.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
Israel’s leading columnist, Nahum Barnea, published a column this week about an academic war game exercise conducted at Bar Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center Strategic Studies. In a paper published last September (Hebrew pdf here), Prof. Moshe Vered considered under what conditions the two nations might enter a war, how long it might last and how it might end. The results were alarming even to the Israeli intelligence community. Here is how Barnea summarizes the research (thanks to Didi Remez for translating the article):
“The war could be long,” Vered warns, “its length could be measured in years.” The cost that the war will exact from Israel raises a question mark as to the decision to go to war.
The relatively light scenario speaks about an Israeli bombing, after which Iran will fire several volleys of surface-to-surface missiles at Israel. Due to the limited number of missiles and their high cost, the war will end within a short time. The missiles may run out, the study states, but the war will only be getting started.
“The means that may be most effective for the Iranians is war by proxies—Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas,” Vered writes. “(There will be) ongoing and massive rocket fire (and in the Syrian case, also various types of Scud missiles), which will cover most of the area of the country, disrupt the course of everyday life and cause casualties and property damage. The effect of such fire will greatly increase if the enemy fires chemical, biological or radiological ordnance… massive Iranian support, by money and weapons, will help the organizations continue the fire over a period of indeterminate length… due to the long-range of the rockets held by Hizbullah, Israel will have to occupy most of the territory of Lebanon, and hold the territory for a long time. But then the IDF will enter a guerrilla war, a war the end of which is hard to predict, unless we evacuate the territory, and then the rocket fire will return…”
This is not all. “Another possibility,” Vered writes, “is the activation of Iranian expeditionary forces that will be located in Syria as part of a defense pact between the two countries, or sending large amounts of infantry forces to participate in the war alongside Hizbullah or Syria. Iran’s ability to do so will increase after the United States evacuates its troops from Iraq. If the current tension between Turkey and Israel rises, Turkey may also permit, or turn a blind eye to, arms shipments and Iranian volunteers that will pass to Syria through its territory and airspace. Israel will find it very difficult, politically and militarily, to intercept the passage of forces through Iraq or Turkey. The participation of Iranian forces will make it very difficult for the IDF to occupy areas from which rockets are being fired.
“Along with these steps, Iran may launch a massive terror campaign against Israeli targets within Israel and abroad (diplomatic missions, El Al planes and more) and against Jewish targets.”
Iran will not attack immediately, Vered’s scenario states. First it will launch intensive diplomatic activity, which could lead to an American embargo on spare parts to Israel. Along with this, the Iranians will secretly move troops to Syria. Israel will not attack the troops, for fear of international pressure. The IDF will have to mobilize a large reserve force to defend the Golan Heights. After the Iranians complete the buildup of their force, Hizbullah and Hamas will launch massive rocket fire against all population centers. The IDF will try to occupy Lebanon and will engage in a guerrilla war with multiple casualties. Hamas will renew the suicide bombings and Iran will target Israel’s sea and air routes by terrorism. The Iranians will fire missiles at population centers in Israel, and will rebuild the nuclear facilities that were bombed, in such a way that will make it very difficult to bomb them again.
Vered bases his assessment mainly on the regime’s ideology and on the lessons of the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. He writes: “Half a million dead, a million wounded, two million refugees and displaced persons, economic damage estimated by the Iranian government at about $1-trillion—more than twice the value of all Iranian oil production in 70 years of pumping oil—none of this was sufficient to persuade Iran to stop the war. Only the fear of the regime’s fall led the leadership to accept the cease-fire.
“The ramifications are clear and harsh—like the war against Iraq, the war against Israel will also be perceived by the Iranians as a war intended to right a wrong and bring justice to the world by destroying the State of Israel. Only a threat to the regime will be able to make the Iranian leadership stop. It is difficult to see how Israel could create such a threat.”
The United States would be able to shorten the war if it were to join it alongside Israel. Vered does not observe American willingness to do so. He predicts the possibility of pressure in the opposite direction, by the US on Israel….
The military card
…The game is now approaching the critical stage, the “money time.” Netanyahu and Barak are waving the military card. “All the options are on the table,” they say, accompanying the sentence with a meaningful look. There are Israelis, in uniform and civilian clothes, who take them seriously…
The following is perhaps the most important portion of this column since Barnea posits a startling theory to explain Bibi’s posturing and bellicosity concerning Iran. If he is right then I would feel a whole lot more confident that war is not in the offing. But if he is wrong…
I find it difficult to believe that Netanyahu will undertake such a weighty and dangerous decision. It is more reasonable to assume that he and Barak are playing “hold me back.” On the day they will be called upon to explain why Iran attained nuclear weapons, they will say, each on his own, what do you want from me, I prepared a daring, deadly, amazing operation, but they—the US administration, the top IDF brass, the forum of three, the forum of seven, the forum of ten—tripped me up. They are to blame.
Netanyahu and Barak know: there is no military operation more successful, more perfect, than an operation that did not take place.
