than he loses? Bin Laden went from a respected figure to a legend for killing three thousand Americans. What stature might Khameni (or Ahadinejad or whoever’s calling the shots) gain for killing three million Israelis?
In the end,
The oil wealth wouldn’t remain because it would be too hazardous to go anywhere near it.
He would lose a lot more followers than he gained. I’m sure there would be some Arabs jumping for joy at the destruction of Israel. Thats great right up until they all get leukemia because the Strontium-90 (a beta emitter) replaced the calcium in their bones and irradiated their bone marrow until they died.
If the leader(s) of Iran surived, they’d be in a pretty bad position having just caused the world’s first nuclear war. Thanks to the atmosphere, I’d get a nice dose of radiation too and I would be unhappy about that. Try and imagine the international political ramifications of doing something like that. I can’t think of anything they could possibly gain from doing it. In fact, I bet Iran would cease to exist as a country.
So Israel can take a few nukes on the chin and muddle through but Iran would cease to exist?
In any event, you’re still operating on the theory that the mullahs running Iran are a) completely rational actors, who would actually worry about international backlash, and b) smart enough to avoid doing something dumb. I haven’t seen much evidence of either.
International backlash could not be avoided unless they disappeared and never returned to any sort of power. For someone who enjoys power that seems counter-productive.