Netanyahu has upgraded Ahmadinejad to the dimensions of a Hitler. Against Hitler, one fights to the last bunker. This is what Churchill did, and Netanyahu wants so badly to be like Churchill. His credibility—a sensitive issue—is on the table. If he retreats, the voters will turn their back on him. Where will he go? In his distress, he may run forward.
Below, Barnea continues with his entirely reasonable, pragmatic and even cynical theories that the Israeli public neither believes, nor wants Bibi to go to war. While he may be right, I’m afraid that many polls of Israeli opinion show a population resigned to confrontation and possible war. So who do you believe?
The fascinating side of this story is that very few Israelis would appear to believe their prime minister. If they believed him, they would not run in a frenzy to buy apartments in the towers sprouting like mushrooms around the Kirya. In the event that Iran should be bombed, the residents of the towers would be the first to get it. If they believed [Netanyahu], the real estate prices in Tel Aviv would drop to a quarter of their current value, and long lines of people applying for passports would extend outside the foreign embassies. What do the Israelis know about Netanyahu that Ahmadinejad does not know, what is it that they know.
Of course, this eminently reasonable interpretation omits the fact that many other pragmatic Israeli leaders, equally cynical in their way, have been sucked into disastrous wars for far less reason. Most recently Ehud Olmert in Lebanon and Gaza. Menachem Begin in Lebanon. Do we really believe that even if he doesn’t mean to go to war that something could not suck him into it against his better judgment? History is full of examples of precisely such things, World War I being perhaps the foremost example.
Returning to Vered’s war game, there will be Iran haters in Israel who read this who pooh-pooh this scenario claiming it overstates the negatives and overlooks Israel’s prowess and past success in similar ventures like Osirak and the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor. But I say if even 1/10 of the complications Vered outlines happen, that disaster may be in the offing for Israel. Israelis tend to have a “can do” attitude towards wars with their Arab neighbors. As such, they often overestimate themselves and underestimate their adversary. Iran, once provoked, will make a much more formidable adversary than most Israelis imagine. Israelis should remember, but won’t, that the IDF is no longer the vaunted invincible force it was after the 1967 War. It cannot work miracles. Think Lebanon, 2006. Think Gaza, 2008. To delude yourself that bombing Iranian nuclear plants will be a surgical operation with short-term consequences alone is beyond foolish. That is why Vered’s exercise, no matter how accurate it turns out to be, is salient.
H/t to Didi Remez.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Israel’s game of bluff (warincontext.org)
- Is Israel really prepared to go it alone? (warincontext.org)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0e39e035-77ec-4024-a20f-899e5ee03b8e)
Related posts:
- New ‘Moral Politics’ Video on Iran War Game Scenario
- Israel-Palestine Proximity Talks, Game of Charade
- Even Israel Project Concedes Gaza a Disaster for Israeli Hasbara
- Settlers, the Video Game
- Israel: Iran is Next Cuba
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: Bar Ilan University, begin-sadat center, iranian-nuclear-weapon, israeli attack on iran, Moshe Vered
![Image of Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YAzRoqibL._SL110_.jpg "Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]")
way-back machine division, AIPAC vs Iran: Tikun Olam Conference, Dec 2009: Keith Weissman said, "In 1995 I helped write the legislation that imposed the first sanctions on Iran. …. They harmed Americans more than they harmed Iran…. The sanctions were imposed at the instigation of AIPAC… Unilateral sanctions have never been effective, never achieved their goal…"
The question Weissman did not address: WHY did AIPAC do it? If AIPAC KNOWS that sanctions do not work, that they harm US interests, why does AIPAC continue to press for sanctions against Iran?
nb.: Any answer that stops at, "sanctions buy time…." is incomplete and unacceptable. Allowing innocent hostages to be slowly killed 'buys time' but still results in dead innocents; that's immoral. It's not what friends do for friends.
So, AIPAC/Weissman: WHY?
Richard, what do you make of Ahmedinejad's statements here:
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.a...
What do you say—–mistranslation?, a lie made up by the Jerusalem Post (I know you don't like them),
he didn't really say it? Or, possibly something to be worried about?
First, Ahmadinejad is quoted (once again who provided the translation we do not know) as saying that Israel will "be annihilated." By whom? How? Doesn't say. Are you arguing that Ahmadinejad makes Iranian war policy & can decide to take the country to war? If so, on what basis do you make such an argument?
Are saying that he makes incendiary statements like this without authorization from the political heirarchy of the country? Why is he saying these things? He sure is scaring the hell out of a lot of people. A lot of "progressives" in Israel are worried about it. What would he have to say in order for you to say there is a problem? If he is saying "Israel (G-d forbid) will be annihilated " and then you use Juan Cole's interpretation saying that "he didn't say HE would do it", how can you prove he DOESN'T mean that he will do it himself. Prove your position.
If you had a neighbor who started telling everyone else that you were a threat to the neightborhood, that you are going to "disappear", that you are going to be "annihilated", and then he started brandishing a weapon, wouldn't you be a little nervous? Or would you say, " he didn't say HE would do it". or "murder is against the law, I am sure the police wouldn't let him do it…if they get here in time".
I don't have to prove anything. If you want to attack Iran it is YOU who will have to prove that such a belligerent act is justified. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not have th power to make Iranian foreign policy & that includes a decision to go to war. Does Shimon Peres, also a president of a country, have such power? No. This power is in the hands of the Ayatollah, not Ahmadinejad. You know this yet you choose conveniently to ignore it. Ignorance is bliss.
It seems the scenarios never reflect anything but limited warfare and weapons use. This would not be the case. Should Israel choose to take on Iran militarily it would be a world changing life or death struggle for her. No room for failure or half measures. All technological stops will be removed and we will see some weapons we have never seen before, and I am not talking nuclear. We will see Israel systematically dismantle all 4 threats at once, Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas and IRGC, and neutralize the Iranian Regime's Leadership allowing the 70% of Iran's population that hates the Regime to take control. It won't be conventional in the normal sense that we think of warfare. It will be shocking. It will be definitive. The western world was scared to use it's power since Vietnam and was quite restrained during both Gulf Wars. But the West is fed up with Tehran's Rulers and the terror they spread and will continue to spread. It is a crazy Messianic crew in charge of Iran who will sacrifice millions of lives to create the conditions for the return of the Mahdi. If we want to avert WW3 then we must stop the evil now.
This is absolutey nuttery. It's full of lies, half-truths & swill. How did you find your way here & can you pls. find yr way somewhere else rather quickly. I only published this comment because you didn't violate my comment rules. But if you publish again & continue with this line of propaganda & hate you'll find yrself quickly outside looking in.
An American embargo on spare parts to Israel? What is he smoking?
He's saying that this is what Iran would lobby for internationally. Not that the U.S. would agree. But even that amt of pressure on the U.S. would be unprecedented & have an impact.
Maybe the Hebrew is different but the phrase "which could lead" sounds to me like he thinks an embargo is a practical possibility. Frankly, a lot of this seems pretty farfetched. A Turkish government allowing Iranian troops across its soil? The Turks would be jeopardizing any relation with the US that way, and I don't think any Turkish government would risk it.
[...] on an attack on Iran shocked its own designers and the Israeli intelligence agencies. The academic study by Prof. Moshe Vered of Bar Ilan University looked at what might cause a conflict, how long it [...]
richard, you are a pro iranian shill and you published this scare piece exactly to whip up fear in Israel of the big bad Iranians and their friends in Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. You are too ignorant to consider the main reason why the Iranian theological despots want nuclear weapons…because they want to keep the rest of Iran in line and terrify any Iranians who would promote internal rebellion. Iran is not 100 per dent Persian ethnically, there are big enclaves of Kurds and Azeris and other minorities all of whom hate the government and who hate the IRG. If there was a revolution in Iran it would most likely start in a regional city with an ethnic minority base. The revolutionaries would wipe out the local IRG garrison, join with the conscript Iranian Army, and march on Tehran. They would pick up thousands or millions of disaffected Iranians, including ethnic Persians, as they marched. This is the possibility that most frightens Iran’s ruling clerics and the IRG. They know they are hated and they know they have a minority government that is kept in power by fear. The only way they can maintain the fear is by having the ability to crush regional rebellions with nuclear weapons.
Your nickname is a disgusting Arabic slur. You are immediately on the shortest of leashes for violating my comment rules, which you should read carefully.
You claim “all” Iranian minorities hate the regime? And you know his how? Then you posit the hypothetical “if” there was a revolution. I haven’t seen any evidence of a revolution. But you Israeli neocons love to speculate about all manner of such nonsense. Let me know when all those minorities do finally tire of Ahmadinejad & mount that revolution you’re so fond of touting.
As for yr fantasy about Iran seeking nuclear weapons to use against its own citizens, it’s so ludicrous I wonder if you’ve had yr sanity checked lately by a professional?
The article misperceives the battle objectives, and the reality, that Iranian leadership will need to be taken out first to disrupt command and control. If Ahmadinajad and the majority of his generals are dead, any response to Israel bombing the nuclear sites will be slow and uncoordinated. Also, the article assumes that Israel would be a sitting for an enemy reprisal. With each scud missle, or each Irananian WMD, Israel will respond. The United States stands by Israel more than you know.
And you think Iran is so stupid that they haven’t thought of this & dispersed their command & control sufficiently to allow them to survive in good shape such an Israeli attack??
How much of a threat is a nuclear Iran? Didn’t MAD keep Europe at peace during the Cold War?
[comment deleted for comment rule violation]
The best strategy is to do nothing. A nuclear Iran is no more of a threat than a non-nuclear Iran. If Tehran pressed the button, it is game over for them. Regimes act rationally otherwise we would have had nuclear war by now. Eventually Iran will want to normalise relations with the world and a pre-condition will be for them to drop their nuclear weapons, just as happened with Libya